No, not for the relevant portion of the power, it doesn't.

You don't even need to leave modern age, this guy can 'single target' PW:

Good call, I didn't even think about guys who can PW from another square.

what about the Boxing Ring - is PW impacted by the -2 or does the attacker not take that into consideration?

Please quote effects.

The Boxing Ring is not a character, nor does it let characters use any powers or abilities. Its effects will still apply.

See, I took the "other" to mean other than intended targets, using it in the context of the wording of the power. In that case, the same rule/definition that includes friendlies in "all characters" would also allow for the attacker to be hit.

Incidentally, the same goes for the wording for Giant Man's Wing Sweep retaliation quoted in this thread, targets a character and "all other characters", which I take to mean other than the original target. By the definition given here, it would end up targeting the original target twice, if "all other characters" means everyone but the attacker. Does it then get dealt damage twice, since it would be hit twice?

Is there a rulebook definition for "other"? I don't think that's been quoted in this thread yet - I may have missed it. And I don't have a rulebook handy at the moment.

Powers are self - referencing, 'other' means 'not self'. Targeting the same character more than once is just superfluous, you still only attack once. Same as if you used EE on 2 characters that were both adjacent to the same third character, you're only attacking once.

If "other" in EE meant other than the original target, it would be a useless word. If you have one target, it can't be adjacent to itself, so there is no reason to say "other characters adjacent" unless you have original targets that are adjacent, in which case they would already be targets anyway, as Sassamo pointed out.

Plus, if "other characters" doesn't mean other than the attacker, but means "other than the targeted characters" then PW gets really screwed up. Only those not targeted within range would not be able to use powers and abilities?

Clearly in PW "Other characters" means not the attacker. There isn't a good reason to use a different definition for EE.

However, I will grant that I can't find where "other characters" clearly means "other than the attacker/character using the power" is in the Rule Book. Yet, it is what makes sense and is consistent.

That's really flawed reasoning. I hope you realize that. The whole point of having "other characters adjacent" in EE is to explain what happens if there are other characters adjacent.

Like I said, my definition works in the context of EE. In the context of PW, it has a different meaning, since there's no other "other" other could possibly mean.

Sure there is. For PW "Other characters" define whose powers and abilities get shut off. As was pointed out, if it does apply to the attacker, then they can't use PW in the first place. If "other" was necessary to define that the attacker is unaffected, then the second sentence of PW should say "all other characters" instead of "all characters". And since it doesn't, the attacker is always targeting themselves with PW.

If intent and interpretation and NOT rules language is going to govern rulings, then how is my interpretation wrong?

I'm not playing rules lawyer to drag this out, I'm genuinely curious about this issue because it does seem that we're pinning our own definition on what this wording means, instead of the letter of the rules. Intent is nice and all, but the whole point of clear rules is to push intent and interpretation issues out of the way.

Well, no. If it's consistent, then PW under the current wording always targets the attacker. The attacker just gets to use their powers in response to it.

From the new Rules article-

Nothing to see here, folks. We can all go home now.

Look I was typing fast so I wasn’t clear but my reasoning is perfectly sound. We were discussing one word - other. My point was that the way you are reading other - as in other than the targeted character - would make the use of the word other totally meaningless in EE. Since a character is not adjacent to itself removing other would give the exact same result. Go ahead and look at EE and tel me how in your interpretation it would work differently if the word “other” wasn’t in there. It wouldn’t. It would work exactly the same. So either wizkids screwed up and added “other” for no reason or they meant for it to do something and that something is to exclude the character making the attack.

And as for that rules article, which I look forward to reading, thank goodness for wizkids fixing pw’s messed up language. I was really straining hard to justify the end result even though it was clear that you should have attacked yourself.

On a somewhat related tangent: glad to see the article addressed the problem of PW and great size. I had submitted a thorough question to WIN about that a few months ago for some clarification. Didn’t see a reply but glad they are addressing it in the near future.

the new article is pretty well written and makes this discussion "moot" - they clearly recognized this as an unintended consequence of the PAC revision and are making it clear you aren't going to PW yourself.

/back to your regular programming

And for anybody still interested, we got confirmation from WKs that you cannot attack yourself with your own Energy Explosion- http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....b4e077906fd670

Awesome! That was one annoying effect to try to explain to new players... "you can never attack yourself... unless this corner case happens, then you can."