For The Members Of The Realm,

A situation came up during a recent tournament that left us scratching our heads and trying to understand why. The problem is the rules regarding objects.

Supergirl was carrying a heavy object using her Super Strength. Her intended target was initially Shade, who was using Stealth by standing on a boulder ( another heavy object ). Instead, the player used Supergirl to use her boulder to attack the boulder that Shade was standing on, and then planned to use a separate Range Attack to attempt to hit Shade.

This is where the problem arose. The player owning Shade declared that his boulder ( as per the rules ) was only reduced to rubble and that her boulder was removed from the game - Although they were both destoyed during the action. The end result of course was that Shade still had Stealth while standing on the rubble.

I ask you this then - Was there a mistake in the printing of the rules? If the objects are the same, why are they treated differently? Shouldn't a destroyed object be treated the same way, regardless of whether it was attacked or was used to attack?

Hey, as a player I am all for Stealth. Many of my teams rely on it. However when I step back and look at this rule as a neutral player, I can't help but wonder. It does not make sense that a Stealth character gets the advantage twice - Once from the boulder ( hindering terrain ) and then again from the rubble ( hindering terrain ).

Has anyone else come across the situation and wonder why? Please post your thoughts and comments here.

Thanx... The Dropzone...

First, I assume the Supergirl was the LE version with the LOS TA, because the REV versions have the Superman Ally TA, so Stealth wouldn't have mattered to her, and she could've made a ranged attack without destroying the terrain object.

Also, they write certain rules for "game balance". An issue I had recently questioned, was why Pulsewave was written so that you COULD attack friendly figures in Close Combat (adjacent), but NOT enemy figures in adjacency. It comes down to "game balance". You just have to accept certain things and move on, that's all.

---> ahole_derby

Yes, I should have been more specific... The figure used was actually LE Kara Zor-El, not a NON Supergirl...

I accept "game balance" and here is a prime example of a contradiction in it... A balance would indicate that both tokens be removed from the game or both tokens leave rubble tokens...

A it stands, they are the same object and used in combat... However, they are treated differently... I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it...

Another question could be - Does this really make sense ?

First, as for the rules themselves, Shade's player was correct.




As for the resons behind it, we can only guess at why the designers reasons for this.

I think the primary problem is that they use the same term (destroyed) in both cases. Intuitively, we, as normal, reasonably intelligent people, (well, most of us anyway) would think that the end result would be the same in both situations (thus the need for the FAQs on this very subject).

Anyway, my guess is that it IS for game balance.

---> Psylockeslover

Thanx for your input... And I strongly agree there is a need to review this matter... I am hoping more normal, reasonably intelligent players add their thoughts... (smiling)... Okay everyone can add their input...

Was she throwing the object? Why didn't she just charge in for a close combat attack?

It's a matter of semantics. The boulder Shade was on is terrain. The boulder Supergirl was holding is not. OK, that probably won't make you feel better.

My assumption is that they wrote the rules this way in part to prevent a potential abuse: moveable terrain. At the same time, objects provide the only available variable terrain at game setup, and the rules prevent having that variety destroyed as a game develops. Imagine that my Hawk picks up a light object, and throws it at a wall. In the rules, the object has now been used and is removed from the game. The wall isn't damaged. If the object turned to rubble, I could easily create a chain of broken objects wherever I wanted for my stealth people just by throwing objects around. It's the same reason you can't set down an object once you pick it up. Now if my team strategy depended on having objects available for stealth, it would be just as bad to have people blowing up those objects indiscriminately. They can still destroy objects, and this will hurt Super Strength and maybe TK teams, but they can't alter tactical terrain once I've set that up for myself.

Logic would dictate that they are both removed from the game or they are both replaced with rubble...

This is WK. Logic has no place here....

Yeah... What was I thinking...