Let's look at the rules.

From p. 10 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
Professor X has a range value greater than 0 and he is not adjacent to an opposing character. Therefore he can make a ranged combat attack. It does not matter if the friendly keyword character is adjacent to an opposing character or not. Professor X is does not occupy the square of the friendly keyword character. Rather he uses that square for purposes of range and LOF. Can we agree he has range and LOF from the square occupied by the friendly keyword character?

Neither Outwit, Probablity Control, nor Perplex are attacks.

And PC isn't even an action.

Alrite i'll toss up the white flag…

Don't get snide with me boy?

Really? That's your response?

What if I told you I have been playing longer, have more clix and my mommy likes me better than you?

Does that make my opinion more valid than yours, boy? <--- see? No one likes being talked down to.

I've been playing clix since summer of 2002… I joined in 2003…

And i said they were right in the end…

So why are you even talking?…

Cool, as long as you admit to totally missing the point. Have a great week!

I take exception to this answer. If you (meaning Rules Deputies or the RA) had piped in at ANY point in this entire thread and actually answered these questions with a ruling, then there wouldn't be an issue.

I happen to think, and would judge it this way, that Professor X may NOT draw LoF from multiple characters at the same time since his SP states:
I would read ANY as meaning one friendly character, not multiple. My reasoning? If he could do it through multiple characters,t hen the SP would would read "IN CONTACT WITH CEREBRO: If Professor X is in your starting area, he can draw lines of fire and count Range for his Speed, Attack, and Damage powers from the square of any friendly characters with whom he shares a keyword.

I am sorry, but I feel that you in fact mocked a cogent discussion on a possibility that may come up.

by Harpua
Not directed at me, but smarmy in the extreme. Of course you are right, you are an RD and your opinion is well-respected.
The whole point of this thread is to clear up any confusion.
I still have a problem with the friendly character being based and having Prof X make a ranged attack against that based opponent or making it against a different character that is not based. To argue, Prof X is making the attack, yes, but he is making the attack through a square that he would not be allowed to make a ranged attack from if he was to occupy that square. A ranged attack of one would never happen (except in the instances of Sharpshooter of from grounded to elevated or vice-versa.) so I don't think this should be allowed. HOWEVER, that at least HAS been ruled on and explained in this thread, so I can accept that rule.

All in all, I have enjoyed reading this thread and have gleaned some great ideas for using this piece in the future.

But, back to what prompted this whole post:
Harpua, if you are going to react to those of us within the community trying to answer questions without YOUR input in this way, then maybe your status should be changed. I have been wrong in the past and humbly admitted it. Some of us try to answer people's rules questions so that you do not have to go through every SINGLE post and throw the Orange weight in on every discussion. I believe the question about making a double target attack through two friendlies was asked earlier and I do NOT think Orange ever weighed in on it, so I went with what I would think the answer was.

I read it that way too.
Sorry Harpua, but are you sure he can draw LOF from multiple characters ?

So, despite the excessive upset that this thread seems to be generating, and the fact that we are now on page 12 of a post I thought was resolved back on page 2...

Is this argument still about whether or not Prof. X's special power is legal? I mean the power clearly states that he can make these attacks, and make them originate from another character's square.

Yes, I get this discussion currently seems to be about whether or not Prof X can make a ranged attack against a character that is adjacent to the character that you are using to project your attack, but even that debate I thought was settled pages and pages ago. Yes, the Oranges have not stepped in and said: "This is how it is" but if our job is to build consensus, and lay out the arguments for and against specific rulings, I think that was done ages ago.

Perhaps we need to make a 'Temporary' Final word that lists all of the things discussed, with the questions that are still outstanding and leave it in the Oranges hands, much like was done with the Larfleeze thread. Because, baring a particularly new interpretation of the rules, I think both sides of this discussion have clearly laid out their case.

Hmm...I find this response intriguing considering the attitude shown in the post to which I was responding.

Regardless, you are incorrect about those powers being attacks. They are not attacks of any kind. PC is not even an action of any kind, free or otherwise.
The power says "lines" there.

"Any" is at best ambiguous in this game. It can mean "any single" or "any number of" depending on the context. Sometimes...and I wish it was every time...the effect specifically says which it is. When it doesn't I look at the rest of the text. To me this power reads as if any lof he draws can come from any qualifying figures.




And how convenient that you failed to quote the smiley.

He made a post describing why he disagreed with the ruling.
I took the time to respond to each of his points and point out where the rules overturned his arguments.
The response I get back is a post filled with flaming words and a petulant attitude.
I again respond with two paragraphs to refute the arguments he has made and one tongue-in-cheek line at the end, complete with a smiley to denote it as such. (That would be the aforementioned, conveniently omitted smiley.)

Frankly, I have no regrets about my response. I think I handled it well considering the attitude shown in the post to which I was responding. By all means, however, if you take issue with the post, I invite you to report it and let the mods decide if I was out of bounds rather than trying to bait me into a flame war.

So...I just want to make sure I am reading you correctly.

You (<-general) respond in order to make it so that we don't have to read every post, but then when we have an example of a post which none of us seemingly has read, you have a problem with that.

Is that right?




But to address the specific post in question, I think you are overreacting. I responded to the first two posts that I've read where the issue of drawing LoF from multiple figures simultaneously was mentioned. I said I didn't see where you guys were coming from on those answers and gave my explanation as to why I felt they were incorrect.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you want.

Best thread ever.

It drags a little in the middle and I think it has a bit too long of a running time, but I did not see that ending coming.

Harpua, my only arguement against this is due to Prof X having two targets; in order to make both attacks, he would need to be able to draw multiple lines of fire. And this might be a quibble on English, but I think if it were meant to allow LOF to be drawn from multiple characters, it say any characters instead of character.

So right.......

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Perplex of Brilliant Tactician happen all at the same time? In my mind, that would mean that Xavier Perplexes via Cylops or Angel. If that's not the case, LoF wouldn't matter. So long as a friendly character that shares a Key Word with Xavier is able to draw LoF to itself (drop the Stealth, etc), then all of them can simply "target themselves" (or however you want to phrase it) with the Perplex...

Also, if Xavier is able to draw LoF from multiple squares for the purpose of Perplex/Brilliant Tactician (again, this is all assuming Perplex and Outwit work with the SP), couldn't Xavier draw LoF from multiple X-Men/Scientist/etc. to make a multiple target Mind Control or Psychic Blast? That would let you hedge your bets, and with some Perplex/Enhancement, let Xavier split the (potential) 5 Damage between targets.

Note to self: Make sure and roll Super Senses whenever monwear tries to Outwit, Perplex, or PC me...

And since I was one of the people Harpua was responding to in the longer post a page back, I can tell you that I did not take offense. While I may not agree with the interpretation of the wording, I am more than wiling to exploit it should it be ruled that way. (Especially the Brilliant tactician part.)

It's already been stated that he can make multiple attacks, using his double targets, from 2 different squares for the same attack targeting 2 different figs. And I don't get where BT happens "all at the same time." Yes they are all done in the same action, but each use of it is separate from the other, happening in a very specific row of time. It's not like you spout out all of them at the exact same second, they happen at a different time, whether it's a few seconds apart it's still not the exact same time. So yes it would work that way. You announce perplex on someone, then you use BT to perplex all friendlies. And you could just target them all that share a keyword since Prof X could target the square they occupy from that same square.