"Regardless of either figures' elevation"? That's not what L/C says. It says regardless of the target's elevation. An important specification.

Thus it doesn't matter where the target is but it clearly does matter where the attacker is or it would have been included in the description.

The only rule is Soaring figs can only affect other Soaring figs. A grounded figure with 0 range may not have the ability to make an attack against a soaring or elevated figure but there is no rule that states 'Grounded figures may not affect...".

Not really. L/C says figures may make a close-combat attack against both soaring and non-soaring TARGETS. It does not say a Soaring attacker may make any sort of attack. It says the target's elevation is exempt but not the attacker's.

And that's what I think you are doing.

In the end it's obvious I won't be able to convince anyone who believes otherwise of my point. And I have read nothing that even approaches a sound argument for the 'accepted' ruling.

So I guess I'll just save anything else for my local venues.

Will I use Mimic to make L/C attacks against my opponent while Soaring? Sure. I just hope I don't face anyone who says its not legal. And if I do I hope they will buy the 'WK said you can' argument because there is no way I can argue it with what the PAC currently states.

Sigh...

Highly unlikely.

See.... *points up*

Once it is established that a close combat attack can be made regardless of the target's elevation, the attacker's elevation becomes irrelevent.

If this argument actually makes sense to you, there will be nothing that can convince you that the ruling is correct, even if it is spelled out in the PAC or in the FAQ, simply because you can read the rules and not understand them.

Go back and re-read what you just wrote. Read it.

"Leap/Climb says figures may make a close-combat attack against both soaring and non-soaring TARGETS."

There you go. That's your answer. Don't add anything else to it. Just leave it right there.

The target's status is the only one that matters. As I said a second ago, once you establish that the attack can be made regardless of the target's elevation, the attacker's elevation immediately becomes irrelevent. Period.

"Leap/Climb says figures may make a close-combat attack against both soaring and non-soaring TARGETS."

Seriously, tyroclix, if you can look at those words, type those words, and still can't figure out the answer to this question for yourself ... ? There's nothing that anyone could say that would clarify it for you simply because you don't want it to be clear.

yep....

I understand that train of thought but I argue that is incorrect. You can have a target be at any elevation and still have an attacker be in an illegal position to make an attack.

Otherwise why couldn't Spidey target a medic with a CC attack from 15 spaces away? Spidey isn't in a legal position to make such an attack and it matters where both the target and the attacker are (two separate things).

In case I didn't make it clear in my previous post, tyroclix, I'm through discussing this with you.

No matter how clear the rules are, you refuse to accept them. You can read them, you can type them, and you can still not understand them.

"Leap/Climb says figures may make a close-combat attack against both soaring and non-soaring TARGETS."

Leap/Climb can be used by a soaring figure to attack a non-soaring figure. Period.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't this also apply to things like Outwit, Probability Control, etc.? They only ask that the targets be within 10 squares.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. The description on L/C specifically allows for targets on different elevations (and even names "soaring"). Outwit and the others do not.


Yeah, that's true. But even in your reply, it speaks about _targets_ on different elevations, not attackers. The person doing the action is not mentioned, only the target. I understand that, as it is worded, L/C has a loophole that allows this (since attacker position isn't mentioned), but I just figured that if attacker position isn't mentioned one way or another, the standard rule about Soaring not affecting others would kick in. That's why I mentioned Outwit et al. They don't specify the "attacker" position either, (nor target position)only that the target be within 10 sqaures.

I guess part of the problem is that no one ever figured a flyer to have leap/climb so there was no need to specify attacker position. I prefer the soaring doesn't affect non-soaring to be hard and fast, I suppose. Still, it makes Mimic useful.

Eric

I guess it's just that

True or false: A soaring figure can make a close combat attack against a soaring figure.

True or false: Leap/Climb allows the figure to make a close combat attack regardless of the target's elevation.

Now, combine the two.

A soaring figure IS allowed to make close combat attacks, so there is no such thing as "an illegal position to make an attack". If soaring prevented ALL attacks from being made, your argument would be perfectly valid. So, when Leap/Climb removes the constraints on the target's elevation for close combat, the constraint making soaring figures unable to affect non-soaring characters is overruled. The rules causing the inability for soaring figures to affect non-soaring figures has 2 constraints, and BOTH of them have to have to hold true to prevent the soaring figure from attacking. For purposes of close combat, Leap/Climb makes one of the parts invalid.

Now Tyroclix, what part of that do you not agree with?

Soaring is not an elevation. Soaring is a flight mode.

I emailed a judge at wizkids a while ago asking elevation questions. He or she replied that the target's square determines elevation. I probably still have the email if anyone wants to see it.

I see both sides, but there is one conclusion drawn that I don't see:

"As I said a second ago, once you establish that the attack can be made regardless of the target's elevation, the attacker's elevation immediately becomes irrelevent. Period."

Now don't get upset, because I'm not trying to be a jerk or difficult, but there are a few cases where the attacker's elevation (and I don't know if soaring is included in that definition) matters and not the target's. For instance, Deathstroke can shoot at Dr. Fate (who is in soaring) with halved range, but Dr, Fate can't shoot back. Fate can't shoot back not because of Deathstroke's elevation, but his own. Similarly, Deathstroke can Outwit something on Fate, but Fate can't PC Deathstroke's attacks, again, not because of Deathstroke's elevation, but his own. That, combined with the rule that soaring can't affect non-soaring.

Doesn't attacker position matter?

Eric

So now what I'm waiting for is for someone to:

1) post a tournament experience where Mimic pulled this off or,

2) tried to pull this off with Mimic and the Judge ruled against it.

I say "pull this off" because this is a difficult maneuver to pull off, although a Soaring TKer or Pounce make this whole combo rather fiendish.

If there was a soaring figure 3 squares away from Dr. Fate, he would be able to attack that figure and use probablility control on himself or that figure. The formula to decide if the figure can attack has 2 components: The target position AND the attacker position. In your example, you are right that Dr. Fate can't do anything to Deathstroke. If you were going solely by the rule book, then Dr. Fate wouldn't be able to share his defense value or allow for re-rolls at all. The PAC allows exceptions to the rulebook. Leap/Climb (from the FAQ) makes the exception that "This character may target a non-soaring or soaring
figure with a close combat action, regardless of the target’s elevation."

Can Mimic do a close combat attack when soaring? Yes, if it is against a soaring character (as per the rules). Now, when he gets Leap/Climb on his dial, the answer becomes: Yes, if it is against a non-soaring or soaring character.