If that works for your venue, great. However, I've made it a point to always go with the official ruling, whether I like it or not, or the wording as written in the context of the rules, whether I like them or not.

As written, without a citrus burst, the rules for this power are "squiffy".

Good point. Looks like that needs addressed as well.

Hopefully. I'm on lunch break, so I'll give it a look if I can.

So instead of using it as it is clearly intended, you are going to instead play it as it is worded.

Beginning with the closest character, deal damage equal to Iron Man MK 17's damage value minus the number of characters previously hit, minimum 1.

So you will only damage the first character, since nothing tells you otherwise.

Also it states minus number of characters previously hit. It does not say 'this turn' or 'with this attack'. So make sure you keep track of the number of characters hit the entire game, because they all add up before using the Rule of 3. Thats going to need a lot of perplexes...

lol this game and rules/wording lawyers make it no fun. If i was playing someone and they tried to pull this.. I would be like "seriously dude"

actually you just made me realize it DOESN'T say unmodified damage... wooooooooot

On the internet, no one know's you're actually a cat. Also, obvious intent is obvious. Some things, a judge just needs to make the right call on ^^

But if the judge feels that's the right call, I'll happily play any of the other, less confusing iron man characters if i go there ^^

I lulled. The power is imprecisely worded in lots of ways tbh, but I'll wait to see what it actually looks like on release before caring much. The other thing I noticed is that the "minimum 1" is an ambiguous modifier. It could be interpreted to apply to the number of characters previously hit so -1 dmg on the first hit. Obviously not the intention but a possible reading of it.

"Dude... what if... hey ... what if we, like, made a power.. like.. on a dial.. and we totally... y'know.. worded it so.. NO ONE.. would understand.."

"Duuuuuude... Let's also throw some pink in the dials.. pink is like, the new black!"

"Duuuuude...we need more cheetos..."

I wouldn't say the rules are inebriated, but it certainly lacks some clarity.

And what works for my venue is for me to rule as the power is written if it's clear, by the official ruling/errata if there is one, and by my understanding of the intent if there's ambiguity and no official clarification. Which, since we have ambiguity and no official clarification, is what I said above (sans Skittles).

The power does state that you compare the attack roll to all of the defense values of characters along the line, and per the core rulebook (p10 on the 2013 rulebook) when an attack roll hits you deal damage modified by any game effects.

As for it not stipulating modification for number of characters hit this action, you are correct. There may be some prior precedent for stating that the effects of a power only occur when that power is being used, but I'm unaware of it off the top of my head.

The power specifies that you do compare the attack roll to all characters in the line, and the rulebook itself stipulates that when that comparison results in a hit then you deal damage, modified by any game effects.

Obvious intent? I think its strange how often the word "intent" has popped up in this thread, considering it has long been a principle of Heroclix rules, arbiters, and deputies that we can only go by rules as written and not by perceived intent.

You can read words, you can't read intent. When it comes to game rules, everything must be explicit.

I dunno, man. The rules have been slurring their words a lot lately.

I think that a lot of posters here seem to think that I'm advocating for the interpretations I've been pointing out. I'm not. But the fact that the rules seem to be open to those interpretations is a problem. That's part of the reason why I'm looking for a deputy to weigh in and state what the "obvious intent" should be. After all, that's the purpose of their position.

I fully expect it to be decided that damage should be dealt sequentially from nearest to furthest, with damage dealt modified by -1 for each previous character hit during that action.

But until then, I expect to be pelted with Skittles.

All though games need to have rules set forth as guidelines for its players, If you look at some of the posts made by the new RA, these loopholes in the wording of powers/abilities is one of his main focus going forward.

One of those "don't be a dink" type things...

Clarify this for me. The part of the power bolded in blue would make me think that Stealth+Hindering Terrain would prevent this power from affecting me because IM could not draw a line of fire to my guy. The part of the power bolded in red says compare against ALL figures along that path. Is that what makes this a stealth-busting power?

(Off-topic: is "figures" the same as "characters" now?)

And if WK wanted Stealth to be effective in this case, that red line would say "compare the result to all targets along the chosen path", right?

I thought I had it straight, but then I saw this character listed in the IM3: Stealth-busting thread, so now I'm unsure.

Correct, it only ignores characters not terrain. So you could draw LoF past a character with Stealth but you could not target them.

Yes figures are characters.

He has the Avengers Initiative TA, so he sees through Stealth, doesn't he?

That I am not sure of... but if he does then Yes, the Team Ability will allow him to Ignore Stealth.

It's not in the units section, but it is on the Dial and the Character card I have in my hand.

The intention would be that only the ones to which the LoF is drawn are targeted. I see that it doesn't necessarily read that way.

No they are not. The use of the term "figures" here is a mistake.