Yep. Sadly, there is still debate. And lots of it.

Absolutely

I don't see how you can argue that since the trait specifically says to make a close combat attack.

PULSE BOLT TORPEDO: Once per game, give Silver Centurion a power action to put a Torpedo special terrain marker on the map in an adjacent square. When the Torpedo is on this map, you may give Silver Centurion a free action, put an Acceleration token on this card and then move the Torpedo equal to the number of Acceleration tokens on this card as if it were a character with "wing symbol" and Improved Movement: Ignores Characters. At the beginning or end of your turn, if the marker's square is occupied by an opposing character, you must remove the marker from the map and make a close combat attack roll against that character with an attack value of 11 and a damage value equal to the number of Acceleration tokens on this card, maximum 7.

I'd love it if the ruling was to replace the word "Torpedo" with "Missile."

It seems more like a drone to me. Except you can't get a licenses to shoot it down.

I don't really see how this is even up for debate. The power never references that SC is making the attack so how could you justify that modifying him would affect the torpedo? I'm almost certain the power was worded as such to exclude modifying SC as a viable outlet for abuse.

Well because it seems redundant. Why not just say make a close combat attack like everything else in this game when it request a close combat attack be done. A close combat attack includes a roll. However, this trait specifically requests just a roll, never stating that the attack should happen.

Are you trying to say that a close combat attack roll that uses an attack value isn't actually an attack?

(You are illustrating the danger in putting redundant wording in effects. People think it means something more than it actually does.)

No, it says "and make a close combat attack roll"

That was my thinking at first. In my personal opinion, a lot of the recent talk and rulings on this just made it more complicated than it needed to be...

I'm just trying to point out the difference. Where in the past whenever a close combat attack is requested its just referred to as a close combat attack. Where as the wording here specifically just requests an attack roll. roll, add the dice to the 11 and compare to the defense. I feel the only reason close combat is involved is so the defender could use things like Close Combat Reflexes? I'm not sure, but what I am sure is that Torpedo is not requesting a close combat attack be made.

EDIT: On a side note, so if SC is making the attack right now under the current rulings would SC take mystic damage if the torpedo hit a mystic?

I also agree.

Yes.

Note: I don't think anyone is trying to defend or even excuse the bullcrud that is the current wording of PBT. So please don't argue like we are.

We are simply saying the Oranges have ruled (clarified?) how we have described it...for now.

We all expect it to change...hope?

I've already surrendered in a previous post, I'm hardly arguing. I'm just posting my thoughts which I am well in my right of doing I fulling understand what the oranges have done but to get change you post and discuss which is what is happening here. I apologize if for some reason you feel that arguing is taking place.

That isn't really a debate though. It would be like someone trying to debate that my skin color is purple... You can't debate that. People are arguing but arguing =/= debate.

a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

They are not matched sides. We don't know what GD was thinking when they made this and the official ruling on how it works has already been given.