Yeah, they still get the second move.

That's not really a fair statement. This happens with game companies that have a lot more resources behind them than WK's does. Any time you have a small group of people working on something as complex as technical rules, its going to be pretty much impossible for them to think of everything. Once you open that up to thousands more pairs of eyes, yeah, anything that got missed/overlooked is going to get picked up by the masses.

Naturally the people making the rules are going to occasionally take some thing for granted. If anything, its the designers giving people too much credit for not needing every tiny thing spelled out for them.

Jag, even though I stated my misgivings with my initial post (which I will leave up for context), something was tugging at the back of my brain about using a power that includes an attack despite not having a legal target.

ADW 067 Hawkeye had that special Running Shot and the question came up as to whether he could activate it despite not having a valid target.

So someone asked the WK Rules team about that:



http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....de67fc3#p29513

I feel super dumb because it was MY question they answered and it is for all intents and purposes the same one you posed regarding HSS.

So in that light, I reverse my thinking and please accept this ruling as proof that you can activate an action which contains an attack without having to have a legal target.

Running shot has a nested action that you can choose to activate or not. I'm not quite disagreeing, but I can't see where attacks are optional. What supports the idea of having no one to target and choosing to activate PPB, or activating it while based even though you won't be able to target anyone?

Okay so I hate to disagree with LJ 2084, but I don't think you get a second move if you don't make an attack. I previously asked a sort of similar question here:

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showth...ght=hypersonic

There, I was told that you need to make the first move before attacking. If you can't attack without having moved first, I"m not sure why you can move a second time without having attacked in the middle.

And yes, I agree you can certainly use HSS without planning to attack, and you get a second move if you can't attack because of a successful shape change roll, but I think you can only move once if you do not make an attack.

You're talking about two different things here. The first move has to happen before the attack because a failed break away will prevent the rest of the action. Bottom line is, you resolve one move, then make an attack if desired/possible, then resolve the second move.

I was thinking the same thing originally, and that's why I listed the ADW Hawkeye ruling.

To be fair, when they ruled on Hawkeye's RS, it was old rules. The old RS stated that you could move the character up to its speed value (after being halved) and then it "may" make a ranged attack. The nuRules take out the "may" portion.

After reviewing nuRules RS this morning, I found this:

This is written the same as HSS with "Move, then [attack].."

Which now makes me wonder if I was right in my initial reply.

I can't find anywhere that states attacks are optional. In fact, both under Attacking and in the Silver Rules, it states "all attacks target". In fact, there's even a rule that if all "would be targets" become illegal, then the attack resolves, otherwise there couldn't have been an attack to begin with.

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. I only need to roll to breakaway because I need to move before making an attack. If any part of the move, attack, move again was optional, I would just not move at first. I would attack the adjacent character then roll to breakaway and move away if I succeeded and resolve the action if I failed. The only way it makes sense that I can't just attack then move but I can move, not attack, move again, is if there is something making the attack optional and the first move mandatory, and I just don't see a distinction.

Or are you saying that you can "make an attack" when there are no targets, and therefore you can satisfy that portion just by stating you are making an attack? I could see that as a distinction, but I don't think you can just make a targetless attack.

I agree here. Look at MC. It has the key word "may". Which makes the move or attack optional.

And compare to the wording in new Titano's trait. And it is not like running shot. I believe the rule book says actions are optional. But I'm still looking to see if attacks always are.

The succinctness of the new rules isn't meant to alter them to this degree, is it?

They removed the free action language from the attacks within the powers like HSS and RS, and altered them to at no cost.

You believe this was done to deliberately in order to make the attacks compulsory instead of optional, like the giving of actions always has been?

IMO that level of alteration in how the powers work would have been mentioned in the design notes.

I'm going out on a limb by saying they are going to have RS, HSS, etc continue to work as described in the response given to dcottle re: chase hawkeye. You never MUST attack with these things; you can RS move, then NOT attack. You can HSS move, NOT attack, HSS rest of move.

If they had meant "at no cost" to strip away the optional nature of a power that "as a free action" once had, they would have said something, or they sure as #%^*!€ should have made that explicit by now.

So. I'm not saying that you HAVE to attack. I'm saying the lack of attack makes it so you can't move again just like the lack of movement keeps you from attacking.

I do concede on shape change because of the rules saying what happens when legal targets become illegal.

Except as Lantern pointed out, the lack of movement has nothing to do with it. The breakaway rules tell you a failed breakaway roll causes the action to immediately resolve. Same under old rules as new.

There is no clause anywhere for that in attacks.

RS(and Charge) both were changed from Free to No Cost, but No Cost is still an action and thus optional. Only HSS changed, from May and Free(optional) to 'make an attack'(not optional?).

Well I will play it the way LanternJordan says but I will try to ask on WIN as well. I assume they will say to review the PAC, but I'll let you know either way.