Actually, the rules support dafalcon's initial post; during what appears, for all intents and purposes, to be a routine tightening of the language for the Universe rulebook, the text explicitly detailing this fell out. I'm confident that the 5-square restriction still fully applies, and everyone should still play with that as it has always been, but I'll mention it for the next FAQ---it's a perfectly fair thing to point out, and a legitimate concern to bring up here.

Ancillary points:

brotherhud---I'm giving you a 0-point warning; I don't feel right coming in with points after the situation seems to have resolved and a real apology made. But in the event another Mod has to make a judgment call on whether to warn you in the future, I feel this should enter into that judgment. Warning parole, if you will.

All---another poster doing something which is in your view unacceptable does not grant free reign to step outside the rules yourself. You are just as accountable for your actions whether retaliating or provoking. And as has been seen at least twice now on this thread, tables turn as tables will.

PL---while I can certainly appreciate fitting the rules around what we know the answer is, I think it's a bad plan. The glossary can bite the hand that feeds it when used beyond the basic structure of the game or when using it to shoehorn game mechanics into simple terms rather than just defining simple terms simply. Rather than trying to trick the rules into saying what we want, I'll try to have it said outright for next month, and hopefully things will be better for it.

With all due respect, I do not believe that I am 'shoehorning' anything here. Range value is defined as the distance, in squares, between 2 characters. Therefore, Outwit's distance of 10 squares falls under that definition of range value provided in the glossary. Since a distance of 10 squares is a range value as defined in the glossary, the rule that all ranges are halved when targeting soaring figures still applies.

As I said, it is not as clearly defined as it was in the Indy rulebook (which simply said that you reduce the distance of those powers to 5), it is still straight forward when you examine all the rules and facts.

The reference to shoehorning wasn't an accusation of anything untoward, PL---if anything, I meant to point at one of the more long-standing trends in forum rules interpretation, of searching for an explanation for the rule rather than deriving the rule.

As it seems I've offended, this may yet call for my special glossary bit. But before I commit the sheer typepower for a full-on stump speech, I really should take a swing at the specifics.

The glossary gives us a definition for range value, so that we can determine the meaning of range value within the context of the game; should the rulebook refer to that term, the glossary exists to help a player understand it. But here, the glossary has been put to the opposite use; rather than searching for the definition of a troublesome term, you are applying a term to a troublesome definition.

I think few would argue that an eye for subtleties isn't helpful in this game, and of course the ability to draw connections between the rules, as well. In many cases, there's more than a bit of ingenuity involved in finding rulebook justification for a ruling. But the use of the glossary here, if stamped as justification for a half-range Outwit, sews up one problem at the potential cost of more down the road, as now this other use of the glossary would have precedent.

I remember creating ever-deeper levels of rulebook convolution in order to make everything stand together as it's meant to. Rather than declaring this problem solved and hoping that nothing follows on its heels, I have to believe that it's better for the game and for the players to state the rule in the FAQ, where it begs no questions and can lead to no lies.

Thank you both, Psylockeslover and HeroComplex for helping me understand. I am coming at this game brand new and I've only ever read the latest version of the rules, so I didn't know that in the indy rules it ever specifically said that powers such as outwit had a range of 5 against soaring figures. I would be glad if this was addressed in a future FAQ, and I'm glad that I now feel confident that I have a true answer to my initial question

Psylockeslover, not to be a pain, but the rulebook only says:
range -> number of squares
but never says:
number of squares -> range
so you can't say the rulebook says:
range = number of squares
...And yes, I am reading too much into this -- it is a GAME and meant to be FUN But I like knowing the rules of a game so that a disagreement about those rules won't take away from the fun of it while playing.

Oh really?

But it seems that his "apples are red so if its red its an apple" argument has already shown us what a Steven Seagal movie tried to tell us: that assumption is the mother of all f-ups.

So Psylocke'slover: Got milk?

brutherhud, you obviously do not know me, so do not presume to think you do.

Now, prove me wrong, or shut the #### up.

Woah, now. Wasn't harsh language the reason YOU got on MY case to begin with?

All I'm trying to say is that when everybody give Psysockeslover the final word, this whole forum goes to pot. I admit that he is often the one to come in with the helpful information, and usually backs it up with quotes directly from the rulebook, PAC, or FAQs. But this time, whoever was right, and whoever was wrong, PL used bad logic.

Logic says that "ranged combat action" and "ranged combat attack" should be treated the same way. But we know that they aren't and a lot of misuse of powers hinges on whether or not a judge recognizes the distinction. People at my venue were getting away with KC Shazam! using HSS, Quake, and EW at the same time until I pointed out that he can't for the same reason that you still can't use RS with RCE.

So I'm gonna wrap this up as best I can before I leave this smoking fuse of a thread permanently. And whoever wants the last word is welcome to it, along with any "I'm rubber, you're glue" bs they want to include.

Psylockeslover, if you haven't contributed to the article contest, I suggest you type out the alphabet repeatedly until it reaches the minimum word length, and then submit it. Cause it doesn't matter what you say, all of your monkey-biotches will vote for you. Its free boosters after all.

Brotherhud, I have to ask, why do you persist in this course of posting? This will only get you in deeper trouble.

Let this die out instead of posting in this manner. Try to keep this board a friendly one.

You know, I wasn't going to post to this thread but this statement just sticks in me and felt I had to say it...even though, brutherhud, you supposedly won't ever see it.

First, if your actions here (and in most of your posts) are the same as in real life it's no wonder the rest of the world seems to dread dealing with Americans abroad.

Second, sarcasm only makes the user look dumb.

Third, my suggestion is to try a little kindness once in a while no matter who you are dealing with as it may keep you (or them) from having to be so defensive all the time.

Just my two cents.

Read post #21 of this thread. And realize that wasn't one of my posts.

Attempting to dodge my comment(s) doesn't make it any less valid.

You are way outta line.

"When everybody gives Psylockeslover the final word," the person asking the question gets a concise answer from someone knowledgable who's just looking to help out.

Yeah, I can see how that makes him a real bastard.

I think I found the first person I'm gonna ignore!

nah....he's too funny to ignore....