Naturally; Norm's a classy guy.

as i said before to normalview....well put. i just want to reiterate, i didn't mean to slam you guys. honestly.

this is how it seems to work.
we (the consumers) love this game. seriously, you guys struck gold, this is your baby and it's growin up just fine. you (the devs) are trying to iron things out, and that's good because you care enough to actually want to improve things and from time to time we (the consumers) get a chance to get involved. how cool is that?! immensely.

i've played tons of games over the years and this is the BEST game i've ever played. bar none. it has everything i want in a game. these years of game playing in no way means i could make a better game than any of you guys. i couldn't and i want to make that clear right now. sure, some of us (consumers) might think we can, and to them i say, "put up or shut up".

i guess my gripe is that sometimes we (the consumers) get confused because the rules for this game aren't like monopoly man, they are seriously complex. so when we ask a question and get a smarmy, conceited know-it-all taking a condescending tone, it strikes a nerve.

** this comment was not directed at any specific orange, but sometimes it comes across this way **

now this doesn't always happen but it does. and yes, it happens both ways when one of us (consumers) gets all crazy in the head and obviously wants to just pick fights with you guys. I am not that guy, trust me, i just wanna know if im doing things right. some members can be d-bags and they deserve to be flamed, but others are just caught in the cross fire. that's all i'm saying.

there has to be a mutual respect here. we (the consumers) need to understand that, hey, this game making thing ain't easy. and you (the devs) need to understand that, hey, sometimes your big, fancy words are confusin to us folk. that's all. think of it like customer service. sorry to say this, but i personally don't care how often i get asked the same questions by people trying to learn, i'll answer and help out. but when it's like we are 'bothering' you guys or 'inconveniencing' you with our 'stupid' questions, well ya don't treat your customers that way cuz it's just bad business. (again, some of us <consumers> can be 'difficult' so it's your call how you choose to address those ones)

i completely understand your points, all of em. but to be fair, it's always preached on here that "the judge is always right". well in my world, the customer is. that doesn't mean at all, and i can't stress this enough, that WE know what we are doing 'dev-wise'. I, personally trust you guys to do what you think is right, just please try to continue to be patient and respect/understand our views and just accept that we will ask questions...sometimes the same one over and over. it's only because we want to know how to play your awesome game!!

so in closing, i want to say i really meant no disrespect at all and i sincerely hope you guys believe that.

I just believe that the newer wording is more difficult to understand. The part I have the biggest problem with is the beginning. I just think it either sounds too ambiguous or not clear enough.

I feel that there should be maybe something in between "Give this character a close combat action." and "After the close combat attack resolves,..." I felt just a little confused when I first read it as if the wording was jumping the gun and assuming that the player knew that by giving a close combat action, that a free action close combat attack was granted by it.

I think it might have even been better if you just left flurry the way it was (I think the old wording was very clear, concise, and understandable), and if flurry wanted to be implemented to work with Giants or Leap Climbers than I believe that the wording should have been changed for Giants or Leap Climbers.

I don't mean to go off on a mini-tangent here (actually I do, it kind of popped into my head), but I kind of have an analogy that came to mind when I thought what exactly happened. You wanted the characters, Leap Climbers and Giants, to be able to use the power, Flurry. So the flurry was changed to specify that it worked with the characters.... shouldn't it be something about the characters that changes. I mean, isn't it what's special about the characters not about the power that allows them to do what they do, use flurry?

And here's the analogy part.... That's kind of like saying "Well, this Lawyer isn't smart enough to pass the BAR." So the solution used, rather than "changing" the Lawyer (Studying, better preparation, etc.) you change the Exam for everyone, just so that one Lawyer can do better on the exam.

And this could go a bunch of different ways too. This was just one of the first examples I thought of. I think if it's the characters that are special for being able to use the power, they should be the ones changed as they are the ones that are different. If something is wrong with one person, the people make an effort to change... not the entire system is changed so it's different for everyone else.

I think I probably had a case of rambling on, and you might not even agree with what I said, but I think that you can at least understand my point.

AWESOME SAUCE, so now a monster like KC CR Superman can push, get BOTH of his attacks off, and then take the click. BWAHAHAHAHA that is so much better than before .

In short, you have a valid opinion. I don't dispute it. However, if it were implemented as you say, any time something came up that required tweaking or adjusting about Flurry (or Quake, or whatever else comes around) would have required remembering to make sure that L/C, Giant, etc., were changed to handle it accordingly.

A problem with Flurry was that it specified adjacency. Adjacency shouldn't matter for Flurry, only making a close combat attack. If a figure down the line gets created that is allowed to make CC attacks against figures that are 3 squares away (Giant Giant Size) then giving that figure Flurry should work without having to think about it any more than putting a red square in his speed slot. This change accomplishes that.

A problem with Flurry was that it was one action that bundled two actions within it, when it didn't have to. Look at folks who know something about "actions versus attacks" ad their question about Lunge. By removing the "third action" from the equation, something like Lunge comes to the correct answer more often (though I'll grant you that it won't always).

Lastly, to this point:
Firstly, a close combat action does not include a close combat attack as a free action. It includes it because that is what a close combat action does. Secondly, if the wording of Flurry encourages/forces people to learn and understand the difference between actions and attacks to a better degree, then I'm doubly for it.

In the end, like I said initially, I don't disagree that you have valid points. I'm simply pointing out that there are other perspectives here and that no change was made ad hoc, "just because it sounds good to do that". Folks are welcome to disagree and say "not how I would have done it" but it would be unfair to say the change was made without thought or discussion. (Not saying you said that either)

The problem with this is that changing Leap/Climb to allow adjacency for Flurry would also allow L/C characters to Quake at different elevations, which is probably not something GD wanted to implement. If the issue is one power's usability, it makes more sense to change the power than to change a combat ability and another power, and to rebalance both of those items to avoid breaking another power (or more, without analyzing anything other than Quake).

Yeah, I can definitely see what you're saying there. I am glad that you took the time to read my post as well and can see the validity of my points. I still like the old wording better (perhaps the change could have come in just rewording it so adjacency is treated differently in the power to improve the wording?), but I see why the change was made. Thanks.

I don't think you were playing it right before. But I'm glad you will be able to play it correctly now!

Pretty sure that it's exactly the same as before.

Pushing action occurs at the end of a tokenable action. If you pushed to Flurry, you have always been able to make both attacks before taking any pushing damage.

Those guys are correct. Even under the old rules, pushing was applied until after both attacks.

Another big thing this does is clean up Flurry and Shape Change.

Before:
Under the old rules, you did not select a target until Free Action #1. By this time, you have already begun resolving the close combat action. As a result, if the target of FA#1 had SC and made a successful roll, if you had no other target, you were stuck.

After:
Now, if the target of the first attack succeeds at a SC roll, then you are still able to declare any non-free action you want.

i'm sure this has been covered before but the way flurry is now written, does that mean that the initial action and the free action are two seperate action? in other words, if i am being attacked by a figure with flurry, and my figure is a wild card, can i choose to use the skrull ability for the first action, and then, if a character with the defenders is next to the wild card, choose to use the defenders ability for the second action?

No. The second attack occurs after the first attack (not action) has resolved.

While on the topic of Flurry, can a character bust down a wall then attack the figure now exposed by the busted-down wall?

B
-
O

I had Sinestro Corps Batman on his Flurry clicks and 3 damage, separated by a wall and an opposing figure behind it. Can I Flurry the wall then the opposing figure? Flurry says "target" but doesn't specify what sort of target, so I can target a wall then a figure?

Yes, that is fine. (and for the record, it always was... this isn't new to BN)

Yes...and this is nothing new, either. You could do that before, too.