You are currently viewing HCRealms.com, The Premier HeroClix Community, as a Guest. If you would like to participate in the community, please Register to join the discussion!
If you are having problems registering to an account, feel free to Contact Us.
DETECTIVE OF THE DEAD: If an opposing character is KO'd during your turn, Martian Manhunter can use Exploit Weakness, Outwit, and Probability Control until the beginning of your next turn.
I think that means you have to be dead to use this piece! Are there rules for dead players vs. living ones?
Last edited by red king; 11/03/2010 at 12:25..
Quote : Originally Posted by Harpua
red king is spot on with this statement.
Quote : Originally Posted by dairoka
listen to Red King.
Quote : Originally Posted by YouWaShock
At the risk of going OT, I need to point out that it appears red king is talking to himself.
Yes, and all close or ranged combat attacks then go on to make attack rolls... forgive me for not connecting ALL the dots for you
So you are telling me that we can apply backwards logic in the rules? But this is incorrect. A close combat action will lead to a close combat attack that will lead to an attack roll. That I get.
Now answer me this: Superman just made a close combat attack. Was Superman given a close combat action?
You can't answer that question with the data I have given you, just like you can't say that an attack happened just because an attack roll happened.
Quote : Originally Posted by normalview
Your referenced your old posts and, unless I am completely mistaken, that section Harpua quoted had been mentioned in the old posts. So, yeah, it had already been brought up. Again, forgive me for not spoon feeding it to you; since you'd gone to the trouble to refer to your old argument, I figured you'd recall the other points brought up in that same thread.
The section had in fact NOT been mentioned in the old thread.
Quote : Originally Posted by normalview
We get it: you don't like this not being defined as close or ranged combat. Unfortunately, your dislike of the situation doesn't change the situation itself. This is an attack, period.
After reading what Harpua posted a couple of times with some though I can see the logic that leads to this being an attack. This was all I was asking for; the logic that lead to the ruling of it being an attack, since the logic was missing from previous posts on the matter.
This isn't how it should work at all. This is a game based on rules. We should be able to use those rules to reach rulings. Just because the deputies have posted on a thread doesn't mean everything in the thread is correct. I can think of some instances where the deputies have posted and nbperp came in much later and gave a different answer. Now I'm not saying nbperp is required to step in on every thread and respond. I'm also not saying the deputies don't do a good job. The deputies do a great job of answering questions and keeping this forum moving. I'm saying that there should be rules to back up the rulings. Now in this case, Harpua has provided a rule to support his position. That's what we should be looking for in rulings.
When there is no basis in the rules to support a position (and again, Harpua has provided one here), the issue should be addressed in the Player's Guide. (Which isn't necessary here since the rules do support the position.)
The Player's Guide is only updated at certain points. Munchoboy is talking about the process of what happens when a rules question comes up between editions of the Player's Guide. The rules deputies are the front line, they answer questions based on what is currently printed to the best of their ability. If they need to, they defer to nbperp who can directly talk to game designers. Even if it doesn't get to game designers, or takes 3 weeks for them to answer, the ruling made by the rules deputy is the official ruling until a new Player's Guide is released.
Last edited by rowdyoctopus; 11/03/2010 at 19:47..
The Player's Guide is only updated at certain points. Munchoboy is talking about the process of what happens when a rules question comes up between editions of the Player's Guide. The rules deputies are the front line, they answer questions based on what is currently printed to the best of their ability. If they need to, they defer to npberp who can directly talk to game designers. Even if it doesn't get to game designers, or takes 3 weeks for them to answer, the ruling made by the rules deputy is the official ruling until a new Player's Guide is released.
We can debate what Munchoboy was or was not saying to death, but it looks like the issue has been resolved so there is no need.
Support
Give this character a power action and make an attack roll against an adjacent target friendly character as though making a close combat attack. When using this power, neither this character nor the target can be adjacent to an opposing character; ignore all combat value modifiers for this action. If the attack roll succeeds, roll a d6 and subtract 2 from the result, minimum result 1. The target is healed of damage equal to the result.
If the bold part wasn't there, Support would be an attack.
Now I am confused, how do we determine the as though in support means it isn't a close combat attack but the as if's we run into with special powers mean that they do have the power or range?
FWIW, the closest thing I have in hand now is what I believe will be approved in the next PG. I hope this resolves people's questions:
Quote
Make a ranged combat attack and compare the result to each opposing character occupying a chosen square (this attack does not target). Each character hit this way is dealt 2 damage.
1 - Energy Shield or Combat Reflexes? Answer: Energy Shield
2 - Shape Change? No - it does not target
3 - Super Senses? Yes, it is an attack
4 - Stealth? No - no lines of fire are being drawn to characters
5 - Friendly characters? No - it says opposing.
Please PM me instead of starting unnecessary conflict. This is the second time in two days.
I'm not trying to start conflict. That was an honest question, I really wasn't sure what you were trying to say. I will admit the other thread was intentionally calling you out (which, in the future, I will reserve for PMs as you have requested, not that I plan on doing it again or anything), but this wasn't.
FWIW, the closest thing I have in hand now is what I believe will be approved in the next PG. I hope this resolves people's questions:
Quote
Make a ranged combat attack and compare the result to each opposing character occupying a chosen square (this attack does not target). Each character hit this way is dealt 2 damage.
1 - Energy Shield or Combat Reflexes? Answer: Energy Shield
2 - Shape Change? No - it does not target
3 - Super Senses? Yes, it is an attack
4 - Stealth? No - no lines of fire are being drawn to characters
5 - Friendly characters? No - it says opposing.
Miss anything?
If it targets the square rather than the character, why would you not include a peanut base on two separate squares twice?
If I target squares like this
Boomerang is in square A0, the attack proceeds A to B to C, etc.
AF
BE
CD
A contains character A, B contains character B's front end, C contains character C, D contains character D, E contains character B's back end and F contains the back end of character F (who has their front end in the next square, irrelevant for this example)
You can say it is because B is a character and it says each character but it also says each character occupying a chosen square. Character B occupies B and E, I chose both those squares