This is incorrect. In the rule:

A ranged combat action can be given to a character to activate a ranged combat attack that targets one or more non-adjacent opposing characters that are within range and line of fire.

"non-adjacent", "opposing", and "that are within range and line of fire" are all modifying the noun "characters".

If you wanted, you could write it as:

A ranged combat action can be given to a character to activate a ranged combat attack that targets one or more characters that are non-adjacent, opposing, and within range and line of fire.

By the way, the word "targets" in that sentence is a verb not a noun.

You are reading the inclusion of friendly characters as a valid target as changing the way the rule works.

It does not.

Rules can be written in many ways when written poorly.
For games of this caliber I have great faith that the terms chosen were chosen for good reason.

As per dealing with the root of this misconception I will reference verbatim from rpgambit's posts.
You'll notice from the get go he has misquoted the rulebook on point #2.
It should of course read: You must target non-adjacent opposing characters with the attack.
So his deduction of not being able to multi target an adjacent and non-adjacent character is false.

He then goes on to reinforce with the following after some hashing back and forth with chrisdosmil (who coincidentally had it right all along):
as well as:
Here <edit>Chrisdomsil <end edit> dismisses the choice of the phrase regarding who can be targeted by a ranged combat attack as a result of being given a ranged combat action: a non-adjacent opposing character, as simply worded that way because it "is the norm" for an attack.

What rpgambit failed to mention, and apparently forgot to take into account when deciding how to treat friendly characters who can be targeted as a specific allowance, is the section of the rules that immediately follows and describes who can be defined as a target of the attack. (And also why the phrase "non-adjacent opposing character" was well chosen, not simply put in as the norm.):
Here, rpgambit incorrectly assumed that the ability to target friendly characters would require an alteration to the rule which states that the target of a ranged combat attack as a result of a ranged combat action be a non-adjacent opposing character with a replacement being made to the wording to amend the discrepancy. He furthermore applies this misconception to all ranged attacks not just ranged attacks as a result of a ranged combat action.

It does not, it simply includes them in the possible choices of targets.
Look at Mole Man's wording:
It specifically uses the wording "including friendly ones." So going back to the rules on how we treat friendly characters who can be targeted as a specific allowance not a specific exception to the rules:

With the inclusion of friendly characters as valid targets, we now have two choices for target of a ranged attack as a result of a ranged combat action:
1) A non-adjacent opposing character
or,
2) A Friendly character.

But rpgambit already ruled:
This again assumes that you should substitute the value of "opposing character" with the value of "friendly character." A substitution that is neither requested or required.

He substantiates his argument that a friendly can not shirk the requirement of non-adjacency in the same manner that it could not shirk the requirements of range and line of fire.

However the requirement for range and line of fire is already covered within the basics on page 4 specifically for ranged combat attacks:
We can now include friendly characters to this rule as a specific allowance per Mole Man's ability. (I am using Mole Man for my example, but it will work with IIM Tony Stark as well as King Hyperion, though his wording is so specific as to be a non issue)

Now we know we can make ranged attacks against both opposing and friendly characters within range and line of fire.

How do we decide who is a valid target?

We see the rules tell us the target may be a non-adjacent opposing character.
And now as per Mole Man's special allowance, you can also target friendly characters.

But why can you target an adjacent friendly character with a ranged combat attack and not an opposing character? (without S.S. of course)

Because the rules on page 11 tell us how to govern ranged combat:
So for the ultimate checklist in making ranged attacks targeting friendly characters invoking all printed rules that make reference to Ranged Attacks, choosing the Target of a Ranged Attack as the result of Ranged Combat Action, and Ranged Combat in order of applied relevance:
1) Establish that a friendly character may be chosen as a valid target for a ranged combat attack as per specific allowance. (p.10)
2) Check to see whether or not you are adjacent to an opposing character. (p.11)
3) Check to see if an opposing or friendly character is within range and line of fire. (p.4)
4) Make sure the target of the attack is either a non-adjacent opposing character or a friendly character if the attack is the result of a Ranged Combat Action.(p.10)

Provided these conditions are met, you will be able to make a ranged combat attack against the character.

And again, yes, this will include a specifically allowed friendly character at a range of 1 to be targeted.

Furthermore you can target both a friendly character at range 1 as well as any other friendly or non-adjacent opposing character so long as there are sufficient "bolt targets" to do so.

So, in summation:
The ruling on which the premise that you can not target adjacent friendly characters with ranged attacks was made on a selective reading of the rules where alterations were made when no alteration was required.

I am only trying to convey what the rule book says, and am using only the phrasings and allowances it provides, paraphrased in places of course. But without compromising the integrity of the rules themselves.

There is no motive for breaking the game, behind this. In fact, my interpretation has a far more natural feel to how friendly characters would react to each other in combat than the interpretation assumed by contrary parties.

Why would an adjacent friendly character prove a distraction to a team mate when trying to make an attack against another team mate within range? Why also would the adjacent friendly character prevent his team mate from targeting him with any attack whether it be ranged or otherwise?

I have full respect for the Deputies and the job they do, that however does not make them infallible.

In this case it is my firm belief that they were incorrect in the ruling regarding this matter.

I also believe any contrary belief in this instance would have to be based on unsubstantiated assumptions applied hap hazardously to rulings in instances where they do not belong.

@firlz This hopefully clearly states my stance regarding this issue as well as the Deputies ruling regarding this issue. It is very rare that I disagree with a gold when I can't be proven wrong with their explanations and examples. This is one instance however, I will be shocked to see proven any other way.

This is correct
I hold the position it can not be the case according to the Core Rule Book.
If it is decided that the ruling is as rpgamer laid out, it will still only be because they say it is so, not because the rules allow for it to be so as written.

Outside of what I stated immediately above, the sharpshooter ability would not over ride the "cannot make ranged attacks while adjacent to opposing characters" even regarding friendly characters when able to be targeted. You would need Improved Targeting: Ignores Characters for that which specifically allows making a ranged attack while adjacent to an opposing character.
Other than that ranged attacks can always be made against friendly characters within range and line of fire so long as an opposing character is not adjacent. It is simply what is in the rules.

There are two ways of interpreting of how to insert "friendly" as a target into the rule structure regarding targeting adjacent characters.

1) The way I described it where "non-adjacent opposing character" becomes "non-adjacent (opposing or friendly) character".This interpretation keeps the rule as intact as possible with all restrictions except the one requiring an opposing character. In fact, since "opposing" is a restriction on character, with this addition of "friendly characters" as legal targets the statement could be read "non-adjacent characters" with the opposing restriction negated.

2) You could also assume "non-adjacent opposing character" is one type of target and "friendly" is an additional type, as is argued above. With this logic the resultant statement would be "non-adjacent opposing character or a friendly character". This interpretation makes sense in theory, but not in practice. A ranged attack is designed to be at range, not adjacent. Nothing about allowing friendly characters as targets would lead me to believe the restriction preventing targeting an adjacent character should not apply.

Another example on why it must be ruled this way. Consider Mole Man and the close combat action version of Mind Control. From the RB:

Using the logic from option 2, "adjacent opposing character" is one target type, "friendly character" would be the second combining to make "...targets an adjacent opposing character or a friendly character". This would mean the adjacency requirement only applies to the opposing character and the friendly character could be targeted regardless of adjacency with the close combat version of MC. Instead, we interpret it as "adjacent (opposing or friendly) character" when friendlies are allowed as targets to require all the normal restrictions be met.

rpgambit

I could agree if the Core Rule Book itself did not fully support what I have stated above.

You are making the claim that there are two ways to insert the value of "friendly character" into the existing rules in order to define how you can target any character with a ranged combat attack.

It should be pointed out for my stance that I don't believe there is any way to "insert" any replacement value into the rules that is not specifically requested to be inserted.

What I am arguing is that the only thing the special allowance stated on the card is telling you to do is add friendly characters as a valid target choice.

Let's take a look at the example you provided proving why it must be worded with your assumed replacement value:
Specifically this statement:
For starters, you are specifically quoting here the rule that governs who to target when making a close combat attack as the result of a close combat action.
What you are failing look at is what the rules already provide on p.3 under the Basic Rules:
Now, since we are not being asked to change any rules by the special allowance of targeting friendly characters and simply being asked to add them as a valid target, we will do so here.

As you can see, the discrepancy regarding being able to attack a friendly character with a close combat attack regardless of range or line of fire is no longer a discrepancy because there are more rules than just those governing who is a valid target when making a close combat attack as part of a close combat action. And by adding the same simple and concise verbage to this rule as we apply to the rule governing close and ranged combat attacks as a result of a close or ranged combat action, and in the same concise and methodical way, we clear all discrepancies.

Your only other argument against my logic is another assumption:
You have assumed here that ranged attacks can only be done at ranged and you are right. What you have gotten wrong is what actually constitutes range and I believe this sentence of the rules found on page 11 is where you base your assumprion:
Fortunately the Core Rule Book also provides us with the other 1/2 of that rule which tells us exactly what constitutes range:
I'm sorry, but there is no disputing the allowance of a ranged combat action edit: should read attack, this could be viewed as a fundamental change (though it is not) but an honest mistake, when no opposing character is adjacent, to any range greater than 0 so long as it does not exceed the maximum printed range on the base.

Likewise, there is no disputing the ability to target a friendly character as per special allowance with a ranged combat attack so long as it falls within the requirements of "within range and line of fire" set out on page 4 of the Core Rule Book.

What you are disputing is my denial of your authority to introduce mechanics into the game that:
1) Are founded on an assumption that the chosen wording of a rule must be replaced with a different wording in order to make things work "for you"
2) Directly contradict what the other 2/3 of the rules governing Ranged Combat and Ranged Combat Attack tell you is possible.

Finally you state:
Here you admit to what you are actually doing, which in interpreting. And you tell us you are doing so in order to require all the normal restrictions to be met.

Just to be crystal, let me re-state what the actual "conditions to be met" are from an earlier post of mine:
It is very important to notice that that I am only using examples supported by written rules found within the rule book, and have provided references to all applicable rules, not just 1 rule, or just the part of a rule that supports my stance. Also note that I have not had to change, or alter a rule or any of it's components. I am simple following the instructions laid out by the text of the rules.

Anyone on the opposing stance can not say the same.

Pulse Wave is a horrible example because of the Area Effect Rule...

Rulebook p. 18
You might as well go back to the original thread because PW or any other AoE adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Just curious but what line of the rulebook do you think prevents Paste Pot Pete from making a Ranged Combat Attack against a non-adjacent friendly character with a simple old range attack?

I use Paste Pot Pete as a simple example as he has no Special Powers to confuse the situation.

Only if the interpretation of the rule as stated by the Deputies is valid would it be a horrible example. It is a non-issue under my interpretation as it causes no discrepancies with any of the rules as they are written.

Where in all of my posts did I mention any rule in the rulebook that prevents any ranged attack against any friendly character other than the ones in the Core Rule Book which are specifically (again, sigh):
(p.11)
and
([p.4)

My whole stance is that you can make ranged attacks against adjacent friendly targets except in the two instances above.

They are the only two instances that provide guidelines that prevent a ranged combat attack from being made.

The rules governing who can be targeted by a Ranged Combat Attack as a result of a Ranged Combat Actions (p.10) are specific to non-adjacent opposing characters.

The same rules in the following paragraph (p.10) now tell us (after defining terms for attacker and target) that in addition to those rules, specific game effects will also allow us to choose friendly characters as a target.

Nowhere are we instructed to now insert a replacement value of "Friendly Character" instead of "Opposing Character" when appearing in rules governing Ranged Combat, Ranged Combat Attacks and Ranged Combat Actions.

We are simply told that we may now choose friendly characters as targets to the attack, so long as they follow all rules set forth in the Core Rule Book on pages 4, 10 and 11.

These rules do not work independent of each other. To the contrary, it is only when you look at what each rule specifically allows and does not allow that the entire picture of what is possible will be apparent.

This is a simple stance, but the supporting rulings are spread throughout the Core Rule Book, not found in one concise location to answer all questions at a glance. I guess that makes it a complicated view for some, but only because they are not reading the Core Rule Book as a whole.

It is far easier to skim the Core Rule Book to find those wordings and phrasings that support your viewpoint on how a rule should work.

It is also easy to realize that there are many rules within the Rule Book that can be misinterpreted when taken as a stand alone example, out of context with additional rules that also govern the given issue.

That is the case here.

Having personally worked on one of the Rulebooks, I am just trying to understand what you are suggesting. Are you saying that when you play HeroClix any Ranged Attack can attack a friendly character?

There is not a suggestion being made here.

I am taking a solid stance.

Yes, any ranged combat attack can be made against any friendly target provided a total of 4 conditions are met.

1) Can the character making the attack target friendly characters?
2) Does the character making the attack have a range value greater than 0?
3) Is the character being targeted within range and line of fire?
4) Is there no opposing character adjacent to the character making the attack?

Provided the answer to these questions are yes, the attack can take place.

Why does this allow the "requirement" of non-adjacency to be ignored you ask?

It doesn't, I reply.

Non-adjacency is only a requirement to target one or more opposing characters within range and line of fire when making a ranged combat attack as a result of a ranged combat action.

If you have indeed worked on one of the rule books, and happen to also share the assumption brought forth and currently upheld by the Deputies, all I ask is you spell out for me, using specific wording derived solely from the Core Rule Book, why this is so.

Understand that you may not alter, replace, exchange or modify any of the rules except when and where you are specifically requested to.

I am interested to see what can be provided.

So you are saying "No" unless a special power is involved?

So just curious but with this special ranged power of let's say Moleman, how did you determine if Moleman successfully hit the friendly target or not?

[quote=IceHot;7755148]So you are saying "No" unless a special power is involved?[quote]
Actually, the rules state:
In this case, a special power (Mole Man's) is the specific allowance used for the example. So conditionally no, unless specifically allowed.

The rules for that are very easy to find. Look again on page 10. They are immediately below the rules we have just gone over.
[quote]Combat Attack Rules
The following general rules apply to both close combat attacks and ranged combat attacks.
The Attack Roll
To determine whether or not an attack succeeds, the attacking player rolls 2d6 (the attack roll) and adds the result to the attacker's attack value. The sum is the Attack Total. If the Attack Total is equal to or greater than the target's defense value, the attack succeeds and it is a hit (it is a successful attack roll); otherwise, it fails and is a miss.[quote]

Next question?

Which I will address after I return from weekly Monday Night Clix.

What you have probably noted already is that the current rulebook instructs you in two places (p. 10 and p. 3-4) on how to compare attack rolls to the target. On page 4 it refers specifically to Comparing the Attack Roll to the "OPPOSING CHARACTER".

It is a fairly common tendency throughout the History of the HeroClix Rulebook to refer to the "Opposing Character" in regards to resolving combat steps in the basic definitions because in most situations the target of an attack is an opposing character.

Here is what you should note though. The rules are not rewritten from scratch with each iteration.

In 2010 this is what the Blackest Night Rulebook stated on p. 8:
The rulebook was updated with the 2011 edition (page 9).
Essentialy, the statement you are making is that the p. 10 rules in the new rulebook (as copied from the 2011 rulebook) are not supposed to be applied uniformly to "Friendly" Characters as they are to "Opposing" Characters when the "Friendly" character becomes the valid target of an attack that is normally limited to targeting "Opposing Characters".

Knowing the evolutionary process of the rulebook while you may be technically correct, I highly doubt that is the intended case.

Now I dont speak directly with GD (Game Design), but the Orange Deputies more or less do. What the Oranges are telling you seems to me to be very consistent with everything I understand about how the rule changed to no longer allow Flying characters to use ranged attacks while based.

While the 2011 rules cleaned up a lot of vocabulary, there are still plenty of things that are getting cleaned up with each further edition of the rules. And yes, I do find it interesting that this transition of wording occurred with the 2011 edition of the rulebook.

In case you are interested and while I played a very, very small part, you can scroll to the bottom of the 2011 Rulebook and in very tiny print I did get a very "Special Thanks" right next to one of my HeroClix Heroes, Michael Suttkus.

Furthermore, what you might notice in the credits of each rulebook from at least Blackest Night (2010) to 2013 is a reference to "Michael (Harpua) Joy". I can assure, he and several others had a tremendous amount of input on each of those rulebooks before they went to print.