Ok, quick follow up on this, as it seems to relate to the entire discrepancy between damage value and damage dealt.

So, in Harpua's example, he was dividing up his Damage Value into 1.33 and 2.67, which is valid since this ins't his damage dealt (as mentioned in the rule book quote ). Since damage dealt cannot be a fractional ( decimal ) value, rounding comes into play to provide the final damage dealt, which is 2 and 3.

I admit, I'm not a rules expert by no means, but it would seem that this would be a possible outcome, could it not?

No.

See previous thread.

The damage value is getting divided/split into chunks of damage dealt. Those chunks cannot be fractional.

Absolutely no misunderstanding, I understand it just fine and I will continue to play with the rules functioning as the do...but I still feel they should specify that a "specific number" is one set by a power as to remove any argument, such as this, in the future.

And thanks to all who debated this with me. I'm glad to have had an actual dialogue about this rather than just being told "this is just how it works" with no real explanation or justification.

Ha! I ain't smart enough to know nothing! But I know decimals and fractions are different! You use fractions for pie, and decimals for pi.

I was going to agree to disagree and let this go...but what about Blades/Fangs/Claws , dude? That is a totally random value set by a dice role and there's no argument that that is a replacement value is there? How can a value chosen at random be a "specific number" and one I choose not be?

It is specific to the die roll. You still aren't choosing.

You have control over how you divide damage, the game doesn't. That's about as unspecific as you can get.

WTF? Really?

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.
"a random sample of 100 households"
synonyms: unsystematic, unmethodical, arbitrary, unplanned, undirected, casual, indiscriminate, nonspecific, haphazard, stray, erratic;

This is by definition not specific.

When I choose a number I have a method and conscious decision.

It is specific. Specific to that die roll, specific to the instructions of that particular power. You are not choosing the number.

Besides, BCF tells you the d6 roll replaces the damage value. The power tells you this is a replacement value. So even if you wish to argue about how "specific" it is, the power tells you straight up you are replacing something with another thing. Your quibble about splitting damage among multiple targets does no such thing.

When one value becomes or
is used instead of the value printed on the dial, it is
a replacement value.

When your character hits an opposing character
with an attack, your character deals damage. The
damage dealt to the opposing character is equal
to your character’s damage value.


I hit 2 targets. My printed damage value is 3. I choose to divide my damage to be 2 damage verses Target A and 1 damage verses target B. "Replacement values set combat values to specific numbers" and look at the damage values I have set for my 2 targets and what do you know? They aren't the same as my printed damage value.

And once again, I'm not arguing that the functionality of these mechanics should be different. All I'm saying is that Wizkids has written themselves into a game mechanic paradox and they need to amend their wording.

I just don't see why nobody will admit that I have a valid point.

Or give me an logic argument that is well supported by actual, quotable rules.

I'm not getting into the semantics argument here, but one guy/girl out of thousands of players being confused by this in 12 years of existence hardly constitutes a need to amend their wording.

You've quoted the rules enough for us. The wording is fine, we all know what it means.
I didn't want to say that you're the only person who's ever seen it your way... but you are the only person I know of who has ever seen it that way.

When dealing multi-target damage your damage VALUE does not change...you divide the damage into damage you DEAL. Damage Dealt and Damage Value play by different rules.

You divide your damage VALUE of 3 into Damage DEALT of 2 to one figure and Damage DEALT of 1 to another figure neither is a calculation, nor a replacement.

Its not too dissimilar from the discussion of numbers....

0.25 is decimal notation for a fractional value.
1/4 is fractional notation for a fractional value.
pi is a fractional value that can not be accurately listed with a simple fractional notation. Technically it is commonly believed that it cant be written in decimal notation with accuracy either. Interestingly enough pi can be expressed somewhat accurately with an infinite series of fractional notations known as the Gregory–Leibniz series (4/1 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11 + 4/13 - 4/15....)

2.00000 is decimal notation for a whole number with a lot of precision.
4/2 is fractional notation for the same whole number.

Hopefully by now, you realize that a decimal value of 1.37 is a fractional value and yet still see the difference between fractional notation and decimal notation.

Also notice, that Fractional Notation does not necessarily make a Fractional Value.

Similarly in HeroClix Damage Value and Damage Dealt are not the same things.

I've been playing for 10 of those years, at dozens of venues with hundreds of players and no player or judge had ever applied the replace then modify rule to charge and perplex to work as it clearly does now until about a month ago when I got hit with it in a tournament. So don't say the rules simply work that way because everyone knows that's the way it is. The devil is in the details and what the rules mean and what is actually written are sometimes different.

My counter is that my damage dealt is equal to my damage value. Ipso facto my damage value is either 1 or 2 or both.