So, lets say I have a character who can use Charge and Hypersonic and he/she, for the sake of argument is a Hero for Hire. Would it be legal to Charge and make a regular attack as my free action from charge then use Hypersonic as a free action(Heroes for Hire) and still be able to make the regular close combat attack granted from Hypersonic?

Yes, you could even use HSS as a Non-Free Power Action making an attack, and then use HSS as a Free Power Action making an attack. Both attacks can be Close Combat Attacks. Since HSS specifically states to give the attack you are fine.

2013 Rulebook, pg 8
A character can never be given more than one non-free action per turn.

2013 Rulebook, pg 9
A character may not activate the same game effect twice in one turn with free actions, unless the game effect indicates otherwise.

This would be so much clearer if we had a slightly tighter definition of "effect".
In the case of Charge and Free-Action Charge we get:
Power Action that gives an (effect that grants (an effect as a Free Action (which may be used to activate an effect))) which always results in an attack.

and
a Free Action that gives an (effect that grants (an effect as a Free Action (which may NOT be used to activate an effect used in the Non-Free Charge))) which always results in an attack.

Breaking it down:
Charge (action) and Charge (free action):
both allowed, since you are not taking the same action as a Free Action.

free action Close Combat Action granted by an (Action) and free action Close Combat Action granted by a (Free Action):
both of these are allowed because Charge indicates that you can.

free action Close Combat Action granted by an (Action) to activate (effect X) and free action Close Combat Action granted by a (Free Action) to activate (effect X):
not allowed because Charge does not specifically state a CCA to activate an effect.

It takes a while to get there, but it is there. The thing to remember about Heroclix is, it's less about being a game about rules, as opposed to a game filled with effects that let you bypass the "normal" rules.

- All Attack Actions end in an attack.
- Most of the time Attack Actions will be given to activate an Attack.
- There are many, many effects that let you activate them by using an Attack Action to specifically activate them.
- The effect of a Close Combat Action for a Close Combat Attack is different from the effect of a Close Combat Action to activate Flurry, which is different from the effect of a Close Combat Action to activate Quake, which is different from the effect of a Close Combat Action to activate Mind Control.

I think this should be outlined better, preferably in the Rulebook. The "no multiple free actions to activate the same effect" has long been a thorn in my rules-understanding side, but I think I finally started to get a handle on it. Only took me about a year.

Okay. So extend all this logic to the following.

They seem similarly worded enough for me.

So if colossus, can make 2 close combat attacks as free actions;
Gordon and Co. can be given two vanilla move actions as free actions.

Absolutely not.

Part of using Charge, part of resolving that power action you used to initiate the whole thing, is also giving the character a close combat action. You get to finish that action, so you get to make (at a minimum) a close combat attack.

For the other two, there is no action to finish. For the GCPD ATA, all it is a free move action - can't do it, then don't use the ATA. For Gordon, the free actions come during a power action, kind of like Charge, but Gordon gets to pick UP TO two adjacent characters. "Up to" can include "zero" - and if zero is the number of adjacent characters that could actually be given a free move action, then zero is what you pick. You are not required to pick other characters to finish that action.


It is a fine distinction, yes. But there is a distinction.

The "May" in charge can also include up to 0 free actions.
you have to at the very least agree that Gordon himself can be given 2 free actions to vanilla move as he is not part of the "up to two other characters".

And While I do agree there is an extremely marginal amount of difference, between the two wordings, i see drawing a distinction between the two as... arbitrary and self serving hogwash! =D

The wording both clearly make it so you are not forced into a situation where you have to break the golden rule of free actions. Both use optional statements "May and up to". Gordon's infact uses "can" where it clearly should say "may" as "can" has been rules as some sort of non optional mess, at least when followed by the word "Use". In that way Gordon's powers is more restrictive, and the very least as it applies to Gordon himself.

Except we've been told, several times now, that if you begin something like Charge or Flurry (something that includes an attack), you can make that attack. You might not be able to use other powers with the Charge (or whatever), depending on what has already happened this turn, but you WILL get to attack.


We have no such guarantee with movement.

They should get rid of their golden rule if they aren't going to follow it then, instead of having some supposed understanding outside of all written literature on the subject, that basically says "well no, you don't follow the golden rule when it makes us look dumb, only when it would make us look like it was purposefully balanced, we will attempt to come up with an explanation to explain it later, to aid this we won't use the exact same wording twice."
Then we'd know to just ignore the text that wasn't a verbatim quote, and come ask about it's implications in the English language, and blindly accept whatever answer and reason that can't be easily explained to anyone.

Thanks for the responses though. I'm sure from your end these basicly(if not entirely) synonymous statements, look like mountainous clear cut differences...

This is not a Golden Rule. If it was a Golden Rule, there would be no exceptions, period. Golden Rules can't be broken.

thank you very much for focusing on the point

It is THE crucial point. Any other rule CAN be bent, tweaked, and broken as GD deems fit. So if they want to do different things with free actions under different circumstances, they can.

Anyway. So Gordon. He is not included in the "up to two other figures" segment. Can he also not be given a free action to vanilla move?

If his power granted close combat actions, all other things being the same. Would all 3 character be allowed to be given a close combat action? or just gordon?

As I said before, we've never been given any kind of "can always move" guarantee for free move actions. Not like we've been given with attacks. If Gordon and all other potential benefactors of his power have already exhausted their free move actions options for the turn, then don't use that power unless you just like wasting actions.

Depends on how exactly it was worded, but presumably all three. Again, based on what we've been told about Charge and Flurry.

Logic does not always equal Heroclix rules. I used to be the same way, but once I understood, the rule is the rule, I was much happier.

Why do I have to ignore the definition of "resolve" when I fail to break away when using Charge then? Nothing about the words "resolve immediately" tells me to ignore nested free actions. If I get to use Charge, I get to use all of it. Except for when I don't.