Fixed it for you.

Not at all. Nothing in the new wording gives any indication at all that the objects modify the damage value for ranged combat. If you give Supergirl a ranged combat action after her Running Shot, the object does not matter at all.


There have been some compelling arguments for and against the whole Pounce/Super Strength thing in this thread. Unfortunately, I can't say this is one of them

You're going by what the rules state, normalview. But, the ruling itself does not.

You're not doing a close combat attack, and thus not augmenting your Damage value, when you initiate your Pounce action. But, regardless, the ruling states that your Damage value has already been augmented and, thus, you cannot Pounce.

Therefore the ruling, as is, indicates that merely holding a Heavy Object augments your Damage value +2.

And, if merely holding the object, even if you're not attacking with it, is considered to augment your Damage value and make it so that you cannot use Feats because of it, the logical continuation of that is that there is no reason why your damage shouldn't also be considered augmented when you try a different action, such as a Running Shot.

There is a very logical reason why it shouldn't:

A character with Super Strength can throw an object at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 21. To throw an object, give the character a ranged combat action, even if its range value is 0. Regardless of the
attacker’s range, light objects can be thrown 6 squares and heavy objects can be thrown 4 squares. Regardless of the attacker’s damage value, a successful ranged combat attack with a light object deals 2 damage and a successful ranged combat attack with a heavy object deals 3 damage. A character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action. (LoSH, page 37)



Try again

Except that, per that rule, I don't have to throw the object. I can simply make a normal ranged attack, and my damage value has been boosted -- just the same as if it'd been Perplexed by +2 -- simply by holding the object ... at least, according to the ruling on Pounce.

Again, there have been some good arguments on both sides, but this is not one of them.

If Pounce had absolutely anything at all to do with ranged combat, sure, this would be a brilliant insight. As it is, though, we know that adding to the damage value with an object only ever comes into play when close combat attacks are being used: hence the hairiness surrounding Pounce.

Now, while the specific timing of this increase is being called into question (and is the crux of the argument) it still all boils down to the fact the Pounce ends in a close combat attack.

And truthfully, I don't care how it ends up being ruled. The GD can decide to go either way and I am perfectly, 100% okay with it. If ends up being 'sure, go ahead and use objects with Pounce 'cause that's what we are used to and the timing of the close combat attack comes after the prereqs are checked', cool. If it ends up being 'nope, no objects with Pounce if the object would place the damage value over 2 because that is the way we want it and have ruled previously with Meteorite', fine as well. Do you know why I don't care? It is because feats have been throwing monkey wrenches into the timing of things since they were first introduced. At this point, one more little wrinkle to the way things work isn't going to be that big of a deal.

I agree with Normalview on this one. They may end up "fixing the problem" by saying objects ONLY add to damage value for close combat, similarly how giants are adjacent 2 squares away ONLY for close combat and movement. That would fix pretty much all the problems you are purporting to have, including Nanobots and whatnot.

Well, it's been made official now. The newly posted FAQ has page 10 listing:
Anything I can think of to say about this sounds like gloating to me, so I'll negate my comments and let the quote speak for itself. Oh, for those that want a reference, the updated FAQ and E&C are at http://www.wizkidsgames.com/heroclix.../howtoplay.asp

Shouldn't they also errata the cost of Pounce now, since it is by far less powerful then what it used to be?

I really don't uderstand Wizkids' fascination in letting range continue to rule the game, and this ruling does that.

Man that's a bad ruling.

You were right about what the ruling would be, Burleigh.

I don't think there's anything else I can say without either lying or getting warning points.

That's like saying they should have errata'd HSS when they changed it with Danger Room so that all HSS figs are cheaper.... or that they should errata all SStr figs to be cheaper.... or Perplex figures (since they were the ones that increased the damage anyway).
It doesn't take anything away from the feat itself, it's something that was taken away from the abuse of Super Strength... the feat just happens to be an outcome of that.


Okay, I don't like to be vain..... but I love hearing that

Quote for mistruth or misunderstanding

Page 37, LOSH

If a character is using a light object in a close combat attack, modify the character’s damage value by +1 for the attack. If a character is using a heavy object in a close combat attack, modify the character’s damage value by +2 for the attack

The reason can you can still use Nanobots is because your damage value is not modified until the attack is made
Much like Defenders/JSA or Batman Enemy/Sinister Syndicate only gives you the shared defence and attack respectively at the moment of the attack (which is why ICWO or Perplex won't work on them), the object only modifies your damage at the moment of the attack

And since you are in the middle of another action, you cannot use Nanobots anyway!

Which, coincidentally, is also the reason you should still be able to use Pounce.

Thanks for pointing to the clarification. I'm certainly not made especially happy by it, but a ruling's a ruling, and getting us all on the same page is important.

I completely agree. This ruling is big time BS.