Hi all, I need some help on this one, just for some clarification. There is nothing in the FAQ or Errata or rule book which seems to tackle these first two situations explicitly:

1. NGN Iron Man has 2 targets on his base. He is hovering, and adjacent to two opposing characters (grounded or flying). Can he attack both with a ranged combat attack?

2. A non-flying character with 10 range has 3 targets on his base. He is adjacent to 3 hovering/soaring opposing characters. Can he attack all 3 with a ranged combat attack?

3. A non-flying character with 10 range has 3 targets on his base. He is adjacent to 2 non-flying opposing characters. He should only be able to use a close combat action to attack only 1 of those opposing characters, is that correct?

I guess my whole thing comes from the wording in the rule book, which says that Hovering characters may always make a ranged combat action/attack, or be subject to a ranged combat action attack. Those first two situations are the ones which seem to be fairly straightforward from the rules, but have led to confusion on my part. I understand the part about a character who is adjacent to an opposing character, may not attack a non-adjacent opposing character, but situation 1 and 2 I listed above should be legal, is that correct? Thanks!

All your examples are legal.

The only trick about this example is this: 2 characters on different elevations are never adjacent, even if they occupy adjacent squares. Therefore, a grounded figure is not adjacent to a soaring figure.

In this example, if some of the figures are soaring and some are hovering, the attacker could make ranged attacks on the adjacent hovering characters, but not any soaring characters. If all of the opposing figures are soaring, the grounder could attack them all.

May seem nit-picky, but I want to be sure your question gets answered thoroughly.

Hi Q and Darth,
Thanks for the help. I don't know why I've always been confused on the ranged combat issue with single/multiple targets. I guess the reason is, because like I said, there is no explicit example or explanation in any of the rule books. They make a big deal about being able to attack an opposing figure from range when it is next to a friendly figure, but then leave out a lot of the important stuff.

About the soaring, they have an example in Danger Room where the soaring character is next to an opposing character, and it says he can't target an opposing character who is not adjacent. That's fine, but what irks me is the example says something like, "regardless of whether character x is soaring or hovering, he can't attack the character who is not adjacent." It irks me because they make it sound like there's some rule I missed, but the only reason the soaring character can't attack the non-adjacent character is because soaring characters can never attack non-soaring characters (unless they are Giants/Colossals). I just wish some of the examples were a little more complete.

So then, what you're saying Darth, without saying it, let's use another example:

4. NGN Iron Man has 2 targets on his base and his soaring. He is in the square next to an opposing Trapster (grounded). Can he shoot at an opposing Atlas (Giant) who is not adjacent? He should be able to then.

5. NGN Iron Man has 2 targets on his base and his soaring. He is in the square next to an opposing Awesome Andy (Giant, grounded). Can he shoot at an opposing Atlas (Giant, grounded) who is not adjacent AND the opposing Awesome Andy who is "adjacent"? Or could he only target Awesome Andy?

Thanks again. I need to use all this info to make a cheat sheet to cover all possible situations, so when some of these more uncommon situations occur during play, it would be a lot easier to explain why or why not a certain attack could be made.

I'll address two things you don't seem to understand based on this post. First, soaring figures are not bound by the restriction of only targetting adjacent opposing figures with RC Attacks: Second, occupying an adjacent square is not the same as being adjacent, so even though Shellhead is occupying a square adjacent to the opposing Trapster, they are not considered adjacent because they are at different elevations. In this case we have special rules for Giant and Colossal figures that causes those figures to be adjacent to figures in adjacent squares even at different elevations, (the exception is if the Giant or Colossal figure is elevated and an opposing non-Giant/non-Colossal figure is in an adjacent grounded square, then the figures are not adjacent,) so as long as Shellhead has a clear LoF to both figures (and they are both in range of course) he could target both (see the DR Rulebook quote above).

Hope this helps.

BoT

Hey BOT,
Thanks for the help. I understand a little more than you would think by my questions, I have just let myself get confused by semantics and the way other players have used different characters. You don't want to sit and question every move an opponent makes, but man, there are some things that just seem to trouble people (including me of course). One thing that doesn't trouble me, but troubles some players locally and on these boards is the charge/close combat expert strategy that is not legal. I've had that move tried at least 4 times on me, and the running shot/ranged combat expert twice.

Thanks for the help though, I've reread the rules dozens of times, I just didn't recall the page 29 rule you cited regarding soaring characters.

Oh, one more example or two that should help, and I think I'm okay with this ranged combat thing.

6. Trapster (grounded) has 1 target on his base. He is adjacent to 2 hovering characters. He should be able to make a ranged combat action/attack against either character, right, because they are both adjacent to him.

7a. If a character has 2 targets on his base, and is adjacent to 4 hovering characters, he can target any 2 of them with a ranged combat action/attack, right?

7b. (Similar to example 3) However, if Trapster (non-flying) is adjacent to one grounded (non-flying) character and 3 hovering characters, he is still only allowed to use a close combat action/attack on any one of them, right?

In these cases, I'd just keep a PAC handy and point out what Charge/Running Shot grant as free actions. Charge and Running Shot grant free close and ranged combat actions, respectively. CCE and RCE are power actions, so they can't be used.

Yes, to all three.

I would like to point out, though, that your use of the term 'grounded' is very ambiguous, given your past questions on soaring. Simply put, grounded means 'not soaring and not elevated'. So a flying character that is not soaring and not elevated is just as grounded as the non-flying character adjacent to it. Maybe this rather frequent misuse by people on this message board (some of them rather frequent posters ) of that term is partially responsible for your confusion.

Hey all,
Normalview, thanks, I always hold on to the PAC during a game, so it's easy to point out the power action/combat action discrepancies. It is obviously not as easy to find or point to all the different combinations of hovering/soaring/non-flying ranged combat examples, especially when the rule book is vague on some of them.

Yeah, I'm sorry about the grounded term. I was just trying to use that for added emphasis, and for characters like Trapster it is easy to see what I was saying, but it loses it's meaning for a flyer because he can be grounded hovering, or grounded earthbound, or something like that. I guess it is more complete to say a character is non-flying, hovering, or soaring, and then add the grounded term when speaking of elevated vs. non-elevated terrain, etc.

Anyway, thanks for all the help on all these issues to everyone. I wish combat examples were a little better taken care of in the rule book, but until then, these answers will really help.

Hopefully, if I have to explain one I will be able to do so when it comes up in a game. I'm still going to make a cheat sheet, not one that I would use during the game, but just to have available when the questions come up at home or at approved play. Thanks.