Just clarifying a few things about Arachne's sp Psi-Webs.

text:
Damage - Psi-Webs: Arachne can use incapacitate as if she had a range of 8.


1-She can use stunning blow, correct?

2-Can she also make cc attacks using incap or does it have to be at range??

1: yes
2: Close attacks are fine.

1) Yes.

2) It does not say she may only make ranged attacks, only that she has a range of eight. Since figures with Incapacitate and a range of 8 can still make close-combat attacks, so can she.

Thanks guys.

She has the potential of being totally eViL for 50pts.

1 more Q:

Can Con Plan up her sp range or does it have to stay at 8?

I'd say no.

It works "as if" she had that range. I'd say CP (and SHIELD) work on legitimate ranges, not simulated ones.

(I'm not 100% sure of that. It is just my take. Was this asked for the old WW with the same power?)

i think you may be able to use CP to increase range. here is why.

contingency plan triggers when an action is declared. declaring a use of Psi-webs replaces Arachne's range with 8.

with the line in the rulebook stating that you replace, then modify (like when you use running shot and carry) i would say that you replace her value with 8, then modify with CP.

in a similar vein, perplex would not work, as you must declare perplex before the action begins.

But this is not correct.

What her power specifically states is:
It says "as if", not "replace her range value".

If you use Perplex on her, it would indeed work -- it would Perplex her range from 0 to 1. It wouldn't change the wording of her Special Power.

Contingency Plan is the same way -- look at how it is written:

If you take three tokens off C.P. for Arachne, it would modify her Range Value -- 0 -- to 3.

No, for the same reason you can't use SHIELD/CP/etc to up your range if you have range 0 and are using Mind Control.

It isn't the same reason.

For one thing, it makes the range value become 4, as opposed to acting "as if" it had that range.

For another thing, it specifically forbids it.



I agree on it not working, but I disagree that this would be the reason.

Ah. Fair enough.