This is a job for Superman! + Rip it up!

[scehaono]

I was looking at the E-2 Supe's SP:

THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN!: Superman can use Charge. When Superman is not carrying an object or a character, do not halve his speed value when he uses Charge. Superman may not pick up objects or characters when using Charge.

and the text for Rip it Up!:
Prerequisites: Super Strength

Before a target character begins a move as part of a move, power, or free action, give it a light object from outside of the game.

now, i have a couple of assumptions/questions:

first off, theoretically, superman is standing there without an object.
can he use charge, and then by rip it up, get an object? (i'm assuming yes as rip it up GIVES the object, getting around the 'picking up' part of it)

now, if the first point works...how would the timing of the charge work?
what I am getting at is - when does the halving of movement occur, at the declaration of intent (when supes is not holding the object) or does it automatically drop by 1/2 as soon as he moves (and gets the LO)?

i know it's not like he's getting a +2 to damage, but since he'd be able to do it as much as he likes, the +1 can add up...

anyway, thank you in advance for any input/thoughts!

[normalview]

Giving is the same as picking up an object. If it wasn't, well, you can't use an object to attack if you haven't picked it up so RIU would be essentially useless.

It doesn't work, so don't worry about the rest.

***EDIT - I though I would add that Superman also can not opt to simply use a regular, half movement Charge and use Rip It Up, either. That last line of the SP prevents him from picking up objects (or characters) when he Charges. Period.

If Superman is going to grab an object, he needs to do it during a movement that doesn't involve Charge.***

[The7ofDiamonds]

Yep, Normalview is correct. I love having people who play Superman against me get in position, ready to do a normal movement charge when I am standing near an object, then they try to pick up the object with a normal ½ movement charge, then I just tell them to read the card. Then I win. I ♥ playing against supermen.

[jak7890]

I kind of disagree... which makes me nervous since Normalview has a good, not too mention relatively longer, track record.

I don't think that giving a character an object is the same as that character picking the object up, even though it is functionally the same.

When this character moves as part of a move action,power action, or free action, it can pick up an object as a free action and carry it. The object must be either in a square the character occupies or in an adjacent square. This character can use an object it picks up as a weapon. If this power is lost or countered while this character is holding an object, immediately put the object in the square this character occupies. This power can’t be canceled while this character is carrying an object. When this character makes a close combat attack targeting blocking terrain, a wall, or an object, modify its damage value by +2 for the attack; if the character is carrying an object when it makes the attack, remove the object from the game after the attack is resolved.

For an object to be picked up, it must be on the board. Furthermore, picking an object up happens during movement, while RIU happens before the movement. To that end, I would say that Supes could use RIU since it happens before the movement and since it is not picking an object up, though his movement would subsequently be cut in half. That may not have been intended to be possible, but I don't think it breaks the power since it's still paid for by the feat.

[Xplodiak]

I kind of disagree... which makes me nervous since Normalview has a good, not too mention relatively longer, track record.

I don't think that giving a character an object is the same as that character picking the object up, even though it is functionally the same.



For an object to be picked up, it must be on the board. To that end, I would say that Supes could use RIU since it happens before the movement and since it is not picking an object up, though his movement would subsequently be cut in half. That may not have been intended to be possible, but I don't think it breaks the power since it's still paid for by the feat.

Giving him an object from outside the game is like picking up an object from thin air. It's the same thing with a different wording. Even if it wasn't, the obvious nature of the power indicates that they don't want Superman picking up objects and Charging. Isn;t that enough? He's one of the best figures as is.

[jak7890]

Giving him an object from outside the game is like picking up an object from thin air. It's the same thing with a different wording. Even if it wasn't, the obvious nature of the power indicates that they don't want Superman picking up objects and Charging. Isn;t that enough? He's one of the best figures as is.

Yes, functionally speaking, it is identical. But it's not the same game mechanic. For instance, Option 2 of Crisis Darkseid's Omega Beams is functionally Psychic Blast once you've activated it (through a power action and -2 damage modification), but it's not Psychic Blast and as such the Repulsor Shield feat would not effect it.

From a literalistic reading of the feat and the power, RIU is not picking up an object, it is being given an object. It's functionally identical, but it's still not the same thing.

EDIT: I updated my prior post to mention that picking an object up happens during movement while RIU happens before movement; this further differentiates the (functionally redundant) mechanics.

[Harpua]

I agree with jak on what the language allows.

I would say that normalview's opinion was the actual intention.

[sliverbelt]

Well, it could be that they were just trying to avoid people using the dumpster or some other permanent object.

I mean they did give him Super Strength at the same time.

[Harpua]

I agree with jak on what the language allows.
Let me just add that within the scope of the game neither "pick up an object" or "give an object" actually has a definition.

As a result, you go with what you do have, the regular definitions.

Those definition are definitely dissimilar.

EDIT: Additionally, RIU was written during a more simple time where such a distinction didn't need to be made.

Now, I just wish that I could find a ruling on the SFG and Rip It Up. I'm sure we had one when the change to SFG was made and I'd bet jak's left arm that it was a no-no.

[jak7890]

Let me just add that within the scope of the game neither "pick up an object" or "give an object" actually has a definition.

As a result, you go with what you do have, the regular definitions.

Those definition are definitely dissimilar.

EDIT: Additionally, RIU was written during a more simple time where such a distinction didn't need to be made.

Now, I just wish that I could find a ruling on the SFG and Rip It Up. I'm sure we had one when the change to SFG was made and I'd bet jak's left arm that it was a no-no.

A couple of things: color me ignorant, but what does SFG stand for again?

Second, you gotta quit wagering my left arms, Harpua. I'm on my last one! :nervous:

[Quebbster]

A couple of things: color me ignorant, but what does SFG stand for again?
Separation Field Generator.

[Harpua]

Separation Field Generator.

Yup.

It got its errata entry so that objects could not be picked up within its range. If there was a ruling (which I think that there was) saying that RIU could also not be used then it would give the precedent that giving an object is the same as picking up one.

[normalview]

Let me just add that within the scope of the game neither "pick up an object" or "give an object" actually has a definition.

As a result, you go with what you do have, the regular definitions.

Those definition are definitely dissimilar.

EDIT: Additionally, RIU was written during a more simple time where such a distinction didn't need to be made.

Now, I just wish that I could find a ruling on the SFG and Rip It Up. I'm sure we had one when the change to SFG was made and I'd bet jak's left arm that it was a no-no.

Since you are going that route (dissimilar definitions), I just want to restate my earlier point that Super Strength specifies that, "this character can use an object it picks up as weapon." No other method of gaining then using an object is covered in the Super Stength description.

So if someone were to try to use the fact that "give" isn't the same as "pick up" to get around the E-2 Superman's SP limitation, I would say okay give him the object... and then hold on to it until the game is over since Super Strength only talks about picked up objects as weapons and we've just established that those are two different things. You know, since we're splitting hairs :p ;)

The way I see it, there are some very specific and exact definitions for certain words in Heroclix and those words appear in the glossary. Anything that doesn't appear in the glossary (like "give" vs "pick up") should fall under the umbrealla of the intent is obviously the same, so they are the same (unless GD clarifies a distinction).

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

Since you are going that route (dissimilar definitions), I just want to restate my earlier point that Super Strength specifies that, "this character can use an object it picks up as weapon." No other method of gaining then using an object is covered in the Super Stength description.

So if someone were to try to use the fact that "give" isn't the same as "pick up" to get around the E-2 Superman's SP limitation, I would say okay give him the object... and then hold on to it until the game is over since Super Strength only talks about picked up objects as weapons and we've just established that those are two different things. You know, since we're splitting hairs :p ;)

The way I see it, there are some very specific and exact definitions for certain words in Heroclix and those words appear in the glossary. Anything that doesn't appear in the glossary (like "give" vs "pick up") should fall under the umbrealla of the intent is obviously the same, so they are the same (unless GD clarifies a distinction).

I totally agree with Normalview on this one. If we go by the exact literal wording of both Rip It Up and Super Strength, then they are not compatible, and no attack could be made with the object, since he didn't 'pick it up.'

So that opens up a whole new can of worms that shouldn't be opened. I would say we must go by intent on this. And the intent is very clear that Supes cannot use Rip It Up in conjunction with This is a Job for Superman.

[jak7890]

Sorry guys, this is going to be a long one, but it can't be helped...

Since you are going that route (dissimilar definitions), I just want to restate my earlier point that Super Strength specifies that, "this character can use an object it picks up as weapon." No other method of gaining then using an object is covered in the Super Stength description.

So if someone were to try to use the fact that "give" isn't the same as "pick up" to get around the E-2 Superman's SP limitation, I would say okay give him the object... and then hold on to it until the game is over since Super Strength only talks about picked up objects as weapons and we've just established that those are two different things. You know, since we're splitting hairs :p ;)

The way I see it, there are some very specific and exact definitions for certain words in Heroclix and those words appear in the glossary. Anything that doesn't appear in the glossary (like "give" vs "pick up") should fall under the umbrealla of the intent is obviously the same, so they are the same (unless GD clarifies a distinction).

I understand what you mean, and it's not a bad argument. However, there is a distinction made between picking up an object and holding an object in the FF Rulebook under the objects section, as well as the stipulation that a held object must be used when a close combat attack is made:

Using Objects as Weapons

Characters that can use the Super Strength power (see the Super Strength entry on the Powers and Abilities Card) can pick up and hold an object, then use it in close combat and ranged combat attacks....

Picking up an object.
During a move action, power action, or free action in which a character using Super Strength moves, the character can pick up an object. The object must be in either a square the character occupies or in an adjacent square. A character can move, pick up an object, and continue to move. ... Put the object token under the base of the character with Super Strength to indicate that the character is holding the object.

Holding an object.
A character can hold only one object at a time. A character can’t drop an object once it is held. To dispose of a held object, the character must use it in an attack. ...

Using objects in close combat attacks.
A character holding an object and making a close combat attack must use the object in the attack, as shown in Figure 17, unless the character is using a power that will deal 0 or no damage or making a close combat attack that will target more than one character. ...

Using objects in ranged combat attacks.
A character holding an object can throw it at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 18; a character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action. ...


Sorry, I know that it's a lot of text, but I tried to pare it down to the relevant bits as best I could.

The first underlined section shows a distinction between picking up an object, holding an object, and using it in an attack. If a character has default SS they can do all three at their discretion.

The second underlined section indicates that picking up an object leads to holding an object, further making a distinction.

The third underlined section is more on holding an object (and really nothing new to us, but relevant anyway).

The fourth section is the most important part in our discussion: characters holding an object have no choice but to use a held object when they make a single target, close combat attack.

The fifth underlined section states that a character holding an object has the choice to use it in a ranged combat attack or not.

Ultimately, this section of the rulebook shows that there is a distinction between picking up an object and holding an object.

As long as an object is held it can or must be used in an attack, depending on the nature of the attack.

In order for RIU not to work with the special power in question it must be shown that a given object is not held by the character it is given to.

[normalview]

In order for RIU not to work with the special power in question it must be shown that a given object is not held by the character it is given to.[/U]

No, in order for Rip It Up to work with Superman's SP, it must be shown that "give" is not the same as "pick up".

And since neither term is in the glossary, that can't be conclusively done.

So Rip It Up can't be used to get around this SPs limitation.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

I stand corrected on my last post. Jak makes a very good point. Because it isn't in the glossary, it is ambiguous, and the both the argument for and against have strong points.

Rip It Up
Prerequisites: Super Strength

Before a target character begins a move as part of a move, power, or free action, give it a light object from outside of the game.

THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN!: Superman can use Charge. When Superman is not carrying an object or a character, do not halve his speed value when he uses Charge. Superman may not pick up objects or characters when using Charge.

Going by the exact wording of the FF Rulebook on picking up objects, and then going by the exact wording of Rip It Up, Jak is right on the money. Of course, Supes would have to halve his movement for the Charge, as now he's 'holding' an object that he did not 'pick up'.

We have used this standard before when arguing intent vs. literal wording, and literal wording almost always wins out.

Remember the recent debate we had about the Henchman? I would say that we must take a literal wording approach to this as well. When using the 'intent' argument, that is based on opinions on what you 'think' the game designer intended.

So after reading all the rules on picking up and holding objects, versus giving an objects and holding them, I have been swayed into Jak's corner on this.

But then again, I'm not stating that we are right, but the literal wording does favor Jak's argument.

OH, by the way, did I mention that I was Chaotic Neutral?

[jak7890]

No, in order for Rip It Up to work with Superman's SP, it must be shown that "give" is not the same as "pick up".

And since neither term is in the glossary, that can't be conclusively done.

So Rip It Up can't be used to get around this SPs limitation.

Rip It Up gives an object from outside of the game to a character before the movement of certain types of actions.

Super Strength proper lets a character pick up an object that's in the game, and this happens during movement.

Since giving an object and picking up an object relate to different classifications of objects (in the game as opposed to outside of the game) and occur at different times (before a move as opposed to during a move) it is apparent that they are different and thus cannot be the same thing.

Please understand, NormalView, that I'm not trying to be confrontational with you; my underlines and boldings are just meant to highlight my points, not to represent shouting. You seem to be a great guy from all of the posts of yours that I've read, and I almost always agree with your assessment of the rules. You're probably right that GD didn't mean for this to work just like they didn't mean for Arachne to have a ranged attack other than Incap, but slap Stunning Blow on her, and there you go. These sorts of issues are probably the only good argument for enforcing retirement.

*(shrugs)*

[normalview]

Please understand, NormalView, that I'm not trying to be confrontational with you;

It's 'normalview', not 'NormalView'. Get it right. Jeez.

:laugh: ;)

The timing is irrelvent. Again, without a glossary entry clarifying some distinction between 'give' and 'pick up', they are essentially the same thing... both result in a character holding an object, no?

And this goes for anyone that is arguing for 'exact wording'. If it was meant to be exact, if the meanings were supposed to be separate and distinct, then it would be in the glossary. Like possess vs use, action vs attack, counter vs ignore vs cancel, or any other similar seeming (but ultimately deemed different) terminology.

It isn't in the glossary, so it isn't different. End of story as far as I am concerned.

You're probably right that GD didn't mean for this to work just like they didn't mean for Arachne to have a ranged attack other than Incap, but slap Stunning Blow on her, and there you go.

Well, since you seem to know what GD had in mind, why they'd give her Super Strength then? After all she can make ranged attacks via thrown objects with that, too...

:cheeky: Oh I am in rare form tonight ;)

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

And this goes for anyone that is arguing for 'exact wording'. If it was meant to be exact, if the meanings were supposed to be separate and distinct, then it would be in the glossary. Like possess vs use, action vs attack, counter vs ignore vs cancel, or any other similar seeming (but ultimately deemed different) terminology.

Very good point! That is a very strong argument against 'pick up' and 'give' being two distinct animals.

This is a great debate. I went from being on normalview's side to Jak's side on this... and even though the force is strong in normalview's argument about not being in the glossary, it's not enough to sway me from Jak's side.

After all, remember the Destroying Objects debate we had a bit ago? It could be argued that since destroying objects uses the same rules as destroying blocking terrain, that they would both leave rubble tokens. (We know this is not the case, as we can point to the rules for Immobile Objects), but then again, it never specifies one way or the other, without a shadow of doubt, that light or heavy tokens leave rubble markers.

Remember how I was proved wrong on the objects one? Because the rules were in two separate sections. This same thing goes for both Picking Up an Object and Holding an Object. They are separated in the rules under different headings. If it applies to objects this same reasoning applies to picking up, giving, and holding.

I'll have to stick by the wording on this one... Have Rip It Up, will travel.

[BigSoph]

Define 'give'

Garth (Aqualad LE) can bring in outside objects too, it allows the character to bring in an object from outside the game and pick up the object 'as if picking it up from an adjacent square'

Since give is not defined, and the rules regarding objects clarified since the publication of Rip It Up and normal use of super strength requires movement then I would rule that the use of the object follows the standard rules of Super Strength - it is a pick up

[BigSoph]

(We know this is not the case, as we can point to the rules for Immobile Objects), but then again, it never specifies one way or the other, without a shadow of doubt, that light or heavy tokens leave rubble markers.

Yes it does

The rules state to use the same rules for destroying objects as terrain. The next paragraph states "When a square of blocking terrain is destroyed, put a debris marker in the square; this marker represents the rubble left behind by the destruction of the blocking terrain."

It says 'when a square of blocking terrain is destroyed' and then it refers to blocking terrain again. And this paragraph is separate from the previous on destroying them. If it applied to both, there would be a reference to the rules on pages 11-12 rather than just 11

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

Yes it does

The rules state to use the same rules for destroying objects as terrain. The next paragraph states "When a square of blocking terrain is destroyed, put a debris marker in the square; this marker represents the rubble left behind by the destruction of the blocking terrain."

It says 'when a square of blocking terrain is destroyed' and then it refers to blocking terrain again. And this paragraph is separate from the previous on destroying them. If it applied to both, there would be a reference to the rules on pages 11-12 rather than just 11

I know, I know... I was grasping at straws.

Now on to your other point about Garth:

SALVAGE: If there is an uncarried standard light object anywhere on the map, once per turn when Garth occupies water terrain he can bring in a standard light object from outside the game and pick it up as if picking it up from an adjacent square.

BigSoph, this shows that there is precedence in regards to this issue. Sure, the object is on the map, but an object is being brought from outside of the game, just like Rip It Up does.

Sorry Jaks, I must once again join the Dark Side, Rebel scum :) ;)

I am fully, without reservation, satisfied that Supes can't use Rip It Up in conjunction with his special power.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

[jak7890]

The timing is irrelvent. Again, without a glossary entry clarifying some distinction between 'give' and 'pick up', they are essentially the same thing... both result in a character holding an object, no?

"Crashing into the car in front of me, gradually slowing down with the brakes... Either way, I stopped, Officer, so it's really all the same..." :cheeky: :grin:

And this goes for anyone that is arguing for 'exact wording'. If it was meant to be exact, if the meanings were supposed to be separate and distinct, then it would be in the glossary. Like possess vs use, action vs attack, counter vs ignore vs cancel, or any other similar seeming (but ultimately deemed different) terminology.

It isn't in the glossary, so it isn't different. End of story as far as I am concerned.

Right, because there's absolutely no way that whoever compiled the glossary list could have missed this one. I mean, the people who write and compile our rulebooks get everything right without the need for an 80ish page clarification/errata/guide after the fact... I'm sure VGA can tell you how absolutely perfect they get these rules the first time. :tired:
[/sarcasm]

It comes down to not wanting to make a distinction that's well supported but not explicitly stated. I get that you don't like it, and I might even agree that it ought to be changed, but it's there in the way that these mechanics are written.

Yes, they both allow a character to hold an object, but they do it by different means. Would you try and argue that OotS is the exact same thing as moving as a free action? No, because there are differences in the mechanic's language and timing which allow you to make a distinction. The RA backed this up.

Anyway, hopefully NECAKids will get something in place soon to help us with these kinds of debates or errata these sorts of mechanics. In the meantime, though it's unlikely to come up at my venue, I'm still going to rule that it works (and Supes' speed is halved, as VGA pointed out).

[normalview]

Yes, they both allow a character to hold an object, but they do it by different means. Would you try and argue that OotS is the exact same thing as moving as a free action? No, because there are differences in the mechanic's language and timing which allow you to make a distinction. The RA backed this up.

No, I wouldn't and neither would anyone who has taken a look at the glossary.

place (or put): To place (or put) a character or other game element in a position on the map; a character that previously occupied another position on the map is not considered to have moved if placed.

OUT OF THE SHADOWS: Once per turn, when Batman occupies hindering terrain and is given any action that is not a free action, before the action you may place Batman in any square of hindering terrain 6 or fewer squares away to which he has a clear line of fire.

Place and move, seemingly similar in the common vernacular (like the other examples I have previously given), are not the same thing according to the Heroclix rules. Prior to the inclusion of that in the glossary (umm... Icons, I think?), there was a lot of confusion over move vs place (especially with TK). So after fielding a lot of questions, WK added the definitions to the glossary.

Give/pick up has had no such distinction made. And since Rip It Up has been around since MM, they've had plenty of time to add that distinction to the official rules if it was deemed necessary. Apparently, it wasn't necessary or it just wasn't important enough to matter... whichever, the end result is the same: there isn't any effective difference between the two.

[scehaono]

first off - i can't believe that l'il ol' me has caused this kinda ruckus about a +1 to damage...
and second of all - thank you to all who have put in their $.02
as of this moment, i'm going to go with norm's view of intent vs letter of the law, though it's in neca's court now!

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

first off - i can't believe that l'il ol' me has caused this kinda ruckus about a +1 to damage...
and second of all - thank you to all who have put in their $.02
as of this moment, i'm going to go with norm's view of intent vs letter of the law, though it's in neca's court now!

Your actions of following norm's view would be fully justified, as I'm brimming with self-assurance that if or when NECA does a clarification on Supe's special power, it will adjudge on the side of norm's standpoint.

[jak7890]

Now on to your other point about Garth:



BigSoph, this shows that there is precedence in regards to this issue. Sure, the object is on the map, but an object is being brought from outside of the game, just like Rip It Up does.

Sorry Jaks, I must once again join the Dark Side, Rebel scum :) ;)

I am fully, without reservation, satisfied that Supes can't use Rip It Up in conjunction with his special power.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

For what it's worth, I think that this power backs up my argument that there is a difference.

"...he can bring in a standard light object from outside the game and pick it up as if picking it up from an adjacent square."

This is different from RIU's wording, clearly using the more conventional method of accomplishing a held object. Note that it mentions bringing the object into the game before picking it up (since to pick an object up it must be in the game). RIU says to take an object from outside of the game and give it directly to the character. My argument stands.

As for "Place" being in the glossary, yes it is in the FF glossary. Was it in the LOSH glossary? I can't find my copy to confirm, but I would contend that it was added to the FF glossary only after all of the OotS questions. Keep in mind, their wording created a distinction that wasn't delineated before (if I'm remembering correctly about it not being in LOSH). Who knows, maybe in the next rulebook they'll add "give" to the glossary :p

[normalview]

As for "Place" being in the glossary, yes it is in the FF glossary. Was it in the LOSH glossary?

It isn't, I just checked. However, I know that this was an old issue because there were other effects prior to Out of the Shadows that used 'place' instead of 'move' and were ruled to function differently (again, the old TK rules were the primary culprit)... that must have either been a forum ruling, though, or it was left out of LoSH accidently (and I don't have any of my older rule books to see if the later is true or not).

Who knows, maybe in the next rulebook they'll add "give" to the glossary :p

And if it is, then your argument will have merit and I would rule accordingly.

Until then, it isn't, so it ain't (or something along those lines...).

[markrochip]

Wouldn't the term that makes RIU okay to use be the part of that says "Before a target begins"? When picking up an object, it is during a move, power, or free action. Shouldn't that right there be the deciding factor on the compatibility?

I think this is being extremely over-analyzed. RIU should be able to work because it is BEFORE 'This Is a Job for Superman' is even declared. Technically, while using the SP, Supes is NOT picking up an object at all. I say it's legal. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Well, I'm not really a doctor, but I have drank Dr. Pepper a couple of times.

[normalview]

Wouldn't the term that makes RIU okay to use be the part of that says "Before a target begins"? When picking up an object, it is during a move, power, or free action. Shouldn't that right there be the deciding factor on the compatibility?

I think this is being extremely over-analyzed. RIU should be able to work because it is BEFORE 'This Is a Job for Superman' is even declared. Technically, while using the SP, Supes is NOT picking up an object at all. I say it's legal. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Well, I'm not really a doctor, but I have drank Dr. Pepper a couple of times.

That would still only allow Superman to only use regular old Charge. The full movement can't happen if he's got an object.

However, in order to give Supes an object with Rip It Up, you still need to give him an action (in this case the Charge power action); he doesn't necessarily move yet, true, but you can't just think about maybe having him move at some point in time. Rip It Up does not say that you give the character the object before the action is declared. It says that you give the object before moving as part of any action. The action must still be declared and usable (so to speak)... this is the reason that Rip It Up doesn't work if you fail to rollbreak away (you gave an action and tried to use said action, but breakaway stalled that action out before it could get in gear).

Since Superman would declare a power action to use Charge, now he can't pick up any objects. If he was holding one previously from some other action, he could use a normal Charge. But he isn't using Rip It Up.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

The revelation of the glossary's locution gives preeminence to Jak's rationalization.

From the Fantastic Four Rulebook Glossary, pg. 24:

place (or put): To place (or put) a character or other game element in a position on the map; a character that previously occupied another position on the map is not considered to have moved if placed.


Notice the semicolon in the sentence. A semicolon is typically used between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma. Which means that they can be viewed as two separate statements, but are also interrelated.

Are the objects granted by Rip It Up placed on the map (like Garth's objects are?) No. The objects are 'never' placed on the map, but 'given.'

Can Superman use This is a Job For Superman! in conjunction with Rip It Up? Yes! But he wouldn't be able to use a full-move charge. His movement value would be replaced by half.

I've switched sides more times than the French during the U.S. Revolutionary War, but there have been some very strong points put out by both sides.

However, this is my final answer. No lifeline need be called. I stand by Jaks, my Rebel Alliance brother!

[Maraud]

The revelation of the glossary's locution gives preeminence to Jak's rationalization.

From the Fantastic Four Rulebook Glossary, pg. 24:



Notice the semicolon in the sentence. A semicolon is typically used between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma. Which means that they can be viewed as two separate statements, but are also interrelated.

Are the objects granted by Rip It Up placed on the map (like Garth's objects are?) No. The objects are 'never' placed on the map, but 'given.'

Can Superman use This is a Job For Superman! in conjunction with Rip It Up? Yes! But he wouldn't be able to use a full-move charge. His movement value would be replaced by half.

I've switched sides more times than the French during the U.S. Revolutionary War, but there have been some very strong points put out by both sides.

However, this is my final answer. No lifeline need be called. I stand by Jaks, my Rebel Alliance brother!

but if you give Supes the action for full move charge then use RIU then the action has become illegal. Since he not able to do a full move charge with an object.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

but if you give Supes the action for full move charge then use RIU then the action has become illegal. Since he not able to do a full move charge with an object.

True. I mentioned that scenario in my last post. But you give him the object before he begins his move for charge.

Rip it Up!
Prerequisites: Super Strength

Before a target character begins a move as part of a move, power, or free action, give it a light object from outside of the game.

So you first declare Supes is using This is a Job for Superman. Then you declare you are using Rip It Up. Declare it in that order, it's legal. Then do your normal charge with the replacement value of half his movement.

[normalview]

What does placing an object have to do with anything?

The question still remains whether 'give' is different than 'pick up'... and I still see nothing that says that they are different.

[Dikarika]

What does placing an object have to do with anything?

The question still remains whether 'give' is different than 'pick up'... and I still see nothing that says that they are different.

ORLY?

I'm going to give normalview a present.

OR

I'm going to pick up normalview a present.


Sure, eventually the end result will be the same. But, one has an onus of immediacy (giving now!), while the other obviously requires a series of events.

This is similar to the heroclix turn. Giving is immediate, at the beginning of a turn. Picking up requires a series of motions set forth from an action.

Or, I just posted jabberwocky.

[BigSoph]

ORLY?

I'm going to give normalview a present.

OR

I'm going to pick up normalview a present.

Or, I just posted jabberwocky.

Using real world examples to try and prove a heroclix question? That way lies madness

By the way, "Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wade" is posting jabberwocky - I think the word you are looking for jibber-jabber

[Maraud]

ORLY?

I'm going to give normalview a present.

OR

I'm going to pick up normalview a present.


Sure, eventually the end result will be the same. But, one has an onus of immediacy (giving now!), while the other obviously requires a series of events.

This is similar to the heroclix turn. Giving is immediate, at the beginning of a turn. Picking up requires a series of motions set forth from an action.

Or, I just posted jabberwocky.

as you stated the end result is the same.
If you give it to someone they are going to have to pick it up other wise when u hand it to them it just falls to the ground.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

ORLY?

I'm going to give normalview a present.

OR

I'm going to pick up normalview a present.


Sure, eventually the end result will be the same. But, one has an onus of immediacy (giving now!), while the other obviously requires a series of events.

This is similar to the heroclix turn. Giving is immediate, at the beginning of a turn. Picking up requires a series of motions set forth from an action.

Or, I just posted jabberwocky.

Jabberwocky it is not, as your point was not nonsensical. Your discourse is unerring.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

as you stated the end result is the same.
If you give it to someone they are going to have to pick it up other wise when u hand it to them it just falls to the ground.

That statement is fallacious. The rules contained within the Fantastic Four Rulebook discern between 'picking up' an object and 'holding an object'. It is superlatively attainable to hold an object without picking it up, e.g. Rip It Up. Via Rip It Up, you do not 'pick up' an object. You are given an object from outside of the game board.

[normalview]

That statement is fallacious. The rules contained within the Fantastic Four Rulebook discern between 'picking up' an object and 'holding an object'. It is superlatively attainable to hold an object without picking it up, e.g. Rip It Up. Via Rip It Up, you do not 'pick up' an object. You are given an object from outside of the game board.

Again, the rules do not make any sort of distinction between pick up and give.

Picking up is giving an object. In the case of picking up an object from the map, you are simply giving the character an object that is already on the map. In case of Rip It Up you are giving (or picking up) an object that was not on the map. Either way it is the same thing.

Until there is an actual Heroclix defined definition of 'give' and 'pick up' (and assuming those definitions don't read 'see the other term'), there is no difference.

This was entertaining for a bit, now it has become people just being obstinate and seeming to say, "Uh uh, your wrong," just for the sake of being contrary (like a couple other threads that have cropped up lately, too... I hope this doesn't become a pattern). Think what you want, I have made my points clear, and I am out.

[Dikarika]

Attempt to derail long thread about the difference between give and pick up has failed.

Game on!

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

Again, the rules do not make any sort of distinction between pick up and give.

Picking up is giving an object. In the case of picking up an object from the map, you are simply giving the character an object that is already on the map. In case of Rip It Up you are giving (or picking up) an object that was not on the map. Either way it is the same thing.

Until there is an actual Heroclix defined definition of 'give' and 'pick up' (and assuming those definitions don't read 'see the other term'), there is no difference.

This was entertaining for a bit, now it has become people just being obstinate and seeming to say, "Uh uh, your wrong," just for the sake of being contrary (like a couple other threads that have cropped up lately, too... I hope this doesn't become a pattern). Think what you want, I have made my points clear, and I am out.

The disputation between 'picking up' and 'holding' is demonstrating the contrast between the two . I was pointing that it is conceivable to 'hold' an object without 'picking it up'. The rules in the Fantastic Four Rulebook show that to be in accordance with the facts, e.g. via Rip It Up, you can hold an object that you never picked up.

Now, on to the debate of 'give' versus 'pick up'; you are letter-perfect in regards to the fact that the rules don't discern distinctly between the two locutions. It is completely left to interpretation. Without a judgement from the ruling authorities, we are up the creek in terms of knowing the prescribed method of exegesis. (Or in layman's terms - We need a clarification.)