View Full Version : Manhunter (AA) + Ambidextrous + Stunning Blow
spider_ham
12/15/2009, 02:42
Would the Manhunter's Power Battery SP grant him 2 clicks of healing if he dealt damage to two separate targets via Ambidextrous?
In addition, would the damage dealt using Stunning Blow count as damage dealt from an attack?
From the Power Battery text:
"...when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage."
Thanks in advance!
Would the Manhunter's Power Battery SP grant him 2 clicks of healing if he dealt damage to two separate targets via Ambidextrous?
In addition, would the damage dealt using Stunning Blow count as damage dealt from an attack?
From the Power Battery text:
"...when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage."
Thanks in advance!
i would say yes he would heal from stunning blow as damage dealt as long as it was a ranged attack.
in regards to the two clicks of healing with ambidextrous it seems he would get healed for two since Steal Energy activates each time you damage an opposing figure.
Quebbster
12/15/2009, 04:04
I'd say no. The way I see it, it's a yes or no question: Was an opposing figure damaged?
If the answer is yes, then you heal a click.
If the answer is no, then you do not heal a click.
If you deal damage to two opposing figures... the answer to the question is 'yes'.
Note that this is different from the Flurry/Steal Energy combo as Flurry lets you make two separate attacks which deal damage separately.
normalview
12/15/2009, 06:46
I'd say no. The way I see it, it's a yes or no question: Was an opposing figure damaged?
If the answer is yes, then you heal a click.
If the answer is no, then you do not heal a click.
If you deal damage to two opposing figures... the answer to the question is 'yes'.
Note that this is different from the Flurry/Steal Energy combo as Flurry lets you make two separate attacks which deal damage separately.
Right, he may be targeting two characters, but it is still one attack (one attack roll compared to both DVs, split the damage, etc).
Since it is a single attack, he is healed one click.
I'd say no. The way I see it, it's a yes or no question: Was an opposing figure damaged?
If the answer is yes, then you heal a click.
If the answer is no, then you do not heal a click.
If you deal damage to two opposing figures... the answer to the question is 'yes'.
This looks to me like an instance of reading too much into the generic nature of the text. We've already established that when the text says "a" or "an" as opposed to "a single ___" that these incidents can be generalized. Just look at the thread regarding Ambidextrous and Punisher's Chaingun.
I believe the most logical interpretation of "when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage" does not limit the number of times the criterion may be satisfied in any temporal sense, nor does it refer to an "attack roll".
Using your phrase, if you deal damage to two opposing figures... the answer to the question is 'yes, twice'.
Quebbster
12/15/2009, 09:03
This looks to me like an instance of reading too much into the generic nature of the text. We've already established that when the text says "a" or "an" as opposed to "a single ___" that these incidents can be generalized. Just look at the thread regarding Ambidextrous and Punisher's Chaingun.
Is there an official ruling on that interpretation?
As a side note, maybe Ambidextrous should just be renamed 'Can of Worms'...
normalview
12/15/2009, 09:03
This looks to me like an instance of reading too much into the generic nature of the text. We've already established that when the text says "a" or "an" as opposed to "a single ___" that these incidents can be generalized. Just look at the thread regarding Ambidextrous and Punisher's Chaingun.
It is still one attack, though. Doesn't matter if he hits one character or 20 (yeah, I know that's an exaggeration)... it all comes from one, single attack.
And per the wording of the SP it is the attack, not the number of charactes damaged, that is the imporant part.
normalview
12/15/2009, 09:04
Is there an official ruling on that interpretation?
Nothing super official, no... but Norm didn't disagree with what we layed out for it, either.
Take that for what you will :shrug:
As a side note, maybe Ambidextrous should just be renamed 'Can of Worms'...
I am all for "Headache", myself ;)
Quebbster
12/15/2009, 09:10
Nothing super official, no... but Norm didn't disagree with what we layed out for it, either.
Take that for what you will :shrug:
Just wondering, really.
I am all for "Headache", myself ;)
That works too.
Vevilaughs
12/15/2009, 09:27
I think the benchmark for "number of attacks" should be the number of times you rolled the dice.
If a Pulsewave effects 1 piece or five pieces, and whether those pieces are played by 1 opponent or more than one, there was only one roll of the dice made for the one attack.
Even before Ambidextrious, for pieces that have more than one bolt, they only make one attack roll.
If you want an example of a piece that can make two seperate range attacks, look at the special power of Two Gun Kid:
FANFIRE: Give Two Gun Kid a ranged combat action he makes two separate ranged combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls against two different target opposing characters) Resolve the first attack before making the second.
Is there an official ruling on that interpretation?
No, but read what nbperp wrote yesterday concerning the use of Contingency Plan in Marvel Boy's SP (which grants two attacks within one action):
We have a feat modifying the attack value. Now one can argue that the above quote refers to "the attack roll" in the singular, and therefore doesn't apply to the Incap (second) roll. I would disagree. The rulebook is written generically, and therefore wouldn't need to address a feat card applying to more than one attack within an action.
... now, that was referring to a different circumstance (CP being active for "the attack roll" when in fact two such rolls are made), however I see a strong analogy for a situation where "an opposing character" in the Manhunter text could be a generic way to indicate "an attack ... that damages ANY opposing character", whereupon there's nothing limiting the effect to being satisfied only once by an attack roll.
So, to be clear: ""...when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage" can, for a single attack against many targets, be a condition that gets satisfied more than once.
normalview
12/15/2009, 10:17
So, to be clear: ""...when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage" can, for a single attack against many targets, be a condition that gets satisfied more than once.
Given the way the SP is worded, it really does seem to be a yes or no matter, like Quebbster already mentioned.
Did Manhunter make a ranged combat attack? Yes/No
Did the ranged combat attack damage a character? Yes/No
As long as both questions are answered yes, he heals a click. There is nothing there, though, that would indicate that 'damage a character' condition would be checked more than once. It is either yes (for one character or 100) or no (for zero).
Given the way the SP is worded, it really does seem to be a yes or no matter, like Quebbster already mentioned.
Did Manhunter make a ranged combat attack? Yes/No
Did the ranged combat attack damage a character? Yes/No
As long as both questions are answered yes, he heals a click. There is nothing there, though, that would indicate that 'damage a character' condition would be checked more than once. It is either yes (for one character or 100) or no (for zero).
There is nothing there that says you can ONLY check the condition once, either. Stepping outside Heroclix think for a moment: if I read to you a text that says "when you bake a pie in the oven, receive $10", and I go ahead and bake two pies in the oven, would you argue that logically I deserve $10, or $20?
Norm may rule it one way or another, but a logical interpretation is straightforward - when condition A is met, receive B. Therefore, for each incident it can be shown that I am meeting condition A (whether simultaneous or sequential), I receive B.
The only exception is I can't point to the same incidence of A unlimited times, just as I can't keep pointing to one pie and expecting to be paid for it ad infinitum.
normalview
12/15/2009, 11:10
There is nothing there that says you can ONLY check the condition once, either. If I read to you a text that says "when you bake a pie in the oven, receive $10", and I go ahead and bake two pies in the oven, would you argue that logically I deserve $10, or $20?
Depends.
Did you bake them at the same time (one attack) on two separate racks (:bolt::bolt:)?
Or did you bake one (one attack) and then the other (a second attack)?
If the first, $10 (heal one click).
If the second, $20 (heal one click and then heal a second).
Depends.
Did you bake them at the same time (one attack) on two separate racks (:bolt::bolt:)?
Or did you bake one (one attack) and then the other (a second attack)?
If the first, $10 (heal one click).
If the second, $20 (heal one click and then heal a second).
Heh, well of course we are speaking about two pies baked simultaneously in the oven (one attack), however from an intuitive perspective, is it not evident that the "reward" is on a per-pie basis, not a per-use-of-oven basis? I know my analogy is odd, but I'm compelled to argue that the power as worded rewards "damaging an opposing character" no matter how it occurs.
normalview
12/15/2009, 11:23
Heh, well of course we are speaking about two pies baked simultaneously in the oven (one attack), however from an intuitive perspective, is it not evident that the "reward" is on a per-pie basis, not a per-use-of-oven basis? I know my analogy is odd, but I'm compelled to argue that the power as worded rewards "damaging an opposing character" no matter how it occurs.
No it is not evident. Based on both the specifc wording of your analogy and the SP description hinge upon the success of the act (using the ove to bake, attacking with a ranged attack), not the actual quantity/result of the attack (# of pies, # of characters damaged).
So, if you use the oven once, or successfully damage a character(s) with a single ranged attack, you heal one click of damage.
Now, if you had said, "when you bake a pie in the oven, receive $10 for each pie," then it is obvious... but then your analogy would no longer be similar to the SP wording.
I can see both sides of the 'argument', but ummm you can't have your pie and eat it too :speechles
I guess it all depends on whether you think "for each" is implicit because of the generic nature of the power description, or not. You either think that the arrangement is $10 per pie, as long as it came from an oven (which I think is logical), or not.
Hero_guy
12/15/2009, 11:33
...however from an intuitive perspective, is it not evident that the "reward" is on a per-pie basis, not a per-use-of-oven basis? ...
Manhunter can use Steal Energy, but is also healed when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage.
That's the crux of the arguement here no? What condition must be met in order for the healing to occur. Is it that manhunter must make a ranged attack that damages, or that manhunter damage an opposing figure while making an attack. It all depends on where you put the emphasis.
Is the question we should be asking "Did he make a ranged attack?" or "Did an opposing figure get damaged by his ranged attack?"
Personally I agree that the qualifier seems to be that an opposing figure is damaged by the range attack, and that it can be satisfied more than once on any single attack.
To me, the reasoning would be:
Was opposing figure 'x' damaged by the range attack? Yes. Heal one click.
Was opposing figure 'y' damaged by the range attack? Yes. Heal one click.
A-HA, so this is in fact a use of Steal Energy!
That should settle this.
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."
Each time. Case closed.
normalview
12/15/2009, 11:59
A-HA, so this is in fact a use of Steal Energy!
Umm... yeah. I thought that was a given, sorry.
That should settle this.
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."
Each time. Case closed.
Revisiting that wording, yeah, that is a pretty compelling argument and I am now leaning towards your interpretation.
I don't think it is as neat and tidy as you make it out to be, though, since A) this is still a case of ranged combat (and close combat can't normally target more than one character with a single attack like ranged combat can) and B) the ranged combat wording of the SP does not specify 'each'.
So, while I am now more or less in agreement with you, this could still use a definitive answer from the RA.
Has there ever been a ruling (or a need for a ruling) on the use of Quake and Steal Energy together?
normalview
12/15/2009, 12:10
Has there ever been a ruling (or a need for a ruling) on the use of Quake and Steal Energy together?
Nope. Not that I am aware of.
I think something similar popped up with Vampirism on Deathstroke (since he can distribute damage from an attack among adjacent targets). I don't know if it was Norm at the time, but the feeling seemed to be that he gained clicks of healing for each target that took damage.
Hero_guy
12/15/2009, 12:25
A-HA, so this is in fact a use of Steal Energy!
That should settle this.
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."
Each time. Case closed.
Amazing what a posting of the entire wording of a power can do, no?
Vevilaughs
12/15/2009, 13:07
I don't think "the case is closed."
Steal energy when used with a close combat attack is only ever directed against one target. If a piece has Flurry and Steal Energy, they can make the second attack (granted by Flurry) if Flurry is still on the dial. That and a couple of SPs are the only instances in the game (so far) where a piece is given the opportunity to make more than 1 attack in 1 turn.
If you want to treat one attack roll as two seperate attacks (even if you only make one roll) then would you lose the second click of healing if you lost the special power when you healed the first click? (as is often the case with Flurry and Steal Energy)
You then mention the definition of Steal Energy...
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."
However, Steal Energy is now in question as the definition cannot be applied in this situation as this is a ranged combat attack.
Also, if we are being so particular to the wording of definitions then you have to re-examine Manhunter's SP
POWER BATTERY: Manhunter can use Steal Energy, but is also healed when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage.
Applying the same strict interpretation used for Steal Energy, the plural does not exist in the Power Battery description, so even if you give Manhunter the ability to attack 2 targets, Manhunter is only healed when he damages an opposing character (singular).
Regardless of which way the ruling goes, this debate has been enjoyable and I congratulate the participants on keeping things civil.
Also, there seems to be a lot of investment to pull off this play.
Manhunter is already a 64 point piece.
Ambidextrious costs 12.
Now, you need to throw on AP because the Manhunter needs to cause damage so that is another 10 pts.
I guess you could use Stunning Blow, but that will only work for 1 click and then we have raised another debate... if a character deals pushing damage, does pushing damage (if no damage is dealt from the actual attack) trigger Steal Energy?
Amora's_best_friend
12/15/2009, 13:22
I don't understand why they keep inventing feats that just add more complications, and will ultimately be used in some cheesy way to win tourneys.
Feats are the worst aspect of the game IMO.
I don't think "the case is closed."
Steal energy when used with a close combat attack is only ever directed against one target.
This is true only in the sense that no opportunity has arisen where a figure has both Quake and Steal Energy at the same time. However, see my point about Deathstroke with Vampirism above, and note that there is nothing about the power Steal Energy that indicates a limit to targets - and in fact, "each time" seems to indicate that in fact multiple uses are permitted.
If a piece has Flurry and Steal Energy, they can make the second attack (granted by Flurry) if Flurry is still on the dial. That and a couple of SPs are the only instances in the game (so far) where a piece is given the opportunity to make more than 1 attack in 1 turn.
If you want to treat one attack roll as two seperate attacks (even if you only make one roll) then would you lose the second click of healing if you lost the special power when you healed the first click? (as is often the case with Flurry and Steal Energy)
I have never said anything about two separate attacks. There is only one attack being made, with two targets. If separate attacks were made, it would be like Flurry.
You then mention the definition of Steal Energy...
Steal Energy: "Each time an opposing character takes damage from a close combat
attack made by this character, heal this character of 1 damage."
However, Steal Energy is now in question as the definition cannot be applied in this situation as this is a ranged combat attack.
The definition of Steal Energy still applies because the Power Battery SP is still using Steal Energy, with exactly one modification.
POWER BATTERY: Manhunter can use Steal Energy, but is also healed when its ranged combat attack causes an opposing character to take damage.
Applying the same strict interpretation used for Steal Energy, the plural does not exist in the Power Battery description, so even if you give Manhunter the ability to attack 2 targets, Manhunter is only healed when he damages an opposing character (singular).
A plural does not exist, but the phrase "each time" does exist as part of the definition of Steal Energy, which is in use with the sole modification that it now applies to ranged attacks "also".
I guess you could use Stunning Blow, but that will only work for 1 click and then we have raised another debate... if a character deals pushing damage, does pushing damage (if no damage is dealt from the actual attack) trigger Steal Energy?
My feeling is that no, pushing damage is not from the attack itself, but a corollary from receiving a second token. Pushing damage has no 'source' in this context (although it can, as in a Nova Blast, have one).
normalview
12/15/2009, 14:23
I guess you could use Stunning Blow, but that will only work for 1 click and then we have raised another debate... if a character deals pushing damage, does pushing damage (if no damage is dealt from the actual attack) trigger Steal Energy?
No. All Incap does (and Stunning Blow is just a modified Incap) is place a token on a character.
The token then may or may not cause pushing damage (depending on the number of other tokens, powers, abilities, etc), but if it does cause pushing damage, that is not the result of an attack.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.