Lunge and Passenger

[zero_cochrane]

I think I may have spotted a way in which a character with Passenger can carry a character whilst making a Lunge attack:

Lunge
Prerequisites: Close Combat Expert or Leap/Climb

Choose a Character
When the character is given an action, but before it makes a close combat attack, it can break away automatically and move up to 2 squares.
and also
Passenger
Prerequisites: Leap/Climb or Phasing/Teleport

Choose a character.

When this character uses Leap/Climb or Phasing/Teleport, it may carry a single character. After this character resolves an action using Passenger, it takes 1 pushing damage that ignores Willpower and team abilities.
not to mention
LEAP/CLIMB When you give this character a move action, it automatically breaks away and ignores the effects of characters, hindering terrain, elevated terrain, and outdoor blocking terrain on movement (but it can’t end its movement on blocking terrain). When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation.
If the Lunging character possessed Leap/Climb and was making a close combat attack against a target on a different elevation, it would be using Leap/Climb. Therefore, it should be able to carry an adjacent friendly character during that Lunge with the Passenger feat.

Fun thought: Chase Batman uses From Among the Gargoyles to be in Stealth whilst on elevated terrain, attacks grounded characters with Leap/Climb, Flurries and Lunges before each opponent, and carries a friendly character while doing so.

Thoughts?

[normalview]

Leap/Climb, in this instance, would seem to me that it is only actually used during the attack itself. As such, I'd lean towards saying that Leap/Climb would not be used during the Lunge (since that occurs immediately before the attack).

I could be wrong here, but that's my take on this scenario.

[zero_cochrane]

What about the use of Lunge between two attacks of a character with Leap/Climb and Flurry (with the second attack, at least, made against a character on a different elevation)? That's movement during an attack in which you're using Leap/Climb.

[normalview]

What about the use of Lunge between two attacks of a character with Leap/Climb and Flurry (with the second attack, at least, made against a character on a different elevation)? That's movement during an attack in which you're using Leap/Climb.

No, that is still movement during an action, not an attack. You activate Flurry with a close combat action, then lunge before the first attack, then attack (potentially using L/C to hit a character at a different elevation, too), Lunge before the second attack, then attack again (and again, potentially using L/C).

There is still no actual movement during the attacks themselves.

Like I said, I don't know if this the way GD would actually rule on this, but that is my initial reaction.

[Harpua]

I just want to point out that while Flurry is a close combat action, it cannot be used with Leap/Climb to attack a figure on a different elevation.


Flurry requires adjacency. Leap/Climb creates no adjacency.

[normalview]

I just want to point out that while Flurry is a close combat action, it cannot be used with Leap/Climb to attack a figure on a different elevation.


Flurry requires adjacency. Leap/Climb creates no adjacency.

Let's pretend we were talking about this situation last week ;)

You know, for the sake of argument. :laugh:

[Crow]

Leap/Climb, in this instance, would seem to me that it is only actually used during the attack itself. As such, I'd lean towards saying that Leap/Climb would not be used during the Lunge (since that occurs immediately before the attack).

I could be wrong here, but that's my take on this scenario.

If I may offer a counter-argument: Lunge requires that the close combat attack be a legal one, and although it inserts a movement before said attack, the requirement for legality is only met if Leap/Climb is, in fact, being "used". You cannot, for instance, Lunge by giving an illegal attack (with exceptions for Shape Change and other intervening agents that can render illegal a declared target). I would fall down on the side of this as a "use of Leap/Climb" for the duration of the action, not merely for the attack, and thus applying the Passenger effect would be legit.

My $0.02.

[adamkomar]

It seems clear that when you give the character a close combat action, both Lunge and Leap/Climb should be triggered. Giving the character a close combat action meets the needs to use the feat and power. I'm not seeing why the character can't move the two squares before making the attack with Leap/Climb.

[normalview]

I'm not seeing why the character can't move the two squares before making the attack with Leap/Climb.

I never said it couldn't move; that's a given, it is part of the Lunge description.

What I did say, though, hinge on exactly when and how L/C is being used, though, and (by extension) how that would impact the activation of Passenger.


Since Passenger requires that Leap/Climb is used in order to activate the feat, in the situation described by the OP it would seem to me that L/C isn't actually used until the character attacks another character at a different elevation (in otherwords, after the movement caused by Lunge).

[bigmac267]

It seems clear that when you give the character a close combat action, both Lunge and Leap/Climb should be triggered. Giving the character a close combat action meets the needs to use the feat and power. I'm not seeing why the character can't move the two squares before making the attack with Leap/Climb.

The character can Lunge the two squares before making a Leap/Climb attack. The question here is if movement by Lunge in order to make a Leap/Climb attack would also allow passenger to trigger.

[Captain Krueger]

I maybe wrong but if this combo is supposed to work, allowing someone to be carried during it will come with a modifier that will reduce the move to zero : just like hindering terrain effect on movement applies to this move, so should the Carry ability modifier, or am I missing something here ?

[bigmac267]

I maybe wrong but if this combo is supposed to work, allowing someone to be carried during it will come with a modifier that will reduce the move to zero : just like hindering terrain effect on movement applies to this move, so should the Carry ability modifier, or am I missing something here ?

Actually, the carry modifier only affects the character's speed value. Lunge does no actually involve the character's speed value- it just gives them two extra squares of movement. So, carry would not affect the Lunge movement.

Edit: I think I was slightly off in my explanation of this. See Quebbster's post directly below mine.

[Quebbster]

I maybe wrong but if this combo is supposed to work, allowing someone to be carried during it will come with a modifier that will reduce the move to zero : just like hindering terrain effect on movement applies to this move, so should the Carry ability modifier, or am I missing something here ?
Not really.
The 2 square modifier is just a limitation, not a replacement value. The -2 gets applied to the base speed value, so unless the figure has a speed value of 3 or less it shouldn't be an issue.

[adamkomar]

Sorry, I think I ended my post prematurely.

What I was meaning to say is that the Leap/Climb action has to be taking place in order to use Lunge... Lunge is taking place within the action, but before the attack. When the Leap/Climb action is given, both Lunge and Passenger are triggered. The character makes the two square movement, carries a buddy and makes the attack. Maybe laying this out in order would help us better.

1) Declare close combat action.
2) Declare use of Leap/Climb and Lunge with close combat action.
3) Declare use of Passenger with Leap/Climb.
4) Move 2 squares, carrying a friendly.
5) Make close combat attack.
6) Resolve attack.
7) Resolve action.
8) Leap/Climb character takes 1 pushing damage from Passenger.

Is that right?

[normalview]

Sorry, I think I ended my post prematurely.

What I was meaning to say is that the Leap/Climb action has to be taking place in order to use Lunge... Lunge is taking place within the action, but before the attack. When the Leap/Climb action is given, both Lunge and Passenger are triggered. The character makes the two square movement, carries a buddy and makes the attack. Maybe laying this out in order would help us better.

1) Declare close combat action.
2) Declare use of Leap/Climb and Lunge with close combat action.
3) Declare use of Passenger with Leap/Climb.
4) Move 2 squares, carrying a friendly.
5) Make close combat attack.
6) Resolve attack.
7) Resolve action.
8) Leap/Climb character takes 1 pushing damage from Passenger.

Is that right?

That's one possible way to look at it, yes.

I am of the mind, though, that L/C isn't actually used until the attack is made. While a close combat action normally leads directly into a close combat attack, making the distinction between the two more or less meaningless, in this case we've got Lunge getting in the way of things and making the distinction important.

So the question really becomes when, exactly, is Leap/Climb used (because that is what Passenger requires)? If is considered used when the action itself is declared, Lunge could be combo'd with Passenger. If it is not used until the attack, the movement of Lunge has already passed by so Passenger has missed its opportunity to be activated.

You all know my thoughts for the moment; I could be wrong, but until I hear otherwise, this is the way I will rule this issue if it comes up at my venue.

[adamkomar]

I may be missing this or just not understanding you clearly. What leads you to believe that Leap/Climb isn't in use until the attack is made?

[normalview]

I may be missing this or just not understanding you clearly. What leads you to believe that Leap/Climb isn't in use until the attack is made?

Because all it is doing is allowing you to attack a character at a different elevation. It isn't like you are actually giving the character an action to specifically activate Leap/Climb like you do with Running Shot, Pulse Wave, or most other powers; it is just something that happens as a result of a close combat action. Furthermore, you don't actually need to be adjacent to a an opposing character to give your character a close combat action (you do need to be adjacent to make a close combat attack, but nothing says you must be adjacent for a plain ol' close combat action that would lead to said attack).

But, as I said before:

Leap/Climb, in this instance, would seem to me that it is only actually used during the attack itself. As such, I'd lean towards saying that Leap/Climb would not be used during the Lunge (since that occurs immediately before the attack).

I could be wrong here, but that's my take on this scenario.

In otherwords, this is not official-from-GD-type answer. Just the way I see it given then information at hand.

[Harpua]

Sorry, I think I ended my post prematurely.

I used to have that problem.

Now I just think about baseball.





As for the question at hand, I agree with normalview.

My reasoning is that Lunge is setting up an exceptional case from the beginning.

. . . . . .
. A . . B .
. . . . . .
Can A declare a close combat action/attack against B? No. It is illegal to do so (just like being unable to declare a ranged attack against a guy you cannot see).

Lunge allows a bit of a loophole in the declaration, though. Basically the ruling is that IF the attack WILL BE legal then the action can be declared, but it doesn't really become legal until after you move. Since that is when it becomes legal, it can't have happened until then.

That's the way I see it.

[adamkomar]

But the movement can't happen until after the action has been given by the wording of the feats and power.

[ThwartHog]

Lunge
Prerequisites: Close Combat Expert or Leap/Climb

Choose a Character
When the character is given an action, but before it makes a close combat attack, it can break away automatically and move up to 2 squares.
and also
Passenger
Prerequisites: Leap/Climb or Phasing/Teleport

Choose a character.

When this character uses Leap/Climb or Phasing/Teleport, it may carry a single character. After this character resolves an action using Passenger, it takes 1 pushing damage that ignores Willpower and team abilities.
not to mention
LEAP/CLIMB When you give this character a move action, it automatically breaks away and ignores the effects of characters, hindering terrain, elevated terrain, and outdoor blocking terrain on movement (but it can’t end its movement on blocking terrain). When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation.


L/C activates when you declare a CCA (not when the attack happens). Lunge also activates when you declare the action (before the attack). Passenger activates when you use L/C. It seems to me that these all activate at the same time, when the CCA is declared.

[adamkomar]

L/C activates when you declare a CCA (not when the attack happens). Lunge also activates when you declare the action (before the attack). Passenger activates when you use L/C. It seems to me that these all activate at the same time, when the CCA is declared.

That's what it looks like to me, too, but we're missing something, I guess.

[as_bat]

I just want to point out that while Flurry is a close combat action, it cannot be used with Leap/Climb to attack a figure on a different elevation.


Flurry requires adjacency. Leap/Climb creates no adjacency.

Sorry Harp, but I´m a little lost with your answer.
I thought that L/C cannot be used to attack with flurry because it needs a close combat action too instead of a close combat attack allowed by flurry...

Why does flurry require adjacency? (I know the power description says "up to two adjacent oposing characters")
I´m just asking cause a close combat attack does not need adjacency to be made.
I´m just thinking of Giants for example.
Is this cause the power description is from a time when a close combat attack could not be made out of adjacency? (L/C is a close combat action, I´m talking of a simple attack without the use of powers that could change this fact)
Or is it a limitation for the use of that power to regulate how powerfull it would become?

[normalview]

Sorry Harp, but I´m a little lost with your answer.
I thought that L/C cannot be used to attack with flurry because it needs a close combat action too instead of a close combat attack allowed by flurry...

That isn't the problem. Flurry is a close combat action; if that was the end of it, Flurry and the "different elevation" part of L/C would work together just fine.

Where the problem lies is:

FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets. Resolve the first attack before making the second. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

While L/C does allow a character to make a close combat attack against a target at a different elevation, it does not actually grant adjacency. Since Flurry specifies an adjacent target(s), that lack of adjacency is crucial.

I´m just asking cause a close combat attack does not need adjacency to be made.

Yes, normally it does. FF rules, page 9:

Close Combat
Close combat represents hand-to-hand and melee weapon attacks. Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack.

I´m just thinking of Giants for example.

Giant-Size ability grans a specific exception to that general rule on page 9:

Close combat attacks. This character can make close combat attacks against elevated characters, even when this character is grounded. This character can also make close combat attacks against target opposing characters up to two squares away, even if a character (friendly or opposing) or an object occupies a square between this character and the target; the attack can’t be made if blocking terrain, elevated terrain, or a wall would block an otherwise clear line of fire between this character and the target.

However, nothing in that exception actually grants adjacency (it merely makes close combat attacks not require adjacency), so powers that do require adjacency (like Quake or Flurry) still can't be used two squares away or on characters on a different elevation.

[as_bat]

Thank you normalview :D

[ThwartHog]

That isn't the problem. Flurry is a close combat action; if that was the end of it, Flurry and the "different elevation" part of L/C would work together just fine.

Where the problem lies is:

FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets. Resolve the first attack before making the second. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

While L/C does allow a character to make a close combat attack against a target at a different elevation, it does not actually grant adjacency. Since Flurry specifies an adjacent target(s), that lack of adjacency is crucial.



Yes, normally it does. FF rules, page 9:

Close Combat
Close combat represents hand-to-hand and melee weapon attacks. Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack.



Giant-Size ability grans a specific exception to that general rule on page 9:

Close combat attacks. This character can make close combat attacks against elevated characters, even when this character is grounded. This character can also make close combat attacks against target opposing characters up to two squares away, even if a character (friendly or opposing) or an object occupies a square between this character and the target; the attack can’t be made if blocking terrain, elevated terrain, or a wall would block an otherwise clear line of fire between this character and the target.

However, nothing in that exception actually grants adjacency (it merely makes close combat attacks not require adjacency), so powers that do require adjacency (like Quake or Flurry) still can't be used two squares away or on characters on a different elevation.


An argument could be made that L/C removes the adjacency requirement for any CCA. As you quoted earlier:

Close Combat
Close combat represents hand-to-hand and melee weapon attacks. Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack.

In essence, every CCA requires adjacency, not just powers such as Flurry or quake. Then add:

LEAP/CLIMB When you give this character a move action, it automatically breaks away and ignores the effects of characters, hindering terrain, elevated terrain, and outdoor blocking terrain on movement (but it can’t end its movement on blocking terrain). When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation.


L/C then allows a fig to make CC attacks against another fig on a different elevation even though they are not adjacent. The purpose of that part of L/C is to get around the adjacency obstacle present when two figs are only separated by an elevated terrain line. It then seems practical to me that you could apply that same logic to any CCA such as Flurry or Quake. Does that make any sense?

[normalview]

Does that make any sense?


Up to a point, sure. However, you still can't get around the fact that Quake and Flurry require adjacency. L/C does not grant that adjacency; it merely allows you to target a character when a close combat action is given.

[ThwartHog]

Up to a point, sure. However, you still can't get around the fact that Quake and Flurry require adjacency. L/C does not grant that adjacency; it merely allows you to target a character when a close combat action is given.

My point is that Every Close Combat Action requires adjacency, not just Flurry and Quake. If L/C allows a fig to target another fig regardless of the targets elevation during a normal CCA, why would you treat that instance any differently than Flurry. They both require adjacency. Yet you seem to keep pointing out that Flurry requires adjacency as if it is different than a regular old no-frills Close Combat Action (which also requires adjacency).

[sinistersex]

"I'd fight Gandhi."

Good answer.

[Harpua]

My point is that Every Close Combat Action requires adjacency, not just Flurry and Quake. If L/C allows a fig to target another fig regardless of the targets elevation during a normal CCA, why would you treat that instance any differently than Flurry. They both require adjacency. Yet you seem to keep pointing out that Flurry requires adjacency as if it is different than a regular old no-frills Close Combat Action (which also requires adjacency).

L/C overrides the rulebook's general requirement of being adjacent, but it does not override the requirement within those powers.

You start with this...
Page 9: "Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack."

Add Leap/Climb...
"When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation."

Now you have overridden what the rulebook says is an allowable target.

Now toss in Flurry...
"It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets."

While L/C no longer requires adjacency, Flurry still does.

[adamkomar]

Why does Flurry get tossed in after Leap/Climb? You have to activate Flurry before you can activate Leap/Climb with it so why do the effects of Flurry override the effects of Leap/Climb? To me, it's like, "Flurry says this, but then Leap/Climb says that", instead of the other way around.

[ThwartHog]

L/C overrides the rulebook's general requirement of being adjacent, but it does not override the requirement within those powers.

You start with this...
Page 9: "Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack."

Add Leap/Climb...
"When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation."

Now you have overridden what the rulebook says is an allowable target.

Now toss in Flurry...
"It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets."

While L/C no longer requires adjacency, Flurry still does.

Flurry just allows you to make 2 attacks within your CCA against 1 or 2 adjacent targets, rather than 1 attack against 1 adjacent target. The L/C is activated at the same time in both occasions. And IMO overrides the adjacency requirement in both.

[Harpua]

Flurry just allows you to make 2 attacks within your CCA against 1 or 2 adjacent targets, rather than 1 attack against 1 adjacent target. The L/C is activated at the same time in both occasions. And IMO overrides the adjacency requirement in both.

It may be your opinion, but unfortunately it is one which has been ruled to be incorrect.

[gmastermcd]

I agree that by the wording L/C does not work with Flurry and it has apparently been ruled that way also.

Page 3 of the rule book should help explain it better.

"When one of your characters is in a square adjacent to an opposing character, you can give your character an action to make a close combat attack."

Add Leap/Climb...
"When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation."

However if you throw in flurry it has changed what original action is allowed. Instead of making A close combat attack you are making two close combat attacks as free actions against one or two adjacent targets.

Leap and climb allows you to use close combat actions regardless of elevation it however does not allow you to use free actions regardless of elevation. Since the free actions require adjacency then it is not legal.

in the case of Exploit Weakness Give this character a close combat action. Damage from the attack is penetrating damage. Since it is a close combat action only then L/C allows it to be done to elevated characters.

L/C also should not work with CCE since it is a power action that grants a close combat attack and the close combat attack requires adjacency which L/C does not provide.

[ThwartHog]

I agree that by the wording L/C does not work with Flurry and it has apparently been ruled that way also.

Page 3 of the rule book should help explain it better.

"When one of your characters is in a square adjacent to an opposing character, you can give your character an action to make a close combat attack."



However if you throw in flurry it has changed what original action is allowed. Instead of making A close combat attack you are making two close combat attacks as free actions against one or two adjacent targets.

Leap and climb allows you to use close combat actions regardless of elevation it however does not allow you to use free actions regardless of elevation. Since the free actions require adjacency then it is not legal.

in the case of Exploit Weakness Give this character a close combat action. Damage from the attack is penetrating damage. Since it is a close combat action only then L/C allows it to be done to elevated characters.

L/C also should not work with CCE since it is a power action that grants a close combat attack and the close combat attack requires adjacency which L/C does not provide.

A free action does not require adjacency. A CC action or attack does.
Any CCA normally allows a CC attack. I would agree with you, if the CCA part of Flurry resolved before the free actions took place. But it seems to be that Flurry is a case where the wording allows you to make 2 free actions within CC action.

Resolving an action includes completing any free actions the
action allows. pg 7 FFrulebook

Since the free actions happen before the original CCA resolves, while L/C is still in effect, I still stand by my previous stance.

Is this ruling in the PG? (That L/C does not work with Flurry and Quake)

[as_bat]

ThwartHog, I still believe that this is a waste of space to explain you that you can´t use the attack using L/C with flurry.
This is just an hypotethical situation.

Flurry grants 2 free close combat attacks.
To attack an opponent in different elevation using L/C you need to give the fig a close combat action.
So this combo is not compatible.

Now, if you still want to keep debating about the adjacency or not its up to you guys :D

Peace! (not pis, cause that´s common word for urine in spanish :grin:)

[zero_cochrane]

Flurry grants 2 free close combat attacks.
To attack an opponent in different elevation using L/C you need to give the fig a close combat action.
So this combo is not compatible.Flurry is a close combat action in itself.

[as_bat]

Flurry is a close combat action in itself.
I stand corrected.

"When you give this character a close combat action..."

duuuuuuuu

[Crow]

L/C overrides the rulebook's general requirement of being adjacent, but it does not override the requirement within those powers.

You start with this...
Page 9: "Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack."

Add Leap/Climb...
"When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation."

Now you have overridden what the rulebook says is an allowable target.

Now toss in Flurry...
"It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets."

While L/C no longer requires adjacency, Flurry still does.

Harpua, I think you've omitted the MOST relevant part of Flurry's text, where it says it is a close combat action. Leap/Climb clearly redefines how targets are chosen in the context of exactly one kind of action - a close combat action. Since the only general criteria laid out for legal targets is "adjacency", as per the rulebook, this is CLEARLY a case where the general overrides the specific, because all Leap/Climb can do is remove that requirement of "adjacency" from a close combat attack in a close combat action (otherwise, it does nothing, as you would agree). Flurry is a close combat action, and therefore the same modification applies.

There is no basis for you or anyone to selectively determine when the Leap/Climb target modification applies in one close combat action context but not in another.

[normalview]

I am not going to bother quoting anyone specifically here; most of these posts all boil down to the same general (incorrect) point.

No matter how most of you twist your arguments, you seem to keep missing the fact that L/C DOES NOT MAKE THE CHARACTERS ADJACENT. It allows characters given a close combat action to target a character with a close combat attack that they would not normally be able to target and that is it.

If Flurry and Quake did not have the "adjacent" wording that they do have, then there would be no problem. But they do. So there is (a problem, that is).


This is the way it is. Can we drop this now, please?

[Crow]

No matter how most of you twist your arguments, you seem to keep missing the fact that L/C DOES NOT MAKE THE CHARACTERS ADJACENT. It allows characters given a close combat action to target a character with a close combat attack that they would not normally be able to target and that is it.

If Flurry and Quake did not have the "adjacent" wording that they do have, then there would be no problem. But they do. So there is (a problem, that is).

Nobody is arguing that L/C makes figures "adjacent"! We already know that things like Poison don't work with Leap/Climb, because they don't involve a CCA.

We are arguing that L/C overrules the traditional definition of "adjacency" when making a close combat action. ANY CCA. That is all it does, and the only way it can be interpreted. It does not say "any CCA that does not involve a power from the PAC". There is no basis for anyone to say that it does this only for the "generic" CCA but not for a PAC CCA like Flurry. That's an interpretation with no basis, anywhere, and it needs to be backed up by text.

If you can find me a statement that says something like "PAC powers modify only the general rules, but do not apply to other PAC powers", I will be happy. But we all know that is not the case.

[normalview]

Nobody is arguing that L/C makes figures "adjacent"!

We are arguing that it overrules the traditional requirement of "adjacency" in any close combat action. ANY CCA. That is all it does, and the only way it can be interpreted. There is no basis for anyone to say that it does this only for the "generic" CCA but not for a PAC CCA like Flurry. That's making a choice that has no basis, anywhere.

You can target a character that is not adjacent due to elevation with L/C. But just because you can target a character with a close combat attack does not necessarily mean that you can do whatever you want to it close combat-wise. Specific conditions for certain powers/feats/abilities/etc must be checked, as well: Is the character holding an object? Then 'And Stay Down...' can't be used. Was your character moved this turn via TK? Then it can't TK the opposing character standing next to it. Is your character trying to use Support? Not if an opposing character is adjacent. And so on.

The ability to target with a close combat attack, by itself, is meaningless if the action in question has other requriements. So, for Flurry and Quake, it all boils down to this very simple question:

Does Leap/Climb make the characters adjacent?

[Crow]

You can target a character that is not adjacent due to elevation with L/C. But just because you can target a character with a close combat attack does not necessarily mean that you can do whatever you want to it close combat-wise. Specific conditions for certain powers/feats/abilities/etc must be checked, as well: Is the character holding an object? Then 'And Stay Down...' can't be used. Was your character moved this turn via TK? Then it can't TK the opposing character standing next to it. Is your character trying to use Support? Not if an opposing character is adjacent. And so on.

The ability to target with a close combat attack, by itself, is meaningless if the action in question has other requriements. So, for Flurry and Quake, it all boils down to this very simple question:

Does Leap/Climb make the characters adjacent?

Your examples are entirely besides the point here: The only relevant condition that is "checked" by Flurry is adjacency, and the only thing L/C modifies is what targets are legal during a CCA -which, by definition, implies that it is modifying what is "adjacent for purposes of a CCA". Note - the character is not "adjacent" to an opponent in any sense except for purposes of a CCA.

1. When performing a CCA, L/C modifies/waives the usual requirement of adjacency to allow targets at different elevations (it does not make these targets adjacent).
2. Flurry is a CCA.
3. Therefore, Flurry's requirement of adjacency is redefined/waived just like a regular CCA (which also requires adjacency).

You have to wrap your head around the idea that I am not arguing that L/C makes figures "adjacenct" for any purpose EXCEPT it modifies/waives that requirement during any CCA. We already have seen an example of this: Water is hindering terrain for movement purposes, but is it hindering terrain? No. It's water terrain. Similarly, L/C modified the rules for adjacency during a CCA, but does not make figures adjacent. Because Flurry is a CCA, it gets the benefits of this modification.

You asked the wrong question. It's not "Does Leap/Climb make the characters adjacent?", it is "Does Leap/Climb modify the concept of adjacency when using a CCA?"

The answer is yes.

[Maraud]

so you guys are saying that giants can quake 2 squares out also?
Quake requires adjacency, giants can attack two squares out, but it has been stated that they do no work together.

[Crow]

so you guys are saying that giants can quake 2 squares out also?
Quake requires adjacency, giants can attack two squares out, but it has been stated that they do no work together.

They do not work together because Quake reads: "...make a single attack roll and compare the result to the defense values of all opposing adjacent characters", instead of "make a close combat attack that targets all opposing adjacent characters". Although Giant Size states "This character can also make close combat attacks against target opposing characters up to two squares away,", Quake itself literally redefines how its attack roll is made and checked. It is literally redefining anew the idea of an "attack", and it does so from the ground up, using the term adjacent.

Put more simply, Giant Size modifies/waives the adjacency requirement for close combat attacks, but Quake goes further by spelling out anew the parameters of its own "attack", which is not a standard close combat attack.

This is distinct from Flurry, which reads simply "adjacent target", and L/C defines what is a permitted target when it says "it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation".

I hope the distinction is clearer now... although I have to make my distaste for the wording of Giant Size known. :P

[Crow]

I would love love love to hear nbperp's take on this. Can we drag him in here somehow?

[Munchoboy]

I would love love love to hear nbperp's take on this. Can we drag him in here somehow?

I don't see why Norm's take is even at all necessary. We got an answer already;

It may be your opinion, but unfortunately it is one which has been ruled to be incorrect.

Being able to target an opposing fig with a close combat action is not the same as "adjacency". Folk are inferring something here (with L/C, elevated targets, and Flurry) that isn't.

[normalview]

I would love love love to hear nbperp's take on this. Can we drag him in here somehow?

He has been on-line multiple times since this whole debate began. If he had something to add, he would have.

[spider_ham]

L/C allows a character that is adjacent to an opposing character on a different elevation to make a close combat attack as if it were adjacent, but does not grant actual the adjacency. It's like a ranged attack using close combat rules. The only characters that can make ranged attacks against adjacent characters are Sharpshooters, and they must reside on the same elevation.

If the L/C character has range and is adjacent to an opposing character on a different elevation, then it can make either a close or ranged attack against that target.

Lunge requires L/C to work, but does not use L/C during the 2 square movement. However, the "jump" does grant break away, and that might be where the confusion is coming from.

It's best to look at Lunge as being completely different from L/C. Lunge does not grant an actual movement action, therefore it cannot activate Passenger. Flurry can be used on targets that reside on different elevations, but require that the attacker move legally adjacent to the second target that resides on a different elevation-- you can't leap up or down, but must use the stairs, instead.

{ }{ }{ }{ }
{2}{ }{ }{ }
[A] [|] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [1] [ ] [ ]

{ } Elevated
[ ] Grounded / Non-Elevated
[1] Target #1
{2} Target #2
[|] Stairs

Now, if the attacker were on elevated terrain and could not descend (no stairs/ladder) to attack a grounded character, it would need to use Cannonball. Only Fandral and Green Scar can take advantage of the feat successfully; Fandral has the advantage of both L/C and Flurry, allowing him to make the initial Flurry attack on elevated terrain, then jump off and attack someone on grounded terrain.

[adamkomar]

An elevated terrain boundary line doesn't remove adjacency between a character on grounded terrain and a character on elevated terrain. Page 13 of the Fantastic Four rule book says, "Elevated terrain and close combat attacks. Characters in adjacent squares but at different elevations can't make close combat attacks against each other, but they can target each other with ranged combat attacks, as shown in Figure 16." Even in the example described in Figure 16 says, "Even though they are adjacen to each other, Namor can't make a close combat attack because Dr. Octopus is on elevated terrain."

Elevation doesn't change (or remove) adjacency. It just prevents close combat attacks between characters on different elevations. Leap/Climb doesn't give adjacency because it's never taken away.

[Crow]

Elevation doesn't change (or remove) adjacency. It just prevents close combat attacks between characters on different elevations. Leap/Climb doesn't give adjacency because it's never taken away.

Sorry, but this is factually incorrect.

Page 5, rulebook: "Characters occupying adjacent squares are adjacent to one another, as shown in Figure 5. Characters and squares on opposite sides of walls or on different elevations (see Terrain, p. 10) are not adjacent."

[normalview]

Elevation doesn't change (or remove) adjacency. It just prevents close combat attacks between characters on different elevations. Leap/Climb doesn't give adjacency because it's never taken away.

That is incorrect. FF rules, page 5:

Characters occupying adjacent squares are adjacent to one another, as
shown in Figure 5. Characters and squares on opposite sides of walls or on different elevations (see Terrain, p. 10) are not adjacent.

This is further born out by the moving up stairs/ladders discussion on pages 12 and 13.

If elevation did not change adjacency, then there would be no reason that you could not Poison a character up on elevated terrain, or Carry a character on a different elevation, or any other of a number of game effects that require adajcency.




I would like to official put on my rules deputy hat now and ask that unless there are any questions relating back to the original question (can Passenger and Lunge work together), please drop it. Seriously, this is getting old: you've been told repeatedly how this works. Let this dead horse alone.

[Crow]

Quote : Originally Posted by Shellhead's Pal
Also, I do believe that you can charge to attack somebody who is on another elevation with this Batman. For example, if you were on the edge of a building, you could Charge and Flurry somebody who was standing next to the building (though you have to stay on the same elevation). Charge grants you a close combat action, which is the requirement for the Leap/Climb dual-elevation attack.

Quote by normalview:
This is correct.
Batman can't actually Charge on to or off of elevated terrain, but if he Charges to the edge of the terrain, he could hit a character on the other side.


Crow: I'm just sayin' back in August you agreed with me on this!
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=260463&highlight=flurry+climb

[normalview]

Quote : Originally Posted by Shellhead's Pal
Also, I do believe that you can charge to attack somebody who is on another elevation with this Batman. For example, if you were on the edge of a building, you could Charge and Flurry somebody who was standing next to the building (though you have to stay on the same elevation). Charge grants you a close combat action, which is the requirement for the Leap/Climb dual-elevation attack.

Quote by normalview:
This is correct.

Batman can't actually Charge on to or off of elevated terrain, but if he Charges to the edge of the terrain, he could hit a character on the other side.


Crow: I'm just sayin' :P back in August you agreed with this!
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=260463&highlight=flurry+climb

Two things before I walk away from this thread forever.

1) Nothing at all prevents L/C from allowing a Charging character to attack another character at a different elevation. That statement is correct.

2) At the time, we were all ignorant of the Flurry adjacency wording; somehow everyone had missed it when the FF PAC came out while Quake was realized pretty early on. It wasn't until this thread (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4480295&highlight=flurry+giant#post4480295) earlier this week that we started realizing this.

[Crow]

Fair enough. Sorry to drive you crazy with it, man. I do appreciate your input here.

[adamkomar]

Then the rules contradict themselves. I quoted a section of the rule book that says they are adjacent and you quoted a section that says they aren't. That needs tio be fixed.

[Crow]

Then the rules contradict themselves. I quoted a section of the rule book that says they are adjacent and you quoted a section that says they aren't. That needs tio be fixed.

The quoted text you refer to does indeed carelessly use the Heroclix term "adjacent" to have its conventional English meaning of "next to". Otherwise they are quite clear about what adjacency is and represents.

The text SHOULD be read: "Characters in BORDERING squares but at different elevations can't make close combat attacks against each other" and "Even though they are IN SQUARES BORDERING each other, Namor can't make a close combat attack because Dr. Octopus is on elevated terrain." (caps for my changes)

[ThwartHog]

Two things before I walk away from this thread forever.

1) Nothing at all prevents L/C from allowing a Charging character to attack another character at a different elevation. That statement is correct.

2) At the time, we were all ignorant of the Flurry adjacency wording; somehow everyone had missed it when the FF PAC came out while Quake was realized pretty early on. It wasn't until this thread (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4480295&highlight=flurry+giant#post4480295) earlier this week that we started realizing this.

So you guys noticed the Flurry-adjacency-wording and discussed it on Jan 1st on that thread that you referred to. Until that time, L/C allowed a fig to use Flurry and target elevated figs from the ground, because it had gone unnoticed. I read that thread, and there was very little debate over what L/C allows when paired with Flurry. The deputies may have discussed this topic privately before coming up with their ruling. But from what I read, the viewpoint that Crow, Adamkomar, and I were arguing from, was not addressed at all and I think is worth considering based on the logical arguments that we presented.

LEAP/CLIMB ... When you give this character a close combat action, it can target a character regardless of the target’s elevation.

Example 1. Normal Close Combat Action
FFrulebook Page 9: "Your character must be adjacent to a target to make a close combat attack."

Example 2. Flurry Close Combat Action
FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. It makes two separate close combat attacks as free actions (making two separate attack rolls) against one or two adjacent targets.

In both examples, adjacency is required. You still never explained why L/C overrides adjacency in example 1 and not in example 2. The answer: "Flurry requires adjacency and L/C doesn't create adjacency" isn't a good enough answer, because you don't rule Example 1 that way.

Your ruling would be a lot easier to accept if it wasn't just stumbled upon a few days ago and seemingly ruled on without much debate, or if it came directly from the RA (no offense to the deputies) with certainty like the Pym Particles (being non-optional) ruling he announced not long ago.

[Crow]

ThwartHog: I have been just assured by Norm that we've been heard loud and clear, that the matter is still being discussed, and that while the current wording (such as it is) is to be ruled as that they do not work together, but the debate is far from closed and GD may yet issue an errata on the subject.

Let's just be patient. I have a strong suspicion it will be addressed officially one way or another.

My thanks go out to normalview for laying out his case clearly and hearing out our arguments (even if we did eventually make him crazy!) :)

[ThwartHog]

My thanks go out to normalview for laying out his case clearly and hearing out our arguments (even if we did eventually make him crazy!) :)

Indeed. Sorry Normalview. It's easy to get carried away now and then when dissecting these rules.

[Lasac]

I blame special powers for this headache. Powers that were all in the same slot were never considered to have to be worried about being used together. Good thing its going to get more clear eventually.

<3 Special powers, </3 rules confusion.

~Phil