BN PAC and new wording on 2 different powers/abilities

[bludd72]

I just picked up my BN starter kit and immediately dove in to the rule book and PAC to see what was new. Well, I noticed quickly on the PAC that Flurry has been reworded and brings a couple of questions to mind.

The new PAC states:

FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

The old PAC states:

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.

so my question is, if i choose to use Flurry and am pushing to do so (no indomitable/WP/feat that ignores push damage), do i take the push damage after i resolve the first attack, or after the second free attack? i am kind of struggling a bit with the wording and logic here. it says to resolve the first attack, then i may make another as a free action. well pushing damage (if appropriate) would be part of the resolution wouldn't it? the reason this confuses me is because the PAC goes on to say:

"If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack."
so how does one lose flurry while in the middle of flurry? if i hit a Mystic with the first flurry attack, do i take Mystics damage right then and there? or after the ENTIRE flurry attack? i can't see how one loses flurry in the middle of flurry except if they

a) smack a mystic during the first flurry attack, taking Mystics damage and then potentially losing the power.

b) push to smack anyone (with first flurry attack) and take push damage before the second attack and potentially losing it then.

Additionally, the Duo Attack also says:

DUO ATTACK Give this character a power action to make a duo attack.This character has for this action. It makes a close or ranged combat attack as a free action. After the attack resolves, it may make an additional close or ranged combat attack as a free action with its damage value modified by -1 to a minimum of 1. If this character is defeated or loses Duo Attack as a result of the first attack, the second attack is not made.

so i will apply the same push damage/mystics damage query to this ability as well. when can you lose duo attack? push/mystics damage before the second attack?

sorry if this is a repeat question.

[ChiRocker]

You take mystics damage immediately, just like if you attack someone with 1 action token and hit, and they decide to theme prob with the character that was just attacked, you will give the 2nd action and deal pushing damage immediately.

[Maraud]

You take mystics damage immediately, just like if you attack someone with 1 action token and hit, and they decide to theme prob with the character that was just attacked, you will give the 2nd action and deal pushing damage immediately.

not true you apply the pushing damage after the current actin resolves.

But yes it is from Mystics or Damage Shield or Crit Missing. Those 3 are all immediately applied, just the same with HSS if you hit someone and lose HSS you can not continue to move.

[The7ofDiamonds]

I think the old wording of flurry is better. Now throwing the "close combat action" part into the mix like that wording wise I think will lead to more confusion.

[Surfer13]

I am wondering about using B/C/F with flurry now.

Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

When this character is given a close combat action, you may roll a d6 after making a successful attack roll. The result replaces this character’s damage value, then that damage value is locked.

Can I use it with both attacks or just the first one that I used the close combat action to activate?
I am reading it to be only good with the first attack.

[algrim]

On first reading it looks like Charge and Flurry work together now. Is this true? Because I can't find any reason why they don't. And if so, break out your SI Hercules!

[BigSoph]

On first reading it looks like Charge and Flurry work together now. Is this true? Because I can't find any reason why they don't. And if so, break out your SI Hercules!

They worked together before. Charge gives you a free action to take a close combat action and flurry requires one of those

Previous to special powers though, they never appeared together

[normalview]

On first reading it looks like Charge and Flurry work together now. Is this true? Because I can't find any reason why they don't. And if so, break out your SI Hercules!

They always did.

RE: resolving the attack and pushing.

Resolving actions cause the placement of a token (and thus pushing damage); resolving an attack does not necessarily mean that the action is over. Usually, yes, an attack resolves and then the action resolve and there is not much of a difference between the two... in this case, though, once the first attack resolves, something else happens (a second attack) which means the action hasn't resolved yet.

[normalview]

I think the old wording of flurry is better. Now throwing the "close combat action" part into the mix like that wording wise I think will lead to more confusion.

What "close combat action" part? The only time "close combat action" is mentioned is the very beginning ("Give this character a close combat action.")... what is confusing about that?

Can I use it with both attacks or just the first one that I used the close combat action to activate?
I am reading it to be only good with the first attack.

BFC is activated when you give the character a close combat action... and Flurry is a close combat action. ALL of Flurry. In this particular regard, there is no difference between the old wording and the new: you can still use BCF on both attacks.

[ChiRocker]

not true you apply the pushing damage after the current actin resolves.

But yes it is from Mystics or Damage Shield or Crit Missing. Those 3 are all immediately applied, just the same with HSS if you hit someone and lose HSS you can not continue to move.

Are you sure? I have always heard that with Theme prob and CSA the pushing takes place as soon as the token is given (because normal tokens are usually given after the action resolves and pushing damage always takes place immediately after the token is given).

[BigDaddyHub]

Are you sure? I have always heard that with Theme prob and CSA the pushing takes place as soon as the token is given (because normal tokens are usually given after the action resolves and pushing damage always takes place immediately after the token is given).

I'm sure. filler.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

I just picked up my BN starter kit and immediately dove in to the rule book and PAC to see what was new. Well, I noticed quickly on the PAC that Flurry has been reworded and brings a couple of questions to mind.

The new PAC states:

FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

The old PAC states:

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.

so my question is, if i choose to use Flurry and am pushing to do so (no indomitable/WP/feat that ignores push damage), do i take the push damage after i resolve the first attack, or after the second free attack? i am kind of struggling a bit with the wording and logic here. it says to resolve the first attack, then i may make another as a free action. well pushing damage (if appropriate) would be part of the resolution wouldn't it? the reason this confuses me is because the PAC goes on to say:

"If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack."
so how does one lose flurry while in the middle of flurry? if i hit a Mystic with the first flurry attack, do i take Mystics damage right then and there? or after the ENTIRE flurry attack? i can't see how one loses flurry in the middle of flurry except if they

a) smack a mystic during the first flurry attack, taking Mystics damage and then potentially losing the power.

b) push to smack anyone (with first flurry attack) and take push damage before the second attack and potentially losing it then.

Additionally, the Duo Attack also says:

DUO ATTACK Give this character a power action to make a duo attack.This character has for this action. It makes a close or ranged combat attack as a free action. After the attack resolves, it may make an additional close or ranged combat attack as a free action with its damage value modified by -1 to a minimum of 1. If this character is defeated or loses Duo Attack as a result of the first attack, the second attack is not made.

so i will apply the same push damage/mystics damage query to this ability as well. when can you lose duo attack? push/mystics damage before the second attack?

sorry if this is a repeat question.

You could also roll a critical miss after the first attack, which would give you a click of damage, thus the opportunity to lose Flurry or the Duo attack.

But I don't like the wording of the new Flurry. The older version was easier to understand. The way the new Flurry is worded, it says give this character a close combat action, which is a tokenable action. Then make a close combat attack, which is also a tokenable action. It says nothing about the first attack being a FREE close combat attack, only the second attack is FREE, if you go by the literal wording of the power.

The old version of Flurry was better, as it gives you TWO FREE close combat attacks. Seems the rules wizards at WizKid's don't pay close attention.

Now the Duo still does state that you get two attacks as FREE actions.

Bottom line WizKids, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

But I know from Mystics and other such powers, feats, or abilities, the damage is dealt after each combat action. So Flurry against Mystics will cause two clicks of damage.

[normalview]

Then make a close combat attack, which is also a tokenable action.

Attacks are not actions. Never have been. Attacks always occur as the result of an action; in this case, the close combat action.

It says nothing about the first attack being a FREE close combat attack, only the second attack is FREE, if you go by the literal wording of the power.

You've never used CCE then, apparently ;)

CLOSE COMBAT EXPERT Give this character a power action. It makes a close combat attack against a single opposing target character; modify this character’s damage value by + 2 for the attack. This power can’t be used when using an object as a weapon.

The old version of Flurry was better, as it gives you TWO FREE close combat attacks. Seems the rules wizards at WizKid's don't pay close attention.

We paid attention just fine... apparently, though, you may want to pay a little bit more to what exactly an attack actually is and how it is used :laugh: ;)

Bottom line WizKids, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Actually, it kind of was broken. Hence the change.

On the one hand, we removed the bit about 'adjacent characters' so now Flurry can be used with L/C.

Also Flurry had some issues with Shape Change (frankly, a lot of powers did) and this new wording helps clarify that, too.



Funny how just because something is new or different, everyone immediately seems to think that it either doesn't work as well or is otherwise somehow inferior to the old way of doing things :ermm:

[PONX]

Funny how just because something is new or different, everyone immediately seems to think that it either doesn't work as well or is otherwise somehow inferior to the old way of doing things :ermm:

AHMEN brother!!

[Surfer13]

Funny how just because something is new or different, everyone immediately seems to think that it either doesn't work as well or is otherwise somehow inferior to the old way of doing things :ermm:

"Everyone" thinks nothing of the sort.
I just wanted some clarification on something, as do most people here. I do not see "everyone" complaining about how the new rules messed everything up, I just see most people looking to figure out how the new stuff works.

Some people, perhaps, but not "everyone". :cool:

Are you sure? I have always heard that with Theme prob and CSA the pushing takes place as soon as the token is given (because normal tokens are usually given after the action resolves and pushing damage always takes place immediately after the token is given).
Yeah. Warskrull, for example, could be the target of a ranged attack. If he has a token on him and decided to use a theme prob to force a reroll on a ranged attack, he clicks into stealth on his second click and now the attack that he forced you to reroll is illegal and you can't make it, but if you couldn't make it then how could they force you to reroll?
That whole situation creates a paradox and the universe starts to collapse and it's all just very messy. :)

The player's guide covers the CSA situation very well:
 The character using this team ability is subject to all the standard rules regarding Probability Control with the additional requirement of placing a token on a character in order to use the ability.
 The token may be assigned to any character with less than 2 tokens unless the character will receive a token as a result of the current action.
 Applying a second token to a character would deal normal pushing damage to that character at the end of the action.
The third point there makes it clear that the push, if any, isn't applied until the end of the action.

[normalview]

"Everyone" thinks nothing of the sort.
I just wanted some clarification on something, as do most people here. I do not see "everyone" complaining about how the new rules messed everything up, I just see most people looking to figure out how the new stuff works.

"Everyone" isn't everyone. Way to take a figure of speech out of context :tired: ;)


Given how we've had similar topics on the changes to Super Strength, Indomitable, HSS, etc. and how those threads seemed to contain at least a couple "Oh, poop! I can't do X now" type posts which were due to people not really understanding how the power or whatever really even worked in the first place, yeah, I think my statement was pretty accurate :)

[The7ofDiamonds]

What "close combat action" part? The only time "close combat action" is mentioned is the very beginning ("Give this character a close combat action.")... what is confusing about that?


I just think the old wording is both less confusing and also more all-encompassing (as in covers everything in the wording). Not to mention, people were already used to it. I don't see any game mechanic that was changed by the wording, and since (to me) the older wording looks less confusing, I don't see what was accomplished by changing it.

[csi]

"Everyone" isn't everyone. Way to take a figure of speech out of context :tired: ;)


Given how we've had similar topics on the changes to Super Strength, Indomitable, HSS, etc. and how those threads seemed to contain at least a couple "Oh, poop! I can't do X now" type posts which were due to people not really understanding how the power or whatever really even worked in the first place, yeah, I think my statement was pretty accurate :)

good thing your here to set them straight

[bludd72]

"Everyone" isn't everyone. Way to take a figure of speech out of context :tired: ;)


Given how we've had similar topics on the changes to Super Strength, Indomitable, HSS, etc. and how those threads seemed to contain at least a couple "Oh, poop! I can't do X now" type posts which were due to people not really understanding how the power or whatever really even worked in the first place, yeah, I think my statement was pretty accurate :)

no offence, but if 'everyone' isn't everyone, then don't say 'everyone', cuz yea, it's everyone. :tired:;) i think the word you were looking for is 'SOME'. and it's not taking a thing out of context. apple doesn't mean orange does it?
i have to say, when the rules get changed every now and then and we gamers simply ask, what we believe is, a legit and good question, SOMEone has to act like a self-absorbed jerk and treat us "ALL" like idiots. well i find it funny because WIZKIDS puts out errata after errata because they screw stuff up too...and it's their game. but, do ya hear any condescending remarks from us about how stupid that seems?
with that being said, i'm not trying to pick fights or be belligerent, but yeesh man, cut us idiots some slack and just answer the questions sans your charming sarcasm. :ermm:

all we want is to be absolutely 100% sure that we are interpreting the written word properly....after all this game is so hugely based on semantics, grammar, etc that it should be expected that questions will arise, especially when there are re-writes.

[ShadowMark]

I just think the old wording is both less confusing and also more all-encompassing (as in covers everything in the wording). Not to mention, people were already used to it. I don't see any game mechanic that was changed by the wording, and since (to me) the older wording looks less confusing, I don't see what was accomplished by changing it.

I agree with the less confusing part on the old wording, but not the "more all-encompassing" aspect. As normalview stated, now you can flurry with L/C, when before you couldn't. It is the same power, and works the same way, but now works a little better :)

[bludd72]

i think overall the new PAC and rules do a great job of clarifying/simplifying things, but again, there still seems to be some gray areas. not many and only due to individual interpretation. but overall, good work NECA.

on an important side note:
normalview, i want to somewhat publicly apologize for my last post. i didn't mean to come across as a d-bag, although if you think i am one, i'm cool with it.....i got a tough hide:d-indomitable: :cool:
i just wanted to express how frustrating it is for some of us to get straight answers to what we may interpret as being not so straightforward rulings/wording.... and being made to feel stupid for it. what might seem clear to one person, may not be so crystal to others.

sometimes my mouth moves at the speed of light while my brain moves at a snails pace. so that being said, i apologize for being so 'blunt'. just please try to remember, we mean well when we ask and it's in both parties interests that these queries be handled 'professionally'. because at the end of the day, all we really want is to play this awesome game properly :grin:

[Maraud]

I think what the main issue it with the new BN rule book is.....



People don't read it as itself, they are comparing it to the old rules, and trying to make the old rules and the new ones into one.
I know there were a few people who got confused with the "new" replace and modify rule, but the funny thing is, there was absolutely nothing new about the replace then modify. (the change was made to when to calculate modifiers and nothing else)

[zero_cochrane]

The new PAC states:

FLURRY Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

The old PAC states:

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.I prefer the new wording. It has the exact same effect as the old (aside from clearing up Leap/Climb and Giant adjacency issues) and uses fewer words to say it. That's a pretty good reason to change the wording.

[BigDaddyHub]

I think what the main issue it with the new BN rule book is.....



People don't read it as itself, they are comparing it to the old rules, and trying to make the old rules and the new ones into one.
I know there were a few people who got confused with the "new" replace and modify rule, but the funny thing is, there was absolutely nothing new about the replace then modify. (the change was made to when to calculate modifiers and nothing else)

Will someone please rep this post for me?

[The7ofDiamonds]

I agree with the less confusing part on the old wording, but not the "more all-encompassing" aspect. As normalview stated, now you can flurry with L/C, when before you couldn't. It is the same power, and works the same way, but now works a little better :)

What I mean by "all encompassing" is that it covers any possible situations that might arise. So should someone need to know how something would work when a character uses flurry, you need only look at how the power is worded.


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.

It covers how the action is commenced (via a close combat action). It specifies how each of the two attacks is initiated, and that two separate rolls need to be made. And it tells you to resolve the first before making the second. And then it covers what happens if you lose flurry.

I just think there is less room for interpretation. The wording is all encompassing. Everything is explained. And so the only way there is really any confusion with the power is if people don't know their heroclix basics that are used in the wording (action vs attack, resolving attacks, etc.).

[normalview]

normalview, i want to somewhat publicly apologize for my last post. i didn't mean to come across as a d-bag, although if you think i am one, i'm cool with it.....i got a tough hide:d-indomitable: :cool:
i just wanted to express how frustrating it is for some of us to get straight answers to what we may interpret as being not so straightforward rulings/wording.... and being made to feel stupid for it. what might seem clear to one person, may not be so crystal to others.

There is no need to apologize. My comments were not directed at you; in fact, they were not directed at any one person specifically... one of the reasons I chose to use "everyone" ;)

Asking questions is fine. It's what we are here for, after all. What does get my dander up though is the assumption that crops up in some posts that changes are bad, the people who made these changes didn't know what they were doing, why did they do this to my awesome combo, etc.

The reason I don't particularly care for posts like that is:
a) changes were not made for the sake of changing things... there is always a reason (be it correcting an error or past mistake, re-balancing the game effect with another new/changed rule, making the game effect more clear, etc)
b) while I can't claim to be perfect, these changes were proposed and vetted by numerous people... so they may not be perfect either (mistakes happen), but we do know at least a little something about the way this game works.
c) believe it or not, feedback from the players is important. People didn't like it when it was noticed not so long ago that Flurry couldn't be used with L/C or the Giant 2-square attack... so it was changed so it did work. To imply that we changed something simply to nerf you is not only rather egocentric, but almost the complete opposite: we changed it because YOU, the player, asked for it.
d) finally take all those three previous points and sprinkle on top that a small minority of the posters were, judging by their comments, not even using the old game effect correctly... how can you accurate judge anything that was changed if you don't really know what you are judging it against?

Again, questions are more than welcome. But please keep them civil and question-like... accusations and fabricated claims are not welcome.


It covers how the action is commenced (via a close combat action). It specifies how each of the two attacks is initiated, and that two separate rolls need to be made. And it tells you to resolve the first before making the second. And then it covers what happens if you lose flurry.

The new wording covers each of those points, too, and it is tweaked to address some issues that the old Flurry didn't cover. I am still not sure what your actual issue is with the new wording... can you give a specific example of something that is not covered by the new wording that was in the old?

If it needs fixing, let's hear it.

[PONX]

((sound of crickets))

[nbperp]

I just think the old wording is both less confusing and also more all-encompassing (as in covers everything in the wording). Not to mention, people were already used to it. I don't see any game mechanic that was changed by the wording, and since (to me) the older wording looks less confusing, I don't see what was accomplished by changing it.

It made things clear that it is one overarching cose combat action. It removed unnecessary wording about "adjacent opposing figures" which caused problems interacting with Leap/Climb and Giant Size.

That's the nutshell/bullet for it.


no offence, but if 'everyone' isn't everyone, then don't say 'everyone', cuz yea, it's everyone. :tired:;) i think the word you were looking for is 'SOME'. and it's not taking a thing out of context. apple doesn't mean orange does it?

Just to defend, it's unreasonable to expect that his "everyone" truly meant everyone. For one thing, there are less than 100 posts on this thread. Reasonably, he knew that and was therefore being hyperbolic.

Secondly, "everyone" would have to include "himself", which it is pretty clear he didn't mean. Again, hyperbole abounds.

Now, I'm not saying anyone was wrong to feel that his "everyone" was meant at them personally and to respond accordingly. But I share normalview's feelings that sometimes, folks will complain if you hung them with a new rope. (A phrase my mother uses with frequency and continues to puzzle me - of course I'd complain, I don't care about the rope!)

i have to say, when the rules get changed every now and then and we gamers simply ask, what we believe is, a legit and good question, SOMEone has to act like a self-absorbed jerk and treat us "ALL" like idiots. well i find it funny because WIZKIDS puts out errata after errata because they screw stuff up too...and it's their game. but, do ya hear any condescending remarks from us about how stupid that seems?
with that being said, i'm not trying to pick fights or be belligerent, but yeesh man, cut us idiots some slack and just answer the questions sans your charming sarcasm. :ermm:

Yes, all the time. (Though, to be clear, by "all the time" I do not mean every second of every day, I mean that the general feeling from a new rule set's release is that a significant number of folks seem to think that it was done without thought or discussion.

I'll also reiterate something that I've maintained since my first posting as Rules Arb o so long ago....

I make mistakes. I don't always get it right. I'm really sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, but that's just the facts. I will never be one of those folks who does it all alone, assumes that my way is the only way, and rams something through. Almost every document I make and every rules change I document goes through as many sets of eyes that I can feasbily get to before it goes public. I always ask for opinions and counter examples and impacts to that.

The fact that I may not be asking YOU (and that's the generic you, not any one in particular) does not mean it isn't going to ANYBODY.

Yes, of course YOU could do a better job. I'm sure that the product of your work would be error free and the entirety of the internet would come together in a utopian sigh, grateful for your effort. I'm just sorry that you aren't me.

At some point, WK will ask me to step down and/or someone will manage to make this job "not fun". At that point, feel free to step on up and go to town.

Barring that, feel free to send your ideas for improvement to me at HeroclixRules@gmail.com.

[Munchoboy]

It made things clear that it is one overarching cose combat action. It removed unnecessary wording about "adjacent opposing figures" which caused problems interacting with Leap/Climb and Giant Size.

That's the nutshell/bullet for it.




Just to defend, it's unreasonable to expect that his "everyone" truly meant everyone. For one thing, there are less than 100 posts on this thread. Reasonably, he knew that and was therefore being hyperbolic.

Secondly, "everyone" would have to include "himself", which it is pretty clear he didn't mean. Again, hyperbole abounds.

Now, I'm not saying anyone was wrong to feel that his "everyone" was meant at them personally and to respond accordingly. But I share normalview's feelings that sometimes, folks will complain if you hung them with a new rope. (A phrase my mother uses with frequency and continues to puzzle me - of course I'd complain, I don't care about the rope!)



Yes, all the time. (Though, to be clear, by "all the time" I do not mean every second of every day, I mean that the general feeling from a new rule set's release is that a significant number of folks seem to think that it was done without thought or discussion.

I'll also reiterate something that I've maintained since my first posting as Rules Arb o so long ago....

I make mistakes. I don't always get it right. I'm really sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, but that's just the facts. I will never be one of those folks who does it all alone, assumes that my way is the only way, and rams something through. Almost every document I make and every rules change I document goes through as many sets of eyes that I can feasbily get to before it goes public. I always ask for opinions and counter examples and impacts to that.

The fact that I may not be asking YOU (and that's the generic you, not any one in particular) does not mean it isn't going to ANYBODY.

Yes, of course YOU could do a better job. I'm sure that the product of your work would be error free and the entirety of the internet would come together in a utopian sigh, grateful for your effort. I'm just sorry that you aren't me.

At some point, WK will ask me to step down and/or someone will manage to make this job "not fun". At that point, feel free to step on up and go to town.

Barring that, feel free to send your ideas for improvement to me at HeroclixRules@gmail.com.


Oh man, I shouldn't encourage him, but Norm just won this thread. :classic:

He handled that with a lot more class than I would have been inclined to.

/Rep

[bludd72]

There is no need to apologize. My comments were not directed at you; in fact, they were not directed at any one person specifically... one of the reasons I chose to use "everyone" ;)

Asking questions is fine. It's what we are here for, after all. What does get my dander up though is the assumption that crops up in some posts that changes are bad, the people who made these changes didn't know what they were doing, why did they do this to my awesome combo, etc.

The reason I don't particularly care for posts like that is:
a) changes were not made for the sake of changing things... there is always a reason (be it correcting an error or past mistake, re-balancing the game effect with another new/changed rule, making the game effect more clear, etc)
b) while I can't claim to be perfect, these changes were proposed and vetted by numerous people... so they may not be perfect either (mistakes happen), but we do know at least a little something about the way this game works.
c) believe it or not, feedback from the players is important. People didn't like it when it was noticed not so long ago that Flurry couldn't be used with L/C or the Giant 2-square attack... so it was changed so it did work. To imply that we changed something simply to nerf you is not only rather egocentric, but almost the complete opposite: we changed it because YOU, the player, asked for it.
d) finally take all those three previous points and sprinkle on top that a small minority of the posters were, judging by their comments, not even using the old game effect correctly... how can you accurate judge anything that was changed if you don't really know what you are judging it against?

Again, questions are more than welcome. But please keep them civil and question-like... accusations and fabricated claims are not welcome.



The new wording covers each of those points, too, and it is tweaked to address some issues that the old Flurry didn't cover. I am still not sure what your actual issue is with the new wording... can you give a specific example of something that is not covered by the new wording that was in the old?

If it needs fixing, let's hear it.

well said, and to be honest normalview, i never took that shot to be directed at me personally at all. i just took the soap box for the rest of us. but did so in a poor fashion....hence the apology. of course you guys know what you are doing. and there's one thing i've learned in life is that no matter how good you may be at something, accidents/mistakes happen. so yea, it makes perfect sense what you are saying and i personally appreciate the fact that you guys do take our comments seriously and i also appreciate the fact that you also take the effort to fix things or right wrongs so to speak. so that being said, thanks again, seriously. and keep up the good work, this obviously seems like a tough gig at times, but you all pull through when the tokens are down. kudos

[zero_cochrane]

He handled that with a lot more class than I would have been inclined to.
Naturally; Norm's a classy guy.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nbperp again.

[bludd72]

It made things clear that it is one overarching cose combat action. It removed unnecessary wording about "adjacent opposing figures" which caused problems interacting with Leap/Climb and Giant Size.

That's the nutshell/bullet for it.




Just to defend, it's unreasonable to expect that his "everyone" truly meant everyone. For one thing, there are less than 100 posts on this thread. Reasonably, he knew that and was therefore being hyperbolic.

Secondly, "everyone" would have to include "himself", which it is pretty clear he didn't mean. Again, hyperbole abounds.

Now, I'm not saying anyone was wrong to feel that his "everyone" was meant at them personally and to respond accordingly. But I share normalview's feelings that sometimes, folks will complain if you hung them with a new rope. (A phrase my mother uses with frequency and continues to puzzle me - of course I'd complain, I don't care about the rope!)



Yes, all the time. (Though, to be clear, by "all the time" I do not mean every second of every day, I mean that the general feeling from a new rule set's release is that a significant number of folks seem to think that it was done without thought or discussion.

I'll also reiterate something that I've maintained since my first posting as Rules Arb o so long ago....

I make mistakes. I don't always get it right. I'm really sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, but that's just the facts. I will never be one of those folks who does it all alone, assumes that my way is the only way, and rams something through. Almost every document I make and every rules change I document goes through as many sets of eyes that I can feasbily get to before it goes public. I always ask for opinions and counter examples and impacts to that.

The fact that I may not be asking YOU (and that's the generic you, not any one in particular) does not mean it isn't going to ANYBODY.

Yes, of course YOU could do a better job. I'm sure that the product of your work would be error free and the entirety of the internet would come together in a utopian sigh, grateful for your effort. I'm just sorry that you aren't me.

At some point, WK will ask me to step down and/or someone will manage to make this job "not fun". At that point, feel free to step on up and go to town.

Barring that, feel free to send your ideas for improvement to me at HeroclixRules@gmail.com.


as i said before to normalview....well put. i just want to reiterate, i didn't mean to slam you guys. honestly.

this is how it seems to work.
we (the consumers) love this game. seriously, you guys struck gold, this is your baby and it's growin up just fine. you (the devs) are trying to iron things out, and that's good because you care enough to actually want to improve things and from time to time we (the consumers) get a chance to get involved. how cool is that?! immensely.

i've played tons of games over the years and this is the BEST game i've ever played. bar none. it has everything i want in a game. these years of game playing in no way means i could make a better game than any of you guys. i couldn't and i want to make that clear right now. sure, some of us (consumers) might think we can, and to them i say, "put up or shut up".

i guess my gripe is that sometimes we (the consumers) get confused because the rules for this game aren't like monopoly man, they are seriously complex. so when we ask a question and get a smarmy, conceited know-it-all taking a condescending tone, it strikes a nerve.

** this comment was not directed at any specific orange, but sometimes it comes across this way **

now this doesn't always happen but it does. and yes, it happens both ways when one of us (consumers) gets all crazy in the head and obviously wants to just pick fights with you guys. I am not that guy, trust me, i just wanna know if im doing things right. some members can be d-bags and they deserve to be flamed, but others are just caught in the cross fire. that's all i'm saying.

there has to be a mutual respect here. we (the consumers) need to understand that, hey, this game making thing ain't easy. and you (the devs) need to understand that, hey, sometimes your big, fancy words are confusin to us folk. that's all. think of it like customer service. sorry to say this, but i personally don't care how often i get asked the same questions by people trying to learn, i'll answer and help out. but when it's like we are 'bothering' you guys or 'inconveniencing' you with our 'stupid' questions, well ya don't treat your customers that way cuz it's just bad business. (again, some of us <consumers> can be 'difficult' so it's your call how you choose to address those ones)

i completely understand your points, all of em. but to be fair, it's always preached on here that "the judge is always right". well in my world, the customer is. that doesn't mean at all, and i can't stress this enough, that WE know what we are doing 'dev-wise'. I, personally trust you guys to do what you think is right, just please try to continue to be patient and respect/understand our views and just accept that we will ask questions...sometimes the same one over and over. it's only because we want to know how to play your awesome game!!

so in closing, i want to say i really meant no disrespect at all and i sincerely hope you guys believe that.

[The7ofDiamonds]

The new wording covers each of those points, too, and it is tweaked to address some issues that the old Flurry didn't cover. I am still not sure what your actual issue is with the new wording... can you give a specific example of something that is not covered by the new wording that was in the old?

If it needs fixing, let's hear it.

I just believe that the newer wording is more difficult to understand. The part I have the biggest problem with is the beginning. I just think it either sounds too ambiguous or not clear enough.

Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

I feel that there should be maybe something in between "Give this character a close combat action." and "After the close combat attack resolves,..." I felt just a little confused when I first read it as if the wording was jumping the gun and assuming that the player knew that by giving a close combat action, that a free action close combat attack was granted by it.

I think it might have even been better if you just left flurry the way it was (I think the old wording was very clear, concise, and understandable), and if flurry wanted to be implemented to work with Giants or Leap Climbers than I believe that the wording should have been changed for Giants or Leap Climbers.

I don't mean to go off on a mini-tangent here (actually I do, it kind of popped into my head), but I kind of have an analogy that came to mind when I thought what exactly happened. You wanted the characters, Leap Climbers and Giants, to be able to use the power, Flurry. So the flurry was changed to specify that it worked with the characters.... shouldn't it be something about the characters that changes. I mean, isn't it what's special about the characters not about the power that allows them to do what they do, use flurry?

And here's the analogy part.... That's kind of like saying "Well, this Lawyer isn't smart enough to pass the BAR." So the solution used, rather than "changing" the Lawyer (Studying, better preparation, etc.) you change the Exam for everyone, just so that one Lawyer can do better on the exam.

And this could go a bunch of different ways too. This was just one of the first examples I thought of. I think if it's the characters that are special for being able to use the power, they should be the ones changed as they are the ones that are different. If something is wrong with one person, the people make an effort to change... not the entire system is changed so it's different for everyone else.

I think I probably had a case of rambling on, and you might not even agree with what I said, but I think that you can at least understand my point.

[vamroc]

They always did.

RE: resolving the attack and pushing.

Resolving actions cause the placement of a token (and thus pushing damage); resolving an attack does not necessarily mean that the action is over. Usually, yes, an attack resolves and then the action resolve and there is not much of a difference between the two... in this case, though, once the first attack resolves, something else happens (a second attack) which means the action hasn't resolved yet.

AWESOME SAUCE, so now a monster like KC CR Superman can push, get BOTH of his attacks off, and then take the click. BWAHAHAHAHA that is so much better than before :devious:.

[nbperp]

I think I probably had a case of rambling on, and you might not even agree with what I said, but I think that you can at least understand my point.

In short, you have a valid opinion. I don't dispute it. However, if it were implemented as you say, any time something came up that required tweaking or adjusting about Flurry (or Quake, or whatever else comes around) would have required remembering to make sure that L/C, Giant, etc., were changed to handle it accordingly.

A problem with Flurry was that it specified adjacency. Adjacency shouldn't matter for Flurry, only making a close combat attack. If a figure down the line gets created that is allowed to make CC attacks against figures that are 3 squares away (Giant Giant Size) then giving that figure Flurry should work without having to think about it any more than putting a red square in his speed slot. This change accomplishes that.

A problem with Flurry was that it was one action that bundled two actions within it, when it didn't have to. Look at folks who know something about "actions versus attacks" ad their question about Lunge. By removing the "third action" from the equation, something like Lunge comes to the correct answer more often (though I'll grant you that it won't always).

Lastly, to this point:
I felt just a little confused when I first read it as if the wording was jumping the gun and assuming that the player knew that by giving a close combat action, that a free action close combat attack was granted by it.

Firstly, a close combat action does not include a close combat attack as a free action. It includes it because that is what a close combat action does. Secondly, if the wording of Flurry encourages/forces people to learn and understand the difference between actions and attacks to a better degree, then I'm doubly for it.

In the end, like I said initially, I don't disagree that you have valid points. I'm simply pointing out that there are other perspectives here and that no change was made ad hoc, "just because it sounds good to do that". Folks are welcome to disagree and say "not how I would have done it" but it would be unfair to say the change was made without thought or discussion. (Not saying you said that either)

[beardedtoyman]

I think it might have even been better if you just left flurry the way it was (I think the old wording was very clear, concise, and understandable), and if flurry wanted to be implemented to work with Giants or Leap Climbers than I believe that the wording should have been changed for Giants or Leap Climbers.

The problem with this is that changing Leap/Climb to allow adjacency for Flurry would also allow L/C characters to Quake at different elevations, which is probably not something GD wanted to implement. If the issue is one power's usability, it makes more sense to change the power than to change a combat ability and another power, and to rebalance both of those items to avoid breaking another power (or more, without analyzing anything other than Quake).

[The7ofDiamonds]

In short, you have a valid opinion. I don't dispute it. However, if it were implemented as you say, any time something came up that required tweaking or adjusting about Flurry (or Quake, or whatever else comes around) would have required remembering to make sure that L/C, Giant, etc., were changed to handle it accordingly.

A problem with Flurry was that it specified adjacency. Adjacency shouldn't matter for Flurry, only making a close combat attack. If a figure down the line gets created that is allowed to make CC attacks against figures that are 3 squares away (Giant Giant Size) then giving that figure Flurry should work without having to think about it any more than putting a red square in his speed slot. This change accomplishes that.

A problem with Flurry was that it was one action that bundled two actions within it, when it didn't have to. Look at folks who know something about "actions versus attacks" ad their question about Lunge. By removing the "third action" from the equation, something like Lunge comes to the correct answer more often (though I'll grant you that it won't always).

Lastly, to this point:


Firstly, a close combat action does not include a close combat attack as a free action. It includes it because that is what a close combat action does. Secondly, if the wording of Flurry encourages/forces people to learn and understand the difference between actions and attacks to a better degree, then I'm doubly for it.

In the end, like I said initially, I don't disagree that you have valid points. I'm simply pointing out that there are other perspectives here and that no change was made ad hoc, "just because it sounds good to do that". Folks are welcome to disagree and say "not how I would have done it" but it would be unfair to say the change was made without thought or discussion. (Not saying you said that either)

Yeah, I can definitely see what you're saying there. I am glad that you took the time to read my post as well and can see the validity of my points. I still like the old wording better (perhaps the change could have come in just rewording it so adjacency is treated differently in the power to improve the wording?), but I see why the change was made. Thanks.

[BigDaddyHub]

AWESOME SAUCE, so now a monster like KC CR Superman can push, get BOTH of his attacks off, and then take the click. BWAHAHAHAHA that is so much better than before :devious:.

I don't think you were playing it right before. But I'm glad you will be able to play it correctly now!

[zero_cochrane]

AWESOME SAUCE, so now a monster like KC CR Superman can push, get BOTH of his attacks off, and then take the click. BWAHAHAHAHA that is so much better than before :devious:.Pretty sure that it's exactly the same as before.

Pushing action occurs at the end of a tokenable action. If you pushed to Flurry, you have always been able to make both attacks before taking any pushing damage.

[Harpua]

AWESOME SAUCE, so now a monster like KC CR Superman can push, get BOTH of his attacks off, and then take the click. BWAHAHAHAHA that is so much better than before :devious:.

I don't think you were playing it right before. But I'm glad you will be able to play it correctly now!

Pretty sure that it's exactly the same as before.

Pushing action occurs at the end of a tokenable action. If you pushed to Flurry, you have always been able to make both attacks before taking any pushing damage.
Those guys are correct. Even under the old rules, pushing was applied until after both attacks.

A problem with Flurry was that it was one action that bundled two actions within it, when it didn't have to.
Another big thing this does is clean up Flurry and Shape Change.

Before:
...ATTACK!ATTACK!

Under the old rules, you did not select a target until Free Action #1. By this time, you have already begun resolving the close combat action. As a result, if the target of FA#1 had SC and made a successful roll, if you had no other target, you were stuck.

After:
ATTACK!ATTACK!

Now, if the target of the first attack succeeds at a SC roll, then you are still able to declare any non-free action you want.

[veritas610349]

i'm sure this has been covered before but the way flurry is now written, does that mean that the initial action and the free action are two seperate action? in other words, if i am being attacked by a figure with flurry, and my figure is a wild card, can i choose to use the skrull ability for the first action, and then, if a character with the defenders is next to the wild card, choose to use the defenders ability for the second action?

[normalview]

i'm sure this has been covered before but the way flurry is now written, does that mean that the initial action and the free action are two seperate action? in other words, if i am being attacked by a figure with flurry, and my figure is a wild card, can i choose to use the skrull ability for the first action, and then, if a character with the defenders is next to the wild card, choose to use the defenders ability for the second action?

No. The second attack occurs after the first attack (not action) has resolved.

[lancelot]

While on the topic of Flurry, can a character bust down a wall then attack the figure now exposed by the busted-down wall?

B
-
O

I had Sinestro Corps Batman on his Flurry clicks and 3 damage, separated by a wall and an opposing figure behind it. Can I Flurry the wall then the opposing figure? Flurry says "target" but doesn't specify what sort of target, so I can target a wall then a figure?

[normalview]

While on the topic of Flurry, can a character bust down a wall then attack the figure now exposed by the busted-down wall?

B
-
O

I had Sinestro Corps Batman on his Flurry clicks and 3 damage, separated by a wall and an opposing figure behind it. Can I Flurry the wall then the opposing figure? Flurry says "target" but doesn't specify what sort of target, so I can target a wall then a figure?

Yes, that is fine. (and for the record, it always was... this isn't new to BN)

[Harpua]

While on the topic of Flurry, can a character bust down a wall then attack the figure now exposed by the busted-down wall?

B
-
O

I had Sinestro Corps Batman on his Flurry clicks and 3 damage, separated by a wall and an opposing figure behind it. Can I Flurry the wall then the opposing figure? Flurry says "target" but doesn't specify what sort of target, so I can target a wall then a figure?

Yes...and this is nothing new, either. You could do that before, too.

[veritas610349]

No. The second attack occurs after the first attack (not action) has resolved.


:nervous:...sorry, i am still confused...:laugh:
under flurry it says:
FLURRY Give this character a "close combat action". After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a "free action". If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

would that mean they are two seperate action or still one action that just includes a free action?

[nbperp]

:nervous:...sorry, i am still confused...:laugh:
under flurry it says:
FLURRY Give this character a "close combat action". After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a "free action". If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can’t make the second attack.

would that mean they are two seperate action or still one action that just includes a free action?

It is ONE close combat action. That close combat action contains a close combat attack (as all close combat actions do). After that attack is resolved, you get a free action (note - the CC action is not resolved yet, just the attack). That free action allows you to make a second attack. When the attack resolves, you then resolve the free action and then, you resolve the CC action that started it all off.

From a wildcard perspective, the declaration of the CC action is when they can change their TA and hat is it for the entirety of the CC action (including the first CC attack, including the free action within the C action and including the second attack).

[veritas610349]

Thanks you guys... :laugh::p

[The7ofDiamonds]

Yes, that is fine. (and for the record, it always was... this isn't new to BN)

Yes...and this is nothing new, either. You could do that before, too.

lol. I looked at that quickly and for a second though that Harpua just copied and pasted Normalview's post.