Brilliant Tactician Discussion

[SWTony]

I for one was very happy with the change to Dr. Strange and his use of brilliant tactician (I've always felt that this was the way it should have worked from the get go), but it still doesn't seem right (and this ruling feels though it contradicts this) when combined with this:

When affecting friendly characters with Brilliant Tactician, different combat values may be modified per each character affected.

Prerequisites: Outwit and Perplex

Choose a character.

Outwit does not need to show in the character's stat slot in order for the character to use this feat.

When the character uses Perplex, the character can affect every target friendly character that shares a team symbol or keyword with it. The character must have a clear line of fire to each target.

If Wand of Watoomb is used to target more than one character with Perplex (like with the feat Brilliant Tactician), a d6 would be rolled once and each target of Perplex would have a single combat value modified accordingly.

Once during your turn, give this character a free action to modify by +1 or –1 any combat value of a target character until the beginning of your next turn. A character using this power must be within 10 squares of the target and have a clear line of fire to the target, including itself. If a target character is damaged or healed, the effect of Perplex on that character ends immediately.

I quoted everything in question so we have all the info. I'm just wondering how it is justified that Dr. Strange only makes 1 roll and that roll applies to all those affected, but you can still choose different combat values to target different characters with. I have always felt that since BT used the word affect (as opposed to language that said can use perplex on eac) that when you use perplex you would select your target and their combat value to be modified and any other characters with in range would receive the same modifier as the effect of perplex would be to increase combat value x by y. The recent change to Wand of Watoom seems to suggest similar logic, so I'm curious, why the change to one, but not the other?

I'm just looking to generate a discussion here, because the logic doesn't seem right to me. Let this be known, I do know how this works and I accept this ruling, but I don't understand why it was ruled the way it was. I'm looking for a discussion of the why, not whether or not it is right (the ruling, of course, is the right answer).

[nivlac713]

the role once for everyone is for simplicity sake. If you have to roll and remember, this guy gets +2 this is +1, +1 here and then another +2... It would get annoying and book keeping like. So one roll, everything is the same. It was decided long ago that BT could be used for different values on everyone you perplex. Its alot of points to spend on always haveing to choose only ONE value to increase on everyone. It is a little wierd, but think of it more like Doc Strange (or whoever) is giving aid, but he doesn't focus on it, so everyone hes aiding can do what they want with it. Does that ramble have any sense making in it?

[SWTony]

I'd like to discuss this one point at a time, if you don't mind...

the role once for everyone is for simplicity sake. If you have to roll and remember, this guy gets +2 this is +1, +1 here and then another +2... It would get annoying and book keeping like.

This is still the case for remembering which figures got what bonus on which stat. Would it not be simpler to simply say "Dr. Strange perplexes everyone's damage by 2," than have him perplex up his attack, his defense, his damage, his move and his own defense?

It was decided long ago that BT could be used for different values on everyone you perplex.

Sure, but I guess my question is why? And why when Wand of Watoomb was revisited wasn't this ruling also revisited? If it was, why the difference in the way they were ruled?

Its alot of points to spend on always haveing to choose only ONE value to increase on everyone.

Not really. I still thought it was a bargain when I initially thought this was the way it worked. Need a breather? Increase everyone's defense this turn. Going on the attack? Pump up AVs. Gonna swarm a brick? Damage it is! Running like a fat man chasing the ice cream truck? Movement it is. Like I said, my issue with the initial ruling is that the wording indicated that the use of perplex affects everyone, but not that perplex can be used or targets everyone.

[vlad3theimpaler]

I for one was very happy with the change to Dr. Strange and his use of brilliant tactician (I've always felt that this was the way it should have worked from the get go), but it still doesn't seem right (and this ruling feels though it contradicts this) when combined with this:









I quoted everything in question so we have all the info. I'm just wondering how it is justified that Dr. Strange only makes 1 roll and that roll applies to all those affected, but you can still choose different combat values to target different characters with. I have always felt that since BT used the word affect (as opposed to language that said can use perplex on eac) that when you use perplex you would select your target and their combat value to be modified and any other characters with in range would receive the same modifier as the effect of perplex would be to increase combat value x by y. The recent change to Wand of Watoom seems to suggest similar logic, so I'm curious, why the change to one, but not the other?

I'm just looking to generate a discussion here, because the logic doesn't seem right to me. Let this be known, I do know how this works and I accept this ruling, but I don't understand why it was ruled the way it was. I'm looking for a discussion of the why, not whether or not it is right (the ruling, of course, is the right answer).

The one thing you didn't quote was Dr. Strange's actual power:
Wand of Watoomb: Dr. Strange can use Perplex. When Dr. Strange uses Perplex, you can roll a d6; on a result of 5 or 6, you can modify the target’s chosen combat value by up to +2 or –2.
As for the rationale behind the ruling, it could be read that every time you choose a character and combat value for Brilliant Tactician, that is "when Dr. Strange uses perplex," and therefore another time to roll the die. But the recent ruling might represent a reading hat it's still only ONE use of perplex for the whole shebang. That's all I got.

[yourbudrob]

The way I see it.

When you use perplex you choose a target character. Then you choose what combat value you modify to that character.

BT allows you to affect multiple targets when you use perplex. It doesn't allow you multiple uses of perplex. So because there is still only 1 use of perplex there is only 1 roll for the +2.
Because you choose the combat value you modify based on a target character you can modify different combat values to different characters.

[Surfer13]

That's my take... It's a single use of perplex, but brilliant tactician allows that single use to apply to multiple characters.

[SWTony]

That's my take... It's a single use of perplex, but brilliant tactician allows that single use to apply to multiple characters.

See that's my take too. For me its all due to the word affects. I know this isn't the current rules view, but I've always seen there as being 2 tagets for the use of perplex, the character and the combat value being modified. "I'm using perplex to increase Iron Man's defense." In my view, since BT affects everyone that the user can see, it should have equal effect on everyone. If BT read that the user can use perplex on every character they can see that shares a team symbol/keyword as the original target, I can get on board with the current interpretation. But given this new interpretation of the way WoW interacts with BT, I think it may be prudent to revisit the way BT works in and of itself. If WoW is considered to be universal for BT, should it not be the same for the combat value affected?