Sharpshooter

[pattheimpaler]

A has sharpshooter. B and C are friendly to A. A wants to use Ranged Combat Expert on D. All four are adjacent to each other. Can A legally use RCE on character D?


BA
DC

[Dragon_Rose]

The line of fire is still blocked for ranged attacks. It would not matter who was on either side of A. You have to follow the normal rules for drawing lines of fire:)

[beardedtoyman]

The line of fire is still blocked for ranged attacks. It would not matter who was on either side of A. You have to follow the normal rules for drawing lines of fire:)

Actually, if either B or C were an opposing character instead of friendly, LOF would not be blocked. Sharpshooter specifically ignores opposing characters for LOF purposes. However, in this specific example, since both B and C are friendly, they do still block LOF, preventing the ranged attack.

[briscoe]

can you runshot in and attack for a ranged attack?

[Quebbster]

can you runshot in and attack for a ranged attack?
Absolutely.

[Dragon_Rose]

yes you could, i never thought of that before.

Oops, I forgot that wording :)

[jdawgzilla117]

If A and D are adjacent A can't use a range attack any way right?

[Quebbster]

If A and D are adjacent A can't use a range attack any way right?
If A is a sharpshooter then it's fine to fire away.

[Captain Krueger]

Do a line of fire is still needed to make a range attack against an adjacent opponent using Sharpshooter ? Being adjacent is not enough ?
I remember a similar question concerning skrull Spiderwoman's special outwit, but I don't remember what the answer was. And I'm not sure I'm right to try to compare the two...

For memory sake :
Sharpshooter : This character can make ranged combat attacks against adjacent opposing characters. When this character makes a ranged combat attack, it can ignore the effects of opposing characters on line of fire.

Agent Provocateur: Spider-Woman can use Outwit. She can use it normally, or she can counter all standard powers and named powers of a chosen type (speed, attack, defense, or damage) of all adjacent characters.

[beardedtoyman]

Do a line of fire is still needed to make a range attack against an adjacent opponent using Sharpshooter ? Being adjacent is not enough ?
I remember a similar question concerning skrull Spiderwoman's special outwit, but I don't remember what the answer was. And I'm not sure I'm right to try to compare the two...

For memory sake :
Sharpshooter : This character can make ranged combat attacks against adjacent opposing characters. When this character makes a ranged combat attack, it can ignore the effects of opposing characters on line of fire.

Agent Provocateur: Spider-Woman can use Outwit. She can use it normally, or she can counter all standard powers and named powers of a chosen type (speed, attack, defense, or damage) of all adjacent characters.

Unless otherwise specified, LoF is always required to perform an action or use a power involving range.

[malger]

Agent Provocateur: Spider-Woman can use Outwit. She can use it normally, or she can counter all standard powers and named powers of a chosen type (speed, attack, defense, or damage) of all adjacent characters.

Unless otherwise specified, LoF is always required to perform an action or use a power involving range.

Some special powers allow a character to use a standard power against one or more adjacent characters. When adjacency is specified in this way, the character using the special power does not need to have line of fire on the target(s).
No LOF is required for Agent Provocateur.

[beardedtoyman]

No LOF is required for Agent Provocateur.

Right - hence the "unless otherwise specified". I was mainly explaining that sharpshooters still need LoF even when adjacent, because a ranged attack requires LoF.

[pattheimpaler]

Ok, but if Sharpshooter ignores other characters for LoF purposes, why would A need to draw LoF to to D anyway?

[spideyguy51]

Ok, but if Sharpshooter ignores other characters for LoF purposes, why would A need to draw LoF to to D anyway?

Sharpshooter only ignores enemy characters for lof.

[pattheimpaler]

The line of fire is still blocked for ranged attacks. It would not matter who was on either side of A. You have to follow the normal rules for drawing lines of fire:)

Sharpshooter only ignores enemy characters for lof.

Ok, what I'm asking is why does it matter if the LoF would normally be blocked (by two friendlies) if LoF for enemies is ignored AND the Sharpshooter is adjacent?

[beardedtoyman]

Ok, what I'm asking is why does it matter if the LoF would normally be blocked (by two friendlies) if LoF for enemies is ignored AND the Sharpshooter is adjacent?

Because the friendlies DO block the LoF to the enemy. Sharpshooter doesn't turn a ranged attack into a close combat attack, so LoF is still required. Since characters across a diagonal are blocked by two other characters, the only way the Sharpshooter can shoot through the intersection is if at least one of the blocking characters is an enemy, since the Sharpshooter can shoot through them.

[normalview]

Ok, what I'm asking is why does it matter if the LoF would normally be blocked (by two friendlies) if LoF for enemies is ignored AND the Sharpshooter is adjacent?

LOF between to diagonal characters like so:

_X
X_


is blocked.

Characters with the Sharpshooter ability can ignore opposing characters when drawing LOF, so if the Xs were opposing characters (or even just one of them), LOF would be clear for a Sharpshooter.

If the characters are friendly, the Sharpshooter ability will not ignore the characters to draw LOF.


Adjacency never even enters into the equation here. Even though Sharpshooters can, theoretically, make ranged combat attacks while adjacent, all other criteria for making ranged combat attacks must still be met... including being able to draw LOF.

[Harpua]

Because the friendlies DO block the LoF to the enemy. Sharpshooter doesn't turn a ranged attack into a close combat attack, so LoF is still required. Since characters across a diagonal are blocked by two other characters, the only way the Sharpshooter can shoot through the intersection is if at least one of the blocking characters is an enemy, since the Sharpshooter can shoot through them.

QFT.

filler

[beardedtoyman]

Ok, what I'm asking is why does it matter if the LoF would normally be blocked (by two friendlies) if LoF for enemies is ignored AND the Sharpshooter is adjacent?

I think I just saw where the issue is here - Sharpshooter allows a character to shoot through opposing characters in order to hit its target, it does not mean that the character no longer needs LoF to target the opposing character to begin with. It looks like you're taking Sharpshooter to mean that LoF is not necessary to target opposing characters.

[pattheimpaler]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Captain Krueger]

Thanks for the clarification

[Questions]

can you runshot in and attack for a ranged attack?

Absolutely.

I didn't understand what was going on in this question. Was this just a...can you make a ranged attack with Running Shot question or was it more related to Sharpshooter and the specific question the OP asked?

[nivlac713]

It was a sharpshooter question and in the middle someone asked the Running Shot thing. Happens when people think of something new and don't want to start a whole other thread. Everything got answered, as far as I could tell.

[normalview]

I didn't understand what was going on in this question. Was this just a...can you make a ranged attack with Running Shot question or was it more related to Sharpshooter and the specific question the OP asked?

He was asking if a Sharpshooter character could move with Running Shot adjacent to an opposing character and still make a ranged combat attack. And, yes, they can.


Starlord, in particular, can really take advantage of this trick since his Combat Reflexes would prevent the now adjacent opponent from retaliating easily.

[Questions]

He was asking if a Sharpshooter character could move with Running Shot adjacent to an opposing character and still make a ranged combat attack. And, yes, they can.

Thanks for clearing that up. Did not know what the question was.

[Harpua]

Did not know what the question was.
Coming from you, that's a little disconcerting.

[Questions]

Coming from you, that's a little disconcerting.

I had about a 100 hypotheticals in my head. Figured it would be easier to just ask and narrow it down to one. :)

[Harpua]

I had about a 100 hypotheticals in my head. Figured it would be easier to just ask and narrow it down to one. :)

You meant that it is disconcerting that you don't know what you are.

[necrodog]

Outwit requires LOF, but because Agent Provocateur says she can use Ouwit against adjacent characters it's been decided that the LOF requirement is obviated.

Ranged attacks require LOF, and Sharpshooter says it allows ranged attacks against adjacent characters.

Doesn't the logic used for the AP decision suggest that the LOF requirement for ranged attacks is obviated when using Sharpshooter against adjacent characters?

I'm not arguing for a different ruling, I'm asking if this sort of situational application of logic isn't what makes the rules confusing.

[Harpua]

Outwit requires LOF, but because Agent Provocateur says she can use Ouwit against adjacent characters it's been decided that the LOF requirement is obviated.

Ranged attacks require LOF, and Sharpshooter says it allows ranged attacks against adjacent characters.

Doesn't the logic used for the AP decision suggest that the LOF requirement for ranged attacks is obviated when using Sharpshooter against adjacent characters?

I'm not arguing for a different ruling, I'm asking if this sort of situational application of logic isn't what makes the rules confusing.

That ruling is nothing new.

INJUSTICE LEAGUE {old}
When two or more friendly characters using the Injustice League team ability are adjacent to the same opposing character, each character may use this team ability to be given a close combat or ranged combat action which may target only that adjacent opposing character. The total number of actions given using this team ability during a turn requires only one action from your available actions for the turn, but each character given an action using this team ability receives an action token after the action has been resolved.

This TA was ruled that it did not automatically grant you the ability to make the ranged attack. You still needed to meet all other criteria, like being able to make ranged attacks while adjacent and needing LoF.

[necrodog]

And that makes sense: it's the differing applications of how being adjacent effects the two specific powers. AP allows Outwit against adjacent figures to not require LOF, although it normally does. Sharpshooter allows ranged attacks against adjacent figures, but it still requires LOF. Why the difference?

[normalview]

And that makes sense: it's the differing applications of how being adjacent effects the two specific powers. AP allows Outwit against adjacent figures to not require LOF, although it normally does. Sharpshooter allows ranged attacks against adjacent figures, but it still requires LOF. Why the difference?

Because the rules for Sharpshooter don't allow it. If GD had wanted ranged combat to not require LOF (even for just adjacent opponents) they would have said so in the Sharpshooter description.

[beardedtoyman]

Outwit requires LOF, but because Agent Provocateur says she can use Ouwit against adjacent characters it's been decided that the LOF requirement is obviated.

Ranged attacks require LOF, and Sharpshooter says it allows ranged attacks against adjacent characters.

Doesn't the logic used for the AP decision suggest that the LOF requirement for ranged attacks is obviated when using Sharpshooter against adjacent characters?

I'm not arguing for a different ruling, I'm asking if this sort of situational application of logic isn't what makes the rules confusing.

Because AP states:
AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Spider-Woman can use Outwit. When Spider-Woman uses Outwit, she can use it normally, or she can counter all powers of a chosen type (move, attack, damage or defense) of all adjacent characters.

The specific differentiation between using Outwit normally or countering all powers of a chosen type on adjacent characters is what removes the requirement for LoF. Sharpshooter states that it allows a character to make a ranged combat attack against adjacent characters, but does not state that as an alternative to normal ranged combat attacks, but simply as a modification of the normal rule.

[necrodog]

Let me try again:
The ruling for AP is that LOF is not required for that special Outwit because of the mention of using it against adjacent figures.

So why is it illogical to suppose that the mention of using it against adjacent figures doesn't have the same effect on Sharpshooter? No, Sharpshooter doesn't say "LOF isn't required". But neither does AP: only that it can be used against adjacent characters.

Are you really going to tell me that the logic is sound for AP but not for Sharpshooter?

[normalview]

Are you really going to tell me that the logic is sound for AP but not for Sharpshooter?

Yes, I am. We've received confirmation (via PG entry) that GD wants that special power to work against adjacent opponents. It is meant to work that way. Sharpshooter has received no such treatment; it is not meant to work that way.

[necrodog]

So I'm going to say:
"AP says it can be used against adjacent figures, and there is a general clarification that when a special power says that it means LOF is not required. Sharpshooter says it allows RCA against adjacent figures. It's not a special power, but it's a special (as in non-standard) combat ability so logically the same rule would apply."

And you're going to tell me that is not logical?

[normalview]

So I'm going to say:
"AP says it can be used against adjacent figures, and there is a general clarification that when a special power says that it means LOF is not required. Sharpshooter says it allows RCA against adjacent figures. It's not a special power, but it's a special (as in non-standard) combat ability so logically the same rule would apply."

And you're going to tell me that is not logical?

Special power =/= combat abilities.


In absence of any clarification for the sharpshooter ability, play it as written. To do anything else would be illogicial.

[necrodog]

Patience here appreciated as well.

Please understand I'm not making an argument (here or elsewhere) for a different ruling. My issue is that we create situations where a player or judge might reasonably read the rules, come to the wrong conclusion, and say "this makes sense" and be justified in that feeling.
To this specific issue, in the absence of specific clarification we encourage people to apply the rulings from similar situations. No, special power does not equal special ability, but it isn't illogical to apply rulings on a similarly worded power in the absence of anything specific. People make those mistakes, and then when it's posted here instead of "I see where you went wrong" the reaction is often "it's obvious that's not right, how did you come up with such a crazy idea" when in fact it isn't obvious and the idea isn't crazy.

[normalview]

Patience here appreciated as well.

Please understand I'm not making an argument (here or elsewhere) for a different ruling. My issue is that we create situations where a player or judge might reasonably read the rules, come to the wrong conclusion, and say "this makes sense" and be justified in that feeling.
To this specific issue, in the absence of specific clarification we encourage people to apply the rulings from similar situations. No, special power does not equal special ability, but it isn't illogical to apply rulings on a similarly worded power in the absence of anything specific. People make those mistakes, and then when it's posted here instead of "I see where you went wrong" the reaction is often "it's obvious that's not right, how did you come up with such a crazy idea" when in fact it isn't obvious and the idea isn't crazy.

But we've been given very specific instructions as to what the implications of the SP are and... nothing for Sharpshooter.

Just because two things seem similar, doesn't mean that they are similar. Take Flight and Leap/Climb, for example: in many ways, they do exactly the same thing and, to a new player, they probably do seem the same. But they aren't and any clarifications that is made for one does not immedaitely apply to the other.

[Harpua]

So I'm going to say:
"AP says it can be used against adjacent figures, and there is a general clarification that when a special power says that it means LOF is not required. Sharpshooter says it allows RCA against adjacent figures. It's not a special power, but it's a special (as in non-standard) combat ability so logically the same rule would apply."

And you're going to tell me that is not logical?

Here's something I'll add. It took me a long time to accept, but I'm there now. It might help you grasp this.


Pounce...before the latest PG...
Based on the entirety of everything aside from the PG, Pounce should have been usable with objects. Without the PG entry preventing it, objects would have been usable.

What did the PG say?
" Objects cannot be picked up during a Pounce if the character’s damage value will increase above 2.
 If a character is carrying an object and its damage value will be more than 2, it no longer meets the prerequisites of this feat."

My big issue with this was that nothing supported these clarifications. IE, there was no way to read everything else and come to these conclusions.

I fought tooth and nail against these being the rulings. Then after my umpteenth objection, Norm pointed out that they're not "rulings" or "clarifications" on the subject. They are simply the rules and being in the PG makes it true and just as much of a rule as anything else.

I had been under the opinion that such cases would actually change the text. (IE, the PG would say somthing like "Pounce reads 'blah blah blah...This feat may not be used with objects.'")

Sure, while we have many such examples, they are not required.

Even this was a tough pill to swallow, but eventually I came around to being able to accept it. Whatever's in the PG is the rule.

Since the PG said that Pounce could be used (easily) with objects, then that was true regardless of whatever else is said anywhere else. I finally accepted that and stopped fighting.*


I think you may be looking at the same thing here.

AP (and others) don't necessarily have the wording such that being adjacent removes LoF requirements. They do have the PG entry which says that is the case, however. As such, the PG entry makes it true.

As these other effects do not have such an entry in the PG, one cannot assume that the same logic applies.




* And when I finally accept it and stop fighting, it gets reverted. :tired:

(Don't get me wrong...I'm LOVING it!!!)

[necrodog]

Harpua: I do seem to recall you having something to say about that...;)

And I do understand the effect of the PG entry. But what I see is:

PG says "special powers that allow use of a standard power against adjacent opponents removes the LOF requirement from the use of that power."

Sharpshooter is a special attack power that allows use of a standard ranged combat action against an adjacent opponent.

And when someone says "so LOF isn't required?" we say "No, No: apples and oranges. How could you think that the one thing would apply here as well?"

I would contend that it's not such a leap as apples to oranges. Granny Smiths and Fujis, perhaps. You can say it's not the same, but how you can be surprised at the error baffles me.

[normalview]

I would contend that it's not such a leap as apples to oranges. Granny Smiths and Fujis, perhaps. You can say it's not the same, but how you can be surprised at the error baffles me.

Did anyone say they were surprised?

I don't remember reading that particular statement.

Frankly, very little surprises me in this forum anymore.

[Harpua]

Patience here appreciated as well.

Please understand I'm not making an argument (here or elsewhere) for a different ruling. My issue is that we create situations where a player or judge might reasonably read the rules, come to the wrong conclusion, and say "this makes sense" and be justified in that feeling.
To this specific issue, in the absence of specific clarification we encourage people to apply the rulings from similar situations. No, special power does not equal special ability, but it isn't illogical to apply rulings on a similarly worded power in the absence of anything specific. People make those mistakes, and then when it's posted here instead of "I see where you went wrong" the reaction is often "it's obvious that's not right, how did you come up with such a crazy idea" when in fact it isn't obvious and the idea isn't crazy.

As far as similarity goes, I'll go back to my example from my last post.

" If a character is carrying an object and its damage value will be more than 2, it no longer meets the prerequisites of this feat."

Pounce is a feat with a prerequisite of a damage value of 2 or less.

If one were to take the stance that you should apply one ruling to similar places, then you would have been unable to use Nanobots (a feat with a prerequisite of a damage value of 2 or less) while holding an object.

We all know that was not the case. Why? Because you can't necessarily take a ruling somewhere and apply it elsewhere.

That's not to say that you can't do that or that you shouldn't sometimes do that. Originally, the ruling was that a figure off of the board is not not affected by BFCs. This was because the only things applicable at the time that was written was ICwOracle/Laz Pit and Earthquake. Other effects soon came. One could have taken that ruling and used it as precedent (Can you place a CSA token on Oracle?...ok not the best example as that was possible back then...I just don't remember it being asked. :p). One could have also said that this new situation was independent of the other, thus the ruling doesn't apply.

My point is that you just can't assume that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[normalview]

My point is that you just can't assume that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I haven't heard that one in quite some time.


Okay, so I am (pleasantly) surprised :laugh:

[Harpua]

Harpua: I do seem to recall you having something to say about that...;)

And I do understand the effect of the PG entry. But what I see is:

PG says "special powers that allow use of a standard power against adjacent opponents removes the LOF requirement from the use of that power."

Sharpshooter is a special attack power that allows use of a standard ranged combat action against an adjacent opponent.

And when someone says "so LOF isn't required?" we say "No, No: apples and oranges. How could you think that the one thing would apply here as well?"

I would contend that it's not such a leap as apples to oranges. Granny Smiths and Fujis, perhaps. You can say it's not the same, but how you can be surprised at the error baffles me.

Um...Sharpshooter is not a power. ;)

That's the trick, though. When do you apply it generally and when don't you?

I showed how the Pounce ruling didn't carry over to Nanobots.

Why not? They're the same in the respect that they're both feats with a requirement of 2 or less damage.

Heck, why not take it a step further? Why can you use an object with Haymaker? Pounce is a feat and you can't use objects with that. Haymaker is also a feat, so that ruling should apply.

There's lots of ways to make it so that X is equivalnt to Y. It just may not be the right equivalency.

[spider_ham]

Prerequisites: {wing}

Choose a character.

Give the character a power action when it is adjacent to a target opposing character. If the character successfully breaks away, move the character up to half its speed value and then place the target in an unoccupied square adjacent to the character. If the target is not a flying character and occupied a square of elevated terrain, and then was places in a square of grounded terrain, deal it 2 damage after being placed.

RUNNING SHOT Give this character a power action; halve its speed value for the action. Move this character up to its replacement speed value and it may be given a ranged combat action as a free action.

Would Drag allow a character to use Running Shot to carry an opposing character, then attack the target carried character using the Sharpshooter ability via Elite Sniper?

This might be even more effective with Energy Explosion, especially if the target carried character is placed adjacent to another opposing character (but not adjacent to the attacker); Recharge maximizes the attack.

[Questions]

Would Drag allow a character to use Running Shot to carry an opposing character, then attack the target carried character using the Sharpshooter ability via Elite Sniper?

Drag cannot be used with Running Shot. Both require you to give a power action for their activation and that power action cannot activate both effects.

This might be even more effective with Energy Explosion, especially if the target carried character is placed adjacent to another opposing character (but not adjacent to the attacker); Recharge maximizes the attack.

When using Drag, the character must be placed in a square adjacent to the character using Drag.

From Drag:
move the character up to half its speed value and then place the target in an unoccupied square adjacent to the character.

[normalview]

Would Drag allow a character to use Running Shot to carry an opposing character, then attack the target carried character using the Sharpshooter ability via Elite Sniper?

This might be even more effective with Energy Explosion, especially if the target carried character is placed adjacent to another opposing character (but not adjacent to the attacker); Recharge maximizes the attack.

No. You may only give a character one non-free action in a turn. So either use the power action to activate Drag or to activate Running Shot, not both.



Now if one of them had said "When this character is given a power action..." that'd be another story.

[dbauers]

if charge / RS said "when you give this character a power action...."

people would have already been using it with charge, i'd expect. :)