A character holding an object and making a close combat attack against a single character must use the object in the attack, as shown in Figure 16, unless the character is using a power that will deal no damage.

A character holding an object may throw it at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 17; a character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action.

But you can't throw the statue in the first place. It's text doesn't say this object can be used to target walls or blocking, it just says if it is used (which it can't be), it deals 3 damage.

Personally, I think the object rules are outdated and lacking. Hulk Can't set down a car? He's mad, not r-tarded. House rules when I play say free action to drop an object, and auto-hit on any wall/square with close or ranged combat. The walls and floor can't dodge...

Will be watching this thread.

This is a very good point which I have yet to see addressed. This is a game of rules lawyering, and the wording on the rules and statue make the statue a useless object.

We do, however, have a ruling from the Oranges that says you can. Rulings from the Oranges are considered to be part of the rules text.

I really think it needs to be given an errata, though, since, as it stands, it is starkly inconsistent with other rulings.

Agreed. there needs to be some sort of errata or PG clarification as this is clearly not what the rules say. As it is it's more of a "if some other mechanic would allow you to use an object on terrain, this object would do more than normal damage."

What's weird is I clearly remember being able to use objects to destroy terrain, but I can't find a rule book that has significantly different text than what we have now. Was this just a "of course you can, it's common sense" thing that was finally brought in line with the actual rules, or just another example of the mental weakness that comes with advancing age?