This is correct.

If you are going to replace one value (A) with another value (B), you need to know what B is before you can turn A into B. So you need to take a look at B and say "What are you?" And if B has some modifiers, that's part of B. That's why the 'unmodified' is necessary.

Any scenario where "unmodified" isn't specified. I actually can't think of any off the top of my head, but then again there is a reason that this word keeps popping up

I know there's a lot of theoretical discussion here, but should this have been in the rules forum?

Would you then say that my argument for the inclusion of the "unmodified" language as proof that it has always been intended for "lend then modify" is a viable reading of "replace then modify" rather then as "exception to the rule" language (since so far it has been the case 100% of the time, or in the very least the vast majority of the time such that any time that it might not definitely feels like exception to the rule) as a misguided argument?

If something works 100% of the time a certain way, it shouldn't need a clause to help it stay that way. It should be in the rules text at a fundamental level, and I still stand by the fact that the language of "calculate all replacement values at stake then all modifications at stake crosses to calculating multiple characters' values simultaneously.

I know you weren't asking me, but...
No, it's always been intended to work as it actually does: if not, there have been ample opportunities to correct the language and/or interpretation. It works 100% of the time as it does because of the clause. Frankly, I'd think that applying the rule as you've described makes things potentially more complex, which is seldom a good thing. It's much simpler as it actually is worded and works: treat each figure as a discrete calculation.

If you want to replace a value, you need to know what you are replacing with.

It literally is no more or less complex than that. If Joker wants to give Two-Face his AV, you need to know what Joker's AV is in the first place. Without "unmodified" or "printed" in that mix somewhere, there is no reason that Joker's AV couldn't first be modified since modifiers kick in any time a combat value is used.

I was going to suggest the very same thing. The rules arbiters tend to chime in more in that section than the General Discussion.

...and their contributions show up in those pretty colors, too.

But I was actually thinking that this is possibly a question others would like to see the resolution on, and that forum is where they would look.

With this word, I will say that I still think the language should read something like "Replace/Lend then Modify". At that point, it is not any more complex than what we already have, and the exception becomes the rule (because the exception should never happen 100% of the time).

That's just it: there is no exception.

If you want to use a combat value to do something, anything, you need to know what that combat value is supposed to be. In this case, that "something" is be a replacement value... but it could just as easily have been make an attack, use as a feat prerequisite, check for a special power condition, etc.

Once you know what that combat value is, in total, then you go and use it for whatever that something is going to be.

I would like to publicly thank all who participated in this discussion to this point (and openly welcome more, if they so choose). It is almost entirely hypothetical as I can't think of any game effect that allows a figure to use a modified value as a replacement value.

Despite how I may sound/read, I have no hard feelings against anyone involved.

I just like to point out that I have responded to your posts accordingly. I was pointing out that rorschachparadox was simply coming in, repeatedly, and just saying I was wrong. That does not foster discussion. Maybe he felt no discussion was needed. That's fine. I prefer to discuss disagreements, especially concerning the rules of a game I love.

Hear hear.


(And same here.)

I disagree with your assessment there. I did give my reasons, repeatedly. I believed that the golden rule of replace then modify answered how the situation worked.
That I was eventually told I was wrong doesn't discount the fact that I did give a reason on several occasions.

Gideon from GSX. He replaces his range with the range of the figure whose power he uses, and doesn't specify unmodified.
I once made a team to get him up to 18 range, just because I could.