Honestly, I don't get it. But OK, this is the ruling, so I will go with it.

Except Explode and Reform, which allows him to target and hit a non-adjacent character with a close combat attack. Which sounds like the targeting requirement for Explosive Punch. You do know it's that interaction that is causing the confusion, right? One says that he can target and hit a non-adjacent character with a close combat attack, the other says all characters he hit with a close combat attack can be fb'd. This ruling needs to be in the next PG, it's counter-intuitive. Just like the Spider-Woman ruling.

I agree that a PG entry is needed as this is counter intuitive. I imagine this also means that the GD will have to be consulted potentially resulting in a Magog/Bagman type of journey.

I can see how GD doesn't want to have to define targeting for every SP. And thinking of how knock back changes the dynamics of many SP's that target a character hit in close combat, I can see where there's an effort to NOT redefine targeting in that manner. See GG Thing and the force blasting SP DKR Bane for how they target a previously hit character in close combat, and then think about if that previous attack caused knock back, do you want to allow them to continue to target non-adjacent characters with a 'normally' adjacency required power? I think the default answer to that is 'no' at this juncture.

Obviously. If it were anything else, I'd be absolutely flummoxed.


However, that changes nothing about the way the power works. The only way in which his power description alters the way FB works is by allowing it to be activated with a free action; there is no change to the adjacency requirement.

Take a look at this one:

Enigma Force Blast: Cosmic Spider-Man can use Force Blast. If he does so, he can then use Ranged Combat Expert as a free action targeting the same character.


CSM uses Force Blast and knocks a character away from him. Fine. No problem. Now he might even get to use RCE on that character... if there are no other opposing characters adjacent to Spider-Man. Like I said before, just because a special power says a character can do something doesn't mean it always gets to do that something... it must meet whatever basic requirements that something has first.

In the case of CSM and Enigma Force Blast, he must actually be able to make a ranged combat attack if he were to use RCE and an adjacent opposing character would prevent that. In Nitro's case, if he wants to use Force Blast he must be adjacent to the character he's going to target.

And I find that the ruling is essentially required to go that way. To say otherwise is to open a pandora's box of unintended consequences for many similar powers and combinations.

And thinking about Nitro, he doesn't have a ranged attack, so as long as he can FB the adjacents, then he can reap the benefit of pushing onto ES/D against opponents without a close combat oriented move and attack.

Can we reexamine this? In this thread on Gordon it is clear that the line of thought applied here is being reconsidered.

Just to make the argument clear to everybody.
In the first case - Mongul - the "any character" removes the need for adjacency that is included otherwise in Leadership (at least, it has been played that way for as long the character is out there.
In the second case - Nitro - the "any character" doesn't remove the need for adjacency that is included in Force Blast.
Question : why ? What is the difference ? Is there any ? And if there is not, have we all played Mongul the wrong way ? Or is Nitro actually able to target a non-adjacent character if he has hit him with his other SP ?
I am really lost on these matters.

I think the bolded text superseede the need for adjacency when they are combined : EXPLODE AND REFORM makes it possible for the close combat attack to happen, and the close combatt attack make it possible for the force blast to happen.

I agree with Krueger above : we need consistency in the interpretations of "any character"...

And i'm confused by normalview interpretations of this "if a standard power is tweaked in a special power, it is only tweaked as described. No more and no less."

(as i was too in this thread : http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374209)

We need those to be more carefully worded by the design teams.

Love to hear back on this one.

I think the problem is that much of the Heroclix rulebook and game text is written as "only do exactly what it says." Then you get powers like this where it is written in a way that doing exactly what it says could be an illegal action. While some powers break (or bend) the rules of the game, this one doesn't. I understand why it doesn't and I am not arguing for the ruling to be changed, but I also understand where the confusion comes from.

You can't expect to design a game with the need to explain how every power interacts with another power. Understanding how separate game elements interact with each other is a great part about learning and getting better at strategy games. However, it is the fact that some powers break rules and others do not that can confuse people. It can become hard to distinguish between which ones do and which ones don't.

Right...neither did Gordon's until Harpua said it did and somehow swayed the Oranges who already ruled otherwise over to his line of thinking.

I am asking that an arb, preferably normalview since he made the ruling on this thread, come back and explain if the Gordon decision will affect this ruling or if they are completely separate instances. And if they are completely separate, I respectfully request an explanation as to why so that I can look for that type of nuance in the future.

Whatever the outcome of that posting, is the one I am perfectly willing to live by.

7/7 - Daily bump.

Again if Normalview could comment explaining his thinking on both the threads it would be much appreciated.

I dunno. For me, the special allowing the close combat attack against characters 2 spaces away to me should be raising more questions than the force blast issue. I tend to understand the ruling of Normalview on this matter; he uses it normally (as an action), or as a free action (within the normal rules of FB) against a previously targeted character.

For the initial combat, I see it almost as a limited pulse wave with fixed damage based on range as opposed to a close combat action. But for game mechanics purposes, it needed to be listed as such, in order to key in the free use of FB later (with some limitation).

My big two questions (one of which was asked by Tyroclix in the OP) are:
Does his power work through blocking and walls? The initial answer was not given; an answer was given on the FB issue, not on the blocking issue, which to me is far more of a powerful effect. It would stand to reason, and I would agree with Tyroclix in his reasoning as to why. I would then assume that perhaps elevated would not block the effect either.

Second question, whether the power works through walls or blocking, will it work through adjacent figures as well? Is it ignoring normal LOF restrictions for the duration of the effect? Will it ignore stealth? To my line of thought it would, as it seems to be a special form of pulse wave that penetrates walls, ignores characters and walls for LOF, and therefore would ignore hindering terrain as well.

Explode and Reform does not require LoF. So yes, it will work through blocking terrain and walls. Stealth will not affect it, as there is no LoF drawn.

I really recommend you don't think of it as a special form of Pulse Wave, as it does not ignore game effects, it does not affect friendly characters, it does nothing with the range value, and is a close combat attack, not a ranged combat attack. Trying to use short hand thinking like that can make it easier to play powers wrong.