The Problem is that with the Herald of Galactus this was said to be incorrect. It allows me multiple Free Actions. It has been ruled that I cannot Psychic Blast and then Running Shot Psychic Blast if both are from using Revenge Tokens.

So again who is that different from this? Or Doppelganger, or Akuma, or ect...

It seems to apply to some, but not to all.

lol really!? so something that came up largely because of them now effectively on applies to magog and doppelganger?

Well normally I'm called a soccer mom, so it is a little different.

it was ruled against for the Heralds because the power did not specify that they could use the free actions for the same effect (until the newest PG, which changes the rule and so the ruling.) it's consistent, it's just the significant points are a little obscure.

Or, he read the first the first time, and answered it correctly without feeling the need to go into the nuanced details. And lo and behold, his answer is actually correct and answers your question.
Just because you don't like an answer or how it was presented does not mean somebody didn't sit through your presentation...

At least he wasn't trying to sell us a timeshare.

Getting lucky on an answer is not an excuse for ignorance.

Also, are you sure you don't want to buy this time share in Boca Vista?

How do you know he got lucky? Maybe he remembered nbperp's post, and knew what the ruling was.
And how was he ignorant? He was correct, so I can't see the "lacking knowledge" definition being very applicable. And as for the definition as "rudeness," I think you were more rude in the thread than ULN or songwriterz were, but that could just come down to (mis)perceptions based solely upon text conversation.


Boca Raton? What's the catch?

Well he came in to work wearing the same clothes he had on yesterday, so I just assumed...

The Norm post was quoted from the Deputies Cave not an actual thread I believe. That is how I know he did not read and remember it.

As for ignorance he showed a lack o knowledge of what the actual question at hand was and what had been stated since it was first introduced.

Plus Boca Vista is better b/c it bans the Costanzas.

nbperp's clarification isn't specific to multi-attack. It actually doesn't even mention it. At least the part quoted anyway doesn't.

My understanding of nbperp clarification would be:

Akuma - Can definitely make all of the attacks in both flurries.

Doppelganger - Can make all of the attacks in both flurries because he is able to activate it a second time, and once he does that, he gets to do everything the power tells him to do.

This would extend to any situation were an effect lets a character attack as a free action. If they can activate that effect, they get to make the attack, no matter how many time they have done it before. Hypersonic would fall into this category.

Now for things like Running Shot. While the character does get to be given a ranged combat action every time it is able to activate Running Shot, no matter how many times it has done it before. I see nothing that would allow the character to use that free action to activate something like Pulse Wave multiple times with that free action. Running Shot would have to specifically give them the ability to use the Pulse Wave as the free action. i.e., Pulse Wave would have to be listed in the Running Shot power itself.

You can wipe the lipstick of a soccer mom and call her a pig, but when you wake up in the morning you'll still be lying next to chrisdosmil.

Wow. I can't believe I didn't see that coming. And I even knew you were in this thread! D'oh!

Ah, I had missed that it was a dep cave post. Although, TBH, I'm pretty sure I've seen it quoted by the oranges before, because I vaguely recall the sentence about "NDFA," but I may be misremembering.

But you can't know that. His answered addressed your points. He just did so in a broad manner. Speaking in the general does not equate ignorance.
Was his post particularly helpful, for it's lack of a detailed response? Not particularly, no.
Was his post ignorant, because it's lack of a detailed response ammounted to ignorance of the subject matter? Not particularly, no.
Was his post correct, because the general answer is actually the correct one? Yes. Even though a detailed breakdown is neccesary to coprehend the issue hand it is not neccesary to answer the question at hand.

George Costanza? (I'm clearly missing something here, I just don't know what! )

Or what about Flurry?

I'll even make you breakfast!

That's what the ladies tell me.

Seinfeld reference. You'd have to watch the episode.