Skrull Spider-Woman's Special Power

[mahazulu]

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 choosen type (move, attack, damage or defense) of all adjacent characters.


Can I assume this means, if she so pleased, Spider-woman could use Agent Provocateur to counter the movement powers of stealth characters? Meaning that LOS would not be needed to activate the power. On a personal note : I'm not sure how I missed this one, considering I own the piece.

[lancelot]

Correct, she can Outwit Stealth on stealthed characters.

[The7ofDiamonds]

I'm gonna say no on that since it says "When Spider-Woman uses Outwit, she can use it normally, or she can....". To me that goes with all the other special outwit powers of this type, and implies that you are still using outwit, and to use outwit on a character, you must have line of sight.

At the same time though... this would cause a lot of confusion if she was adjacent to 3 characters in a corner formation... as it does say counter all powers of all adjacent characters... and in a corner situation, she wouldn't actually have line of sight to one of the characters. In this situation, X is Spider-Woman. She would not have line of sight to 2.

23
1X

[SLVRSR4]

I would still say that it works just like regular outwit as far as how line of sight is figured. However, I had her copying the Ultimates team ability recently and she was amazing. She was In Stealth and could outwit a person who was using stealth. AWESOME.

[lancelot]

I'm gonna say no on that since it says "When Spider-Woman uses Outwit, she can use it normally, or she can....". To me that goes with all the other special outwit powers of this type, and implies that you are still using outwit, and to use outwit on a character, you must have line of sight.

At the same time though... this would cause a lot of confusion if she was adjacent to 3 characters in a corner formation... as it does say counter all powers of all adjacent characters... and in a corner situation, she wouldn't actually have line of sight to one of the characters. In this situation, X is Spider-Woman. She would not have line of sight to 2.

23
1X
Nah, she can Outwit Leap/Climb, Running Shot, and Stealth on all 3 should she find herself adjacent to 1, 2, and 3.

[lancelot]

I would still say that it works just like regular outwit as far as how line of sight is figured. However, I had her copying the Ultimates team ability recently and she was amazing. She was In Stealth and could outwit a person who was using stealth. AWESOME.

Again, LoF is not needed.

[The7ofDiamonds]

The players guide words it a bit differentlySpider-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.

I would still say, going by this wording, that she is using it as if using outwit normally, just with a variation on what is countered.... but since she is using outwit still, I would say that Line of fire is required to the characters she is outwitting and that the blocked LoF was just something that was never taken into consideration in dial design, nor was it able to get clarified / errata'd before wizkids bit the bullet.

[SLVRSR4]

Again, LoF is not needed.

I'll believe it when Harpua or NBPerp says so. I'm not calling anybody dumb or a liar, but those two are the go to guys for rule decisions.

[lancelot]

I'll believe it when Harpua or NBPerp says so. I'm not calling anybody dumb or a liar, but those two are the go to guys for rule decisions.

Figures. :laugh:

There's the "or" in that SP...she uses it normally or against adjacent figures.

No mention of LoF is needed.

[SLVRSR4]

Figures. :laugh:

There's the "or" in that SP...she uses it normally or against adjacent figures.

No mention of LoF is needed.

Crazier things have been errata'd.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Figures. :laugh:

There's the "or" in that SP...she uses it normally or against adjacent figures.

No mention of LoF is needed.

You've posted enough times that no LoF is needed, and pretty much in the same way each time. That's probably enough. We get the point. You don't believe LoF is needed. The fact still remains, she is using outwit, and outwit require line of fire.

[lancelot]

You've posted enough times that no LoF is needed, and pretty much in the same way each time. That's probably enough. We get the point. You don't believe LoF is needed. The fact still remains, she is using outwit, and outwit require line of fire.
Ain't worth going there.

Waitin' 'til someone comes along to back me up.

[Maraud]

this has been ruled on many times.
As we know SP overrule normal powers with what they say.
1 all powers of one type overwrites one power
2 all adjacent figures overwrites LoF.

this stands true for crispus allen

there should be many forums on here about this.


Following the logic that adjacent does not overwrite LoF would also mean that every other SP that has special wording would not overwrite the basic power and would be useless.

[lancelot]

this has been ruled on many times.
As we know SP overrule normal powers with what they say.
1 all powers of one type overwrites one power
2 all adjacent figures overwrites LoF.

this stands true for crispus allen

there should be many forums on here about this.


Following the logic that adjacent does not overwrite LoF would also mean that every other SP that has special wording would not overwrite the basic power and would be useless.

That's one for me, but according to the masses, you're not Harpua or NBPerp...so we still gotta wait.

[SLVRSR4]

according to the masses

Are you calling me fat?

[Maraud]

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=247439&highlight=spider+woman

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=251222&highlight=spider+woman

and i will even to go quote 7 saying no LoF is needed.
The thing that is modified about outwit is that normally, you can outwit everything, not just named and standard powers. To my knowledge, you would just need to be adjacent, not need line of fire as it just says "adjacent characters", it doesn't say "target characters", which normally implies line of fire required.
in this thread
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248455&highlight=spider+woman

here is one that includes a dead link but talks about the ruling from nbperp
Just dug this thread up. Check out post # 3 in which nbperp states that the second part of Spider-Woman's SP (and I quote) "clearly does not require line of fire."

http://forum.wizkidsgames.com/showthread.php?t=181347

Hope that helps!
-jason


there are many many other post that mention this.
i also pose another question with you.
With Dooms
Dr. Doom can use Outwit and Perplex. When Dr. Doom uses Outwit, he can use it normally, or you can roll a d6 instead; on a result of 4-6, counter a power possessed by a single target opposing character anywhere on the battlefield.
would u still say he needs LoF?
how about Mordru's
LORD OF CHAOS: Mordru can use Outwit. When Mordru uses Outwit, he can use it normally or choose to counter all powers of a target character 4 or fewer squares away.
by your saying they would still need LoF b/c its still "Outwit"

[The7ofDiamonds]

I was under the impression that Mordru and Emperor Joker did actually need Line of Sight. The reason being because it says "target character".... Iono. Too tired to think right now. I probably said something a while back ruling one way and am now saying another. Iono. Tired.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Yeah. I guess now looking at the spider-woman ruling, and trying to communicate with my past self the way I arrived at my conclusion.... I'd say that no Line of Fire is needed because it simply says adjacent, and doesn't say anything about target characters.

[Harpua]

I was under the impression that Mordru and Emperor Joker did actually need Line of Sight. The reason being because it says "target character".... Iono. Too tired to think right now. I probably said something a while back ruling one way and am now saying another. Iono. Tired.

You are correct that Mordru and Emperor Joker do need LoF, but Spider woman does not.

[zero_cochrane]

"All adjacent characters" means just what it says - every character who is adjacent to Spider-Woman. Line of fire is not relevant.

If her special power said "all adjacent characters to whom Spider-Woman can draw line of fire", that would be a different matter.

[bugleboy]

"All adjacent characters" means just what it says - every character who is adjacent to Spider-Woman. Line of fire is not relevant.

If her special power said "all adjacent characters to whom Spider-Woman can draw line of fire", that would be a different matter.

I am confused about one thing, though. The reason for this ruling is because the wording states "all adjacent characters", meaning that the relational location of Spider-Woman and the opposing figures overrides the LOF rules for Outwit.

But...

Skrull Emperor has, in my eyes, a SP that has the same issue:

SCHEME: Skrull Emperor can use Outwit. He can use it normally, or choose a keyword and counter the same power or ability possessed by all opposing characters 10 or fewer squares away that possess the chosen keyword.

His SP states a relational location relevent to himself. It has no requirement for LOF stated in the power. I see "characters 10 or fewer squares away..." no differently than "all adjacent characters...". They both restate the use of their Outwit to new relational locations, yet Skrull Emperor was ruled to need Line of Sight to the target.

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this for me.

[Silver Lantern]

That's a good point Bugle, as Skrull Emperor also has the key lanuage of "he can use it normally, OR...," which to me is imperative for the "it's not normal outwit" rationale. The only things I can think of is that the

1) "10 or fewer squares away" language supports it being used like outwit, and
2) It may be too powerful otherwise;

Still, that doesn't quite explain away the fact that "use it NORMALLY, OR.. language strongly supports that it is not used like outwit, and hence the LOF prerequisite would not be required.

[Harpua]

I am confused about one thing, though. The reason for this ruling is because the wording states "all adjacent characters", meaning that the relational location of Spider-Woman and the opposing figures overrides the LOF rules for Outwit.

But...

Skrull Emperor has, in my eyes, a SP that has the same issue:

SCHEME: Skrull Emperor can use Outwit. He can use it normally, or choose a keyword and counter the same power or ability possessed by all opposing characters 10 or fewer squares away that possess the chosen keyword.

His SP states a relational location relevent to himself. It has no requirement for LOF stated in the power. I see "characters 10 or fewer squares away..." no differently than "all adjacent characters...". They both restate the use of their Outwit to new relational locations, yet Skrull Emperor was ruled to need Line of Sight to the target.

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this for me.

For consistency of the wording, was it the best choice? No.

Scheme does not override the LoF requirement because it doesn't address the issue of LoF.

I realize that Spider-Woman doesn't actually say that either. My guess is that the designers felt that the specification of adjacency accomplished that. I see your point, though, but we have the rulings we have.

[Silver Lantern]

Yes Harp, that occurred to me after I posted too. The way I see adjacency implies that there are no figures between you and the figure you're adjacent to, where as with the Scheme SP, that may or may not be the case.

[bugleboy]

Rulings are rulings. I wish they could have a little more consistency, though.

Can everyone imagine how much better these issues would be if they had the likes of NBPerp, Harpua, Quebbs, and Normalview discuss them and come up with the most cogent and consistent rulings.

I bet they would even do it free of charge.

[W.I.T]

Another down right contradiction in rulings of the way things work. Stupid.

[Maraud]

Another down right contradiction in rulings of the way things work. Stupid.

How so? All sp are contradiction to how things work. This states that u only need to be adjacent.

[necrodog]

How so? All sp are contradiction to how things work. This states that u only need to be adjacent.

Actually, it doesn't. Design has told us that only adjacency is required, but the text doesn't say that. If the text alone meant that no LOF was required, the text alone for Scheme would mean no LOF was required which we know is not the case.
This is, IMO, two cases of similarly ambiguous language being ruled to mean what Design intended them to mean, and the intent is not the same case to case. I'm not arguing the ruling, or looking for a debate. But to say this is consistent is absurd.

[W.I.T]

Actually, it doesn't. Design has told us that only adjacency is required, but the text doesn't say that. If the text alone meant that no LOF was required, the text alone for Scheme would mean no LOF was required which we know is not the case.
This is, IMO, two cases of similarly ambiguous language being ruled to mean what Design intended them to mean, and the intent is not the same case to case. I'm not arguing the ruling, or looking for a debate. But to say this is consistent is absurd.

That is exactly my point. 'Scheme', 'Powerless' and 'Joker Makes The Rules' are all worded the same way.

[ZZZ]

That is exactly my point. 'Scheme', 'Powerless' and 'Joker Makes The Rules' are all worded the same way.
...and they all required clarification. If you play exactly according to how Spider-Woman's power reads, then you are playing it correctly.

They need to be very careful of wording to avoid these problems...