View Full Version : Help with traits?
omnimon177
11/28/2009, 17:55
I want to check, can traits provide powers that meet feat prerequisites?
We determined a few weeks ago at my venue that as per the rulebook, "If a character can use a power or ability via a special power or ability,
it can be assigned a feat with that power or ability as a prerequisite."
This means that Venom could not use Pounce or Lunge because he can't use leap/climb, "via a special power or ability," but via a trait. Same goes for Thor, Odin, and Thor and Loki with feats that require super strength and invulnerability respectively.
But if traits were considered to be a, "special power or ability," they would in fact meet prerequisites for some decent feats.
Which is it?
lancelot
11/28/2009, 17:56
Traits qualify for Feats, all right.
That said, I boxed up Venom last night w/ Pounce, Takedown, and Entangle. He was never touched all night long.
krusticlese
11/28/2009, 18:11
If you can assign them feats based on the trait... you should be able to outwit a power gained by a trait (i.e., Venom's L/C). Is this correct?
If you can assign them feats based on the trait... you should be able to outwit a power gained by a trait (i.e., Venom's L/C). Is this correct?
Yes and no. If a Trait says that a Figure can use power X, then it can't be outwited because it doesn't "appear on the dial". If a Trait says that a Figure possesses power X, then it can be outwited because possessed powers act as if they are on the dial.
Tarnish
* This very point of difference has been argued a lot of late with Thor and Loki Invulnerability Trait. For now that's how it seems to be, but once we get an RA I expect it will be pinned down one way or another for sure.
Dikarika
11/28/2009, 18:27
Yes and no. If a Trait says that a Figure can use power X, then it can't be outwited because it doesn't "appear on the dial". If a Trait says that a Figure possesses power X, then it can be outwited because possessed powers act as if they are on the dial.
Tarnish
* This very point of difference has been argued a lot of late with Thor and Loki Invulnerability Trait. For now that's how it seems to be, but once we get an RA I expect it will be pinned down one way or another for sure.
Mind you, I fully disagree with this theory and hope that traits remain outwit-able for the near future.
I think the trait mechanic was invented SOLELY to be an anti-outwit mechanic. To treat it otherwise is counter intuitive to its original reason to exist. We shall see, I suppose, but making traits outwit-able due to wording semantics just seems like a hair splitting nightmare.
And we've all already experienced enough of that.
krusticlese
11/28/2009, 18:29
Yes and no. If a Trait says that a Figure can use power X, then it can't be outwited because it doesn't "appear on the dial". If a Trait says that a Figure possesses power X, then it can be outwited because possessed powers act as if they are on the dial.
Tarnish
Ugh. That's what I was afraid of. So basically if a character has a trait that says "This character can use Impervious" then basically they have an un-outwitable Impervious for the whole dial.
I hope they address that in the DC Starter.
How is that different from a figure having the same wording on a special power? For example; pretty much every one of Thor & Loki's special powers are worded so that they 'can use' a standard power instead of 'possessing' them. Would it be because regardless of the description the special power is still 'on the dial' so to speak?
I'm confused because I know special powers can all be outwitted regardless of the wording variations (can use vs possesses) so why would the wording make a difference for a trait?
-Thanks
beardedtoyman
11/28/2009, 18:33
Would it be because regardless of the description the special power is still 'on the dial' so to speak?
That's exactly it - you are outwitting the entire special power, not just the specific power granted by the special power.
Dikarika
11/28/2009, 18:33
Exactly my point.
I don't get it either, other than "too much rules lawyer-ing".
Seems like somebody didn't like the new trait mechanic and is using semantics to find a chink in the armor.
Ugh. That's what I was afraid of. So basically if a character has a trait that says "This character can use Impervious" then basically they have an un-outwitable Impervious for the whole dial.
I hope they address that in the DC Starter.
How is that different from a figure having the same wording on a special power? For example; pretty much every one of Thor & Loki's special powers are worded so that they 'can use' a standard power instead of 'possessing' them. Would it be because regardless of the description the special power is still 'on the dial' so to speak?
I'm confused because I know special powers can all be outwitted regardless of the wording variations (can use vs possesses) so why would the wording make a difference for a trait?
-Thanks
Because when a figure has a SP that says X can use Power Y, Power Z and Power A; You just Outwit the SP. You actually can't just Outwit Power X that the SP let's them use. You have to Outwit the SP and they Lose X,Y and Z.
Traits don't work the same because of the fact that you can't outwit a Trait at all. So any Trait that lets you use Power X, Y and A is safe from outwit.
Tarnish
Exactly my point.
I don't get it either, other than "too much rules lawyer-ing".
Seems like somebody didn't like the new trait mechanic and is using semantics to find a chink in the armor.
Perhaps but to date I don't think we actually have a Trait that says Figure A possesses Power Y, so for now Trait powers are safe.
This all comes from old Superman Enemy and ICWO rulings where figures Possessed the powers granted by Oracle or the Team Ability and it was ruled that you could outwit them since they possessed the ability as if it were on the dial.
Tarnish
beardedtoyman
11/28/2009, 18:40
Perhaps but to date I don't think we actually have a Trait that says Figure A possesses Power Y, so for now Trait powers are safe.
This all comes from old Superman Enemy and ICWO rulings where figures Possessed the powers granted by Oracle or the Team Ability and it was ruled that you could outwit them since they possessed the ability as if it were on the dial.
Tarnish
But we DO have Namora possessing :m-dolphin:, which according to one interpretation means that her Swim ability can be outwitted.
But we DO have Namora possessing :m-dolphin:, which according to one interpretation means that her Swim ability can be outwitted.
Pshaw that doesn't count. Nobody cares about the Swim ability? ;)
Tarnish
The7ofDiamonds
11/28/2009, 19:25
I think the trait mechanic was invented SOLELY to be an anti-outwit mechanic. To treat it otherwise is counter intuitive to its original reason to exist. We shall see, I suppose, but making traits outwit-able due to wording semantics just seems like a hair splitting nightmare.
Ehhhhhhhh... Kind of... But I'm not sure I like how you worded it. Not because they were there just to ruin outwitters days... more like this trait makes them who they are so you can't counter it because it's just part of them.
Dikarika
11/28/2009, 20:47
Ehhhhhhhh... Kind of... But I'm not sure I like how you worded it. Not because they were there just to ruin outwitters days... more like this trait makes them who they are so you can't counter it because it's just part of them.
You are trying to take a game mechanic item (traits) and re-think it as a comic book related item.
It matters not whether a trait is "part of them". Traits (as well as keywords, abilities and TAs) are GAME MECHANIC items. They were created to act in a certain way to further the gameplay.
Traits were created to give figures un-outwit-able powers, plain and simple.
To change the game mechanic from that original status to something new through "rules lawyer arbitration" is wrong. Its why traits were made. PERIOD.
Real Life/comic books/haggling over wording does change the original game mechanic. Powers that cannot be outwitted or countered.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is pre-existing literature to back up my argument.
AKA, the FF rulebook:
"TRAITS
Traits are abilities, powers, effects, or other aspects of a character that it
possesses at all times, regardless of how its combat dial is turned during
a game. Traits are indicated by the <star> symbol in the circle next to the
name and/or description of the trait on a character card.
All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered"
Non-optional, and can't be countered.
What an interesting idea.
The7ofDiamonds
11/29/2009, 04:39
Yes but I think that the reason they were created was not for the sole reason (or even part of a reason for ruining outwit), I think they were simply implemented as more of a push towards making better representations of characters as they would be in their respective fictional comic book universe. I think the trait is a good way to make a plastic figurine with numbers and colors and stats more representative of who they are supposed to be. I don't know about you, but part of what drew me to heroclix is that possibility of Batman fighting Spider-Man, or Red Tornado fighting Green Arrow, or Magneto's Brotherhood fighting The X-Men. To me this sounds a lot more interesting that figure A taking on figure B. And to me it would make sense that you can't, for example, take away Ben Grimm's ability to reduce damage by 1.
imaleximsweet
11/29/2009, 05:11
Yes but I think that the reason they were created was not for the sole reason (or even part of a reason for ruining outwit), I think they were simply implemented as more of a push towards making better representations of characters as they would be in their respective fictional comic book universe. I think the trait is a good way to make a plastic figurine with numbers and colors and stats more representative of who they are supposed to be. I don't know about you, but part of what drew me to heroclix is that possibility of Batman fighting Spider-Man, or Red Tornado fighting Green Arrow, or Magneto's Brotherhood fighting The X-Men. To me this sounds a lot more interesting that figure A taking on figure B. And to me it would make sense that you can't, for example, take away Ben Grimm's ability to reduce damage by 1.
Well put.
taking game mechanics and applying them to what they would mean in the comic book world is a great way to look at the game
and of course somethings are balanced out for consistancy and balance purposes, but thats the game itself. (for example letting the bad guys win; doesnt really happen in comics [although with newer comics it is becoming a trend])
and from my stand point, if i was making this game and designing figures i would try my best to make the figure as close to the comic representation as possible; personified in one example in: Giving Namora the :m-dolphin: or allowing Thoki the use of Invuln for their hole dial.
the main difference between the two?
Namora has the ability to fly and she is also a fish person therefor she should posses all the abilities of the two.
on the same page, Namora's swim ability can be "outwitted" so to speak (i.e clogging her gills or something silly) which is why she POSSESS :m-dolphin: as apposed to being able to use it.
Contrary to Thoki being two Gods from the Asgardian realms being extremely hard to inflict pain upon. Therefor they can USE invulnerability down their whole dial.
There is no counter to them being so powerful (you cannot outwit a god's durability) they do not POSSESS invulnerabilty, rather they can use its effects. (or you could say that they have no weakness other than pounding their face in)
so taking a game mechanic and thinking about it in terms of comic books is a great way in understanding the game.
the designers know that they arent just making a regular game, they are making a game based on comics.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.