View Full Version : Outwit and traits
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 18:59
Now that we have an RA maybe this can be answered. Can the power granted by a trait be outwitted depending on the wording. If it says "can use" or "possesses".
I'm fairly certain that it would be no either way. I just want to make sure. I haven't seen a official answer.
EDIT: I'm closing this down before it is threadcromanced. This thread had run it's course. I suggest starting a new one if you feel that strongly about the subject. Keep in mind it has been talked to death and can be a volitile topic. Best of luck!
lancelot
12/14/2009, 19:16
"Uses" = no.
"Possesses" = yes.
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 19:19
"Uses" = no.
"Possesses" = yes.
Is that the official answer or just what you think? If it is the official answer can you post a link. I've been looking and can't find it.
Shame if it is cause it would make traits seem fairly pointless.
lancelot
12/14/2009, 19:21
Is that the official answer or just what you think? If it is the official answer can you post a link. I've been looking and can't find it.
Shame if it is cause it would make traits seem fairly pointless.
It's just the party line that has been echoed by Harpua, Normalview, Quebbster, and NBPerp.
Pointless, how? It frees up the dial for other powers. Like with Thor's trait giving him Super Strength allows him to have other attack powers in the slot.
And as far as I can tell, most traits so far are using the "uses" wording, not "possesses". So, most traits are safe.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:21
"Uses" = no.
"Possesses" = yes.
I sure hope this is only conjecture.
The rulebook is already specific in stating that ALL traits cannot be outwitted.
Changing this fact due to word choice would seriously be a mistake.
lancelot
12/14/2009, 19:23
I sure hope this is only conjecture.
The rulebook is already specific in stating that ALL traits cannot be outwitted.
Changing this fact due to word choice would seriously be a mistake.
Not conjecture at all.
I'm just simply going to wait until one of the Big 3 shows up.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:25
Not conjecture at all.
I'm just simply going to wait until one of the Big 3 shows up.
OK then, I will too!
*Sits down in a huff*
:grin:
Page 19 of the FF rulebook:
All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered
"Uses" = no.
"Possesses" = yes.
just to show you can not outwit Feats just like Traits.
With ICWO you gain Possession of a power, which can be outwitted.
The only figure at this time that says they posses is namora with
"SPECIAL: Namora has the [aquatic] symbol"
When they posses it is on the dial and you are not outwitting the trait.
Now will it be errated? maybe
At this time if a trait says they posses that power can be outwitted.
If a trait says "Bob can use Super Strength." then Bob does not possess Super Strength.
If a trait says "Bob has/possesses Super Strength." then Bob does possess Super Strength.
Possession of the power would then enable said power to be countered by Outwit.
You would not be countering the trait in any way, shape, or form.
As of right now, the only possession I can recall from a trait is on Namora. Her trait grants here possession of the :m-dolphin: symbol. As a result, you could counter the Swim ability.
This is not an official ruling from nbperp, but it follows what the official rules state.
Outwit
Once during your turn (but not during another action), as a free action this character counters a power or an ability (other than a team ability) possessed by a single target opposing character. Treat the target as if it does not have the countered power or ability, which remains countered until the beginning of your next turn. A character using this power must be within 10 squares of the target and have a clear line of fire to the target. If this character loses Outwit or is defeated, the countered power or ability returns immediately.
There is also precedent. You cannot counter a feat, but you can counter a power granted from a feat because doing so is not countering the feat.
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 19:31
It's just the party line that has been echoed by Harpua, Normalview, Quebbster, and NBPerp.
Pointless, how? It frees up the dial for other powers. Like with Thor's trait giving him Super Strength allows him to have other attack powers in the slot.
And as far as I can tell, most traits so far are using the "uses" wording, not "possesses". So, most traits are safe.
Pointless because if a game designer is not careful it doesn't do what I think the intention of traits are. Which is to give a figure a power that isn't outwittable. As far as making room goes that is a poor argument. Thor/Loki have no defensive power for their entire dial. That leaves plenty of room for the invulnerability granted by the trait. Plus as special powers have shown they can make plenty of room for multiple powers and abilitys.
So yes if the powers from traits can be outwitted it makes traits a basically useless game mechanic. Though I guess if people need their outwit that bad they wl find some way to use it.
I'm not one to think outwit is too powerful but maybe with all the rules lawyering it seems to conjur up maybe something does need done about it.
lancelot
12/14/2009, 19:34
Okay, thread closed! One of the Big 3 has come and spoken!
Hear him, all ye brethen and accept the word as law!
USES = cannot be Outwitted
POSSESSES = can be Outwitted
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:34
just to show you can not outwit Feats just like Traits.
With ICWO you gain Possession of a power, which can be outwitted.
The only figure at this time that says they posses is namora with
"SPECIAL: Namora has the [aquatic] symbol"
When they posses it is on the dial and you are not outwitting the trait.
Now will it be errated? maybe
At this time if a trait says they posses that power can be outwitted.
I have heard this argument, but I ran this past my local judge (whom I trust above all other authorities), and his response was:
"All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered."
This one phrase trumps the "feat" logic you use. It specifically spells out that any and all traits cannot be outwitted, no matter what the wording is.
I'd love to have Eugene on this site, but he refuses to join in the fun. He has a few stories about the old judges forum and hijinx...
On topic, I still stand by that specific rule.
"All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered"
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:35
"This is not an official ruling from nbperp, but it follows what the official rules state."
*editing this so I don't come off sounding so crass...*
Well, I appreciate your input, but your opinion is no more official than mine at this time.
I'll wait for official errata/ruling.
Page 19 of the FF rulebook:
All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered
Seconded... Brojase is spot on.
I have heard this argument, but I ran this past my local judge (whom I trust above all other authorities), and his response was:
"All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered."
This one phrase trumps the "feat" logic you use. It specifically spells out that any and all traits cannot be outwitted, no matter what the wording is.
I'd love to have Eugene on this site, but he refuses to join in the fun. He has a few stories about the old judges forum and hijinx...
On topic, I still stand by that specific rule.
"All traits are non-optional and can’t be countered"
So you stand by these rules, too:
- Characters can’t move into or through blocking terrain.
- A character with two action tokens (as shown in Figure 6) can’t be given any actions (other than a free action) until it no longer has two action tokens on it.
- A character that has two action tokens can’t be given an action other than a free action.
- A character can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, but it can’t move through a square occupied by an opposing character.
- You can’t target a friendly character with an attack.
- Characters in adjacent squares but at different elevations can’t make close combat attacks against each other
- An object held by a character can’t be targeted, destroyed, or taken away from the holding character.
Those are all hard-and-fast rules pulled directly from the rulebook, yet every one of them has something which overrides them.
In this case, however, that's really irrelevant.
When you counter something which a trait has caused a figure to possess, you ARE NOT in any way countering the trait.
normalview
12/14/2009, 19:45
Seconded... Brojase is spot on.
And as Harpua pointed out, it is not the trait being countered, it is the power possessed by the character that the trait happens to grant. And, also has Harpua pointed out, there is precedent (ICWO) of feats that grant possession of powers and those powers being counterable while the feat itself is not.
Barring an official clarification to the contrary, the precedent has been set for non-counterable stuff to grant a counterable power.
but what part of you are not outwitting the trait do you not understand?
You are outwitting a power that is technically on the dial due to the wording?
yes does not matter if it is optional or not, it has nothing to do with outwitting. Prime example Imper, Invul, Tough are non-optinal but they can be outwitted.
i'm not saying that i agree that they should be allowed to be outwitted.
But the fact is if a trait says that they posses a power it is on the dial and not just a trait.
Well, I appreciate your input, but your opinion is no more official than mine at this time.
I never said that it was the official ruling.
I simply cited official rules to support how a power with full possession granted by a trait can be countered.
I haven't seen anything from the other side of the argument which comes from the official rules to show that you cannot counter such a power.
You are countering a power, not a trait.
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 19:50
Ok! Just so everyone can be clear things are very civil right now. Lets keep it that way until nbperp posts and lets us know if traits are a nice useful mechanic that gives you a power safe from outwit or if it was a waste of ink.
If a trait says "Bob can use Super Strength." then Bob does not possess Super Strength.
If a trait says "Bob has/possesses Super Strength." then Bob does possess Super Strength.
Possession of the power would then enable said power to be countered by Outwit.
You would not be countering the trait in any way, shape, or form.
I think I understand this, but at the same time, it does seem to be a little counter productive- I mean, why have a trait, which is supposed to be unable to be countered, if you can counter the thing that is given by the trait?
Ok! Just so everyone can be clear things are very civil right now. Lets keep it that way until nbperp posts and lets us know if traits are a nice useful mechanic that gives you a power safe from outwit or if it was a waste of ink.
Funny thing is this whole argument is over 1 power which is namora with her :m-dolphin: granted by a trait.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:53
Barring an official clarification to the contrary, the precedent has been set for non-counterable stuff to grant a counterable power.
I'm going to stop before I turn this into another "Mjolnir" thread.
Ultimately, I think this will come down to the INTENT of traits vs the WORDING of traits. I specifically see how by wording (and prior precedent), the POWER granted by the trait could be outwitted.
However, this drastically goes against the intent of traits as a game mechanic. They are specifically ruled to be powers and abilities that cannot be outwitted.
Until such a time as an official ruling on this, its a bit of a immovable vs unstoppable debate. Sure, one of them has a bruise on them already, but both are still powerful arguments.
Ok! Just so everyone can be clear things are very civil right now. Lets keep it that way until nbperp posts and lets us know if traits are a nice useful mechanic that gives you a power safe from outwit or if it was a waste of ink.
I fail to see the validity of that argument.
It gives a fifth (or more) spot to put another thing on the dial.
And I'll add again that you would not be countering the trait.
Also, yes, let's keep this civil and not devolve into saying that one side's viewpoint constitutes a waste of ink. :rolleyes:
However, this drastically goes against the intent of traits as a game mechanic. They are specifically ruled to be powers and abilities that cannot be outwitted.
That is one major assumption right there.
I think I understand this, but at the same time, it does seem to be a little counter productive- I mean, why have a trait, which is supposed to be unable to be countered, if you can counter the thing that is given by the trait?
like primes power that he can not carry, and Dr. Stanges Eye trait.
To add things in that make the character more like the character that is available the whole dial.
You claim you can have a SP with it in it, but what if you have a dial that has a SP on all 4 stats? but they don't have that SP for the whole dial?
Answer traits.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 19:56
That is one major assumption right there.
Bah, invisble mode go!
*poof*
I really don't want to be vilified in yet another rules forum debate.
Good day sir.
I sure hope this is only conjecture.
The rulebook is already specific in stating that ALL traits cannot be outwitted.
Changing this fact due to word choice would seriously be a mistake.
I agree. I thought this was a pretty clear issue - traits can't be outwitted?
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 19:57
I fail to see the validity of that argument.
It gives a fifth (or more) spot to put another thing on the dial.
And I'll add again that you would not be countering the trait.
Also, yes, let's keep this civil and not devolve into saying that one side's viewpoint constitutes a waste of ink. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying one sides argument is a waste of ink. You are taking me wrong. I'm saying the trait mechanic was a waste of ink. No ones point of view is ever a waste on ink or otherwise. In fact it is very valuable and much appreciated. Even if i disagree i still would like to hear it.
like primes power that he can not carry, and Dr. Stanges Eye trait.
To add things in that make the character more like the character that is available the whole dial.
You claim you can have a SP with it in it, but what if you have a dial that has a SP on all 4 stats? but they don't have that SP for the whole dial?
Answer traits.
Exactly. The not being able to be countered part is just one part of the whole. (And it isn't one which is even being violated.)
I'm not saying one sides argument is a waste of ink. You are taking me wrong. I'm saying the trait mechanic was a waste of ink. No ones point of view is ever a waste on ink or otherwise. In fact it is very valuable and much appreciated. Even if i disagree i still would like to hear it.
I don't see how it is a waste of ink.
It is another way to get stuff on the dial.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 20:00
I don't see how it is a waste of ink.
It is another way to get stuff on the dial.
If they wanted more stuff on the dial they could use that new blank space in the upper PIE slot.
I'm just sayin... :nervous:
like primes power that he can not carry, and Dr. Stanges Eye trait.
To add things in that make the character more like the character that is available the whole dial.
You claim you can have a SP with it in it, but what if you have a dial that has a SP on all 4 stats? but they don't have that SP for the whole dial?
Answer traits.
First of all, I'm not sure if you're responding to me or someone else- I didn't mention anything about SP.
I understand the idea behind traits- where I'm getting confused is that traits are supposedly able to be uncounterable, per page 19 of the rulebook. And I can even grasp the logic behind "use-can't be countered, possesses- can be countered". But then why would someone be given a power on their trait that could be countered? It seems to be counter intuitive to me.
I agree. I thought this was a pretty clear issue - traits can't be outwitted?
Traits are not, but as has been pointed out, countering a power which has been granted from a trait is not countering the trait.
Outsiders prevents modifiers from powers.
Incredible Hulk has a power which lets him use the Move and Attack ability.
Outsiders will not stop the modifier even though the ability comes from a power because it is still an ability.
Traits are unable to be countered.
Bob has a trait lets him possess a power.
Outwit can counter the power because even though the power comes from a trait, it is still a possessed power.
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 20:07
I don't see how it is a waste of ink.
It is another way to get stuff on the dial.
That is a poor argument for it. They could have just given Thor/Loki invulnerability. I don't think careful wording in the trait to protect it from outwit was on the mind of the game designer. It just as easily could have been a special power like Ulik's. Traits seem to have the intention of what they grant not to be countered.
This really is a battle over semantics. If I "can use" something than a logical conclusion would be that it is in my "possession".
I think I understand this, but at the same time, it does seem to be a little counter productive- I mean, why have a trait, which is supposed to be unable to be countered, if you can counter the thing that is given by the trait?
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
A trait can say "Potsie can use Toughness." The trait would not be able to be outwitted, obviously. Neither could the Toughness, since Potsie doesn't possess it. You have to possess something to be outwitted.
A trait can say "Potsie possesses Toughness." The trait could not be countered. But the Toughness is not a trait. It is a power. It is possessed by Potsie and it is therefore subject to countering.
Namora is a great example of this. Let's say there was a feat card that had the :m-dolphin: symbol as a prerequisite. With her trait, she could be assigned the feat. One could not counter her :m-dolphin: symbol. The :m-dolphin: symbol grants Namora the Swim ability. As per the rulebook, she doesn't "use the Swim ability." - it says she "has the Swim ability". Since she has it, it can be outwitted. So the hypothetical feat card would never have its prerequisite countered but the Swim ability could be countered.
Now, you ask why would game design want the mechanic to work like this? I could ask them, but I can also give you my logic. One word - OPTIONS. Traits give the designers the ability to create more robust dials. It allows them to apply as much "protection" to the effects granted by the trait as they want, simply by using the vocabulary that their own rulebook says is significant.
That is a poor argument for it. They could have just given Thor/Loki invulnerability. I don't think careful wording in the trait to protect it from outwit was on the mind of the game designer. It just as easily could have been a special power like Ulik's. Traits seem to have the intention of what they grant not to be countered.
Thor and Loki "can use" Invulnerability, so yeah, it cannot be countered. You can only counter powers possessed by a figure. They don't possess that power.
This really is a battle over semantics. If I "can use" something than a logical conclusion would be that it is in my "possession".
Unfortunately, this game uses certain definitions. Within the game simply being able to use something does not cause you to possess it. For example, you do not possess a copied TA when you use it with your wild card.
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
A trait can say "Potsie can use Toughness." The trait would not be able to be outwitted, obviously. Neither could the Toughness, since Potsie doesn't possess it. You have to possess something to be outwitted.
A trait can say "Potsie possesses Toughness." The trait could not be countered. But the Toughness is not a trait. It is a power. It is possessed by Potsie and it is therefore subject to countering.
Namora is a great example of this. Let's say there was a feat card that had the :m-dolphin: symbol as a prerequisite. With her trait, she could be assigned the feat. One could not counter her :m-dolphin: symbol. The :m-dolphin: symbol grants Namora the Swim ability. As per the rulebook, she doesn't "use the Swim ability." - it says she "has the Swim ability". Since she has it, it can be outwitted. So the hypothetical feat card would never have its prerequisite countered but the Swim ability could be countered.
Now, you ask why would game design want the mechanic to work like this? I could ask them, but I can also give you my logic. One word - OPTIONS. Traits give the designers the ability to create more robust dials. It allows them to apply as much "protection" to the effects granted by the trait as they want, simply by using the vocabulary that their own rulebook says is significant.
Does Potsie have a cool power like Bwah-Ha-Ha when he's next to Ralph Malph?
And thank you.
That is a poor argument for it. They could have just given Thor/Loki invulnerability. I don't think careful wording in the trait to protect it from outwit was on the mind of the game designer. It just as easily could have been a special power like Ulik's. Traits seem to have the intention of what they grant not to be countered.
This really is a battle over semantics. If I "can use" something than a logical conclusion would be that it is in my "possession".
yet you are pointing out something that can not be outwitted. Thor/loki can use Invul they do not posses. so since it is a Trait it can't be outwitted.
In regards to if i can use then i posses.
This is a game of heroclix where GAME TERMS are defined and do not follow REAL WORLD LOGIC.
First of all, I'm not sure if you're responding to me or someone else- I didn't mention anything about SP.
I understand the idea behind traits- where I'm getting confused is that traits are supposedly able to be uncounterable, per page 19 of the rulebook. And I can even grasp the logic behind "use-can't be countered, possesses- can be countered". But then why would someone be given a power on their trait that could be countered? It seems to be counter intuitive to me.
It was in regards to someone saying that if they wanted them to have the power then they should just give them a SP.
its no really counter intuitive. If they want someone to have a power the whole dial but still be able to be countered and they can not do it through a SP then they go to a trait. but how do they make it where it can still be outwitted, easy say they posses the power rather than use the power.
If they don't want it to be countered they will put can use instead.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 20:15
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
A trait can say "Potsie can use Toughness." The trait would not be able to be outwitted, obviously. Neither could the Toughness, since Potsie doesn't possess it. You have to possess something to be outwitted.
A trait can say "Potsie possesses Toughness." The trait could not be countered. But the Toughness is not a trait. It is a power. It is possessed by Potsie and it is therefore subject to countering.
Namora is a great example of this. Let's say there was a feat card that had the :m-dolphin: symbol as a prerequisite. With her trait, she could be assigned the feat. One could not counter her :m-dolphin: symbol. The :m-dolphin: symbol grants Namora the Swim ability. As per the rulebook, she doesn't "use the Swim ability." - it says she "has the Swim ability". Since she has it, it can be outwitted. So the hypothetical feat card would never have its prerequisite countered but the Swim ability could be countered.
Now, you ask why would game design want the mechanic to work like this? I could ask them, but I can also give you my logic. One word - OPTIONS. Traits give the designers the ability to create more robust dials. It allows them to apply as much "protection" to the effects granted by the trait as they want, simply by using the vocabulary that their own rulebook says is significant.
So, a simple game mechanic is now further muddied due to wording choice?
I'll go with the ruling, but I think its an over-complication of a straightforward and simple game mechanic. I can only imagine the furrowing of brows now as I attempt to explain this to new players in the future.
Nice to see an official post answering the question though. Thanks!
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 20:16
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
A trait can say "Potsie can use Toughness." The trait would not be able to be outwitted, obviously. Neither could the Toughness, since Potsie doesn't possess it. You have to possess something to be outwitted.
A trait can say "Potsie possesses Toughness." The trait could not be countered. But the Toughness is not a trait. It is a power. It is possessed by Potsie and it is therefore subject to countering.
Namora is a great example of this. Let's say there was a feat card that had the :m-dolphin: symbol as a prerequisite. With her trait, she could be assigned the feat. One could not counter her :m-dolphin: symbol. The :m-dolphin: symbol grants Namora the Swim ability. As per the rulebook, she doesn't "use the Swim ability." - it says she "has the Swim ability". Since she has it, it can be outwitted. So the hypothetical feat card would never have its prerequisite countered but the Swim ability could be countered.
Now, you ask why would game design want the mechanic to work like this? I could ask them, but I can also give you my logic. One word - OPTIONS. Traits give the designers the ability to create more robust dials. It allows them to apply as much "protection" to the effects granted by the trait as they want, simply by using the vocabulary that their own rulebook says is significant.
Thank you!
I really could care less about Namora's swim ability. If you would be kind enough to pass along to the game designers to be careful of the wording for their traits. Since obviously what seems to be their intention is meaningless if not worded correctly.
Once again thank you. I had a feeling you would say that.
So, a simple game mechanic is now further muddied due to wording choice?
I'll go with the ruling, but I think its an over-complication of a straightforward and simple game mechanic. I can only imagine the furrowing of brows now as I attempt to explain this to new players in the future.
Nice to see an official post answering the question though. Thanks!
It is still very simple. I posted the explanation earlier.
Outwit says right in the description that it can counter powers possessed by a figure.
If a trait makes it so that a power is possessed by a figure, then Outwit works.
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
A trait can say "Potsie can use Toughness." The trait would not be able to be outwitted, obviously. Neither could the Toughness, since Potsie doesn't possess it. You have to possess something to be outwitted.
A trait can say "Potsie possesses Toughness." The trait could not be countered. But the Toughness is not a trait. It is a power. It is possessed by Potsie and it is therefore subject to countering.
Namora is a great example of this. Let's say there was a feat card that had the :m-dolphin: symbol as a prerequisite. With her trait, she could be assigned the feat. One could not counter her :m-dolphin: symbol. The :m-dolphin: symbol grants Namora the Swim ability. As per the rulebook, she doesn't "use the Swim ability." - it says she "has the Swim ability". Since she has it, it can be outwitted. So the hypothetical feat card would never have its prerequisite countered but the Swim ability could be countered.
Now, you ask why would game design want the mechanic to work like this? I could ask them, but I can also give you my logic. One word - OPTIONS. Traits give the designers the ability to create more robust dials. It allows them to apply as much "protection" to the effects granted by the trait as they want, simply by using the vocabulary that their own rulebook says is significant.
First of all, thanks. I'm getting more to a place of understanding. The Namora example really helped. So because she has the trait, she can still use this feat, because her trait has not been countered- her trait that gives her the dolphin symbol. However, her ability to use the dolphin symbol, as defined within the parameters of the game, can be countered, because that is something that can be countered. Do I have this right?
EDIT: Have to spread rep around, Nbperp.
First of all, thanks. I'm getting more to a place of understanding. The Namora example really helped. So because she has the trait, she can still use this feat, because her trait has not been countered- her trait that gives her the dolphin symbol. However, her ability to use the dolphin symbol, as defined within the parameters of the game, can be countered, because that is something that can be countered. Do I have this right?
EDIT: Have to spread rep around, Nbperp.
well to be honest they are not countering :m-dolphin: they are countering what :m-dolphin: grants her.
If you assign her Submerged she would be able to use it for her whole dial.
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 20:24
It is still very simple. I posted the explanation earlier.
Outwit says right in the description that it can counter powers possessed by a figure.
If a trait makes it so that a power is possessed by a figure, then Outwit works.
Oh, no, as an existing player, its simple.
As a new player who reads page 19, then has a power countered due to wording, its quite vexing.
I'm understanding of the language and how it applies to game mechanics. I just think its going to be harder for new players to pick up on due to the existing wording in the rulebook.
I suppose the next starter set should clear that up. Also, as of now, it only applies to Namora anyway. Not too big a deal.
I suppose in the future I'll need to carefully read/memorize which figure's traits can be outwitted and which cannot.
Just seems like unnecessary complication, is all. Its counter intuitive to new players, IMHO.
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 20:25
Alright! Since this was pointed out by multiple people about my example of thor/loki. That was an example against the argument of traits making more room on the dial. Thor/Loki have no power showing for their defense the entire dial. That leaves plenty of room for invulnerability to be there instead of it being a trait.
Was it Seth that came up with traits? Maybe someone could ask him how he intended it to work?
In regards to if i can use then i posses.
This is a game of heroclix where GAME TERMS are defined and do not follow REAL WORLD LOGIC.
I'm on board with this truth :)
It was in regards to someone saying that if they wanted them to have the power then they should just give them a SP.
its no really counter intuitive. If they want someone to have a power the whole dial but still be able to be countered and they can not do it through a SP then they go to a trait. but how do they make it where it can still be outwitted, easy say they posses the power rather than use the power.
If they don't want it to be countered they will put can use instead.
That is making sense too, I'm just saying that if the rulebook says that something can't be countered, but then it can be countered if it is worded a certain way...it just makes it more confusing to the layperson, or as was mentioned earlier, to newer players.
Alright! Since this was pointed out by multiple people about my example of thor/loki. That was an example against the argument of traits making more room on the dial. Thor/Loki have no power showing for their defense the entire dial. That leaves plenty of room for invulnerability to be there instead of it being a trait.
Was it Seth that came up with traits? Maybe someone could ask him how he intended it to work?
If it was on the dial then it could be outwitted. as is it can not be outwitted.
So what is your problem?
That is making sense too, I'm just saying that if the rulebook says that something can't be countered, but then it can be countered if it is worded a certain way...it just makes it more confusing to the layperson, or as was mentioned earlier, to newer players.
agreed but any game that wants to grow the rules will get more in depth and confusing. go look at Magic
Was it Seth that came up with traits? Maybe someone could ask him how he intended it to work?
Seth was a part of the design team when traits came out. He was also a part of the team that declared that they could not be countered or canceled.
That is making sense too, I'm just saying that if the rulebook says that something can't be countered, but then it can be countered if it is worded a certain way...it just makes it more confusing to the layperson, or as was mentioned earlier, to newer players.
There are tons of subtleties like this in Heroclix. We all know lots of minutiae that would take a newbie by surprise when they encounter the rule for the first time. This particular rule though, as has been pointed out, is really the exception. It happens all of one time on a fig and I'm not even sure it's all that confusing on her.
As for the multiple posts to the GD team to be careful about wording going forward, I can't agree with you enough. I think the team at WK is dedicated to the same kind of diligence.
ThwartHog
12/14/2009, 20:44
Harpua and others have it right. Traits cannot be outwitted. But traits can do different things. A trait can say outright "Potsie reduces damage dealt to him by 1." This would not be using toughness, this would not be a power that reduces damage (so penetrating damage would be reduced). You would be unable to outwit this trait.
The Players Guide changed the glossery definition of penetrating damage to say "damage that can't be reduced by powers or Traits that reduce damage."
So I think you were mistaken when you said Potsie's trait would reduce penetrating damage.
Do I have this correct?
There are tons of subtleties like this in Heroclix. We all know lots of minutiae that would take a newbie by surprise when they encounter the rule for the first time.
That's why I tip my hat to you, Harpua, Quebbster, Normalview, Tarnish, and I know there are more- it's great that you guys know this stuff and can translate it down.
This particular rule though, as has been pointed out, is really the exception. It happens all of one time on a fig and I'm not even sure it's all that confusing on her.
After having it explained, it's not confusing- but I can also see (because I do this) getting hung up on the "traits cannot be countered" line. So yes, her situation is not the worst it could be- but as the first, it's difficult because it goes against the (pardon the pun) norm.
As for the multiple posts to the GD team to be careful about wording going forward, I can't agree with you enough. I think the team at WK is dedicated to the same kind of diligence.
Great to know!
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 20:47
If it was on the dial then it could be outwitted. as is it can not be outwitted.
So what is your problem?
I don't really have a problem.
I was making my case for the argument as to what the intentions of traits are/were/what I think they are.
How is it we get all this rules lawyering yet someone can't understand what it is I'm trying to point out. I know my spelling and grammar aren't the best but come on. Do I need to try and put it in game terms. ;)
I don't really have a problem.
I was making my case for the argument as to what the intentions of traits are/were/what I think they are.
How is it we get all this rules lawyering yet someone can't understand what it is I'm trying to point out. I know my spelling and grammar aren't the best but come on. Do I need to try and put it in game terms. ;)
and i answered it above. They want more options.
If they want them to have something that can not be outwitted they would say they can use in a trait.
if they wanted it to be outwitable but have no room on the dial then they would say that they posses.
granted they could have made a SP like uliks that says they have invul and that it can not be countered.
normalview
12/14/2009, 20:57
The Players Guide changed the glossery definition of penetrating damage to say "damage that can't be reduced by powers or Traits that reduce damage."
So I think you were mistaken when you said Potsie's trait would reduce penetrating damage.
Do I have this correct?
Interesting.
FF rules, page 8:
Penetrating damage. Penetrating damage can’t be reduced by any power or ability that reduces damage dealt (such as the Toughness power), but it can be reduced by other game effects, such as feats or battlefield conditions.
(and there is no player's guide entry for this part of the rules)
So, why change the glossary definition, but not the actual discussion of it in the rules text? Any ideas on this one, Norm?
Oh, no, as an existing player, its simple.
As a new player who reads page 19, then has a power countered due to wording, its quite vexing.
I'm understanding of the language and how it applies to game mechanics. I just think its going to be harder for new players to pick up on due to the existing wording in the rulebook.
I suppose the next starter set should clear that up. Also, as of now, it only applies to Namora anyway. Not too big a deal.
I suppose in the future I'll need to carefully read/memorize which figure's traits can be outwitted and which cannot.
Just seems like unnecessary complication, is all. Its counter intuitive to new players, IMHO.
I don't see how it is any more counter intuitive than, say, the things that I posted earlier.
The rulebook says that you can't move through blocking terrain or opposing characters. Phasing let's you do just that, though.
How is this different?
So, unless there is a player's guide entry I am completely unaware of, penetrating damage does not get around damage reducing traits (like LE Benjamin J. Grimm's).
Yeah...the one he quoted...
"Penetrating Damage
• The glossary entry for this says “damage that can’t be reduced by powers or traits that reduce damage.”"
normalview
12/14/2009, 21:01
Yeah...the one he quoted...
"Penetrating Damage
• The glossary entry for this says “damage that can’t be reduced by powers or traits that reduce damage.”"
Yeah... and I went back and corrected it since I first missed that player's guide part of his post.
You type too fast sometimes ;)
Badgerbite
12/14/2009, 21:05
Does Potsie have a cool power like Bwah-Ha-Ha when he's next to Ralph Malph?
And thank you.
No, Potsie would only have cool powers when he was next to The Fonz. Next to Ralph Malph. Potsie would only have Nerd Powers. :classic:
Dikarika
12/14/2009, 21:10
I don't see how it is any more counter intuitive than, say, the things that I posted earlier.
The rulebook says that you can't move through blocking terrain or opposing characters. Phasing let's you do just that, though.
How is this different?
Alright, I'll bite...
The example you explicitly state is "altered" by specific wording of a POWER. A power is essentially a "specific rule applied to a figure in play that counteracts existing rules posted in the rulebook that apply broadly and evenly to all figures". (My quote, feel free to use it for your next Bar Mitzvah...)
However, the difference between a "possessed trait" and a "un-outwittable trait" (generalized terms), are due to wording semantics and language choice within an existing trait. The choice of wording of the trait ITSELF determines its application toward the blanket trait rule (as previously determined to be on page 19, FF rulebook!). This creates a strange interaction where the trait's own wording determines it overall ability and effectiveness as it applies to general trait rules.
Now, do you understand how your examples are dissimiliar?
I didn't say it was complicated for a EV player. But the R's are gonna take a while to catch on, that's all I'm saying. I think a more blanket approach to ALL traits would be a simpler mechanic for newbies to grasp quickly.
I'm A-OK with the ruling as it stands, however.
normalview
12/14/2009, 21:18
Alright, I'll bite...
The example you explicitly state is "altered" by specific wording of a POWER. A power is essentially a "specific rule applied to a figure in play that counteracts existing rules posted in the rulebook that apply broadly and evenly to all figures". (My quote, feel free to use it for your next Bar Mitzvah...)
However, the difference between a "possessed trait" and a "un-outwittable trait" (generalized terms), are due to wording semantics and language choice within an existing trait. The choice of wording of the trait ITSELF determines its application toward the blanket trait rule (as previously determined to be on page 19, FF rulebook!). This creates a strange interaction where the trait's own wording determines it overall ability and effectiveness as it applies to general trait rules.
Now, do you understand how your examples are dissimiliar?
I didn't say it was complicated for a EV player. But the R's are gonna take a while to catch on, that's all I'm saying. I think a more blanket approach to ALL traits would be a simpler mechanic for newbies to grasp quickly.
I'm A-OK with the ruling as it stands, however.
Eh, when you get down to it, any kind of exception or odd ruling will confuse a player the first time it comes up. Doesn't matter if it is a power/feat interaction, drawing LOF from an odd bit of terrain, or the specific wording of traits.
In the end, this game has a learning curve. Simple as that :shrug:
KillerSavage
12/14/2009, 21:52
Thanks and rep to everybody on this thread. Everybody's opinion was very helpful and thanks to nbperp for settling things. A big thanks for keeping things mostly civil as well.
The Players Guide changed the glossery definition of penetrating damage to say "damage that can't be reduced by powers or Traits that reduce damage."
So I think you were mistaken when you said Potsie's trait would reduce penetrating damage.
Do I have this correct?
Yes, you do. I carefully checked the glossary entry while I was writing up my example and did not complete the loop by rechecking the glossary. Seems some of my rules-fu is rusty. Apologies and thanks for the catch.
ThwartHog
12/15/2009, 09:04
Yes, you do. I carefully checked the glossary entry while I was writing up my example and did not complete the loop by rechecking the glossary. Seems some of my rules-fu is rusty. Apologies and thanks for the catch.
No problem. I just couldn't imagine Potsie reducing penetrating damage. Vinnie Barbarino, maybe. But not Potsie.
normalview
12/15/2009, 09:07
Yes, you do. I carefully checked the glossary entry while I was writing up my example and did not complete the loop by rechecking the glossary. Seems some of my rules-fu is rusty. Apologies and thanks for the catch.
Any idea why the glossary was changed, but not the actual rules text (on page 8)?
I know that when I look up something, I always consult the rules text first and the glossary second. Also, if you do a 'find' in the .pdf, that page 8 entry will show up first.
Any idea why the glossary was changed, but not the actual rules text (on page 8)?
I know that when I look up something, I always consult the rules text first and the glossary second. Also, if you do a 'find' in the .pdf, that page 8 entry will show up first.
No I don't know why, but I can tell you that what you describe is exactly what happened to me.
Marauder
12/16/2009, 20:26
Alright! Since this was pointed out by multiple people about my example of thor/loki. That was an example against the argument of traits making more room on the dial. Thor/Loki have no power showing for their defense the entire dial. That leaves plenty of room for invulnerability to be there instead of it being a trait.
What are you on? Your argument is wrong for two reasons: The Trait makes their invulnerable un-outwitable.. (if that is a word) since the wording is INVULNERABILITY: Thor and Loki can use Invulnerability...
And secondly, they have Special powers on defense: They have the "Might and Mischief" (Battle Fury & Exploit Weakness) SP on their defense for four clix.
KillerSavage
12/16/2009, 21:16
You are correct. There is a special power there. So ok I can admit when I'm wrong maybe there is something to the more room thing. Yes on Thor/Loki it is unoutwittable(or whatever). Though that is only because of how it was worded not because it is a trait. As so kindly pointed out by our nice fellows previously.
So basically all the trait mecchanic is just extra space for a power or special power. They could have easily made Thor/Loki's invulnerability a special power and added this may not be countered. Then put might and mischief as a trait and worded it they possess battle fury and exploit weakness and it would have been the exact same thing. Battle fury and exploit weakness could be outwitted and the invulnerability couldn't.
So I see traits just saved them trying to fit another slot for the star and having to come up with one for every character. I didn't see why extra space would be needed and my memory was really bad when it came to Thor/Loki's dial.
The important thing is questions got answered once and for all. Even though the answer had been given people still needed it from a figure of authority.
So basically all the trait mecchanic is just extra space for a power or special power. They could have easily made Thor/Loki's invulnerability a special power and added this may not be countered. Then put might and mischief as a trait and worded it they possess battle fury and exploit weakness and it would have been the exact same thing. Battle fury and exploit weakness could be outwitted and the invulnerability couldn't.
but then they would never be able to make a ranged attack for the whole dial due to it being a trait. The way that they did it they only have BF and EW for the last few clicks.
KillerSavage
12/16/2009, 23:49
but then they would never be able to make a ranged attack for the whole dial due to it being a trait. The way that they did it they only have BF and EW for the last few clicks.
That is correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm sure you will tell me otherwise though.
Generation_Omega
01/05/2010, 19:00
Sorry to dredge up this old debate but the whole "trait says use = can't be outwitted, trait says possess or has = can be outwitted" doesn't sound right to me.
From the rulebook, "Traits are abilities, powers, effects, or other aspects of a character that it POSSESSES at all times..."
So by that logic, shouldn't all powers granted by traits be outwittable whether it says possess or use?
normalview
01/05/2010, 19:20
Sorry to dredge up this old debate but the whole "trait says use = can't be outwitted, trait says possess or has = can be outwitted" doesn't sound right to me.
From the rulebook, "Traits are abilities, powers, effects, or other aspects of a character that it POSSESSES at all times..."
So by that logic, shouldn't all powers granted by traits be outwittable whether it says possess or use?
No.
You can't Outwit a trait. There is no argument there (barring some kind of future feat or something along the lines of Dissent).
But if a trait lets a character possess a power, that power is now for all intents and purposes on the dial. And if that power is on the dial, the power (again, the power, not the trait) can be countered.
Generation_Omega
01/05/2010, 19:34
But I'm saying, the section on Traits in the rulebook says that Traits are powers, abilities, etc that are possessed so if the powers are possessed, by definition, why does it matter how the trait is actually worded?
But I'm saying, the section on Traits in the rulebook says that Traits are powers, abilities, etc that are possessed so if the powers are possessed, by definition, why does it matter how the trait is actually worded?
the rules of the games that why it matters.
Generation_Omega
01/05/2010, 20:07
the rules of the games that why it matters.
But where does it say that in the rules? Everyone who's saying powers granted by traits can be outwitted are basing it on old rulings for ICWO and the Superman Enemy TA.
The rules for Traits say that traits are powers, abilities, etc possessed at all times. So even if the trait is worded to say, "Odin can use Super Strength" or whatever, the definition of traits say that the power is possessed.
ChiRocker
01/05/2010, 20:08
I read a little more than half of this, so this might have been said already, but I have 2 things to say:
1) Namora's trait makes sense that both Wing and Swim can be countered. If they had printed the Swim they would have traited the Wing, but seeing as it would have been silly to print a white square with a Special Power printed on the character card giving her both symbols, they did it the least confusing way, using a mechanic that already exists.
2) Thor and Loki couldn't have had 1 special power for half the dial giving them unoutwitable Invuln and another special power giving them the printed one plus unoutwitable Invuln.
We don't need to be getting our panties in a bunch over the possibility of a cool mechanic being typoed and ruining a character. And honestly, if a figure is ever given a trait that allows them to possess a power, and the GD did not intend for them to possess it, it will more than likely get errataed.
That all I can say without getting too uncivil.
normalview
01/05/2010, 20:13
But I'm saying, the section on Traits in the rulebook says that Traits are powers, abilities, etc that are possessed so if the powers are possessed, by definition, why does it matter how the trait is actually worded?
Use and possess are two different game terms.
All examples and arguments aside, it is literally that simple.
Generation_Omega
01/05/2010, 20:20
Use and possess are two different game terms.
All examples and arguments aside, it is literally that simple.
What I'm saying is, the section on Traits in the rulebook says that the character possesses the power, in those exact words.
elfholme
01/05/2010, 20:21
the rules of the games that why it matters.
That makes no sense. The reason he has a question is because his quote (straight from the "rules of the game") seems to indicate that anything granted by a Trait is actually *possessed* by the character. So if a Trait's wording says the character can use Super Strength, the rules indicate that the character *possesses* Super Strength. So, regardless of teh wording of the specific Trait, the power is "possessed", which according to the Rules Arbiters, is critical to determining whether or not it can be Outwitted.
I've been playing this game just about every week since it started (including during the "hiatus"). I think I have a pretty good grasp on the rules. I understand this ruling. But it is non-intuitive, and relies on some pretty tricky wording. Hopefully the designers will avoid using words that imply that a trait gives a character a power (or lets a character "possess" a power), because the last thing we need in the game is more rules that rely on the turn of one word to determine which way they act.
The whole concept that you can counter a Power granted by a trait because it's not countering the Trait (even if the Trait ONLY grants the power!) is just wild, but the idea that that concept is in any way "intuitive" is downright silly.
Generation_Omega
01/05/2010, 20:41
That makes no sense. The reason he has a question is because his quote (straight from the "rules of the game") seems to indicate that anything granted by a Trait is actually *possessed* by the character. So if a Trait's wording says the character can use Super Strength, the rules indicate that the character *possesses* Super Strength. So, regardless of teh wording of the specific Trait, the power is "possessed", which according to the Rules Arbiters, is critical to determining whether or not it can be Outwitted.
I've been playing this game just about every week since it started (including during the "hiatus"). I think I have a pretty good grasp on the rules. I understand this ruling. But it is non-intuitive, and relies on some pretty tricky wording. Hopefully the designers will avoid using words that imply that a trait gives a character a power (or lets a character "possess" a power), because the last thing we need in the game is more rules that rely on the turn of one word to determine which way they act.
The whole concept that you can counter a Power granted by a trait because it's not countering the Trait (even if the Trait ONLY grants the power!) is just wild, but the idea that that concept is in any way "intuitive" is downright silly.
Thank you. And on top of that, In Contact With Oracle says that the character "may use" any power on Oracle's dial and yet it has been ruled that the power can be countered. I love the game but seriously, it's ridiculous to have to remember pages and pages worth of errata so you can play the game.
Nickel97
01/05/2010, 20:48
This really is a battle over semantics. If I "can use" something than a logical conclusion would be that it is in my "possession".
I don't posses a food processor, but my neighbor has one that I can use. I can go use it whenever I want to or need to, but it's not mine, and it's never in my house. She keeps her door locked, so no one can steal it. If she were to put it in my possession and let me take it to my house and use it, someone could come in and steal it from me because I don't lock my door.
Some traits lend abilities. Thor and Loki's trait says "Hey, I've got some spare Invunerability. Thor, Loki, anytime you need to borrow it to "USE" it, feel free, (but it's still mine, and you put it back as soon as you're done with it), oh, and PS Nobody can ever take it from me"
Namora's trait says "Hey, I'm just gonna give you this here dolphin. You hang on to it, and don't come crying to me if someone takes it from you."
Another analogy.
I have money in the bank. If I leave it all in the bank, no one can rob it (it's a strong bank). I've got a check card that lets me use my money, even though it's not physically in my possesion (and it's keyed of a thumbprint so it only works for me). If, instead, I go to the bank take all of my money as cash and put it in my wallet (but still maintain an account with a 0$ balance (they're nice bankers)) I now physically posses my money that was in the bank. The Bank still can't be robbed, but I sure can.
normalview
01/05/2010, 20:57
What I'm saying is, the section on Traits in the rulebook says that the character possesses the power, in those exact words.
Doesn't matter what the section on traits say... we're not Outwitting the trait itself, remember?
What matter's is what the individual description of a certain trait might say on the character card.
By the way, this issue is done. It is what it is. You don't like it, that's cool... but you aren't going to be changing anything by chasing around in circles here, either.
I am out of here.
So if a Trait's wording says the character can use Super Strength, the rules indicate that the character *possesses* Super Strength.
No, there is an aspect of him that can use Super Strength. Honestly, I think the rulebook is not worded as well as it could be for this portion. To be fair, it was the first time traits were in the rulebook, having been added during the course of that year. But there is no doubting the intention. Traits themselves cannot be outwitted. Traits that allow you to possess/have something can't be outwitted. But if it grants you something, then that something can be outwitted. But your ability to possess that something can't be.
The whole concept that you can counter a Power granted by a trait because it's not countering the Trait (even if the Trait ONLY grants the power!) is just wild, but the idea that that concept is in any way "intuitive" is downright silly.
Well, since it hasn't happened yet I really don't see why this is an issue. Perhaps I should ask moderators to move this debate (as it seems to come up every other week) to "Dreams/Discussions" until it is an actual reality.
The only figure in the game to actually possess something through a feat is Namora and no one seems to argue that it is reasonable to be able to outwit her Swim ability.
Thank you. And on top of that, In Contact With Oracle says that the character "may use" any power on Oracle's dial and yet it has been ruled that the power can be countered. I love the game but seriously, it's ridiculous to have to remember pages and pages worth of errata so you can play the game.
Chalk that up to a ruling on a card that was retired before this whole use/possess thing became important.
Thank you. And on top of that, In Contact With Oracle says that the character "may use" any power on Oracle's dial and yet it has been ruled that the power can be countered. I love the game but seriously, it's ridiculous to have to remember pages and pages worth of errata so you can play the game.
if you don't want to remember errata or even look it up then don't play ANY games at all. no matter what game you play that has multiple sets you will always have errata.
That makes no sense. The reason he has a question is because his quote (straight from the "rules of the game") seems to indicate that anything granted by a Trait is actually *possessed* by the character. So if a Trait's wording says the character can use Super Strength, the rules indicate that the character *possesses* Super Strength. So, regardless of teh wording of the specific Trait, the power is "possessed", which according to the Rules Arbiters, is critical to determining whether or not it can be Outwitted.
I've been playing this game just about every week since it started (including during the "hiatus"). I think I have a pretty good grasp on the rules. I understand this ruling. But it is non-intuitive, and relies on some pretty tricky wording. Hopefully the designers will avoid using words that imply that a trait gives a character a power (or lets a character "possess" a power), because the last thing we need in the game is more rules that rely on the turn of one word to determine which way they act.
The whole concept that you can counter a Power granted by a trait because it's not countering the Trait (even if the Trait ONLY grants the power!) is just wild, but the idea that that concept is in any way "intuitive" is downright silly.
ok so he now posses the power and can use the power.
so you can outwit the power that is "on the dial"
but he still can use it through the trait since it says that he "can use"
so really it does not make a difference.
gmastermcd
01/06/2010, 02:38
Sorry to dredge up this old debate but the whole "trait says use = can't be outwitted, trait says possess or has = can be outwitted" doesn't sound right to me.
From the rulebook, "Traits are abilities, powers, effects, or other aspects of a character that it POSSESSES at all times..."
So by that logic, shouldn't all powers granted by traits be outwittable whether it says possess or use?
The rulebook states that Traits are abilities, powers, effects or other aspects of a character that it possesses at all times. The part where it says possesses is talking about the trait itself, not what the trait allows a character to do.
Hypothetical example example Paste Pot Pete has a trait called "Super Sticky" Super Sticky says "Pate Pot Pete has incapacitate and can use Plasticity." My Thanos which is fighting Paste Pot Pete has outwit so I decide to outwit his trait "Super Sticky" my opponent informs me that Super Sticky is a trait and therefore it is an ability, power,effect or other aspect of Paste Pot Pete that he possesses at all times and that traits can not be outwitted or countered. After finding that out I decide that since I can't outwit Super Sticky then I will outwit Plasticity since it is not the trait Super Sticky it is a power granted by the trait. My opponent informs me that even though it is a power granted by the trait Outwit states it can counter any power or ability possessed by a character since Super Sticky says Paste Pot Pete can use Plasticity then Paste Pot Pete does not actually possess Plasticity and it can't be outwitted. Now I decide third tries a charm and tell my opponent that I am going to outwit incapacitate. My opponent then says Incapacitate is a power granted by the trait Super Sticky and since Super Sticky says that Paste Pot Pete has incapacitate then Incapacitate is possessed by Paste Pot Pete and therefore I can outwit it. I then make an attack with Thanos and roll double ones and am bumped off outwit and Paste Pot Pete gets Incapacitate back.
I hope this helps straighten it out for you. I see where you are getting confused the wording in the rules about the trait being an ability, power, effect or other aspect of the character is just helping describe what a trait actually is not what it does. So when it says that it possesses at all times it is referring only to the trait not what the trait actually does.
Quebbster
01/06/2010, 04:10
I am seriously considering locking this thread since we've had this debate a few times before.
Just wanted you all to be aware of that.
KillerSavage
01/06/2010, 18:21
I am seriously considering locking this thread since we've had this debate a few times before.
Just wanted you all to be aware of that.
Me too. Since I can do that being I started it to begin with. :)
The moral of this thread as it seems with all the threads in this forum is mind the wording. It is not like in the English language where one word can mean multiple things. It is what it is in the glossary. There is no intent or anything like that. It is what it is unless game design erratas it.
DucksFlying81
01/17/2010, 23:49
Wow, after reading through six pages of this, I suddenly feel like I'm back in law school.
I'm really glad WizKids gave us a Rules Arbitrator!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.