Web Special Terrain Markers and Outwit?

[sylnzz]

Question! If you use a web special terrain marker on someone who can use outwit. Once they are "cocooned", on their turn can they outwit the person who used their web special. Therefore they can make the web special terrain marker go away??

Web Special Terrain Marker: A character occupying this square must break away for movement purposes. Immediately after the character occupying this square no longer occupies it, remove this marker from the map.

[TheDarkJediX]

i am very reasonably sure you cannot outwit terrain, which is basically just what a web marker is

Question! If you use a web special terrain marker on someone who can use outwit. Once they are "cocooned", on their turn can they outwit the person who used their web special. Therefore they can make the web special terrain marker go away??

Web Special Terrain Marker: A character occupying this square must break away for movement purposes. Immediately after the character occupying this square no longer occupies it, remove this marker from the map.

[solid shake]

Yeah, I concur. He just wouldn't be able to use that power the next turn. The terrain marker was just a by-product of the power, creating terrain. If someone threw an object to break a wall, and SS was outwitted, it wouldn't cause the hindering terrain markers to go away.

[Harpua]

If someone threw an object to break a wall...
I just want to point out that, excluding the statue special object, this is illegal.

[normalview]

Page 15 of the rule book:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.


The power creates the Web Token. This is different than an attack destroying a chunk of wall and leaving a derbis token behind... the Web Mechanics are more akin to Barrier or Smoke Cloud, where the tokens are specifically created by the power in question.

[Harpua]

Wow, did I miss the forest for the tree on that one.:nervous:

[songwriterz]

Page 15 of the rule book:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.


The power creates the Web Token. This is different than an attack destroying a chunk of wall and leaving a derbis token behind... the Web Mechanics are more akin to Barrier or Smoke Cloud, where the tokens are specifically created by the power in question.

Wait....so, you're saying that a character can outwit a big glob of webbing holding them to the ground?

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

I just want to point out that, excluding the statue special object, this is illegal.

Why is it illegal? You can use an object in a close combat attack to destroy a wall it if modifies your damage value to at least a 3. Why is it not the same for a thrown object?

A heavy object deals 3 damage when thrown. That is the necessary amount of damage to destroy a wall.

To destroy a wall or blocking terrain, the rules simply state that 3 Damage must be dealt in a single attack. And the rules for an object in a ranged attack states: "Regardless of the attacker’s Damage Value, a successful ranged combat attack ... with a heavy object, (deals) 3 damage."

Neither rule states that you can actually even destroy terrain with an object, for neither ranged or close combat attacks. But we know you can destroy terrain with a close combat attack.

The rule for throwing an object states that it can target a single opposing figure, so no dual :bolt::bolt:, even if the character has :bolt::bolt: or more. But nothing in the rules state that you can't throw a heavy object at a piece of terrain.

From the 2010 Rulebook:

USING OBJECTS IN CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS
A character carrying an object and making a close combat attack against a single character must use the object in the attack, as shown in Figure 15, unless the character is using a power that will deal 0 or no damage. If a character is using a light object in a close combat attack, modify the character’s Damage Value by +1 for the attack; if using a heavy object; modify the character’s Damage Value by +2 for the attack.

USING OBJECTS IN RANGED COMBAT ATTACKS
A character carrying an object can throw it at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 16; a character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action. To throw an object, give the character a ranged combat action, even if its range value is 0. Regardless of the attacker’s range, light objects can be thrown 8 squares; heavy objects, 6 squares. Regardless of the attacker’s Damage Value, a successful ranged combat attack with a light object deals 2 damage; with a heavy object, 3 damage.

[CaptainNifty]

Wait....so, you're saying that a character can outwit a big glob of webbing holding them to the ground?

You can't outwit the webbing, but you can outwit the power that caused the webbing.

You can't outwit the hindering terrain markers left by smoke cloud, but you can outwit smoke cloud on the figure that made the smoke.

Why is it illegal? You can use an object in a close combat attack to destroy a wall it if modifies your damage value to at least a 3. Why is it not the same for a thrown object?

A heavy object deals 3 damage when thrown. That is the necessary amount of damage to destroy a wall.

To destroy a wall or blocking terrain, the rules simply state that 3 Damage must be dealt in a single attack. And the rules for an object in a ranged attack states: "Regardless of the attacker’s Damage Value, a successful ranged combat attack ... with a heavy object, (deals) 3 damage."

Neither rule states that you can actually even destroy terrain with an object, for neither ranged or close combat attacks. But we know you can destroy terrain with a close combat attack.

The rule for throwing an object states that it can target a single opposing figure, so no dual :bolt::bolt:, even if the character has :bolt::bolt: or more. But nothing in the rules state that you can't throw a heavy object at a piece of terrain.

From the 2010 Rulebook:

You bolded the wrong part.

USING OBJECTS IN RANGED COMBAT ATTACKS
A character carrying an object can throw it at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 16; a character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action. To throw an object, give the character a ranged combat action, even if its range value is 0. Regardless of the attacker’s range, light objects can be thrown 8 squares; heavy objects, 6 squares. Regardless of the attacker’s Damage Value, a successful ranged combat attack with a light object deals 2 damage; with a heavy object, 3 damage.

[Harpua]

Why is it illegal?
{snip}
The rule for throwing an object states that it can target a single opposing figure
{snip}USING OBJECTS IN RANGED COMBAT ATTACKS
A character carrying an object can throw it at a single opposing character, as shown in Figure 16; a character holding an object does not have to attack with the object when given a ranged combat action. To throw an object, give the character a ranged combat action, even if its range value is 0. Regardless of the attacker’s range, light objects can be thrown 8 squares; heavy objects, 6 squares. Regardless of the attacker’s Damage Value, a successful ranged combat attack with a light object deals 2 damage; with a heavy object, 3 damage.
You answered it yourself.

It says exactly what you can be targeted by a thrown object...a character. No mention is made of being able to throw an object at anything but a character.

[Gentlegamer]

What about Trigon's Doppleganger tokens? Same principle?

[songwriterz]

You can't outwit the webbing, but you can outwit the power that caused the webbing.

You can't outwit the hindering terrain markers left by smoke cloud, but you can outwit smoke cloud on the figure that made the smoke.

I get that. I'm just not sure how its possible for me to run in, web someone to the ground, have someone then outwit the power and have it undo a previous use of that same power.

Barrier, sure - that might require some sustained effort of the part of the creator to maintain. But once I throw a big glob of webbing on the ground, how does outwitting my power remove the big glob of webbing from the ground?

If they outwit SS after I hit 'em with a heavy, do they get those clicks of life back?

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

You answered it yourself.

It says exactly what you can be targeted by a thrown object...a character. No mention is made of being able to throw an object at anything but a character.

But when using an object in a close combat attack, it says the same thing:

"A character carrying an object and making a close combat attack against a single character must use the object in the attack,..."

Nowhere in the rules does it even say you can attack a piece of terrain with a close combat attack using an object. But we know we can.

In my opinion, this whole rule should be changed. Hulk can't throw a car through a wall, but he can in a close combat attack? Doesn't make any sense.

[Roderic_Cliche]

I know I'm off base given what the orange-names are saying here. . . but to me, the Statue has always seemed to imply that there's the possibility of attacking walls/blocking terrain with thrown objects--the exception for the statue being that instead of dealing 2 damage when thrown for being a light object, it deals 3 (as if it were a heavy object).

But if you can't throw objects at stuff, that's fine, I guess.

But what about smashing a wall out up close with an object in hand? Yes or no? The "Using Objects in a Close Combat Attack" section quoted above would imply that this is impossible, as it, too, specifies characters for targets?

Edit to add: Oops. Looks like VGA beat me to this. :)

[CaptainNifty]

You don't target a character with an object in a close combat attack. The object is used in a close combat attack. There's a difference.

[VGA d1sc1pL3]

You don't target a character with an object in a close combat attack. The object is used in a close combat attack. There's a difference.

That is a sound reasoning. Thanks! But I still think a thrown heavy should be changed to destroy a wall.

[VanisherPunisher]

I get that. I'm just not sure how its possible for me to run in, web someone to the ground, have someone then outwit the power and have it undo a previous use of that same power.

Because that is what the rules say. Do not try to apply real world logic to it.

Barrier, sure - that might require some sustained effort of the part of the creator to maintain.

The only effort Barrier requires is putting the tokens on the map. Same thing with these new webbing powers.

But once I throw a big glob of webbing on the ground, how does outwitting my power remove the big glob of webbing from the ground?

Because that is what the rules say. Do not try to apply real world logic to it.

[beardedtoyman]

If you need logical justification, imagine it as Norman Osborn jamming Peter's web shooters and pouring a solvent on the webbing to escape without a struggle.

[PONX]

So outwit the webber and the web special marker goes away, does that work the same for incap? does the token recieved from incap go away if the incaper is outwitted? I ask because the character isn't a character card or a feat. Why?

[DemonRS]

So outwit the webber and the web special marker goes away, does that work the same for incap? does the token recieved from incap go away if the incaper is outwitted? I ask because the character isn't a character card or a feat. Why?

No

Page 15 of the rule book:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.


The power creates the Web Token. This is different than an attack destroying a chunk of wall and leaving a derbis token behind... the Web Mechanics are more akin to Barrier or Smoke Cloud, where the tokens are specifically created by the power in question.

*edit* Oh I see what you're saying there.. I think the idea is perhaps that you'd place the action token on the card perhaps?? I'm not sure.. Time to investigate the rules more.

[PONX]

yeah but so is incap, the token is specifically created by the power in question, so why can't incap be outwitted and the token taken away, like the web token?

[DemonRS]

yeah but so is incap, the token is specifically created by the power in question, so why can't incap be outwitted and the token taken away, like the web token?

You know.. Looking at the rules and such they still show action tokens being placed by the character on the map.. So I can see exactly what you're saying here.. :)

[lancelot]

Page 15 of the rule book:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.


The power creates the Web Token. This is different than an attack destroying a chunk of wall and leaving a derbis token behind... the Web Mechanics are more akin to Barrier or Smoke Cloud, where the tokens are specifically created by the power in question.
Outwit and defeating the character generating the Web Tokens will remove the Web Tokens, correct? Just making sure...

[Arsenalroy2k]

And I'd just like to double-check that powers allowing a character to break away automatically (IE: Hypersonic, Leap/Climb, Phasing, Etc.) won't really be affected by a web marker being placed underneath them?

[Harpua]

Outwit and defeating the character generating the Web Tokens will remove the Web Tokens, correct? Just making sure...

And I'd just like to double-check that powers allowing a character to break away automatically (IE: Hypersonic, Leap/Climb, Phasing, Etc.) won't really be affected by a web marker being placed underneath them?

Both are correct.

For the second one, though, something like the Infiltrate feat allows free break away from characters but will not allow free break away from Web tokens.

[sylnzz]

Thank you for your answers fellas.

[rowdyoctopus]

Does anyone have the text for the Web Terrain markers handy? I can't seem to find it in the units section and its only official printing is on the character cards for figures that have it, which I have not happened to pull yet.

[normalview]

Does anyone have the text for the Web Terrain markers handy? I can't seem to find it in the units section and its only official printing is on the character cards for figures that have it, which I have not happened to pull yet.

First post:

Question! If you use a web special terrain marker on someone who can use outwit. Once they are "cocooned", on their turn can they outwit the person who used their web special. Therefore they can make the web special terrain marker go away??

Web Special Terrain Marker: A character occupying this square must break away for movement purposes. Immediately after the character occupying this square no longer occupies it, remove this marker from the map.

[ShadowMark]

yeah but so is incap, the token is specifically created by the power in question, so why can't incap be outwitted and the token taken away, like the web token?

Maybe because the token placed on the character is not a "game effect"?

This is a curious question and kinda want to see it answered. I get the web marker ruling, for reasons being that smoke cloud and barrier work the same, and this one is curious.

I know they are different (tokens and terrain markers), but want to see why they would/ would not be removed?

[normalview]

yeah but so is incap, the token is specifically created by the power in question, so why can't incap be outwitted and the token taken away, like the web token?

Maybe because the token placed on the character is not a "game effect"?

This is a curious question and kinda want to see it answered. I get the web marker ruling, for reasons being that smoke cloud and barrier work the same, and this one is curious.

I know they are different (tokens and terrain markers), but want to see why they would/ would not be removed?

Actually, by a strict interpretation of the portion of the rules I bolded, Outwitting (or otherwise getting rid of) Incap should remove a token placed by Incap.

This has never been the way it has been played and I honestly don't think it was the intent of the wording that this should happen (that bolded portion was to removed the necessity of having "if this power is lost or countered, remove blah" from Barrier, Smoke Cloud, etc"), but as it stands it seems a viable tactic.


Hmm... definitely worth thinking about.

[rowdyoctopus]

D'oh, I feel silly. Thanks.

[Questions]

What about Trigon's Doppleganger tokens? Same principle?

Same principle. If Trigon's Doppleganger special power is Outwitted, then the doppelganger tokens are removed.

But when using an object in a close combat attack, it says the same thing:

"A character carrying an object and making a close combat attack against a single character must use the object in the attack,..."

Nowhere in the rules does it even say you can attack a piece of terrain with a close combat attack using an object. But we know we can.

In my opinion, this whole rule should be changed. Hulk can't throw a car through a wall, but he can in a close combat attack? Doesn't make any sense.

This took the thread off topic, but that does not say the character must use the object against a single character when making a close combat attack. Rather, it says that when a character is carrying an object and making a close combat attack against a single character, then it must use the object. That rule says when the object must be used, it doesn't say what the object must be used against. (But if this is to be discussed further, please make a new thread.)

Both are correct.

For the second one, though, something like the Infiltrate feat allows free break away from characters but will not allow free break away from Web tokens.

What impact does the Player's Guide have on this?

From the Player's Guide:
INFILTRATE
Characters using this feat would not need to roll break away when they begin to move.

Obviously this was written before Web Terrain Special Markers existed, but the clarifiation doesn't limit itself to characters. If it doesn't work against Web Terrain Special Markers, does the clarification need an errata?

[normalview]

What impact does the Player's Guide have on this?

None, really.

Infiltrate only allows the character using the feat to ingore other characters for movement purposes. The Web Token is not a character.

[Questions]

None, really.

Infiltrate only allows the character using the feat to ingore other characters for movement purposes. The Web Token is not a character.

The clarification is pretty clear: "Characters using this feat would not need to roll break away when they begin to move." It doesn't say anything about when they begin to move away from characters. It says it does not need to roll break away when they begin to move <period>. Doesn't a clarification become part of the rule? If it doesn't apply to Web Terrain Special Markers then why not make it more accurate? Or why not remove it?

Right now the clarification causes more problems than it solves.

[normalview]

The clarification is pretty clear: "Characters using this feat would not need to roll break away when they begin to move." It doesn't say anything about when they begin to move away from characters. It says it does not need to roll break away when they begin to move <period>. Doesn't a clarification become part of the rule? If it doesn't apply to Web Terrain Special Markers then why not make it more accurate? Or why not remove it?

Right now the clarification causes more problems than it solves.

The clarification is secondary to the feat itself: the feat ignores other characters... there would be no auto-break away if the characters were not ignored.


Since Web Tokens are not characters, the feat has no effect.

[Questions]

The clarification is secondary to the feat itself: the feat ignores other characters... there would be no auto-break away if the characters were not ignored.

And yet, that's not what the clarification says. If it said that, I'd agree. But why have a clarification be clear. Then it wouldn't be Heroclix.

[normalview]

And yet, that's not what the clarification says. If it said that, I'd agree. But why have a clarification be clear. Then it wouldn't be Heroclix.

It is a clarification, not an errata.

It does not say. "Choose a character. This character can ignore other characters for movement purposes, but it must end its movement adjacent to an opposing character. This character breaks away automatically."

If it did say that, like Phasing/Teleport or Leap/Climb, then it would break away automatically from the Web Tokens.

Instead, the clarification is saying that since this character ignores characters while moving, that includes ignoring the need to break away from those characters. That's it, and nothing more.

[Questions]

It is a clarification, not an errata.

Some "clarifications" work like errata. Even if it is just a clarification, why be opposed to making the clarification more clear?

It does not say. "Choose a character. This character can ignore other characters for movement purposes, but it must end its movement adjacent to an opposing character. This character breaks away automatically."

If it did say that, like Phasing/Teleport or Leap/Climb, then it would break away automatically from the Web Tokens.

Instead, the clarification is saying that since this character ignores characters while moving, that includes ignoring the need to break away from those characters. That's it, and nothing more.

Then why not say that? Why be opposed to a clarification being clear? What is the harm?

I even support removing the clarification. You know...making the Player's Guide smaller. Why do you oppose that?

[Jarimy123]

Actually, by a strict interpretation of the portion of the rules I bolded, Outwitting (or otherwise getting rid of) Incap should remove a token placed by Incap.

This has never been the way it has been played and I honestly don't think it was the intent of the wording that this should happen (that bolded portion was to removed the necessity of having "if this power is lost or countered, remove blah" from Barrier, Smoke Cloud, etc"), but as it stands it seems a viable tactic.


Hmm... definitely worth thinking about.



Something to think about - or that is how it works? Would be definitely change some thoughts about what to do with my outwit on a turn that someone just incapped by figure that I'd like to take an action that specific turn.

[normalview]

Some "clarifications" work like errata. Even if it is just a clarification, why be opposed to making the clarification more clear?



Then why not say that? Why be opposed to a clarification being clear? What is the harm?

I even support removing the clarification. You know...making the Player's Guide smaller. Why do you oppose that?

Who said I am opposing anything at all? There you go, putting words in my mouth AGAIN. This is getting really, really old...


What I did say the Infiltrate clarification has no impact on break away from a web token. I further stated that this is not an errata; the words "break away automatically" do not appear at all in the description of Infiltrate and all the clarification does is expand upon the "ignore characters" aspect of the feat.


If you choose to read that as me "opposing" something, fine. That's your opinion. But please, please, please, PLEASE STOP twisting stuff I write!

[normalview]

Something to think about - or that is how it works? Would be definitely change some thoughts about what to do with my outwit on a turn that someone just incapped by figure that I'd like to take an action that specific turn.

"Definitely worth thinking about," was what I said for a very specific reason. It has never worked this way; I don't think it should work this way. And it is quite possible I am missing something obvious.

So I'm discussing it with the other Deputies and Norm.

[Questions]

Who said I am opposing anything at all? There you go, putting words in my mouth AGAIN. This is getting really, really old...


What I did say the Infiltrate clarification has no impact on break away from a web token. I further stated that this is not an errata; the words "break away automatically" do not appear at all in the description of Infiltrate and all the clarification does is expand upon the "ignore characters" aspect of the feat.


If you choose to read that as me "opposing" something, fine. That's your opinion. But please, please, please, PLEASE STOP twisting stuff I write!

I will rephrase and repeat one of my questions/comments since this is the real focus of my argument: Since normalview has stated that a character using Infiltrate still has to roll for a break away from a Web Terrain Special Marker, shouldn't the clarification be changed to more accurately represent this? (Any response necessitates whether you think a change to the clarification is appropriate.)

[Jarimy123]

"Definitely worth thinking about," was what I said for a very specific reason. It has never worked this way; I don't think it should work this way. And it is quite possible I am missing something obvious.

So I'm discussing it with the other Deputies and Norm.

Word. I wait for you with baited breath.

[yourbudrob]

Normalview I am on the Questions side of these statements.

I feel your wording is based on an idea and not the rule/power wording. What that idea is I can not express.

Now I completely see where you are coming from in your ruling. I see this being very similar to outwit and adjacency and stealth. A guy says "what do you mean I can't see batman, he is right in front of me, of course I can outwit him" But outwit is worded with a line and not line and adjacency. So you can not outwit someone next to you.

Infiltrate lets you ignore characters for movement and you do not need to roll break away when you begin a move. In reading between the lines we can say that the break away portion of that was meant to only refer to characters. But because it doesn't say specifically characters when it talks about break away and rules should be taken on wording and not what is in between the lines. In this way we can stay consistent with everything. There are already too many ruling out there that have to do with someones idea of a character and nothing to do with how the power is worded. We do not need more.

[normalview]

I will rephrase and repeat one of my questions/comments since this is the real focus of my argument: Since normalview has stated that a character using Infiltrate still has to roll for a break away from a Web Terrain Special Marker, shouldn't the clarification be changed to more accurately represent this? (Any response necessitates whether you think a change to the clarification is appropriate.)

I don't state it: the feat wording does.

Don't make this any more personal than it needs to be, sir.

And, for the record, no I don't think any more clarification is necessary.

[jackstar7]

Word. I wait for you with baited breath.

Just using someone like Icicle or Constrictor, if you outwitted their ability to make ice/constrict it might actually make sense that the targeted character would be thawed out/released.

But this would take Incap from being pretty overcosted to ABSURDLY overcosted.

[Jarimy123]

Just using someone like Icicle or Constrictor, if you outwitted their ability to make ice/constrict it might actually make sense that the targeted character would be released/thawed out.

But this would take Incap from being pretty overcosted to ABSURDLY overcosted.

Yea but how often do you hear "I will outwit your incap" hardly ever. So if you actually use incap to then force your opponent to use their outwit on the incap - it's a win win.

[jackstar7]

I don't agree with the win-win part, but I definitely see it being a game-changer.

But it sounds like this is fantasy talk anyways as I'm sure this will be clarified to keep action tokens non-removable except through clearing and those rare character power/game effects.

[Questions]

I don't state it: the feat wording does.

Don't make this any more personal than it needs to be, sir.

I actually disagree that the clarification carries so little weight, but that's neither here nor there.

And, for the record, no I don't think any more clarification is necessary.

Now I can ask my other questions: Can we agree this could be more clear? Or do you believe the clarification is perfect as written? Why be opposed to it being removed? There are characters with similar language so this language isn't unique to Infiltrate anymore. Based on comments you've made in the past, I have the impression that you believe that the Player's Guide should be as small as possible. (You can feel free to give an accurate quote if you feel I misrepresented your position.) Why not remove this and make the Player's Guide that much smaller?

[Jarimy123]

Maybe you two should take it to PM. At the same time, I'm not one to get in the middle of a good internet forum miniature gaming rules fight!

[jackstar7]

It does feel weirdly aggressive on one side of it, and personal for reasons beyond my understanding.

[Questions]

Maybe you two should take it to PM. At the same time, I'm not one to get in the middle of a good internet forum miniature gaming rules fight!

It's actually not that important. I think it should be more clear. normalview doesn't.

[normalview]

I actually disagree that the clarification carries so little weight, but that's neither here nor there.

Since you choose to attach my name to your argument, yeah, I'd call that rather right here and now...



Now I can ask my other questions: Can we agree this could be more clear? Or do you believe the clarification is perfect as written?

Everything could be made more clear. But there also comes a point of diminishing return. Just because something isn't perfect, does not automatically mean that it must be fixed.

I tend to think this is one of those cases where it is works fine as is, so let it be.

Why be opposed to it being removed?

Wait, first you ask if "I agree that this could be more clear", indicating that, if anything, you'd want more clarification... and now you ask for it to be removed? How are those two ideas compatible?

What exactly do you want?

Based on comments you've made in the past, I have the impression that you believe that the Player's Guide should be as small as possible. (You can feel free to give an accurate quote if you feel I misrepresented your position.) Why not remove this and make the Player's Guide that much smaller?

As small as necessary. Not possible. "Small as possible" would be no PG at all; but that would be much less than necessary.

And I don't think this should be removed because it was deemed necessary. Without the clarification that a character could automatically break away, we had no idea that was what GD intended. When this feat was released, powers like Leap/Climb (which also ignored characters for movement) specified that automatic break away was also part of this power; it was not unreasonable to assume that without that additional specified automatic break away, simply ignoring a character was not enough to get the job done. GD felt it was, so the clarification was added.

Now the wording for many of those game effects (like Leap/Climb) no longer ignore, so it could be argued that Infiltrate could use some updating to more accurate reflect the current wording paradigm. But that would only add to the size of the PG, not lessen, and the feat still works fine as is with the exisiting clarification. I see no reason to change it.

[normalview]

It's actually not that important.

And yet you keep asking about it :laugh:

[Questions]

Everything could be made more clear. But there also comes a point of diminishing return. Just because something isn't perfect, does not automatically mean that it must be fixed.

I'd say there is nothing wrong with making it more clear when it's pretty simple to do so, but I'm pretty sure you'll disagree.

I tend to think this is one of those cases where it is works fine as is, so let it be.

And I think this is one of those cases where the game has changed so that the clarification doesn't work as well as it use to so it should be changed.

Wait, first you ask if "I agree that this could be more clear", indicating that, if anything, you'd want more clarification... and now you ask for it to be removed? How are those two ideas compatible?

I'm open to either. I think the clarification is actually kinda unnecessary. If it stays, though, I think it should be made more clear. When I say more clarification, I'm talking about three words at most.

As small as necessary. Not possible. "Small as possible" would be no PG at all; but that would be much less than necessary.

I'll put this in a file to use later. :)

And I don't think this should be removed because it was deemed necessary. Without the clarification that a character could automatically break away, we had no idea that was what GD intended. When this feat was released, powers like Leap/Climb (which also ignored characters for movement) specified that automatic break away was also part of this power; it was not unreasonable to assume that without that additional specified automatic break away, simply ignoring a character was not enough to get the job done. GD felt it was, so the clarification was added.

Now the wording for many of those game effects (like Leap/Climb) no longer ignore, so it could be argued that Infiltrate could use some updating to more accurate reflect the current wording paradigm. But that would only add to the size of the PG, not lessen, and the feat still works fine as is with the exisiting clarification. I see no reason to change it.

Nightcrawler, Kid Flash, and Crisis Flash all use similar language. Should each of them get this clarification? Or should we refer to Inflitrate when discussing them?

And yet you keep asking about it :laugh:

Let's just say I've seen this movie before.

[rowdyoctopus]

Clarifications cannot be taken out of the context of what they are clarifying, and should not be used to argue how another power should work unless that context is part of the argument.

Personally, my impression is that the Web Token would override the normal break away rules, as the normal break away is in the context of other characters. Then again, Trigon's Doppleganger power uses the same break away rules as normal and the special markers are not characters so powers that allow figures to automatically break away would appear to work like normal with the web tokens.

[Holy Knight]

Clarifications cannot be taken out of the context of what they are clarifying, and should not be used to argue how another power should work unless that context is part of the argument.
Agreed.


Personally, my impression is that the Web Token would override the normal break away rules, as the normal break away is in the context of other characters.
This doesn't seem right, though, since the descriptions of powers which allow free breakaway don't make any reference to breaking away from characters specifically.


On the subject of Infiltrate, it might be worth additional clarification anyway:

Choose a character. This character can ignore other
characters for movement purposes, but it must end its
movement adjacent to an opposing character.

As written, it could be interpreted to mean that whenever a character with Infiltrate moves, it must end its move adjacent to an opposing character. That's probably not the intent, but the wording doesn't rule it out (and the clarification about allowing free breakaway from characters wouldn't rule it out either).

That problem, along with Questions' concerns, could be eliminated if Infiltrate were reworded like this:

"Choose a character. This character can ignore other characters for movement purposes and can break away from them automatically. If it does so, it must end its movement adjacent to an opposing character."

[rowdyoctopus]

This doesn't seem right, though, since the descriptions of powers which allow free breakaway don't make any reference to breaking away from characters specifically.

Well that is because, aside from Trigon's power, all instances of break away are breaking away from opposing characters. My initial thought was that the break away mechanic, to this point, has only existed in the context of other characters, and therefore the powers that allow auto-break away would not need to specify.

Basically, I read about Trigon's power and pretty much changed my mind in the middle of typing out my post. I apologize if that caused confusion.

I still think the power could be interpreted as overriding the powers that break away automatically, but it makes more sense to me now for the web tokens to function as all other instances of having to break away.

[ShadowMark]

Actually, by a strict interpretation of the portion of the rules I bolded, Outwitting (or otherwise getting rid of) Incap should remove a token placed by Incap.

This has never been the way it has been played and I honestly don't think it was the intent of the wording that this should happen (that bolded portion was to removed the necessity of having "if this power is lost or countered, remove blah" from Barrier, Smoke Cloud, etc"), but as it stands it seems a viable tactic.


Hmm... definitely worth thinking about.

Alright, back to the more important topic of Incap and Outwit. ;)

While your thinking of this in the "deputy cave", I guess a simple question to ask yourself while discussing, is: Is the token placed by Incap a game effect like Smoke Cloud and Barrier?

You have already decided that the Web Markers are, so is the token? (weird that this is coming up now on a power as old as Incap)

Is the token placed different than the terrain markers? I would say yes, but that is something to think about.

Also, if the token can be removed, what if the character was pushed when given a token by Incap? If removed, would they get a click of life back?

I await your answers to this with baited breath:surprised

[Holy Knight]

Well that is because, aside from Trigon's power, all instances of break away are breaking away from opposing characters. My initial thought was that the break away mechanic, to this point, has only existed in the context of other characters, and therefore the powers that allow auto-break away would not need to specify.

Basically, I read about Trigon's power and pretty much changed my mind in the middle of typing out my post. I apologize if that caused confusion.

I still think the power could be interpreted as overriding the powers that break away automatically, but it makes more sense to me now for the web tokens to function as all other instances of having to break away.
Well there's also the Construct feat, but for the most part you're right. Anyway, it didn't cause confusion, and there's certainly no need to apologize. :)


Is the token placed different than the terrain markers? I would say yes, but that is something to think about.
I would say "yes", too. To my mind, the tokens are indicators, not a game effect in themselves.


Also, if the token can be removed, what if the character was pushed when given a token by Incap? If removed, would they get a click of life back?
This seems like the answer should be "no". If you KO a character that damaged one of your characters the turn before, you wouldn't heal the damage back. I don't see why pushing damage would be different.


I await your answers to this with baited breath:surprised
Not a big thing, but since someone else on this thread said this too I'll just say that it's actually "bated", not "baited". :)

[DemonRS]

I would say "yes", too. To my mind, the tokens are indicators, not a game effect in themselves.
I agree the token is an indicator.. However Incapacitate itself is a "game effect" it just so happens to be denoted by a token to indicate the number of actions on a character. So while the token is not a game effect, the action that it represents is.


Also, if the token can be removed, what if the character was pushed when given a token by Incap? If removed, would they get a click of life back?This seems like the answer should be "no". If you KO a character that damaged one of your characters the turn before, you wouldn't heal the damage back. I don't see why pushing damage would be different.

And this is why it's going to be very important to figure out this ruling, because if outwit removes incap's action's then in theory it should remove the click of damage. As that's also seems to be a game effect.
Perhaps the simplest fix for this is defining the term, "game effect."

[Harpua]

Have you all gone out of your gourds?

If I hit you with RCE and you take 4 damage, can you counter my RCE and heal 2 clicks?

No.

[songwriterz]

Have you all gone out of your gourds?

Yes, yes we have.

[DemonRS]

Have you all gone out of your gourds?

If I hit you with RCE and you take 4 damage, can you counter my RCE and heal 2 clicks?

No.

That depends.
Is Damage a game effect?

It's not defined..

Logic would say no I couldn't outwit RCE and heal 2 clicks, but essentially it's the same thing as outwitting barrier and the barrier that's already placed goes away.
Damage in my mind is still a game effect.

I always played that if you outwit smoke cloud or barrier (and outwit was never dealt with) it was not able to be placed again on your opponents next turn.. but this thread has shown me that's wrong because of the specific wording of outwit's that was bolded.

And a game effect of Incap is the extra token, a game effect of incap is the extra token causing pushing damage, etc..
So it's not unfair until this is more clearly defined, specifically "game effect" to consider the +2 damage RCE caused a game effect.

[Quebbster]

That depends.
Is Damage a game effect?

Rhetorical question time: What is a "game effect"?

[DemonRS]

Rhetorical question time: What is a "game effect"?

Exactly..
Until it's defined.. Then damage can be a game effect..
Is game effect just intended to be changes to terrain?

Is it just intended to be modifiers? In which case why does terrain count?

I firmly believe in the way I was used to playing outwit.

Outwitting smoke cloud means unless my outwiter is dealt with you're not casting smoke cloud again on your next turn (directly after the turn I outwit your smoke cloud). It never removed the smoke cloud tokens from the map on the current turn, or knocked down the barrier of the current turn.

The closest I can tell.. Per page 19 of the 2010 rule book:
... If a prerequisite power, ability, or symbol has been countered or altered on a character by any game effect (such as the earthbound or outwit powers), ...

That's just an excerpt.. But it seems game effects are powers..

Then again...
The first mention of "Game Effect" Is page 5 of the rule book which supports the "heal +2 damage for outwitting RCE" cause..

... Once a characters Combat dial has been turned to its starting position, players can turn the dial only when directed to to so by a game effect, such as taking damage or healing...

Therefore.. Based on the what I feel now is crap wording of outwit.. the extra damage applied via RCE is a game effect and therefore outwitting RCE should remove the +2 damage that was applied thanks to it since outwit, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end.

[jackstar7]

The effect ended with the end of the RCE action though. Damage is not a continual effect.

The incap thing seems almost reasonable because there's a token involved. I wouldn't say anyone is "healed" because a second token is removed. Tokens can be removed all the time and a pushed character doesn't magically heal.

Regardless, I'm comfortable leaving this to the Oranges and seeing what gets worked out.

[BigSoph]

Have you all gone out of your gourds?

If I hit you with RCE and you take 4 damage, can you counter my RCE and heal 2 clicks?

No.

Well, there goes my clever response out the window...

[DemonRS]

The effect ended with the end of the RCE action though. Damage is not a continual effect.

The incap thing seems almost reasonable because there's a token involved. I wouldn't say anyone is "healed" because a second token is removed. Tokens can be removed all the time and a pushed character doesn't magically heal.

Regardless, I'm comfortable leaving this to the Oranges and seeing what gets worked out.

Then arguably, the placement of barrier tokens and smoke clouds is the effect of smoke cloud or barrier, which ends after the action. I agree with you on how it SHOULD be done in regard to RCE or whatever other damage modifier.. But the way it's worded and it's ability to shut off map altering powers (after they've been used) says otherwise right now.

I mean unless you want to say:
"The Terrain markers remain until the beginning of your next turn" is the "effect of the power." But then that's no more continual than damage being dealt.

Personally I am down (and I'm sure your all aware of it) of the rules for outwit in the PAC:
Once during your turn, give this character a free action to counter a power or combat ability (other than a team ability) possessed by a single target opposing character 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.

I think that's all the clarification you need.. Use it as long as outwit is still active your opponent can't use a power during their turn (outwit ending on your next turn if they don't deal with it).

It shouldn't have an effect of removing barrier pieces or smoke cloud pieces.. It should stop your opponent from using them again the next turn, but not remove the actual already placed tokens.. Because lets face it that interpretation of what it does leaves room to interpret the +2 damage as a "game effect" (a continual one no less).

The intended use of outwit is to stop the use of powers, whether that's turn off powers like invincibility and toughness, take away +/- modifiers/other countering abilities (perplex, outwit), or stop your opponent from using certain powers on you (running shot, charge, etc). It shouldn't justifiably (nor do I believe it was intended to when created) remove the placed smoke cloud tokens or barrier tokens from the map when used..

[Holy Knight]

Have you all gone out of your gourds?

If I hit you with RCE and you take 4 damage, can you counter my RCE and heal 2 clicks?

No.

That's what I was saying. It would make no sense for that to happen.


Logic would say no I couldn't outwit RCE and heal 2 clicks, but essentially it's the same thing as outwitting barrier and the barrier that's already placed goes away.
Damage in my mind is still a game effect.

I always played that if you outwit smoke cloud or barrier (and outwit was never dealt with) it was not able to be placed again on your opponents next turn..

But it's not the same thing. Here are some examples:

1) The Joker turns on his novelty giant fan, "outwitting" Batman's smoke cloud. This not only makes it infeasible for Batman to drop another smoke bomb, it blows away the smoke he already created.

2) Dr. Doom activates his field-wave pulse canceller, "outwitting" Sue Storm's barrier. This not only keeps Sue Storm from throwing up a new force field, it dispels the one she just created.

3) Captain America smashes the scope off Winter Soldier's gun, "outwitting" his Ranged Combat Expert. This keeps Winter Soldier from pinpointing the weak spot on a future target. It doesn't undo damage on a target he already shot.

However the ruling on tokens from incap comes down, damage should never be reversed by outwit.

[DemonRS]

That's what I was saying. It would make no sense for that to happen.



But it's not the same thing. Here are some examples:

1) The Joker turns on his novelty giant fan, "outwitting" Batman's smoke cloud. This not only makes it infeasible for Batman to drop another smoke bomb, it blows away the smoke he already created.

2) Dr. Doom activates his field-wave pulse canceller, "outwitting" Sue Storm's barrier. This not only keeps Sue Storm from throwing up a new force field, it dispels the one she just created.

3) Captain America smashes the scope off Winter Soldier's gun, "outwitting" his Ranged Combat Expert. This keeps Winter Soldier from pinpointing the weak spot on a future target. It doesn't undo damage on a target he already shot.

However the ruling on tokens from incap comes down, damage should never be reversed by outwit.

I agree damage shouldn't be reversed (It better turn out that way that'd be stupid if it didn't), however the point is that the wording leaves the reversal of damage interpretable by the rules (since damage is a "Game effect" according to the rule book..
Also using the logic for why they aren't the same is not really all that valid.. As there's other "actions" that could be done to "outwit" the use of the power where the "construct" still exists. It's really up to your imagination there, and while you've got sound arguments for specific characters, how does it apply to someone who makes a wall of ice..
Outwitting their ability to manipulate ice doesn't make the wall of ice come down any faster..

Or create a mountain.. Simply removing the ability to affect the ground could mean it's there forever (since there's nobody to shift it back)..

Simply put your reasons for the removal of barrier and smoke cloud are situational to specific character combinations..
Spider-man might be able to outwit batman's smoke cloud by webbing his utility belt.. But he's not really going to deal with the smoke cloud.. Well I guess unless he makes some ridiculous web fan like the other ridiculous web things he made in .02 sec previously..
So replace spider-man with black panther...

[PONX]

just tagging, lost the thread for some reason, waiting on the incap ruling.

[Holy Knight]

Also using the logic for why they aren't the same is not really all that valid.. As there's other "actions" that could be done to "outwit" the use of the power where the "construct" still exists. It's really up to your imagination there, and while you've got sound arguments for specific characters, how does it apply to someone who makes a wall of ice..
Outwitting their ability to manipulate ice doesn't make the wall of ice come down any faster..

Or create a mountain.. Simply removing the ability to affect the ground could mean it's there forever (since there's nobody to shift it back)..

Simply put your reasons for the removal of barrier and smoke cloud are situational to specific character combinations..
Well, yes, they were specific examples, but I actually do think in most cases a solution which outwitted both future and existing effects makes more sense conceptually than one which left past ones behind. If you think about what Outwit represents and the kinds of characters who can use it, it's not necessarily about removing the power/ability from the character per se, it's about making conditions such that it no longer operates properly. Since you brought up walls of ice and mountains specifically, here are examples for those:

Iceman: "I don't understand--my ice! It's all melting! I can't keep it up!"

Iron Man: "It was valiant effort, Bobby, but Stark Tower is filled with failsafes to protect against environmental hazards. Fire, electricity, earthquakes... and in your case, climate safeguards. It's an amazingly simple compound--perfectly safe to breathe, but lower the temperature enough and it causes water molecules to break down. Does make it a little muggy, I have to admit, but hey--even I'm not perfect."


Terra: "Give it up, Luthor! Your battlesuits are trapped behind 100 feet of solid earth! "It's over!"

Luthor: "Why yes, indeed, it seems you've got me beaten. Of course, I thought you hero types were all about "protecting the innocent" and all that idealistic self-deception. But perhaps you don't mind that the structural damage you just caused has diverted the river right toward the village? You could restore the landscape of course, but then what would be stopping my battlesuits? --Oh come now, don't look so shocked. Did you think this battlefield was chosen by accident?"

:laugh:

All that being said, I do see your point, and I'll grant there's ways to imagine outwit working which could leave existing effects intact. But I think it's a better representation of it if it takes away both.


Spider-man might be able to outwit batman's smoke cloud by webbing his utility belt.. But he's not really going to deal with the smoke cloud.. Well I guess unless he makes some ridiculous web fan like the other ridiculous web things he made in .02 sec previously..
So replace spider-man with black panther...

Of course, if he didn't get rid of the smoke cloud first he couldn't see Batman to web him...:P

[Gentlegamer]

Holy Knight is right.

[herojoe]

tl;dr version:

If you outwit the web power, the token goes away. Am I right?

[Captain Krueger]

Yes, you are.

[normalview]

And since I know some of you are waiting to hear something about the Outwitting Incap, I just want to state, again, that Outwitting Incap has never removed tokens before and Outwitting Incap is not meant to remove tokens now.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to interpret the current wording on page 15 to mean that you can remove an Incap-generated action token with the clever application of Outwit, but that is an oversight AT WORST. Continue to play Incap as you have always played Incap. If anything comes out as a result of the Deputy Cave discussion (and I am not saying anything will), it will be a clarification stating that "Yep, Incap still works the way it always did work."

[PresidntVictor]

I think that the bigger possible change here is not untokening due to outwitted incap or healing due to outwitted RCE, but rather a change to how some lost/outwitted powers should function. Should smoke, barrier and web terrain tokens disappear just because the power is gone/countered? Should a perplexed stat be changed just becuase perplex itself is gone/countered? I think that these long-time staples of play are ponderable.

[PONX]

I think that the bigger possible change here is not untokening due to outwitted incap or healing due to outwitted RCE, but rather a change to how some lost/outwitted powers should function. Should smoke, barrier and web terrain tokens disappear just because the power is gone/countered? Should a perplexed stat be changed just becuase perplex itself is gone/countered? I think that these long-time staples of play are ponderable.

For sure! wording that could be changed in the next starter.

[z06need4speed]

So what happens if the outwiter takes damage after smoke cloud, barker, web tokens etc was outwited ( mystics damage or pushing) ? Do they come back?

[Questions]

So what happens if the outwiter takes damage after smoke cloud, barker, web tokens etc was outwited ( mystics damage or pushing) ? Do they come back?

The power would return, but the effect (Barrier tokens, Smoke Cloud tokens, etc.) would not.

[ShadowMark]

The effect ended with the end of the RCE action though. Damage is not a continual effect.

The incap thing seems almost reasonable because there's a token involved. I wouldn't say anyone is "healed" because a second token is removed. Tokens can be removed all the time and a pushed character doesn't magically heal.

Regardless, I'm comfortable leaving this to the Oranges and seeing what gets worked out.

This makes sense regarding the whole damage and healing factor for "game effects" that we have been discussing

And since I know some of you are waiting to hear something about the Outwitting Incap, I just want to state, again, that Outwitting Incap has never removed tokens before and Outwitting Incap is not meant to remove tokens now.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to interpret the current wording on page 15 to mean that you can remove an Incap-generated action token with the clever application of Outwit, but that is an oversight AT WORST. Continue to play Incap as you have always played Incap. If anything comes out as a result of the Deputy Cave discussion (and I am not saying anything will), it will be a clarification stating that "Yep, Incap still works the way it always did work."


Just because it has never done it, doesn't mean it can/ can't now. I think all we are looking for is clarification as to why we can remove smoke clous, barrier, and web tokens made by a power, but not the token placed because of the power.

Once we have the "why", most of us will accept it.

The power would return, but the effect (Barrier tokens, Smoke Cloud tokens, etc.) would not.

That is another thing. If outwit removed the markers, then why can't I put them back once the power returns?

It was Outwit that got rid of the markers, and now with outwit gone, the markers should return. Granted, I see this only being a problem with the Web Markers, because once you are able to Outwit the Outwitter's Outwit, it is your turn and your markers naturally disappear anyways. (except for the web markers)

[sylnzz]

Jeez, I for sure stir the pot on this one. =D

[normalview]

Just because it has never done it, doesn't mean it can/ can't now. I think all we are looking for is clarification as to why we can remove smoke clous, barrier, and web tokens made by a power, but not the token placed because of the power.

Once we have the "why", most of us will accept it.


Like I said, it isn't meant to work that way.

If you really want a specific answer (and 'because that's the way it has always been' is not good enough), how about 'because we said so'.

[ShadowMark]

Like I said, it isn't meant to work that way.

If you really want a specific answer (and 'because that's the way it has always been' is not good enough), how about 'because we said so'.

Lot's of things aren't meant to work certain ways, but we, as players find "loopholes" of creative ways to use the powers, which causes an errata or clarification to be made.

If something of the sort comes up (and it has now), that makes us think the power/ ability can work/ be used differently, there should be something along the lines of: "it doesn't work because it is not..this", or: "this happens".

Rarely do we get the 'it has always been this way', or 'because we said so':confused:. Lots of things used to work a certain way until they were given errata, or clarified (SIF is a good example).

So, I will accept this as the answer, but frankly a little disappointed as to not being given a 'why'. :tired:

[normalview]

So, I will accept this as the answer, but frankly a little disappointed as to not being given a 'why'. :tired:

The "why" is because it isn't meant to work that way. Any indication to the contrary was a mistake and unintentional, pure and simple.


Just because something is incorrect and it isn't immediately addressed in the player's guide doesn't mean that we should blindly follow the incorrect rule. If we KNOW that it is incorrect, if we KNOW that it was unintentional, then it seems a little silly to keep following the incorrect rule.


And, again, I am saying that this is incorrect. You may be able to interpret the page 15 ruling as allowing Incap tokens to be countered, but that isn't the way it is supposed to work. While worth discussing, that discussion does not immediately make this interpretation correct.

[PONX]

So, I will accept this as the answer, but frankly a little disappointed as to not being given a 'why'. :tired:

You don't really have to accept anything really, just be patient, his remark might have been rude but I'm sure they'll get something officially solid someday. (hopefully) other wise take this as the first sign of deteriating inegrity.

[Gentlegamer]

The "why" is because it isn't meant to work that way. Any indication to the contrary was a mistake and unintentional, pure and simple.


Just because something is incorrect and it isn't immediately addressed in the player's guide doesn't mean that we should blindly follow the incorrect rule. If we KNOW that it is incorrect, if we KNOW that it was unintentional, then it seems a little silly to keep following the incorrect rule.
So you're saying the intention of the rule controls?

[normalview]

You don't really have to accept anything really, just be patient, his remark might have been rude but I'm sure they'll get something officially solid someday. (hopefully) other wise take this as the first sign of deteriating inegrity.

How the heck was it rude?

He said the first answer wasn't really good enough, so I offered an alternative. Should I have just ignored him completely?

[normalview]

So you're saying the intention of the rule controls?

When we know for a fact what GD intended, yes.


Were it gets messy is when people start thinking they know what GD meant. Very often, they've got no idea at all and are just attributing their own interpration/desire as the "obvious" intent.

[Questions]

You don't really have to accept anything really, just be patient, his remark might have been rude but I'm sure they'll get something officially solid someday. (hopefully) other wise take this as the first sign of deteriating inegrity.

This is actually looking very interesting. So far normalview hasn't said that the Incapacitate interpretation is correct. He's said is may be correct; in which case it might not be correct. And he's said that a clarification may or may not be coming. Very interesting.

[PONX]

wonder how that would work at a venue? you may or may not have won the fellowship. We may tell you if you did or we may not tell you if you did.

[normalview]

This is actually looking very interesting. So far normalview hasn't said that the Incapacitate interpretation is correct. He's said is may be correct; in which case it might not be correct. And he's said that a clarification may or may not be coming. Very interesting.


And since I know some of you are waiting to hear something about the Outwitting Incap, I just want to state, again, that Outwitting Incap has never removed tokens before and Outwitting Incap is not meant to remove tokens now.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to interpret the current wording on page 15 to mean that you can remove an Incap-generated action token with the clever application of Outwit, but that is an oversight AT WORST. Continue to play Incap as you have always played Incap. If anything comes out as a result of the Deputy Cave discussion (and I am not saying anything will), it will be a clarification stating that "Yep, Incap still works the way it always did work."

Like I said, it isn't meant to work that way.

If you really want a specific answer (and 'because that's the way it has always been' is not good enough), how about 'because we said so'.

The "why" is because it isn't meant to work that way. Any indication to the contrary was a mistake and unintentional, pure and simple.


Just because something is incorrect and it isn't immediately addressed in the player's guide doesn't mean that we should blindly follow the incorrect rule. If we KNOW that it is incorrect, if we KNOW that it was unintentional, then it seems a little silly to keep following the incorrect rule.


And, again, I am saying that this is incorrect. You may be able to interpret the page 15 ruling as allowing Incap tokens to be countered, but that isn't the way it is supposed to work. While worth discussing, that discussion does not immediately make this interpretation correct.



I'd say that I've pretty definitely said that it is incorrect.

[normalview]

wonder how that would work at a venue? you may or may not have won the fellowship. We may tell you if you did or we may not tell you if you did.

Huh? I have no idea what this means or what it is referring to. Please elaborate.

[Questions]

I'd say that I've pretty definitely said that it is incorrect.

Why is the interpretation wrong? Can you lay it out for me using the rules?

By the way, saying it isn't meant to work that way (you highlighted that in one example and said it in the last one right after saying something else contradictory to that statement), isn't the same thing as saying it could work that way, but it is not suppose to work that way. Those are two different things.

[normalview]

Why is the interpretation wrong? Can you lay it out for me using the rules?

Obviously not (at least, not without some room open to interpretation), hence this whole reason this came up in the first place.

By the way, saying it isn't meant to work that way (you highlighted that in one example and said it in the last one right after saying something else contradictory to that statement), isn't the same thing as saying it could work that way, but it is not suppose to work that way. Those are two different things.

How is "not meant to work that way" at all different than "not supposed to work that way"?

[ShadowMark]

I guess I should rephrase my question:

Rulebook page 15:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

We are all in agreement that Smoke Cloud, Barrier and Web Terrain markers are a game effect generated form a power. What we are questioning is the token.

My question rephrased: How do I explain to a new player that the token and markers are different?

an easy fix (IMO):

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on characters, character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

The bolded would fix this

[Gentlegamer]

When we know for a fact what GD intended, yes.How do we know for a fact what GD intended in this instance?

[PONX]

Quote Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on characters, character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

The bolded would fix this

Short and sweet, very nice!

[Questions]

Obviously not (at least, not without some room open to interpretation), hence this whole reason this came up in the first place.

Let me ask this...assuming GD says it should work as it has always worked, do you think a clarification in the Player's Guide is necessary?

[necrodog]

We all know that Outwitting Incap doesn't remove the action token. It never has, and so we are all pretty confident in saying it doesn't and isnt supposed to have that effect. But that's not what the rules actually say. "Ignore what it says, play it the way we know it's intended to work" should never be an acceptable answer, especially to those intrusted with interpreting the rules in an officil capacity. The obvious and simple solution is to correct the text, via the next PG and (hopefully) in the next rules book.

[songwriterz]

Quote Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on characters, character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

The bolded would fix this

Short and sweet, very nice!

Except that that Spider-man's power places a web token on the target character. So the web token would not be removed if someone outwitted his SP after he had already used it. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with that.

Kinda think the orange shirts are gonna be very "not cool" with that, though. ;)

[Gentlegamer]

Except that that Spider-man's power places a web token on the target character. So the web token would not be removed if someone outwitted his SP after he had already used it. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with that.

Kinda think the orange shirts are gonna be very "not cool" with that, though. ;)The Web Terrain marker is placed in the square occupied by the opposing character, but not on the character itself. So it would still all work as intended.

[normalview]

How do we know for a fact what GD intended in this instance?

Because I, a rules deputy, am telling you what the intent is here. This is not idle speculation or someone giving their opinion on the matter. I 100% gaurantee you that the text on page 15 was added so that we didn't need to constantly repeat "this stuff goes away" in Barrier, Smoke Cloud, etc. It was never meant to have any bearing at all on Incapacitate.

We all know that Outwitting Incap doesn't remove the action token. It never has, and so we are all pretty confident in saying it doesn't and isnt supposed to have that effect. But that's not what the rules actually say. "Ignore what it says, play it the way we know it's intended to work" should never be an acceptable answer, especially to those intrusted with interpreting the rules in an officil capacity. The obvious and simple solution is to correct the text, via the next PG and (hopefully) in the next rules book.


Actually, forum rulings are a perfectly acceptable way to deal with issues like this. The PG is only updated every so often... if something comes up in the mean time, a forum ruling is the only way we can address an issue. See section 1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Tournament Rules, if you don't believe me.

Rules Questions: All rules questions that come up during a HeroClix tournament are to be directed to the Head Judge of the event, who is the final authority on rules disputes for that event. Rules questions that come up outside of a tournament should be directed to the Rules Arbitrator. The rules arbitrator can be contacted at HeroClixRules@gmail.com or can be found online with the screen name NBPerp. Posts on message boards by NBPerp or an appointed Rules Deputy (Harpua, Normalview, and Quebbster) are also legitimate means of rules communication. When two on-line posts conflict, the one with the later timestamp is deemed accurate. If an on-line post conflicts with any of the documents listed above, the document is deemed accurate.

[PONX]

Something just doesn't feel right when I think of telling a new heroclix player why when a SP that produces a web token is outwitted the web token is removed but when incapacitate is outwitted the token still remains. When they ask why, with their puppy dog eyes and they say that they can't find that anywhere in the rule books, I'll have to answer because some guy called normalview said so. Listen new player, incap has always been played that way I'm sorry that you just started playing... oh and sorry that you purchased the rule book for nothing...

[Questions]

Actually, forum rulings are a perfectly acceptable way to deal with issues like this. The PG is only updated every so often... if something comes up in the mean time, a forum ruling is the only way we can address an issue. See section 1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Tournament Rules, if you don't believe me.

Rules Questions: All rules questions that come up during a HeroClix tournament are to be directed to the Head Judge of the event, who is the final authority on rules disputes for that event. Rules questions that come up outside of a tournament should be directed to the Rules Arbitrator. The rules arbitrator can be contacted at HeroClixRules@gmail.com or can be found online with the screen name NBPerp. Posts on message boards by NBPerp or an appointed Rules Deputy (Harpua, Normalview, and Quebbster) are also legitimate means of rules communication. When two on-line posts conflict, the one with the later timestamp is deemed accurate. If an on-line post conflicts with any of the documents listed above, the document is deemed accurate.

I've wanted forum posts to be effective means for it, but the rules themselves say they are not. The last line states: "If an on-line post conflicts with any of the documents listed above, the document is deemed accurate." Here, most of us would argue that the document itself is pretty clear that an Incapacitate token will come off. (I don't think you agree, but pretty much everyone who has posted has argued otherwise.) You are giving a forum post that says it should not (which even you acknowledge is based on GD's intent.) The document and the forum post are in conflict. So the document is deemed accurate and the forum post has no effect. Now all I'm saying is that WizKids has control over the HeroClixComprehensive Tournament Rules. I think it should work the way you stated...the forum ruling should be good enough until the Player's Guide can come up. So remove that last line from the HeroClixComprehensive Tournament Rules.

[songwriterz]

Well, Incap is an attack. I have successfully attacked you and damaged you in some way. Outwitting Incap does not = healing or undoing an attack.

Barrier and Smoke Cloud require actions, but they don't actually attack anyone. (Ok - there may be some wonky SPs out there that do cause these powers to deal damage - but you know what I mean.)

I don't like it, but I can accept that outwitting my Web Shooter SP removes the web token, just as outwitting barrier or smoke cloud removes those terrain tokens.

But really, I just don't think it was ever necessary to bring Incap (or RCE) into this.

[Questions]

Well, Incap is an attack. I have successfully attacked you and damaged you in some way. Outwitting Incap does not = healing or undoing an attack.

Barrier and Smoke Cloud require actions, but they don't actually attack anyone. (Ok - there may be some wonky SPs out there that do cause these powers to deal damage - but you know what I mean.)

I don't like it, but I can accept that outwitting my Web Shooter SP removes the web token, just as outwitting barrier or smoke cloud removes those terrain tokens.

But really, I just don't think it was ever necessary to bring Incap (or RCE) into this.

The discussion isn't about the damage from being pushed. The discussion is about the token itself. Why is the token from an Incapacitate any different than a Barrier token or a web token? No one is arguing that a character damaged by pushing would get the click back. Rather, the argument is that the rules as written should remove the action token itself. (normalview has been clear that the action token should stay. The discussion has moved to requesting that this be mentioned in an upcoming Player's Guide since the rules as written do not support that outcome.)

[DemonRS]

The discussion isn't about the damage from being pushed. The discussion is about the token itself. Why is the token from an Incapacitate any different than a Barrier token or a web token?

As much as I'm not a fan of what it does to Barrier/smoke cloud.. I agree the token should be removed.. If incapacitate is supposed to represent the webshooter tying someone down or freezing them in a block of ice, etc, then how come outwit doesn't remove the token but if that same block of ice or whatever were to make a wall, that wall crumbles?

From a comic standpoint or whatever you want to say, it doesn't make sense why outwit removes barrier but not the token from incap.

[necrodog]

Actually, forum rulings are a perfectly acceptable way to deal with issues like this. The PG is only updated every so often... if something comes up in the mean time, a forum ruling is the only way we can address an issue. See section 1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Tournament Rules, if you don't believe me.

Rules Questions: All rules questions that come up during a HeroClix tournament are to be directed to the Head Judge of the event, who is the final authority on rules disputes for that event. Rules questions that come up outside of a tournament should be directed to the Rules Arbitrator. The rules arbitrator can be contacted at HeroClixRules@gmail.com or can be found online with the screen name NBPerp. Posts on message boards by NBPerp or an appointed Rules Deputy (Harpua, Normalview, and Quebbster) are also legitimate means of rules communication. When two on-line posts conflict, the one with the later timestamp is deemed accurate. If an on-line post conflicts with any of the documents listed above, the document is deemed accurate.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making here. The document you've quoted says if the on-lie post conflicts with the rules documents the documents are to be considered correct: isn't that exactly what we have here?
I'm also not getting why you highlighted the portion of my post you did: could you explain?

No one is arguing that Outwit and Incap should interct differently than you've said they should. My issue, and that of several others, is that the text of the rules needs to be changed to reflect the intent. Not, at lest in my case, "we need a new PG immediately that addresses this!" but "can we have an assurance that the next PG will address this?" Saying to ignore the rules because they don't describe the intent is not an aceptable solution. Surely you agree with that?

[normalview]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making here. The document you've quoted says if the on-lie post conflicts with the rules documents the documents are to be considered correct: isn't that exactly what we have here?
I'm also not getting why you highlighted the portion of my post you did: could you explain?

The part I highlight specifically says forum rulings from those indivuals listed are legitimate rulings.

I (and any of the other oranges, for that matter, if you wish to ask them) am telling you that Incap still works the way it always has. Any different interpretations to the contrary that are caused by the page 15 rule are not correct; any effect that rule has on Incapacitate is purely accidental and was not intended.

"can we have an assurance that the next PG will address this?"

Sorry, but I can't really make that kind of assurance on any ruling. Stuff happens (things get left out, GD changes their mind, etc). All I can tell you is what we know right now: Incap works the way it always has.

Will this be addressed in an official document? That would be nice, yes.
Can I tell you when that document will actually be released (if ever)? Nope. For now, this forum ruling will have to do.

Saying to ignore the rules because they don't describe the intent is not an aceptable solution. Surely you agree with that?

Actually, no. When we really know what that intent is, when we're not just guessing but instead know via communication with the designers exactly what was meant, a forum ruling based on intent can indeed be an acceptable solution. Especially if that intent doesn't really conflict with any existing rules (remember, that this whole issue started with a different way of interpreting the rule on page 15... nothing in that rule actually says that Incap action tokens, specifically, are removed).

[rowdyoctopus]

Just to add my 2 cents.

If there is a dispute on the interpretation of the rules, a post by a Rules Deputy is considered official ruling on that dispute.

If it is clear and dry what the rules are saying like a close combat action leads to a close combat attack, then even if a Rules Deputy makes a post saying that a close combat action leads to a ranged combat attack it is not so.


There is nothing in the rules that outright says outwitting Incap removes the token placed on the previous turn. It is only through interpretation of a handful of rules and concepts that this idea comes about. In other words, what ever a Rules Deputy rules concerning it is the proper ruling.

[Questions]

The part I highlight specifically says forum rulings from those indivuals listed are legitimate rulings.

From the HeroClixComprehensive Tournament Rules:
1.1.1 Rules Questions: All rules questions that come up during a HeroClix tournament are to be directed to the Head Judge of the event, who is the final authority on rules disputes for that event. Rules questions that come up outside of a tournament should be directed to the Rules Arbitrator. The rules arbitrator can be contacted at HeroClixRules@gmail.com or can be found online with the screen name NBPerp. Posts on message boards by NBPerp or an appointed Rules Deputy (Harpua, Normalview, and Quebbster) are also legitimate means of rules communication. When two on-line posts conflict, the one with the later timestamp is deemed accurate. If an on-line post conflicts with any of the documents listed above, the document is deemed accurate.

Can you explain what the bolded part means?

If it is clear and dry what the rules are saying like a close combat action leads to a close combat attack, then even if a Rules Deputy makes a post saying that a close combat action leads to a ranged combat attack it is not so.

Based on what normalview is saying, that's not true. His post basically said if it's said on the forums then that is the rule. If it completes contradicts the written rules, a forum ruling is enough.

[PONX]

There is nothing in the rules that outright says outwitting Incap removes the token placed on the previous turn. It is only through interpretation of a handful of rules and concepts that this idea comes about. In other words, what ever a Rules Deputy rules concerning it is the proper ruling.

There's nothing in the rules that outright says outwitting barrier, smoke cloud, web tokens removes set terrain/marker. So you tell me how you are interpretating the rules. I'm not going to lie, rule deputies are valued in the world of heroclix and their rulings are important. However, they are not assigned to be dictators and what ever they say should be taking with stride. At the very least please refer your attention to my signiture.

[Harpua]

There's nothing in the rules that outright says outwitting barrier, smoke cloud, web tokens removes set terrain/marker. So you tell me how you are interpretating the rules. I'm not going to lie, rule deputies are valued in the world of heroclix and their rulings are important. However, they are not assigned to be dictators and what ever they say should be taking with stride. At the very least please refer your attention to my signiture.
Page 15: "Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there."

[PONX]

Page 15: "Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there."

so the incap action token goes on a character card from now on? what? Oh wait, you mean the incap action token is removed.

[Harpua]

so the incap action token goes on a character card from now on? what? Oh wait, you mean the incap action token is removed.

No, and that has been made perfectly clear throughout this thread.:tired:

Your statement had nothing to do with the Incap tokens, anyway. You specifically addressed several powers and said that nothing in the rules covers the removal of their effects. I was pointing out where in the rules it does say that.

[ShadowMark]

Page 15: "Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there."

No, and that has been made perfectly clear throughout this thread.:tired:

Your statement had nothing to do with the Incap tokens, anyway. You specifically addressed several powers and said that nothing in the rules covers the removal of their effects. I was pointing out where in the rules it does say that.

I, and people on this thread, have not seen any reason, as to why an Incapacitate token is not removed by Outwitting. The rules have deemed it removed.

your posts have only fueled the fact that some of us are right. Because you guys (the deputies) have said "it has always been that way" and "we say so" does not make it right.

Above are the two quotes that disprove the assumption.

As the rules state currently, an Incapacitate Token is a game effect. It is NOT placed on a character card, nor is it placed on a feat, it is placed on a character.

So, by all the rules quoted in this thread, from the book (and PG) it should be removed.

I asked for a 'why', I was given a "we say so". Rules documents have proven otherwise. I even gave a solution (but was ignored). So, as far as rules go, an Incapacitate Token is a 'GAME EFFECT'.

I am sorry for being 'that guy' but prove to me it is not a 'game effect'

[jak7890]

Look, guys, this is getting stupid. The rules deputies have chimed in and given the ruling; expect the blanket statement to be revised to exclude action tokens and go on with your lives. Or, if you're bound and determined to play it like action tokens disappear with an outwit, then just say so and go with it.

[Harpua]

I, and people on this thread, have not seen any reason, as to why an Incapacitate token is not removed by Outwitting. The rules have deemed it removed.

your posts have only fueled the fact that some of us are right. Because you guys (the deputies) have said "it has always been that way" and "we say so" does not make it right.

Above are the two quotes that disprove the assumption.

As the rules state currently, an Incapacitate Token is a game effect. It is NOT placed on a character card, nor is it placed on a feat, it is placed on a character.

So, by all the rules quoted in this thread, from the book (and PG) it should be removed.

I asked for a 'why', I was given a "we say so". Rules documents have proven otherwise. I even gave a solution (but was ignored). So, as far as rules go, an Incapacitate Token is a 'GAME EFFECT'.

I am sorry for being 'that guy' but prove to me it is not a 'game effect'

Like Jak said, feel free to play that way. Just know that you're playing it wrong and just being stubborn if you do.

We have assured you that the intention of that rule was not to include action tokens. Like normalview said, it was moved there to not have to say it in every power. That's the best you could get.

I'm not sure why you assume that your solution was ignored. Because it didn't make it into the PG? The PG was done before you made your suggestion.

[PONX]

No, and that has been made perfectly clear throughout this thread.:tired:

Your statement had nothing to do with the Incap tokens, anyway. You specifically addressed several powers and said that nothing in the rules covers the removal of their effects. I was pointing out where in the rules it does say that.

I pointing out to a gentleman about his comment. He stated that it doesn't specify anywhere in the rules that an incap token is removed. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't specify anywhere in the rules in the spicific printed words "barrier, "smokecloud", or the "web-token". because all those tokens/terrains are generated by powers. for example where in this text do you see barier, smokecloud, or web-tokens.

Page 15: "Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there."

You don't, and the bolded text could be translated to include incap tokens. NOT DISAGREEING with the ruling just pointing out to the gentle man about his comment is all. The fact that their isn't a spisific wording doesn't mean it can/can't be true.

[ShadowMark]

Like Jak said, feel free to play that way. Just know that you're playing it wrong and just being stubborn if you do.

We have assured you that the intention of that rule was not to include action tokens. Like normalview said, it was moved there to not have to say it in every power. That's the best you could get.

I'm not sure why you assume that your solution was ignored. Because it didn't make it into the PG? The PG was done before you made your suggestion.

I had not planned on playing it that way. I was just looking for better reasoning surrounding the ruling. The answers and proof being provided by people in this thread, have all pointed to the token being removed as well.

I was not disagreeing with the ruling itself, and I will play it the way it has always been played. I was just looking for a better reason.

I don't assume it was ignored by not being in the PG, I assumed it was ignored by the fact I made the comment on page 7 of this thread and we are still talking about it on page 9.

[necrodog]

Page 15: "Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there."

Like Jak said, feel free to play that way. Just know that you're playing it wrong and just being stubborn if you do.

We have assured you that the intention of that rule was not to include action tokens. Like normalview said, it was moved there to not have to say it in every power. That's the best you could get.

I'm not sure why you assume that your solution was ignored. Because it didn't make it into the PG? The PG was done before you made your suggestion.

OK, I can't speak for anyone else but here's my problem with this issue:

The rules, as written, say game effects end immediately. We appear to have concensus that the token from Incap is a game effect and so, by the rules as written, should be removed.

Everyone agrees that's not the intent, no one is arguing that. But according to the tournament rules we're supposed to play by the written rules. Normalview says "I've told you it's a mistake, and to play by the intent, and forum posts by the RA or a DRA are official so that's enough." Except, per the tournament rules, if the RA/DRA posts contradict the written rules we're supposed to follow the written rules, so actually his post isn't enough.
I've asked specifically about a written fix, which is what is actually required. I know it won't happen immediately, I understand committing to a specific date is problematic. I also know it easy to read attitude into forum posts. But the response seems to be "don't know, maybe never, but play it by the intent and don't worry about it because we've told you the intent and that's enough" which seems pretty cavalier. What I'm looking for is someone official saying "yeah, that's hosed and we'll get it fixed: in the meantime here's the intent." You know, an ackowledgment that a documentation fix is needed here.

[rowdyoctopus]

Based on what normalview is saying, that's not true. His post basically said if it's said on the forums then that is the rule. If it completes contradicts the written rules, a forum ruling is enough.

Not everything is black and white, one thing or the other. Some Rules Deputy forum posts count as valid rulings, others are superseded by the rulebook or player's guide. Use common sense and it is easy to figure out (not trying to say you are not using common sense).

[Questions]

First, I know this post is going to be reviled by some of you and second, I think we all know how this is suppose to be played (in other words, the ruling for Incapacitate applies here too), but if this is going to get some type of errata in the Player's Guide that we want it to be all encompassing and that said...I think Leadership might have some problematic issues with the rules passage at issue too.

From p. 15 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

Now we all know that it isn't meant to apply to Leadership, but as written it would. Now this often wouldn't be a problem since you could give the Leadership action as your first action, but there are cases where it could. So I figured it might as well be out there if the much hoped for errata is going to be added to the Player's Guide.

[Roderic_Cliche]

So, though I'm not cool about bringing up a mostly dead thread. . . were these issues officially resolved yet? Does Outwit get rid of a Web marker when the Web-marker-generating-power is countered (in a similar fashion to Smoke Cloud and Barrier)? Does Outwit suddenly do a lot of other stuff that it wasn't originally doing before this bit of bothersome text in the rulebook?

Just curious. :)

[rowdyoctopus]

I think the best way to look at it is that outwit counters temporary sustained game effects, based on the way it has been played so far. They are only temporary, but while they are in effect they change the game situation.

Leadership is a one time application of an extra action to your pool for your turn (outwitting leadership wouldn't take anything away anyway, because there is nothing to take away; the action it granted last turn has already been used or forfeited if not used). The result of Incapacitate is a one time application of an action token. Ranged Combat Expert is a one time application of a damage modifier.

Barrier is a temporary placement of barrier tokens that are later removed based on the wording of that power. Smoke cloud is a temporary placement of hindering terrain that is later removed based on the wording of that power. Outwit is a temporary counter of another power that is later restored based on the wording of outwit.

Do you see the pattern?


Now the question is, where do the web tokens fall? I can see them being in either category.

[Questions]

So, though I'm not cool about bringing up a mostly dead thread. . . were these issues officially resolved yet?

Depends what you mean resolved. Orange has ruled on it. There hasn't been a chance yet for anything to appear in the Player's Guide. Whether anything will actually appear in the next Player's Guide remains to be seen.

Does Outwit get rid of a Web marker when the Web-marker-generating-power is countered (in a similar fashion to Smoke Cloud and Barrier)?

Yes.

Does Outwit suddenly do a lot of other stuff that it wasn't originally doing before this bit of bothersome text in the rulebook?

Orange has ruled that it does not. Hopefully it will be added in the next Player's Guide.

[ShadowMark]

Leadership is a one time application of an extra action to your pool for your turn (outwitting leadership wouldn't take anything away anyway, because there is nothing to take away; the action it granted last turn has already been used or forfeited if not used). The result of Incapacitate is a one time application of an action token. Ranged Combat Expert is a one time application of a damage modifier.

.

I think what Questions was referring to here was:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end, but any tokens placed on character cards (or feats) as a result of the countered power or ability remain there.

Captain America uses leadership, he rolls and succeeds. He then attacks that turn (first, second, whenever; just not last action), but rolls a critical miss. This critical miss has made him lose Leadership. Now, because he no longer has it showing, does the effect still last? In a 300 point game 3 actions are given. when Cap attacks, it is the second of the 3 (+1 for leadership), he crit misses and loses leadership. Is there 2 actions left, or one?

While the Incapacitate has been resolved by the forums, the rules still does not support. We, as players know the intent, but it makes it hard to explain to newer ones. As for Web tokens, however, once Outwitted, they go away, too.

[rowdyoctopus]

I think what Questions was referring to here was:



Captain America uses leadership, he rolls and succeeds. He then attacks that turn (first, second, whenever; just not last action), but rolls a critical miss. This critical miss has made him lose Leadership. Now, because he no longer has it showing, does the effect still last? In a 300 point game 3 actions are given. when Cap attacks, it is the second of the 3 (+1 for leadership), he crit misses and loses leadership. Is there 2 actions left, or one?

While the Incapacitate has been resolved by the forums, the rules still does not support. We, as players know the intent, but it makes it hard to explain to newer ones. As for Web tokens, however, once Outwitted, they go away, too.

It sticks because it is a one time application of an additional action to your action pool. It doesn't say you gain an extra action until your opponents turn, it says for that turn you gain an additional action. Activate the power, boom, extra action (assuming a successful roll), power is no longer relevant.

With Barrier and Outwit, it says right in the power that (indirectly) that the game effects are dependent on the power introducing them. They are sustained by the power. They are ended specifically by the power introducing them.

[PONX]

It sticks because it is a one time application of an additional action to your action pool. It doesn't say you gain an extra action until your opponents turn, it says for that turn you gain an additional action. Activate the power, boom, extra action (assuming a successful roll), power is no longer relevant.

With Barrier and Outwit, it says right in the power that (indirectly) that the game effects are dependent on the power introducing them. They are sustained by the power. They are ended specifically by the power introducing them.

What do you mean "indirectly"? Example please.

[rowdyoctopus]

The power dictates that you place and then remove the tokens. It is the power, and only that power, that is keeping the special tokens there. By indirectly, I meant that the power wording itself doesn't explicitly say the tokens remain as long as the power is there. It says when the game effects start and end within the power, which in my mind, indirectly says it is that power sustaining the effects for their duration.

[PONX]

The power dictates that you place and then remove the tokens. It is the power, and only that power, that is keeping the special tokens there. By indirectly, I meant that the power wording itself doesn't explicitly say the tokens remain as long as the power is there. It says when the game effects start and end within the power, which in my mind, indirectly says it is that power sustaining the effects for their duration.

so basically, if the power is lost somehow the duration ends??

[Questions]

It sticks because it is a one time application of an additional action to your action pool. It doesn't say you gain an extra action until your opponents turn, it says for that turn you gain an additional action. Activate the power, boom, extra action (assuming a successful roll), power is no longer relevant.

With Barrier and Outwit, it says right in the power that (indirectly) that the game effects are dependent on the power introducing them. They are sustained by the power. They are ended specifically by the power introducing them.

so basically, if the power is lost somehow the duration ends??

PONX's point is the exact problem with this argument. Nothing in Barrier, Smoke Cloud, or any other power (as written now) inherently requires that the effect would go away when the power is lost or countered. What causes the effect to go away is page 15 of the 2010 Core Rulebook. And the tokens placed by Barrier and Smoke Cloud are an effect, just like the extra action from Leadership is an effect, and the token placed by Incapacitate is an effect. The rules themselves do not differentiate different types of effects.

Taking this a little further, originally Perplex didn't say anything about going away when Perplex was lost. And because of that, it didn't. A character could use Perplex on a different character, push, lose Perplex, and the effect of the Perplex would still be there. There is nothing inherent in Perplex that causes it to go away when Perplex is lost. Perplex only started going away when it was lost because the PAC was changed to indicate that the effect of a Perplex goes away when Perplex is lost. And page 15 of the 2010 Core Rulebook now causes that.

Bottom line, the effects of Incapacitate and Leadership are no different than the effect of Barrier. An entry in the Player's Guide is appropriate to keep those effects around even after the power goes away. We'll have to wait for the next Player's Guide and see what happens.

[rowdyoctopus]

Bottom line, the effects of Incapacitate and Leadership are no different than the effect of Barrier.

But they are. The power that grants these game effects dictates when they end, which implies (in my mind) it is the power sustaining them.

The language is very different between Leadership and Barrier. Leadership says "for that turn," while Barrier says "until the beginning of your next turn." Close Combat Expert says "for that attack," while Perplex says "until the beginning of your next turn." The wording implies a one time thing vs a sustained thing.

[rowdyoctopus]

so basically, if the power is lost somehow the duration ends??

Yes, that is my take on it.

[Questions]

But they are. The power that grants these game effects dictates when they end, which implies (in my mind) it is the power sustaining them.

The language is very different between Leadership and Barrier. Leadership says "for that turn," while Barrier says "until the beginning of your next turn." Close Combat Expert says "for that attack," while Perplex says "until the beginning of your next turn." The wording implies a one time thing vs a sustained thing.

You're making my point for me. All those powers indicate when the effect ends. And none of them say the effect ends when the power is lost or countered. The reason the effect ends when the power is lost or countered is because of page 15 of the 2010 Core Rulebook. But the game does not distinguish between the effect of Leadership, Incapacitate, Barrier, or Smoke Cloud. Under the rules, they are all treated equally. The game does not differentiate between different effects.

[rowdyoctopus]

You're making my point for me. All those powers indicate when the effect ends. And none of them say the effect ends when the power is lost or countered.

I'm saying that there are some powers that say the effect ends immediately (from the perspective of the power), and others that say the effect is sustained. Leadership is no longer generating an extra action, RCE is no longer generating extra damage, and incap is no longer generating an action token.

[Questions]

I'm saying that there are some powers that say the effect ends immediately (from the perspective of the power), and others that say the effect is sustained. Leadership is no longer generating an extra action, RCE is no longer generating extra damage, and incap is no longer generating an action token.

The action token is still physically there. The action from Leadership is still in my action pool. They are no different than a Barrier token or a Smoke Cloud token.

[rowdyoctopus]

The action token is still physically there. The action from Leadership is still in my action pool. They are no different than a Barrier token or a Smoke Cloud token.

I think you are missing my point. From the perspective of the power, everything is done. Incap says give the character a token, boom, its done. Do you need to refer back to the incap power wording to find out when to remove the token? No. Leadership says you get an extra action for a turn, boom its done.

Barrier says put tokens down until the beginning of your next turn. Ok so I finish your turn, then you finish your turn, now it is my turn again. Oh, its the start of my next turn, I need to check what happens at the start of this turn. Oh look, I need to pick up the tokens I put down because Barrier says this is how long they last.

[Questions]

I think you are missing my point. From the perspective of the power, everything is done. Incap says give the character a token, boom, its done. Do you need to refer back to the incap power wording to find out when to remove the token? No. Leadership says you get an extra action for a turn, boom its done.

Barrier says put tokens down until the beginning of your next turn. Ok so I finish your turn, then you finish your turn, now it is my turn again. Oh, its the start of my next turn, I need to check what happens at the start of this turn. Oh look, I need to pick up the tokens I put down because Barrier says this is how long they last.

I understand what you are saying, but Heroclix doesn't make a distinction between the effects of different powers. The effect is still there. If the game made a distinction between different powers, I would agree with you. The game does not.

In the end, what you are saying may be the answer. Maybe Heroclix does need to distinguish between powers the way you have and that would be the key to solving this issue.

[DiscoHippo]

I hate jumping on the topic this late in the game (mostly because my point may have already been brought up)

using red and blue spidey:

WEB: WEB-SHOOTERS: Once at the beginning of your turn, if Spider-Man has no action tokens, as a free action he may place a Web special terrain marker in a square occupied by a target opposing character within 6 squares and line of fire.

free action used, terrain marker placed. the way i'm reading it this power has been completed. There is no duration to this power. it says place a marker, you did. action over. it says nothing about "until someone breaks away from the marker" or "until the next turn" or even "until this figure is KOd"

it says place a marker. once the marker is placed, the power isn't doing anything anymore.

Also, Is it not possible for multiple markers to be out at one time? 3 turns, 3 free action markers, 3 figs tied up. as long as none of them break away The markers would remain on the map.

The power is not sustaining these markers. if that were the case, your one power would be overlapping on itself and being used multiple times in its initial duration.

[rowdyoctopus]

I hate jumping on the topic this late in the game (mostly because my point may have already been brought up)

using red and blue spidey:

WEB: WEB-SHOOTERS: Once at the beginning of your turn, if Spider-Man has no action tokens, as a free action he may place a Web special terrain marker in a square occupied by a target opposing character within 6 squares and line of fire.

free action used, terrain marker placed. the way i'm reading it this power has been completed. There is no duration to this power. it says place a marker, you did. action over. it says nothing about "until someone breaks away from the marker" or "until the next turn" or even "until this figure is KOd"

it says place a marker. once the marker is placed, the power isn't doing anything anymore.

Also, Is it not possible for multiple markers to be out at one time? 3 turns, 3 free action markers, 3 figs tied up. as long as none of them break away The markers would remain on the map.

The power is not sustaining these markers. if that were the case, your one power would be overlapping on itself and being used multiple times in its initial duration.

That would be how I would interpret it, but as Questions has so kindly pointed out, since the rules don't specify there is no support for it.

Also, the Rules Deputies have ruled that the web token would be removed as the rules currently stand.

[Questions]

That would be how I would interpret it, but as Questions has so kindly pointed out, since the rules don't specify there is no support for it.

Also, the Rules Deputies have ruled that the web token would be removed as the rules currently stand.

I could actually see your mechanic applying to the removal of the web terrain tokens. I'm thinking your mechanic might read something like:

Whenever a power or combat ability is countered, or lost because it no longer appears in the stat slot on a character and that power or combat ability specifies when its game effect would end, all game effects generated by that power or ability immediately end...

And the argument for removing the Web Terrain Special Markers under that mechanic would be that all the powers include the word "web" before the actual power. And because they include the word "web" they inherently include the wording of the Web Terrain Special Markers which does specify when the game effect would end (removed after the character occupying the square no longer occupies it.) So under your mechanic, the Web Terrain Special Marker would be removed if the web power is countered or lost.

But it's just a thought and I certainly did not search every game effect to see if every game effect would work the way it is suppose to work.