When the game designers came up with Pounce, HSS, etc. were they cognizant of the wording ("action" vs. "attack") which would render them incompatible with powers giving/requiring an "attack"? Or did this just slip under their radar?

Additionally, what are the chances that we can get all the "action" and "attack" language standardized?

The action vs attack distinction came about with the Indy rules rewrite so I'm certain it was intentional.


And what isn't standardized?

My standardization request was based on the assumption that (or hope ) that the "action" and "attacK" language was a design oversight/foible.

But, you have cleared that up. Thanks Karl.

Magog charging with EW and a heavy object is bad enough.

While I don't *like* KC Shazam! with HSS and EW design-wise, I'm happy he can't do those at the same time. I tried houseruling it once, and it was...memorable.

I find the 'attack' vs 'action' distinction to be one of the main annoying complications of the game.

HSS plus EW would be iffy... but really, what other horrible things would happen if we lost that distinction? How bad would things get? I'd love to be rid of it, too, but I fear horrible uberfigs...

Every uber-fig has an uber-Achilles heal. I don't think that HSS + EW would be that big of a deal. They still have to hit, and honestly, it's more about keeping your distance and long-rang strikes against HSS figs anyways.

Um... how bout a flurrying/haymaker/super-strength-with-object/exlpoit weakness with willpower fig.

Who is In Contact with Oracle.

Does anyone have that combo?

My wife when she's PMSing...

LMAO!

Funniest thing I've read all day!