Actually in post 10, normalview, specifically says, "The tokens are lost."

He then pops in again at post 53 to clarify the general discussion where he says that when Metron uses another power besides Leadership he has lost leadership. According to normalview he has lost leadership because he can no longer use leadership.

Now, the Metron discussion is interesting. I choose to apply that ruling only to Metron, because it ignores other precedents, so I don't feel it is good to use it as a precedent.

For more see post 56 in that thread where he unequivocally states that "cannot use" equals "lost."

Which is the correct answer given to the question, "Now if I used Perplex or Support, does that mean I can't gain a token that turn? Or do I lose all the tokens on the card...?"

"When Metron does not use Leadership, the tokens go away" is what you said originally. That's a different statement than, "When Metron uses another power, the tokens go away". Which is a paraphrased version of the ruling. You can choose not to use any of the three powers and still keep the tokens. It's the use of Perplex or Support that causes the tokens to go away.

It doesn't ignore any other precedents. Every special power has its own special rules because they work in ways that are out of the ordinary. It works just the way it's supposed to work going by the rules.

Again, he doesn't say "cannot use is the same thing as lost". In the case of Metron, he can use any of the three, but only he only has one of those available to him at any given time. This is due to the wording of the special power and has nothing to do with "cannot use" equating to "lost".

When you choose to use Leadership with Metron, Mobius Chair effectively reads like this, "Metron can use Leadership, Outwit and Probability Control."

When you choose to use Perplex with Metron, Mobius Chair effectively reads like this, "Metron can use Outwit, Perplex and Probability Control."

When you choose to use Support with Metron, Mobius Chair effectively reads like this, "Metron can use Outwit, Probability Control and Support."

When he can use Leadership and you make the decision to use Perplex or Support, he has to lose Leadership in order for it to be possible to use Perplex or Support. That's a special rule set by the special power for that special power. That's not a standard rule set by the rulebook.

A canceled power remains canceled until the until the beginning of the next player’s turn (not until the beginning of your next turn.)

From p. 15 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:

Yeah, sorry, force of habit.

So you are seriously saying that if Namor cancels Avenging Son he cannot use the flight ability but can use the flight ability?

So if Namor cancels Avenging Son and is knocked back off of a building he will not be dealt any knock back damage because even though he cannot use the flight ability, he can still use the flight ability.

No, that's seriously not what I'm saying for the umpteenth time.

Namor cancels Avenging Son. He can use the Flight ability, but by canceling Avenging Son, he is committing to the choice to not do so. His capability to do so has not changed. He's simply saying, "I could fly away right now, but I'll give my word that I won't until you're done with what you're doing."

Canceling turns off all effects of the canceled power or ability. One of the effects of Flight is ignoring knock back damage if the knock back path crosses the boundary of elevated terrain. Since that effect is turned off with the rest of Flight, the character will take 2 knock back damage for falling off of elevated terrain.

So you're telling me...

that...

we've been in agreement THIS WHOLE TIME!?!?!?!?

That's very funny.

No, we haven't. You pulled, "Namor cannot use Flight, but he can use Flight" from somewhere and seem to think that's what cancel means. That's not correct. Canceling Avenging Son would be, "Namor can use Flight, but he's choosing not to until the beginning of the next turn."

But then again, some of my back-and-forth has been with CaptainNifty and there could have been some kind of mix-up between that and my back-and-forth with you.

We must differentiate "cannot use" and "is not using". Just because I choose not to use Flight and I am not using Flight, does not mean that I cannot use flight.

The statement I was reacting to was the paradoxical post by CaptainNifty which I quoted earlier in this thread. I, at some point, got the false impression that we were still discussing that point. Of course we are beyond that and I believe have arrived at a conclusion that may be worth noting later.

"Cancel" or "Turn Off" mean simply to "not use". They do not mean that one "can not" use the power or ability, just that it is not being used. The opportunity to use is not being taken.

So in our example, Namor's controller decides that he will not use Avenging Son at least until the beginning of the next turn. He had the opportunity to use it, he can use it, he just chooses not to. Because of this, any benefit from Avenging Son (Use of Charge, Flurry, and flight) is likewise not being used. However, Namor's controller has not lost the power, the power has not been countered. So from a standpoint of whether Namor can use Flight or has the available option on the character's dial for flight, it is clear that he can and he does. Because of this, Hawkgirl's trait will still apply.

In summary and in closing:
Namor has canceled Avenging Son. He can use the Flight ability, but has chosen not to.

das wut im sayin dawg