Then the word "action" needs to an appear. All of the things you mentioned aren't actions.

Can you elaborate? I'm not clear on your point.

Anything like Psychic blast, outwit, hypersonic speed all require that the character be given an action, free or non-free. So, those are really the powers that should be associated with the player's choice. Other powers are passive, they automatically trigger when something else happens...Invulnerable, super-senses, shape change, etc. If you wanted to limit the power to get rid of the overlapping defensive stuff, then adding the term "action" to the rule would do it.

Personally, I see no issue with duplicating defensive powers as well. Reducers take care of themselves because of the rule that already states that reducers can't come from multiple sources, but I have no issue with someone gaining multiple uses of shape-change and super-senses if their character's powers + their outside source's powers give it to them.

Gotcha. But I do have a problem with what I bolded. Have you played against Adam Warlock? That guy is insanely hard to touch as is. Giving him still more rolls would almost guarantee that he'll hit one of them each attack.

Goes back to my main point in the thread...you should get what you pay for. If you take a figure that's really hart to kill and add an element to him that would make him "even tougher to kill", then he should end up being "even tougher to kill". Just because it would be a greater challenge to the opponent doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, IMO.

I suppose but then Gauntlet and Utility Belt are undercosted, imo.

No arguments there. But it's like putting auto-regen on Emp, or White-Lantern figs. It takes someone tough to KO and makes them even tougher to KO. Same principle, in my opinion.

See, this is where you lose me. Just because you could do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. I don't know that double Super Senses should only cost twice what Super Senses does. I don't know that we can figure that out. I'm not going to try to tell anyone that we have balance now. But once you start allowing that kind of duplication I don't know how you can possibly say that we won't be going further out of balance.

First I'd like to say that I am not for stacking usage of powers but rather choice between two options of the same power. That said, here is my idea for the rule which would prevent abuse:

When a figure would have two sources of the same standard power, that figure may choose which source of that power to use, but not both. Any trait or power on this character's card which references a standard power does not apply to powers granted to this character from outside sources.

the current rule is more confusing then a rule that simply says if a player can choose to use either the power on the dial or on the Relic. If you choose the relic, you do not get any of the additional effects the dial may grant and vice versa. After all, we have been choosing between powers on the dial for years now, choosing one over the other is not that difficult.



while that may be true, its not a reason to avoid making the rules clearer and more rational, just like the fact that people don't like Metron shouldn't be a basis for avoiding changing the rules.

much more clear then what we have now, and much more fair as it takes into account the points paid for relics. It also avoids any crazy combinations people are worried about.

Wizkids should hire this guy.

Just to clarify, KGB's comment was in reference to allowing passive abilities to stack, not in reference to the idea of a change to the current rule to allow choice.

Questions that arise from this wording.

When do they get to choose? Is it only one choice per game?

What happens if a character with a resource picks up an opposing team's relic? Both of those are outside sources would they apply to each other?

That wording also adds a new term not common to the game: source

This is my try to balance the rule:

Not bad. When the opportunity to choose would occur certainly needs defined. I personally would make it "beginning of your turn" and even stipulate that if the chosen effect is lost the other cannot take effect until the beginning of your next turn. 'Cause I'm just mean that way.

It would be nice if we could find some synonymous words for effect, though: we're working that puppy hard. You used it 11 times: don't tell me it won't get hard to follow what exactly is being said.