I don't think it does. The problem with Dormammu was that they created an ability that directly avoided unavoidable damage. While the original wording worked, they didn't want to head down the road of abilities that avoid what is unavoidable.

If anything, they should just change the power to be worded like Thanos' to be consistent.

agree 100%

Technically his wording is flawed but really? You all know what it does

That's not my point. I don't really care about that. In fact, the ones where it is clear what they do are even easier to universally codify. The different words for the same power only open the door to micro-inspections and the creation of unintended nuances.

Sad but true.
Case in point: Ancient One. We had a player argue and debate and argue that his SP:
... meant that you reroll only one die. Because it says die roll (singular), not DICE roll.
No matter how much everybody else tried to explain what a die roll was, he wouldn't let up, and eventually the judge (Isuspect in order to prevent himself punching this guy) finally ruled in his favor.
With the result that everybody who didn't play him just quietly agreed to play it the way it was intended.
My point? The slightest perceived ambuguity will be argued and exploited by somebody.

Right, but as it is it makes things like

very difficult to explain when it doesn't work against mystics. Even if its just for the 5 people that care, I think it should be errataed just for consistency.

For the record, I'm with jwb441. As written, the power doesn't work as intended and should issued an erratum.

Why do you say it doesn't work as written?

Maybe because he thinks "can't" trumps "can"? (It doesn't). But I do agree that if two things are meant to work the same way they should be worded the EXACT SAME WAY. And this has been happening a lot lately. We have like 8 figures now that "ignore Pulse wave/don't damage friendlies with Pulse Wave etc..." and we have like 7 different wordings for it. Now, I understand the intent might not have been the same across the board for all of them, but for only 2 of them? Really? Like they intended that BL Batman's PW should be special and maybe cause Knockback Damage to friendlies?

Consistency would be good. At the very least if Consistency were the norm then when they worded something differently we would get info from that alone (This is meant to function differently somehow) rather than now having to go "Did they actually mean for this to happen?"

I think I pretty clearly laid out why it doesn't work as written.

How can you reduce something that cannot be reduced?

Personally, I think its fine because its the character card overwriting the general rule. However, I could see why other people wouldn't feel the same way. I think it should be changed for consistency's sake.

I agree with this. I think it works fine as written, but multiple wordings to accomplish identical or even similar things is ridiculous.

Yeah, that's a rule in other games (Vs. and Magic), but has never really been official in HeroClix, like the sometimes mentioned "Specific trumps general" also isn't. But, while not officially existing, it gets used to interpret, and the game would be almost impossible to interpret without some kind of standards. Just one of the many things I'll fix, WHEN I HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER OVER EVERYTHING!

Since when does can't NOT trump can?

I don't think there has ever been a case where you have an ability saying

"A can do x" and another where it says "characters can't do x" where they end up being able to do it.

Now, I could maybe see an argument in favor of reading Darkseid's power as actually not imposing a 'can' on stuff, but instead altering the rules for Penetrating Damage specifically. (which avoids the 'can/can't' problem because he is making the can't INTO a can, rather than having a can in one place and a can't in another having to compete for dominance in a mating display like the peacock, as an aside can't always wins. Ladies LOVE the apostrophe)

"Can't Trumps Can" is not a rule. However, like I pointed out earlier in the thread, we do have a rule that:
Also, we have other instances where can't is trumped.

I submit for your review:

2013 Rulebook, Page 9:
What about Masters of Evil or Colossal Stamina or Reavers ATA?

And...
Page 10:
Interestingly, on Dracula and others that are able to heal beyond the starting line, they used the word MAY instead of CAN. So are you okay with may trumping can't? CW Iron Man also uses may to trump can to target an object and a figure at the same time.

Would you be okay with Darkseid's power if it read, "When Darkseid is dealt penetrating damage, it may be reduced??"