There are way too many posts on here with people whining about changing the rules or pieces that are broken. Complaining about what some powers should or shouldn't do. Whimpering about some pieces being too powerful or being overused.

Well, cry me a river people. Its a game. Like Risk, or Axis & Allies, or Chess. And like those games, it needs rules to make it playable and fun. Rules that are fair and balanced. None of these games try to use the rules to imitate real like activity. That would require a rule book bigger than the bible. We would all spend an hour calculating out physics formulas and calculus equations just to resolve a single action.

Any changes that WK has made regarding the rules so far are usually a direct result of some sort of loophole in the wording of the rules. WK has reasons for why the rules are the way they are. There is a reason why Outwit works the way it does. There is a reason why Soaring characters block LOF to grounded figures. The reason is for simplicity and game balance.

You can't use common sense or real life scenarios to explain the rules of a tabletop game. And you shouldn't whine about pieces being too powerful or too weak just because it doesn't fit your idea of that character from a specific comic book.

Personally, I think that Heroclix is a great game. And while the rules may be down right weird in certain situations, I accept it cuz I know that the exact same rules apply for my opponents. (thats one of those aspects of fairness)

So stop complaining, stop whining, and stop trying to ruining the game by trying to change all the #### rules. You think the rules should be different? Go make your own Hero adventure collectible miniatures game with your own rules and see how well you do. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and roll the dice.

Or I guess there is always checkers.

The rules for all the games you've mentioned have evolved from the original versions...

One major problem Heroclix rules have is they are not intuitive, which makes it hard for them to maintain a claim on simplicity. People have every right to question and challenge the rules. It's not "whining". It's because they care about the game, despite its obvious flaws, and want to fix it. And as far as complaining about pieces not fitting their comic book images, well they should complain. I think when a game has a largely recognized liscence the game has a responsibility to create an acurate representation and feel of whatever liscence it may have.

I think the Queen in chess is a broken piece.

The dials are not big enough to represent a character throughout their history. What would you do for Carol Danvers? or Hank Pym? They have changed throughout history from writer to writer. There will be duplicate clix soon enough, in fact there lready are duplicates--Elektra, Daredevil, Spider-man, Wolverine, Wasp, Captain America, Hulk. I'm sure we will see different representations of the same character as HC runs out of unadapted characters.

The rules are fine the way they are. I don't have a problem playing the game the way it is and neither does my clix group.
And Neither should you.

Okay, I give up. How is Chess intuitive?

And Queens are borken! A piece that can cross the entire board in ONE MOVE? And can duplicate the movement pattern of ANY OTHER PIECE?!?

Forget it, man. Chess will never catch on until the errata comes out. I hold WizKids personally responsible...

Yeah, the Queens wild card team ability on movement makes her unstoppable.

Yeah the Queen's a drag! Oh did I just make a funny?

Didn't think so.

I'm fine with playing the game as it is - I believe a great deal of thought went into the attempt to capture the characters' abilities and make them work within as simple a framework as they could muster.

That said, talk about whining -- It seems that every time someone dares to bring up for consideration some amendment of the rules or a different approach to a set of character stats, even if just to ask if others agree or disagree with them -- there's a small crew of people ready to roll in and declare Those Who Dare To Question as "whiners."

Why not save the label for the people who demand a change, or threaten to give it all up because something is ruining the game for them? They're the legitimate targets, not the people who find something odd and are just trying to find out if anyone else agrees.

===MJN

As an example of rules changes:
The Queen originally moved like the King, and was one of the weaker pieces.

The queen isn't broken. It cannot mimic the movement of the knight.

That would be fine if said people presented the query in a question format, but too many times I've seen people say, "x needs to be changed because..." or "my idea for x is..."

This implies a response be made about their 'complaint'.

Overall, this is a site for HC discussion. That includes my views as well. So if I want to label a whiner as a whiner, I will do so and tell them why.

I have to echo an earlier post that games like chess and Axis and Allies have had rule changes. Obviously none of us were around for the evolution of chess, but Axis and Allies I've seen the evidence. Almost any computer game released these days goes through a long series of patches (some of them significantly altering the existence balance of the game).

I don't think the current rules are horribly off base, but I would not bet on heroclix keeping those rules for the duration of its existence. And if rules do change I'd much rather they evolve out of the players themselves than from only the game designers. A wider perspective isn't going to hurt. For instance things like "no dupes" could become de facto rules without ever entering the official rule book, if most venues decide thats how they're going to play.

Rules like no dupes could be fine, especially in a tournament setting. But let's not change the game mechanics just because there are a few people who cannot adapt their teams and strategies to counter the efforts of people who figure out 9or use) killer combos. Everything has a weakness, find it and exploit it!

I agree with Miraclo that the designers have done a good job of capturing the spirit of the different characters in both the Marvel and DC realms. Given that it would be impossible to represent any single characters entire comic book career on a single heroclix dial. Each piece represents a snapshot of that character at a given point in comic history. I'm sure that any suggestions about pieces that should be created will be looked at in detail by WK.

As far as calling people whiners because they express their views, I partially agree. I have no problems with people talking about home grown rules that they find fun. Those are similiar to using different scenarios, which can be very fun to play. I read someones post earlier about some limitations for Outwit in an 8 person 800 pt game that I thought were very justified. But there are also a lot of posts of people saying rules need to be changed because they aren't fair. To me, thats whining. (Much like what I'm doing right now)

I agree with SkrullAgent that the rules are not intuitive. When you add that to the open-ended descriptions in the rulebook it does cuz problems with understanding the rules. That however does not mean they aren't simple rules. To me, if I can play the entire game without consulting a manual, then its rules are simple.

I also care about the game. I think its a lot of fun to be able to take on the sinister syndicate with spidey and his allies. But I'd hate to see the game that, with the exception of a few openings, works very well end up having to make major changes. Then Heroclix ends up like Magic. There will be figures and maybe even whole editions that are banned from play because they were created under the old rules system and now the points are all incorrect.

Anyway, Its a great game. Leave it alone. 2 thumbs up Wizkids from those of us who already sleep with the fishes.

Oh, and I think the Queen should have Outwit. Then she'd be broken.

First I don't understand how not allowing dupes is any different than most of the other rule changes. Using dupes of certain figures can provide some pretty nasty combos, why would those be ok to eliminate and not some of the others?

Secondly, yes everything has a weakness but I think the problem is some of those weaknesses require action in the team building phase of the game. First this isn't always bad, some team should match up better on certain maps or against certain game plans. The problem occurs when something dominates a game. (now you get to here me whine in your thread about whiners) Outwit can do that, toss outiwt on a 300 point team and its a useful ability. Use that team against a team with big investment in an invulnerable character and there's a chance(though not a certainty) the game degenerates into being about the outwit. It can influence every action. The ability and therefore the rules can completely alter the game play. For the most part I think the designers did a great job of avoiding this. Its usually a character that can dominate a game ("I got beat by wolverine and elektra", not BCF, "I lost to a Firelord team, or bullseye or cyclops" not RCE) Usually its about the powers and the stats, the complete character. In an outwit v invulnerability game, its very often an "I got beat by outwit". I don't think thats a good thing. (and now you got to hear me whine in a thread about whiners)