Right - that's where I was confused. If they take a power action, they can't be invigorated that turn.

Thanks for the clarification - man, that is nasty!

barrier says 'sup'.

No, your are not following my Logic

"Choose a character. When the character uses Support,
remove one action token from adjacent friendly characters
(maximum three total tokens removed.) Characters that have
action tokens removed from them can’t be given
power actions the same turn this feat is used."

If you invigorate 1st, then the characters cannot be given power actions that turn, but nowhere does it say you cannot invigorate a charater that has ALREADY been given a power action.
it just says that they cannot be given a power action after being invigorated.

No it was specifically ruled that they cannot take a power action at any time during the turn, if they do they can't take advantage of invigorate.

I was just going by the wording on the card. If there was a ruling to that effect then I am indeed wrong. Still nasty though.

it says that they can't not be given a power action that turn. That means the whole turn not just from when this power is used.

You are right, it doesn't say you can't invigorate a character that has ALREADY been given a power action. But it also doesn't say that you can only invigorate characters that will not be given a power action later that turn. It says characters can not make a power action the same turn that they have a token removed. There is zero room for before and after.

But if they went thru the trouble of rewording the feat maybe it should have been reworded like this.

"Choose a character. When the character uses Support,
remove one action token from adjacent friendly characters
(maximum three total tokens removed.) Characters that have
action tokens removed from them can’t be given or have already been given power actions the same turn this feat is used."

Because that wording has bad syntax.

Dude! what's with the junk shot? Are you an English Prof or something?
It was just an idea, to make it clearer.
How would you have worded it?

First of all, I have a minor in English, my wife has a BA in English and an MFA in Poetry (our cats are named Ralph and Waldo, and our last name name is Emerson), and yes, I have considered trying to get a teaching job in English.

Second of all, I don't think the wording is confusing at all, my original quandary was with the original wording, and one of my questions was if it had been errated. That being cleared up, I think the wording is just right.

Just to throw you a bone, this is the wording you are looking for:

"Choose a character. When the character uses Support, remove one action token from adjacent friendly characters (maximum three total tokens removed) that have not been given a power action this turn. Characters that have action tokens removed from them can’t be given power actions after this feat is used."

It's not a junkshot, it's just true. That sentence confuses the matter even more.

The errata's wording is sufficient for its intent: if you want to use this feat, it governs your actions for the entire turn. Anything more becomes redundant legalese.

EDIT: But ChiRocker's rewrite is a fabulous improvement on both texts. Bravo from a fellow English major!

I didnt need the info on your cats But it was funny.
Did I strike a nerve with the prof comment if so I am sorry, not my intention. Anyway good luck with Teaching I have 2 friends who currently teach at the college level.

I can see you having seizures after reading a post by CarlosMucha

LOL J/k Carlos

And an even better example of why retirement is good for the competitive game.

You didn't make me mad, I just like to be a rhetorical d-bag sometimes. And yes, Carlos' English makes me shudder.