I agree with this interpretation.

Effectively the character's use/possession of any specified "abilities, powers, effects" are really in reference to the trait that is those powers. As such, attempting to Outwit said powers would indeed target the trait which cannot be countered.

That isn't how it would work, though.

Take what you said and apply it to feats.

Force Field gives the user possession of Toughness. You cannot Outwit the feat, but you can Outwit the Toughness. By your logic, you would be unable to do this because you would still see it as countering the feat which cannot be countered.

Namora's trait is that "Namora has the " so it's a safe bet that even if the wording said possessed it would be unoutwittable as well. It actually states Namora "has the symbol" I.E. meaning she "possesses" it not just "can use". Which for certain feats like Submerged and Lucky Break make a world of difference.

You can use Outwit too Thwart the feat even on Power Cosmic figues one thing you can't do is use Dissent to Outwit a figure with Power Cosmic or Quintessence. But hey that's what Disbanded is for

Strictly speaking, that doesn't counter the feat (merely causes the feat to be ignored) and it doesn't actually use Outwit (Master Mind is the other prereq).

In other words, sure, there are ways around a lot of stuff (even traits... PW ignores traits), but there are a lot of things Outwit specifically can't do. One thing it can do, though, is counter possessed powers regardless of the source of said possessed power (barring things like Fortiude or un-counterable powers like Ulik's SP).

Indeed...furthermore, one could therefore use Outwit to counter the Swim ability which the gives her.

OK, but that's been ruled on. Applying the same logic to Traits as to Feats is jumping the gun, in my opinion. The two are seperate mechanics, and Traits, so far at least and by their wording - and it seems to me that Trait is effectivly a pronoun for the power it grants so far - they should not be counterable. We'll have to await for official word, but that's how we've been playing it, as that seems to be the intent.

From a design perspective, it looks to me like Feats are being used to represent abilities that the charaters always posses in the Comics (IE, Venom's Leap/Climb or Thor's Super Strength) to some degree. Effectivly, it looks like they are trying to make it so that a character can always be played in a manner consistent to their appearance in the comics by making sure they always have that power available.

Why would you counter the Toughness when you could counter the prerequisite power and kill both with one Outwit? [/aside]

Usually I'm on your Side Harpua..
But this time I really think the intended effect of the trait is to make powers that are not outwitable..

I understand your statement about feats, and applying that logic to trait, however Feats don't have the wording in the instruction manual: All feats are non-optional and can't be countered.

Where as traits do..

Because the character in question could have both ES/D and Telekinesis (or any other combination of the feat's prereqs).

Counter one, and the other will still allow the feat to function. Counter the power granted by the feat, and it doesn't matter how many prereqs are still on the dial.

Totally agreed. Harpua, Quebbs, Normalview... these are the go to guys. But, this question is still (I think) up in the air, even after a bit of time in the crucible.

Definitely an issue for Game Design.

Has there been any word on the new company's efforts in that area?

Noticed a flaw in my post based on yours..

Over-rules-lawyering irritates me to no end.

I think the practical intention of Traits is to give full-dial powers that cannot be outwitted or countered.

Well, let me know when you see some from my side.

You guys seem to be the ones trying to stretch what the rulebook says.

My viewpoint is pretty straight-forward.

Assuming that the trait says a power is possessed, then the line from Outwit is as clear as it gets. {"...this character counters a power or an ability (other than a team ability) possessed by a single target opposing character..."}

I think that this is a major leap of an assumption.


I'd say that it is simply a way of getting something on the dial at all times, but not necessarily with the intention of making it uncounterable.

For example, say they wanted to make a Wolverine with Willpower and then Regeneration but always have his inate Toughness. Well, you can't have two different damage SP's (Toughness & WP...Toughness & Regen). One way to get around it is that you slap the Toughness up into a trait and then just use the standard powers below.

The same can be said about really ignoring the statement of traits are not optional and cannot be countered. A feat is a way of getting something on the dial that the character doesn't actually possess but "should be able to do." However there's no mention in regard to feats that feats themselves cannot be countered and are not optional.

Until we get an official ruling on it in an errata or something it's always going to mean to me that the trait being the powers or abilities the character naturally posses, cannot be countered and are not optional.

From a comic stand point this may not make complete sense (since wolverine would have a trait of regeneration, but frequently shows his healing factor being shut down), but from the way feats and traits are worded in the rule book the way they are interpreted should be different as well.