I'm pretty sure it's to prevent bypassing restrictions on certain powers and abilities.

Take M10 Dark Phoenix. She has a Trait that let's her use Super Senses but only evades on a 6. Your opponent puts the Gauntlet on her and has the Time Gem showing. Your attack hits, but he rolls a 5. Phoenix says she evades on a 6, but he says he's using the Time Gem Super Senses, so the 5 works.

Is that something you want to have to deal with?

There are a lot of other figures that have "negative" aspects to their powers/abilities that can be bypassed. They shouldn't be.

Undoubtedly. But munchkins will always try to exploit an exploitable situation. I think a few broken combos would be worth freeing up the 99% of non-broken combos.

The difference is if Eradicator can make two different super sense roles (which he couldn't). So this is a false argument.

I've already pointed out in a different thread that I think this rule should be updated to allow a controller to pick a single source of a game effect that they possess multiple times to use for that action.

The discussion isn't around the fact that the sources for most of these rule contentions are, pretty much unarguably, the most unbalanced elements in the game. But they exist. And the rules should be adjusted to allow their intended usage in all cases.

This will simplify the rule set, give players more options, and reduce confusion around which powers can be used when.

All are positive changes to the game from a mechanics and enjoyment standpoint.

And there's all this too.

I would rather just prevent current and future broken power combos and keep the rule as is.

Yes I would. It'd be fair. Phoenix is already a great piece. The Gauntlet is a great resource. Why shouldn't a great piece using a great resource be extra great? It's not like the gauntlet would be depowered on Phoenix or she would be depowered using it.

The way I look at it is, Phoenix is filling a "hole" in her defense by adding an element that would give her a boost.

You can go ahead and leave me out of the slapfight from the other thread, thanks. It wasn't a "false argument," it was an attempt at finding clarification.

Why not? It's only a slight upgrade when compared with someone who doesn't have SS at all.

I don't see a problem with player's choice: if Gargoyle picks up the Gun and chooses to use it you're actually paying the cost of the Gun (relic) plus the cost of the dial Incap he's "deactivating" to use the Gun. If you're looking for a justification on why "first come first used" instead of "player's choice" someone thought it was a better option: maybe they were concerned about Thrumble Funk's munchkins, or maybe they didn't want punitive powers opted out of , or maybe they flipped a coin.

Because the limitation is ostensibly factored into the point cost of the figure.

By permitting the Gauntlet or whatever to eliminate that limitation, you now have an undercosted figure using what is arguably an undercosted element.

I don't really see that being great for the game overall.

From a game design perpestive the rule is simple yet restrictive. Simple is always a good thing in game design, restrictive can be good or bad. In this case I think its bad because it can involve points and if you are barred from using a better yet similar effect from something you paid points for you aren't getting your points worth. You should always be given a choice when choices are present.

I would think for game balance and simplicity.

A character already has a power, they can't gain access to a better version of that power, or, what I think is more likely, just to keep things simple.

If a Character has a Special Power or Trait or Relic or whatever that grants multiple game effects, a Standard Power being among them, and then gains access to another Game Effect that grants multiple effects, that same Standard Power being among them, what effects of each Special Power do you get to use? Do they interact with each other? Which parts can be affected by other game effects, like Feats and BFCs or whatever?

Simplicity. You have something that grants X, you can't benefit from anything else that grants X.

Either that, or plan on having a few dozen extra pages of eratta in the next Player's Guide.

As well they should be, because Munchkins. Ruin. EVERYTHING.

Anyhow, I guess player's choice is alright on one level. I just don't want figures with built-in limitations to be able to get out of said limitations so easily.

I disagree. Phoenix costs X because of all of her abilities and deficiencies. Adding a gauntlet doesn't affect her point calculations. In short, I believe you should get what you pay for.

I'm not sure where I am on the argument re: Phoenix, but improving from 1-in-6 to 1-in-3 is not slight: it's twice as likely to be successful.

So you don't think that essentially skirting around a built-in limitation makes the figure better for the points?

Sorry, can't agree.