Which is good for us, who'd like him. He will be one of those cheap aftermarket Con-Ex's in no time, hopefully!

Oh, don't be so bloody precious.

I'm no min-maxer. I don't play meta. I don't like tentpoles. I don't want 12 attack and 5 damage. I don't want anything broken. I don't want point-and-shoot. I don't want to overwhelm my opponent.

I like games when they're close, and could go either way. I like pieces that take thought. I like finesse. I like playing comic accurate. I'd rather lose a hard-fought game than win with an alpha strike.

I'm not the kind of player you're describing up there. There's nothing I hate more than when WizKids makes one of my favorite characters -- like Banshee -- into a cheesetastic menace that I would feel like an absolute douche for playing. I do not want anything of which you're accusing the people who aren't absolutely enthused with this figure.

But if I'm spending over half my build on a single piece, I want it to be able to take more than one hit. 17 toughness, even with 50/50 super senses, is not something you want to see on a 180 point piece, who by his very nature, has to be a tentpole. Not in a day when it's too easy to have a 100 point character with a 13 attack, swinging for 8 penetrating damage.

One failed super-senses roll, and Cosmic Daredevil is toast.

That's not worth 180 points. Period.

Everything about your previous post says the opposite, or at the least that you consistently have to deal with those type of players.

Either you're not being honest with yourself or you need to find some casual games or ones that break out of the 300 point three round KO-fest mentality.

That's when you learn to appreciate dials for things other than your "precious" criteria. But given how easily you've rattled off a typical "play moar bettah" response twice and tried to cover it up by HAVING to tell me the things you supposedly are not I believe you're just not being honest with yourself.

Were you any worse at reading people, let alone internet comments, I'd believe you were anthroposophically illiterate.

How does wanting a 180-point piece to be able to survive being hit more than once equal "play moar bettah" or min-maxing at all? That's my only complaint with Cosmic Daredevil.

And while I certainly don't have to justify myself to you, or anyone else, I want to be absolutely clear. Just about the only time I play 300 points is in sealed. Where this piece will never be. But pieces are designed and balanced in this game for a 300 point environment -- just ask any designer or playtester -- and that's where they need to be evaluated.

I'm not a "gamer." I'm not a competitive person. The last console I had was an SNES, I've never played MTG, and my favorite board game is Balderdash. I got into HeroClix during the Great Hiatus, because I hung out at a comic shop where people came and played casually all the time, and they drew me in with the JSA. Being able to play my favorite characters from my favorite team was what got me into the game. And we'd play typically upwards of 1000 points, to fit on entire lineups. Because we all love comics, and saw the game as a way to recreate them. It was probably over a year after I started playing before I played at anything below 500 points.

Skip ahead 18 months or so, and the game is back, I've gotten to know players at different venues, interact with a lot of different styles, and played in a couple of sealeds and big events like Clix for the Cure, just for the experience. My original shop has closed because the owner passed away, and I'm now taking over as judge somewhere else, stepping in for someone who can no longer do it. That's mid late 2010 or so. I've been judging ever since, apart from taking a lot of time off in 2013. So five out of the last six years.

In that time, power levels in the game have fluctuated wildly. We saw sets like Captain America and Teen Titans where there was a concerted effort to reign in power creep, but they were surrounded and drowned out by things like Galactic Guardians and, more recently, Trinity War. Until NFAOS, and these last couple of sets, it's been relatively impossible to field an actual "team" at 300 points. Around here, and I live in Maryland where there are three venues within fifteen minutes of my house, and another dozen within easy driving distance, no one really plays 300. Until NFAOS, we were even typically doing 400 point sealeds, because you had to in order to use more than a couple of pieces and feel like you were actually building a "team."

With Nick Fury, Worlds' Finest, TMNT and now UXM, we're seeing sets that are geared for more figures at 300 again, and that's great! I love the idea of fielding a full squad at 300. But still most constructed games around here, are going to be anywhere from 400 to 600, with some occasional 800 or 1000 point extravaganzas. We do a lot of comic accurate, silver age games, too, so no, the metagame isn't something we think about in regular events.

Will I play Cosmic Daredevil occasionally in bigger games, casual games at my friend's house, or if I'm doing some kind of random cosmicy theme? Sure. He'll be fun.

But none of this mitigates the fact that he's just too squishy for 180 points. Boost his defense value by +1 on his top click, and he feels like an entirely different figure to me. He'd at least make me feel like my opponent had to work a little to hit him. But as he is, he's too easy to hit so hard that he's either dead or useless in one shot. If believing that makes me a munchkin in your eyes, then you need your glasses changed.

For someone who isn't competitive you sure are trying to win the internet with your posts.

Way to go sidestepping the issue. I value accuracy. I hate being misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misrepresented. Especially when it's clearly intentional. I provided information so you would have a clearer picture.

You still haven't answered me. How is wanting a piece that's 180 points to be able to survive more than a single hit a min-max thing? I'm not talk about attack, or damage potential or anything else. In every other respect, the figure is fine.

Your entire premise, your entire concept of who I am, is based on my single issue with one figure making me some kind of uber-competitive munchkin who only cares about 300 point, modern age, cheesetastic games. That couldn't be farther from the truth, and your continued focus on that, instead of on talking about the issues with the piece, is both imbecilic, and indicative of an obdurate inability to either accept correction or understand different perspectives without prejudice.

What is inherently "meta-minded" about wanting a nearly 200 point piece to be able to survive taking a hit?

Him not being able to take a hit is your opponent's reward for hitting him in the first place. Between 50% super senses and attacking from the other side of walls he should be quite the challenge to even target in the first place, yet alone get a hit that sticks. I think the "cat and mouse" of it all would be reminiscent of playing against Cosmic Spiderman without the frustration that it's all just an exercise in futility.

It's your dismissal of a piece that takes just a bit of finesse to work that makes you look "meta-minded." It's your long winded posts that are lame attempts at intellectual superiority with phrases and theories you picked up from having wine-nights with a philosophy major that give the clear picture of you as someone with deep rooted insecurities.

And I'm just sitting over here eating popcorn.

Because I missed a single D6 roll. When the average attacker will need to roll no more than a 5 or 6 to hit, having a 200 point piece's defense tied up into one roll of a d6 is simply not a good investment.

Attacking from the other side of walls within four squares. In most circumstances, opposing characters are going to be able to move and attack for at least those 4 squares, getting around a wall, or up elevated, or wherever, with relative ease. 4 squares is not a hard distance to cover, whatever terrain is between you and a target. Heaven help him if he comes up against a piece like, oh, 75 point Falcon, let alone someone with exploit weakness carried or TK'ed within those 4 squares.

His defense comes down to one single D6 roll. Yes, it's a 50/50 shot, but if you miss it just once, he's done for. In his price range, that's unconscionable, and as far as I can recall, unheard of. He has no survivability.

Cat-and-mouse implies an ability to run. This guy doesn't have that until he's almost dead.

Being critical is not the same as being dismissive. Pointing out a flaw -- hell, a glass jaw -- is not dismissive. It's an evaluation based on facts, experience, and likely scenarios.

I am not attempting to show any kind of superiority, intellectual or otherwise. And in your case, I certainly don't need to.

I'm sure I must have met a philosophy major at some point in my life, but if so, I am not aware of it. I also don't drink wine, or much alcohol at all, to be honest.

I love language, and I love communication. I love words, and the knowledge and ideas they bring. I know what they mean, and I use them appropriately. If you have trouble keeping up, that's a fault in your communication skills and education, not mine.

Just remember, a 115-pt piece with no reducer and no super senses at all is just fine, though! And a 17 D!

Absolutely, depending on what else he brings to the table. :P

Oh, this game takes a dice roll to hit? Those things they use in games of chance where anybody can roll anything? Weird that this piece uses that same principle to dodge attacks. What was your point again when it comes to a roll of chance?

(Here come the statistics of how much easier it is to roll a 5 or 6 with two dice over a 4-6 with one, cause there's no such thing as statistical anomalies, especially in THIS game)

This looks like theory crafting. I thought you claimed to be intelligent. This is how you want to show that?
I'm going to say this one more time: a smart player will be able to utilize his abilities to keep their opponents at a distance from this piece, especially with a game that seems to be "devolving" in a way. Not always, but enough to have a good time with what I hear is a game. Those are still meant for fun, right? Not here? Not by people who claim to be casual players yet get hung up on just one aspect of a dial and can't let it go? Oh, well now. It's like I'm being sent mixed messages through a lover of language. That can't be right, can it?

Based on theory crafting you mean. You winner, you.

And yet here you are doing it again. Weird how that type of behavior keeps cropping up in that whenever you claim to not be something you tip your hand to show you are. It's almost as though you need to defend yourself for some reason, and to strangers on the internet no less.

Careful with that kind of thing, it makes your confidence, or lack thereof, show.


There's no problem in keeping up. I just choose my vernacular based on the venue. Otherwise you end up coming off as a needy person with low self esteem pretending to be something you're not.

I'm talking about the instances where that 50/50 defense fails. When that happens, he has no chance to recover, especially if your opponent has a followup attack. Any other piece in his point range is going to be able to survive missing a super-senses roll. How is this a hard concept to grasp?


Congratulations, I actually I had to look up that term. I'd never encountered it before. "Theorycrafting" seems to have come from the days of Starcraft. Okay, sure. Let's go with that. It's a mathematical analysis of a game system to gain an advantage. That's not what I'm doing, nor could an accurate reading of my post even lead one to think that.

I'm speaking from experience and observation of how pieces play. Those two things alone can give you a good idea of what to expect in future games. That's not "theorycrafting," that's learning and anticipating. You act as if I'm approaching this like some mathlete on the road to Vegas with a "guaranteed to win gambling system."

"Theorycrafting," indeed.

You're saying he can hide behind terrain and shoot. That's true, within four squares. I'm saying there's plenty of pieces that can cover that ground, and won't have any problem getting to him within a turn. With only 120 points left in a standard build -- again, simply because that's how pieces are designed and balanced -- there isn't enough to run a swarm team of tie up pieces. What am I going to do, run him with three Foot Soldiers? What kind of sense, or fun, does that make? No, in a thematic game, I'm probably playing him with another cosmic or Captain Universe piece, or Marvel Knights, or even a regular Daredevil. Nothing there is really designed for crowd control, and I'm still not going to have much to work with. 2 pieces at most, and more likely 1. Unless you're suggesting I min-max support pieces and use the old "shoot-and-barrier" technique to box him into a corner, but no, you can't possibly be, because that's a metagame strategy (and it sucks to play or play against, honestly), and neither of us wants that.

What would you play with him at 300 points to make him work? At 400?

I could use him in a higher point game, say 500 points, and I've said so several times now. Even so, there's still better investments for the point cost. I'd do it when I wanted to be thematic and play just for fun. I've said as much, but you seem to be ignoring all of that, and focusing on my singular complaint, which, as stipulated, is really limited to his performance in a standard tournament. And that complaint is valid, based on those criteria, because that is what HeroClix is built around.

You're under the impression that because I have a problem with one figure's survivability in a standard setting, that I only think of things, that I only want or play things based on that format. That's what I take issue with. You couldn't be farther from the truth, but you don't seem capable of recognizing it.

If I'm defending, it's because you're attacking, for no good reason. You went on the offensive, in a rather obnoxious fashion, right from the start. I have a single complaint about a single piece, and instead of simply acknowledging a difference of opinion, you've blown it into some aggravating notion of how I'm a douchenozzle metagamer who only cares about winning and playing the most busted #### to get ahead. That's patently false, as anyone who knows me (and there are plenty realmsers who know me IRL) can tell you. You've both maligned my integrity, and lumped me in with the kind of players who I hate the most. For no good reason, other than I have an issue with a figure that I consider is too squishy to justify his price tag.

It's like you think criticizing, or even evaluating a figure's usefulness, is a thing only metagamers do, and that if someone doesn't think every figure is bonkers good, they must hate fun.

You think the figure is so good, tell me what you'd run him with.

Rather than break down your post and engage your want for theorycrafting about teams you'd run this piece with or ones I would to "win," I'm going to focus on this part of your post that puts your disillusionment in perspective.


You made a post about his defense, things like your disappointment with his DV, toughness, and enhanced super senses. Reasonable. Here was my comment on that:


Show me the "obnoxious offense" with this post. Go ahead, I'm ready for the mental gymnastics.

You can't, can you? That's because my post was just about this piece's potential and how it all isn't a wash out. I even finished it with how FUN IT LOOKS.

Now let's take a look at your response shall we?

There's a tone of superiority in this response. You reiterate your point which of course is fine, but the rest is simply shut downs that come off as a player that has to build to win at all costs. All you keep repeating is "points points points points points" as if 300 is the ONLY GAME FORMAT IN THE WORLD. The worst is that it has spread to a "post to win" attitude as well, especially with the closing statement. All of it comes off as your typical meta player.

I posted about the potential for a good time and the good news that he isn't broken, which as a con exclusive never goes over well. You posted as though he has no use in what looks to be from your word choice as a "build to win" world. If you can't see that in your post then you aren't looking.


Unless you're a crazy person, Tim Drake. Surely you're not a crazy person, right? (Here's the part when you tell me you're not but really you are. Don't break stride now).

When did I *EVER* say anything about *winning*? I didn't. I just want a nearly 200 point piece to can *survive being hit more than once*. How is that about *winning*? It isn't.

How is learning from experience and anticipating what an opponent will do "theorycrafting""? It isn't. Try playing chess sometime. Here's the definition of theorycrafting, for you, and those who may not have heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorycraft

Why can't you answer a straightforward question instead of dodging? Is it because, perhaps, I have raised valid issues with which you cannot contend?


You see "superiority" where there is none. You see "shut downs," where there are merely counterpoints, awaiting your response. That's how discussion, or debate, goes. But instead of addressing any of the points I raised, you launch into:

That's where the obnoxious offense comes in, genius. Nothing in my post which sparked the above response warranted such a reaction, nor would any reasonable individual imply that I was a metagamer from it.

"Points" are the foundation of the game, so I fail to see how evaluating a figure's usefulness based on its point cost is in any way inappropriate. I mentioned, more than once, that in a higher point game, he may not be so bad. BUT, the evaluation *has* to be for 300 points, because that's the format for which these pieces are designed and balanced. I don't know how many times I've said that at this point, but you seem to be ignoring it each time, because it doesn't fit with your mental construct that all I care about is 300 points. The designers build pieces with 300 in mind, so therefore, that's how they should be judged. Above 300 points, "efficiency of cost" actually goes down per point. That's how it works.

My closing statement, "until a double-tap KOs him" is merely a restatement of my argument that he goes down too easy for a figure in his weight-class. If you took it any other way, you're misreading.

You said con exclusives automatically get hate, so they build them now to not be broken. I countered that other than Faust and Bat-Mite, the two con-exes that were indeed broken before errata, I'd never seen a convention exclusive get hate. There's no reason for them to make exclusives "overcosted," and they never really have. Worlds' Finest and Adam Strange are two of my favorites, and both are just "good" for their points, not broken, not bad. Some are better than others. Some are worse than others. Again, I don't see the issue.

No, if you see that in my post, then you're reading into it based on your own prejudices. I never said the piece was useless. I said he's too squishy for his points. I said that after he takes a hit, he becomes next-to-useless, and that a second hit would certainly kill him if the first didn't.

His entire survivability is based solely around not missing a super senses roll. That's acceptable for lower cost figures, because if they get taken out, you have other things to use. It's not acceptable in a near-200 point piece, because by his very cost, that's the majority of your team, taken out in one hit. That's not a game. That's a slaughter. And no one wants that. I don't want to be the guy who sees my tentpole get shot into uselessness on turn 2, and I don't want to be the guy who does that to someone else. That's not fun for anyone.

But that's where Cosmic Daredevil lives, in my opinion.

Oh, no, I'm absolutely insane. Ask anyone. You wanna get nuts?!? LET'S GET NUTS!! :P