objects aren't powers or abilities

It's ok to agree with W.I.T. on this issue. His interpretation of the texts involved are valid, although the powers that be have already ruled the other way.

The assumption that adjacency negates the need for LOF is exactly that, an assumption, but not clearly stated in the text. That may have been the intention of the GD, but the text can be interpreted in different ways, the way it is currently written. One interpretation is that the SP indicates that multiple adjacent figs may be (special)outwitted as opposed to only one fig (adjacent or not), being outwitted normally. So Spider-Woman can outwit normally or, if she is adjacent to multiple opposing figs, she can outwit several of them. In other words, the adjacency in this case grants the ability to (special) outwit multple enemies, but all other outwit rules (LOF included) still apply.

I agree, interpreted by deputies, or venu judges. I would love to see some one try their interpretation while in the middle of an event like "comming of Galactus" or World 2010 and have their opponent agree to such "interpretation". They can try until the cows come home but that wouldn't matter.

which is why I ALMOST agreed with W.I.T =)

mmm I don´t see why it can be interpreted different ways.
She can use it normally or just to the figures she´s adjacent to.
The or to me means that it stops being a normal use of the power. If it is not normal then it won´t follow the normal rules.

"The assumption that adjacency negates the need for LOF is exactly that, an assumption, but not clearly stated in the text"

well I could say the same thing regarding your point of view.

"the assumption that LOF is needed for a non-standar outwit is exactly that, an assumption, but not clearly stated in the text"

It is very simple why it is not in the text.
Because it is not required.
Adjacency needs LOF? no
Then if she only needs adjacency then she doesn´t need LOF.
You are the one assuming that LOF is needed.

Even when I agree that a lot of things are not clearly wrote in the rules book or in the cards, I fail to see a "situation" here.

Well then, by that reasoning, LoF would not be required for powers like:

'Scheme', 'Joker Makes The Rules' and 'Powerless'

Check the description of those powers. Where is is stated that LoF is needed? It's not. It simply states a 'within' a certain Range (4, 6, and 10). But we can assume that LoF is needed despite the fact that they are SP Outwit because that is the requirement of Outwit, SP Outwit or not. And that is in fact the way they have been ruled, despite the ambiguous wording of the text. The 'argument' is to why has this suddenly changed for the Spider-Woman SP?

Also, adjacency and Outwit (as I've already pointed out) have absolutely 0 to do with each other. If that were the case, I could Outwit any power on an adjacent figure even if they have Stealth or a TA that duplicates the effects of Stealth. We know that this is not the case, or at least wasn't the case until this power was ruled that way.

So to assume that Outwit (standard or otherwise) requires LoF is a pretty safe assumption, since it's been that way from the inception of the game, and it's been ruled that way for all of the other uses of SP Outwit.

No, but they can be game effects with "range" that don't require LOF.

that´s true, the description says nothing regarding LoF, but the Players Guide do correct that.

but even when the players guide does correct those it does no do so with spiderwoman.

having a correction for power A and not for power B express that they do not need to correct anything for the last, only for the first one.

but as I said, this would not be the first time that something has been poorly written.

Yes, but lets say I didn't have access to the Players Guide, or only access to the one listed here in the Units section. How would I know this?

Also, there is no correction I could find (even in the latest PG) for 'Joker Makes The Rules' or Dooms 'Powerless'. Only for 'Scheme' in the latest PG. Then looking at the PG here on HC Realms, it has the correction for 'Powerless', but nothing for 'Scheme' or 'Joker Makes The Rules'.

So having access to one, or the other, or even both, doesn't make anything very clear.

And yes, it's not worded very well, clearly or consistently with the Outwit power, or even the other SP Outwit that grant similar effects. I realize they are not going to change it, but it would be nice to have some consistency.

we are telling you :D that´s how you would know this, and if you don´t know this, it would not change the fun in the game, don´t you think?


WIT, take it easy , as I said, it is not the first time a text in clix has been poorly written.
I used to be really angry about it, but you know what? I decided that I need to enjoy the game for what it is, a funny game that gives me the oportunity to know people and to get together with people I really enjoy being with and having fun instead of getting angry with all this stuff that I know I won´t be able to change no matter how hard I shout, claim or write (and this is about me, not about you guys) so my best suggestion is that you play and enjoy, and if something as this appears correct your game play and go on :D

Peace man :D

Fellowship winner of the week!

Scheme, for which the text is structurally the same as Agent P, has been ruled to still require LOF. The justification for that is that the description of the "or" option does not say LOF is no longer required, so that portion of "normal" Outwit is still in effect. The PG clarifies that, confirming that that text should be read that way.
That justification should then mean that the "or" portion of the Agent P power still requires LOF, because it does not specify otherwise. We have precedent, via Scheme, that this text should be interpreted this way. But it's not: it's being ruled the opposite, in fact.
How often have we seen "based on how this similar situation was ruled, this should go like so"? But this ruling says that's not relaibly true.

The power needs errata, not clarification, to negate the need for LOF. Am I going to fret if it doesn't? No, of course not: that's only going to reduce my enjoyment of the game. Do I agree that W.I.T. needs to take a deep breath and then let this go? Yes, absolutely, because obsessing about this will only hurt his enjoyment of the game. But to tell him that his argument has no merit is absurd: his argument has in fact more merit than the ruling we've been given.

It was hypothetical And I wasn't referring to myself in the personal sense, but rather to other players in general. There are many, many HC players that do not frequent HC Realms. From our old group of regular players (before the hiatus), of 12 of us, only 3 regularly frequented the forums here. I am sure that is pretty atypical of the general HC population.

As far a me 'taking it easy', believe me that's about all I do these days

It's a 'bad' ruling, but c'est la vie. As I've stated in this thread several times, I'll abide by it, and use it to my advantage whenever possible.

Thank you, I think?

And I don't obsess, I just respond to what others post trying to at least make people see that the power could be interpreted in different ways as written, and that it is poorly written (shocking that Wk would have that problem ), and that the precedent has been set etc.

Anyway, enjoy all.

You are probably right about it needing an errata. Though I wouldn't give our RA or deputies much grief over it. They go with how the rules are written unless a higher power has intervened. By higher power I mean game design. Since it must have been intended differently than it was worded and that is why an errata is needed. That's my stab in the dark. And probably not the best attempt at sticking up for our good RA and deputies.

OK I have to jump back in here. I have a player trying to build a competitive Skrull team with her on it.

AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Spider-Woman can use Outwit. When Spider-Woman uses Outwit, she can use it normally, or she can counter all powers of a choosen type (move, attack, damage or defense) of all adjacent characters.

My question still is, were has it been clarified that the adjacent part of this power means the characters adjacent to her. I read this power and think she can use this on figures A,B and C which are adjacent to each other but say 5 squares away from Spider-Woman. Just trying to be clear on this so I don't get him playing this wrong before he plays it some upcoming tourneys.
thanks guys

Compare it to EE:

ENERGY EXPLOSION Give this character a ranged combat action; this attack can target only characters. Compare the result of the attack roll to the defense value of each character adjacent to a target of the attack to determine if the attack also succeeds against it. Each character...

Now compare to Poison:

POISON Once at the beginning of your turn, as a free action this character deals 1 damage to each opposing adjacent character.



In other words, unless the game effect specifically tells you adjancent to who or what, assume that it means adjacent to the character with/using the game effect.