It does not have the effect that you think it does, regardless of whether it is "meaningless" or not.

You are, of course, free to think that if you wish, but you'd be wrong

I'm voting this thread for Presidency.

I do enjoy the use of hotdogs in this example, but this thread in itself is an example of looking too far into a figures wording when there is nothing more to it.

lol

I agree the OP is being a bit intentionally obtuse (I think). It's pretty clear that the intent of the Hawkeye piece is that the free action is to put away his bow, as he has no other free actions he can take (No outwit for example) so to say otherwise would make that SP pretty useless. That being said, the OP is correct that the syntax of the power is poorly written. And sadly it is far from alone in that regard. NECA really needs to have more qualified people proof read the power definitions to eliminate the confusion that results from poorly worded powers. Then we'd need less 'FAQ/Errata" in the player guides to clarify the poor word choices that come up more often than should be required. Despite what some of you appear to be arguing, language and syntax do matter, quite a bit in fact when you talking about rules.
So to sum up, yes I vote this thread for president too... president of the "please proof read your SP descriptions NECA" club so we can avoid more threads like this in the future.

Like all things wizkids, syntax and intended meaning are lost on most of us.
The Hawk-eye in question has no other abilities that give him access to a free action that would be required in your example to allow him to change powers. So we must assume that the free action given is just part of his power to activate the power changes from CR to ED and RC to CC. It can only be done at the beginning of the turn and only once. As most free actions of a specific type can only be used once a turn. Yet, I strongly agree that the PERIOD has meaning. It is simply used incorrectly in this example. Wont be the first time wizkids leaves something so plain that when read means two different things. If Hawk-eye did possess perplex or outwit or some other free action power. Your argument would be a million times stronger.

Maybe it's because I don't argue that much but there are very few things in this game that need alot of discussion or clarification. I don't see how the phrasing can cause so much debate. I also don't see how this is another of NECA's world famous mistakes.

Hawkeye's trait indicates a very specific action.
PUT AWAY THE BOW: At the beginning of your turn, you may give Hawkeye a free action. If you do, Hawkeye possesses Combat Reflexes instead of Energy Shield/Deflection and Close Combat Expert instead of Ranged Combat Expert until your next turn.

First sentence indicates the trigger. Second sentence indicates what happens after you give Hawkeye the free action.

Even if he had access to Outwit (Globe of Ultimate Knowledge) or Perplex, they are all separate free actions that the player needs to call out to activate. You don't just say you are giving character X a free action and leave it at that, you state what you're using and the rules dictates that you can use this only once per power per turn.

Just my two-cents. Now I'm going to have some popcorn and see what happens in this soap opera. I hope there is a twin involved somehow!!!

Take care!

To everyone saying it is poorly worded and/or the period isn't quite right, I ask the following:

If you really feel this way, how come you've never said anything before?

From the PAC:

Close Combat Expert
Give this character a power action. It makes a close combat attack against a single opposing target character; modify this character's damage value by + 2 for the attack.

Exploit Weakness
Give this character a close combat action. Damage from the attack is penetrating damage.

Flurry
Give this character a close combat action. After the close combat attack resolves, it may make a second close combat attack as a free action. If this character loses Flurry before it makes the second attack, it can't make the second attack.

Penetrating/Psychic Blast
Give this character a ranged combat action. Damage from the attack is penetrating damage.

Ranged Combat Expert
Give this character a power action. It makes a ranged combat attack against a single target character; modify its damage value by +2 for the attack.


I am not even going to bother trying to quote the multitude of special powers worded similarly. The point is, every single one of those is laid out the same way as Put Away the Bow: Give-an-action statment. What-happens-because-of-that-action statement.

Why is this now an issue? If Put Away the Bow is at all unclear, why wasn't CCE? Or Flurry?

Not being sarcastic. I genuinely want to know why this is bubbling up NOW and not before (many of these powers have been worded this way for years).

I would have thought that Hawkeye not having a single ability activated by a fee action besides Put the Bow Away would have been clue one that the free action is granted by the power itself, how else could he use the power?

LoL, I think I understand wher this guy is coming from (although I actually understand the reason why the rule is the way it is...)

The OP, Im guessing is asking basically...why do you have to take a "Free Action" at the START of the turn for something that should be just a basic choice.

Meaning that it should be a option to just switch powers without having to use a Free Action. Cause (to the OP I'm guessing), a Free Action is something that is a Situational Option.
Meaning...that if the ONLY time you can use this power is at the START of the turn, why make it a optional (again, I'm guessing that the OP is seeing that a Free Action as a Situational Option). To the OP, the power should be a non "Action'd" choice.

The Free Action to use this ability is there so that...
1) You can't go and switch powers all willy nilly. The Free Action that is used to activate this power (AND ONLY THIS POWER) through the wording of the rules will not allow you two activate the same Free Action twice.
2) Yes...you could simply say "Once, at the start of your turn, Hawkeye may chose to possess CCE replacing ES/D..." the problem with that is now that SP/Trait is Non-Optional. Hawkeye HAS To switch powers. If I know that my Hawkeye going to be near someone that negates the use of Power Actions that turn, then why would I use his SP? CCE and RCE are Power Actions (and yes, youd still would have to use a Power Action to use the CCE/RCE of his SP even though you did just use a Free Action to be given the option to use CCE/RCE).
3) This SP is just like the Leadership rule (which is that you didn't use THAT as a point rather than the Ol' "Hot Dog Dinner" argument...). Pretty much the reason why Leadership is the way it is, is the reason why this power is the way it is..."because it's the way it is!"

My 2cents...

The OP "was" / "is" under the impression "Give this character a free action" is the same as "When this character is given a free action..."

It doesn't.

Every power that requires an action says so at the beginning of its write up unless it requires a special circumstance for that power to be activated.

In this case we need to be at the beginning of our turn. So once its my turn, I can use any power that either requires it be used at the beginning of my turn or can be used at any time during my turn.

With Hawkeye, we must make this choice at the beginning of of my turn as per the power's writing. After the beginning of my turn ends, I can't use Hawkeye's power.

Now I use Beast's Outwit at the beginning of my turn. Have I given a Free Action? Yes, but I gave it to BEAST to activate his Outwit. Hawkeye has not been given a Free Action.

Let's say Hawkeye has the Orb of Knowledge (since its the only way off the top of my head that Hawkeye can use Outwit). I give Hawkeye a Free Action ------ TO USE OUTWIT. Does this also activate Hawkeye's PUT THE BOW AWAY?

The power DOES NOT say "WHEN you give Hawkeye a Free Action..." and therefore WILL NOT activate his PUT THE BOW AWAY power.

Why, you might ask:

Page 16 of the rule book:
Does PUT THE BOW AWAY require a Free Action to be activated?

But couldn't the power be activated by the use of the Free Action from the Orb's Outwit?

Again, page 16:

Here is where the OP's confusion lies:

PUT THE BOW AWAY is a power. Outwit is a power. Each one requires a Free Action to activate. It is not inclusive - where one Free Action will activate both powers.

BCF is the best example on how this time of situation is created:
Whenever a Close Combat Action is given, BCF may be activated. That is how the power is written.

PUT THE BOW AWAY was not written "When Hawkeye is given a Free Action..." The power says you need to give him a Free Action.

All that being said (and yes, I basically just repeated everything normalview wrote), if the goal was to, as a Hawkeye user - use his SP then the understanding wouldn't make a difference (as far a the net result). I use Outwit. I use PUT THE BOW AWAY. OR I use Outwit and PUT THE BOW AWAY -> same net effect.

Where the issue comes up and is important to clarify is when the OP is facing a player using this Hawkeye and then tries to claim, since you used Outwit and "activated" PUT THE BOW AWAY (via his own misunderstanding of the rules) and didn't make the change to CCE/CR, you can't swap now by trying to give Hawkeye another Free Action.

In the end, if you still don't understand, just go with "cuz WK said".

FIN

Plenty of ways to get to do things that require free actions... Globe of Ultimate Knowledge, In Contact with Oracle, etc.
No, it isn't. It is very clear. The specific distinguishment made is even in the rulebook, and has been quoted repeatedly in this thread.
This part is true. But not in all circumstances, and not in this one.

Again, while these two statements are both correct, the connection drawn is not. There are ways to do things via free actions. Having or not having a free action power is completely and utterly irrelevant. See above.
It is not used incorrectly. At all. Period.
Again, this is true. But it doesn't make every questionable thing automatically incorrect, or even suspect. They get a lot more things correct than incorrect. People just put a lot less effect into complementing the correct use of a period than they do criticizing the incorrect use of one. Human nature.

Because people don't know what they're talking about? This is far from the first case of commonplace wording suddenly "becoming" an issue after somebody takes issue with a new example. Amusingly, almost all of them follow the same trail of determination.

This.

This

And this

Begin almost exactly the same way. Since the OP uses Leadership as part of his argument early on, I would assume that the OP understands how leadership works, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

I just want to thank everyone for their attention to this.

My initial concern was for abuse of the power. I didn't want to have anyone claiming that this power:

PUT AWAY THE BOW: At the beginning of your turn, you may give Hawkeye a free action. If you do, Hawkeye possesses Combat Reflexes instead of Energy Shield/Deflection and Close Combat Expert instead of Ranged Combat Expert until your next turn.

would allow Hawkeye to, at the beginning of the controller's turn, have Hawkeye do something that is otherwise considered a tokenable action - such as move - for free. Then as a result of being given the free action, be able to use CCE to wallop an opposing figure.

My preoccupation with the period, and the difference with leadership is that leadership adds that little bit about "and roll a d6", so there is no question as to what is done when a character uses the leadership power.

Since there is a period, consider if the power without the second sentence:

PUT AWAY THE BOW: At the beginning of your turn, you may give Hawkeye a free action.

Hypothetically, if this were the power, what would Hawkeye's options be?

Also, to normalview, thank you for the posting of similar powers - flurry, RCE, Psy/ Pen. And I appreciate your patience with me. I think my question is mainly about the vocabulary of the second sentence in each instance. The vocabulary for each relates back to the first sentence, and the majority all work better because the definitions for "close combat action" and "ranged combat action" are loaded words, the phrase actually refers to a definitive process.

The ones that are more on par with Hawkeye's power are Close Combat Expert, and Ranged Combat Expert, because they allude to "Power Actions". In the hierarchy of game actions there are only two: tokenable and non-tokenable, Power and Free, respectively.

The dissimilarity comes from the second sentence of Close Combat Expert and Ranged Combat Expert. Each uses an attack, but attacks themselves are normally power actions so, again, the second sentence flows better with the first sentence because the language refers to similar concepts.

The second sentence of Hawkeye's power does not refer to actually using anything as a free action, it merely states which powers Hawkeye now possesses. And that's the confusing part, possessing powers has never been a tokenable action or a free action, they just simply are present or not, especially in the case with the defense modifiers.

I just didn't want to see Hawkeye being abused on the above grounds. I like the character very much as is.

Just to add fuel ot the fire, though, there's this:

Colossal Stamina
This character automatically breaks away and can make ranged combat attacks against non-adjacent opposing characters when this character is adjacent to opposing characters. When this character has two action tokens, it can be given a non-free action. If you do, after actions resolve deal it 1 unavoidable damage and do not clear action tokens from it at the end of the turn. This ability can't be countered.

It's identical to the structure of Hawkeye's text, but has the exact opposite meaning. This does mean you give them some other action and something triggers off of it.

When this character has two action tokens, it can be given a non-free action. If you do,
At the beginning of your turn, you may give Hawkeye a free action. If you do,

You have Condition, Permission, Subsequent effect. The only distinction between them is between "can" and "may" and I cannot imagine that actually means anything in this circumstance. Sure, I recognize that Hawkeye isn't intended to be read that way, but since when has intention been recognized around here?

I think something needs a nudge here.