Mage Knight 2.0 killed the thread!

I believe, with regard to the evolution of powers, rules, and mechanics, Wizkids has embraced the art of boiling the frog slowly. From a commercial standpoint, that's wise, and unlikely to change.

I think HC could use a complete rules overhaul but that the longtime players of the game would not stand for it. Lets not forget what happened with Mage Knight. Personally I've found the PAC changes to be exactly what this game needed.

The lof crosses hindering, it is ignored and the lof is not blocked. But ignore doesn't mean "does not exist". You can't change the fact that a character is adjacent to blocking (without destroying the blocking).


As for everything else, standardized wording is the answer. Magic went to a system of keywords. When you read one of these keywords you know exactly what happens. When a new keyword is made, an explanation of it is given. Also something else Magic does that should be done for clix; whenever a new set comes out, you can go on the Wizard's site and they already have rulings and general guidelines on interactions with other cards. Somebody takes the time to think of the possible conflicts and rules questions and answers them ahead of time.
I don't think keywords will necessarily work for clix, but there are enough common things happening in special powers that they should all be worded the same.

You might be able to minimize it, but it will never go away.

Dude, it's not very often YouWaShock contributes anything of value to any conversation, so when he posts more than a sentence it might be worth a look:

Thanks for this post. I think it can. First thing is powers need to be written better. Second, we need to do away with the oranges and there needs to be an OFFICIAL in house rule committee that responds to rules questions and gives ruling; like in MTG. Right now we have a system were oranges change the text on things i bought, and sometimes without any bases other than they prefer one way or the other. That is not a good way to run a game.

Yeeeaaahhhh...That was my first thought as well...

This game is complex enough as it is...But a complete overhaul would drive some folks I know nuts...

But you can change the fact that a character is not occupying hindering terrain???

Also, ignore absolutely means "does not exist." Double check the glossary.

I don't intend to piss anyone off with this commentary, but it seems to me that a large part of the community that is against rules change are the same type of players that enjoy flaunting their knowledge of the player's guide and quoting obscure powers as a reference point and rules lawyering intent vs. wording.

While that's all fine and good, I can't help but think it would be healthier for the game in general for a clear, concise set of rules to be in place instead of the system we have now. The very fact that we need an entire sub-forum about the rules that grows pages longer with every set and includes even the rules team going back to the developers for clarification should be indicative that there is a problem.

Even if it meant my entire collection as it stands now would become obsolete, I would applaud a change to the rules if it accomplished the goals and solved the problems of the game in it's current state. As is is now, you are taking a subset of people (gamers), narrowing that to a smaller sub-culture (miniature/superhero gamers), and then narrowing it even more to the few that are willing to parse all the rules to get enjoyment out of the game.

Going to a clear, concise working and format would make it so much easier for new players to get into the game which would hopefully make it more successful long term and at this point, going tabula rasa and starting from ground zero makes more sense than trying to go back and fix what's already broken. If there's going to be errata anyways, at least it would be starting from a viable base line.

Some people would look at your last sentence, then add the word Heroclix
and think that you are describing the game today.

I wonder if it is possible to learn from history?

Or is the most important thing the immediate idea of "Sell, sell, sell"?

"Brand new shiny baubles for sale. Get 'em while they're hot."

I'll loosely quote many oranges and other people. "Don't use the glossary to justify rules".

You're not changing the fact that they occupy hindering, you ignore the fact that they are occupying hindering because you ignore the terrain. A character adjacent to blocking is not occupying blocking.

Look at it this way. Ignoring hindering does not mean you ignore the character's Stealth. So ignoring blocking does not mean you ignore the character's power that states you cannot draw lines to them if they are adjacent to blocking. You ignore the blocking for drawing the line, but they are still adjacent to blocking.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. I don't mean it as an insult, this is just another example of how different people see things differently. This ruling has never confused me and makes perfect sense.

See: Ambiguity.

See also: Problematic.

You're not changing the fact that they are not adjacent to blocking terrain, you ignore the fact that they are adjacent to blocking terrain because you ignore the terrain.

What I just said is no different from what you just said, except I substituted hindering with blocking, and occupying with adjacent. Power interaction is no different in either case. The improved targeting is what allows the ignoring.

And to the part about the glossary......if it serves no purpose and only adds to conflict of rules....then it should not be there. If I cant go to the damned rulebooks own glossary to help figure out what they mean by "ignore," then it shouldn't be there. Fix it WizKids.....or abide by it.

Learn from history? Maybe.

Most important thing the idea of "sellsellsell?" For a company in the business of selling game pieces? Probably. Who cares if anyone enjoys playing the game as long as people are buying it?

And the focus in the game is most certainly on shiny baubles. The growing assortment of resources and continuing schedule of event series' is proof of that.