(emphasis mine) Although you are correct in saying that Major Damage has not done anything, the fact of the matter is that the Perplex Action was resolved when the player stated he was using perplex to +1 his defense.

Once the FREE action has been stated clearly (as i read it in the rules) said action is then complete.

key word in that sentence is "Clearly" thinking out loud is different. saying "maybe i might yadda yadda yadda" or "hmmmm should i perplex up Wolvie's defense?? Nah, ima attack, Up Major Damage's attack etc."
is completely different than saying;

"I am going to perplex up wolverine's defense." Boom! right there. action complete.

comparing it to a non free (tokenable) action is different because an action is not over until a token is place/dice roll was made.

i do not like when people take off/switch their perplexes or forget to announce them aloud.

(on a personal level) i forget to use perplexes/outwits alot. and when i do i never say on my oppents turn "well i meant to do this" i learn from my own mistake and try to be more observant.

i expect the same curtousy from my oppenents, as it follows the rules of the game.

if you forgot to use an action that you meant to doo and end your turn, there's no going back.

if you made an incorrect move (strategically, i.e figure placement) you cannot go back and change it.

so to keep in line with the other rules;

once you commit to a perplex by stating it clearly what it is you want to do. there is no going back.

Well if you want to get that technical you really need to start accounting for intonation and body language. If someone Says "I'm gonna perplex up wolverines' defense" while looking up, their voice straining as if asking themselves a question, and then pausing afterward, it is unclear if they have actually done anything.

This isn't naming magic - where the word is the thing - it's a board game. Effects that occur off the board aren't clearly defined and are subject to personal interpretation. I really think in this situation the die-off seems to be appropriate.

Take backs in general are a no-no to me but every once in awhile I'll allow it outside of tournament play. However, trying to do so while your resolving a follow-up action I agree is going a little far. I've deal with this sort of player the easiest way possible: don't play with them anymore. Believe me, it makes enjoying the game a whole lot less stressful.

I quoted the rule which makes it clear.

Imagine that you and I were playing and you pointed out where it says "Once per turn" on Perplex to me. I say that I don't agree that.

We've consulted the rules and don't agree. We roll off. I win and can use an infinite number of Perplexes.

Ok, I occasionally do something like what this guy in the story does. I'll say I want to outwit something or perplex something, then immediately see a flaw and go "wait, no, this instead."

I only actually try to change my free action immediately though, which is apparently a difference.

If the guy hasn't completed any other actions, why not?
He outwits Iron Man's EE for some reason and tries to running shot.
He sees that he could outwit Invuln. As long as he doesn't actually do anything in between, who cares?

Well i believe this was the question proposed by the OP. He indeed does care as do many others, the fact is (or the debate... if you were) Once you have STATED what you are outwitting there is no going back. Similar to after you ROLL the dice on a tokenable action the action has ceased and therefore cannot be undone.

The point i am trying to make is that in tournament play rules are rules, as cutthroat as some players might be, following the rules is what everyone should do.

A player should think out his turn and KNOW what he should outwit/perplex before continuing declaring actions.

i have made the mistake on outwitting something and then changing my mind, only to realise it has already been done and there's nothing i can do.

and it sucks when you forget, or mess up, but noone will get better if you let them make the same mistakes or let them break/bend the rules.

and if noone else gets better you yourself cannot get better (a player is only as good as the competition)

but this is coming from an uber competitive guy from an uber competitive venue...

This sounds reasonable to me.

"I'm going to Outwit Running Shot."
"Are you sure?"
"Yes, that's what I'm Outwitting."
"Right, Running Shot is Outwitted. Your next action?"

That's crystal clear - so if you're put out by people wanting to take back a free or non-cice action, following an etiquette like this should avoid "take backs" from being an issue. Your opponent may still ask for a take back, but it's very easy for you to point out that he'd already made his final decision.

'Lucky for you I'm Church of England'...

We play a fairly loose game at my venue - takebacks happen occassionally. The most common one is to forget to roll Leadership, and sometimes people forget to Perplex or Outwit before moving in to attack. As long as both parties are OK with taking back the action, I see no problem with it.
I do see VGA's point too though. If someone insisted that the lette of the rulebook needed to be followed I would have to agree with him. I'm glad no one does though...

Raven Project spoke for me when he wrote:

I routinely allow (and ask for!) take-backs on free actions (including FORGETTING free actions) in almost all cases where one player was clearly setting up a series of moves that they didn't realize would end up being illegal (like targeting a character they can't target).

I also am extremely forgiving with players that end their turn and realize they should have done something else like move a forgotten character, use Outwit/Perplex etc.

It may be against the Heroclix rules, but the Heroclix rules aren't Gospel.

And the above really sums up the biggest contribution to my 'do unto others' attitude towards gaming. If a player is ALREADY taking an unfair amount of time during his turn...then I see no reason to offer 'takebacks' of any sort. Eight years later, and I'm *STILL* playing games of Heroclix in which each player got only six turns or less because of slow play.

Then I explain that there is an unwritten JUNK SHOT rule that explicitly says there can be no roll off when the other players is being silly.

Harpua: you're being silly.

Okay, what about this scenario:

I announce aloud that my Benedict Arnold is going to attack George Washington. BUT, before he does so, I announce that John Andre is going to perplex down Washington's defense.

Is this permissible in casual games?

Is this permissible under VGA's games?

How often do most of us do this (not with those characters, mind you)?

I don't find this even as remotely fair as you believe it to be. This is total hypocrisy.

Instead of being mindful to what your opponent is doing, you give him the benefit of the doubt and after the fact - sorry, Charlie. BEFORE the attack is when the TA use SHOULD HAVE been declared. That's fair and good sportsmanship.

You say "fair is fair" but in my opinion, THAT was an unsportsmanlike move. I understand that you can't point out every little thing to your opponent, but you need to let them know the Defense value they are aiming for! Just a verbal confirmation of it is nice. Instead, you let him roll blindly and didn't give him any friendly guidance on the matter.

As far as free actions go, my venue is all about asking if the person is sure. "Are you sure you want to outwit ESD / are you sure you want to perplex damage?" Or even reminding someone "do you want to use your outwit/perplex/probability control?". We always allow take-backs if the action is either illegal or simply doesn't make sense. But once a Free Action is declared and the dice are rolled - the rest is history. Action resolved.

If Ghost Ripper had asked me any information about defense value, or even verbally done math about the number he needed to hit before rolling the attack, I would have corrected him. We were playing fast, he declared the attack, and rolled. He manned up and accepted the miss and we moved on. Earlier, he had missed an attack on Wildcat when he was adjacent to Sandman's 17 defense; he knew what was going on. Trust me, we had been going back and forth on PC rolls to hit each other prior to this, which included a lot of "informed" actions (between Sandman and that freakin' Domino he always uses).

Let's break this down again

1) first attack of the game, Ben Daimio standing next to a Liberty Belle. Opponent asks what the defense on the dial is, the reply is 16, roll to hit, 17, towhich the person replies, "Ah, that's what's on his dial, but he's standing next to Liberty Belle with the JSA team ability, using the Team ability, so his defense is actually 18."

-Shenanigans. It's a hit.

2) Opponent looks at figure, "I'm gonna attack him. he's got a 16 defense" throws the die before giving the opponent a chance to respond "17, I hit"

Shenanigans again, if you don't give your opponent time to respond, they still get that time, even if it's after you've already rolled

This is why communication is a must. I've heard of people refusing to tell others what their defense is, this is really just cheating in my book. I've also heard of people misreading their opponents dials and their opponent doesn't correct them.

If you're unsure of anything in the game, ask. If your opponent won't respond, they are cheating. At least as I see it.

at my venue, as long as you hadn't actually done anything else yet, takebacks are generally allowed. if someone were to say, "i perplex him, oh, wait i wanna perplex this instead," it's generally okay. if someone were to say "i perplex him, i attack. oh, wait i wanna do this instead," generally not okay. like always, it depends on who you are playing against. though, this is a relaxed venue and people usually don't change their minds on actions.