No. No. And no, again.



ONE LAST TIME: ALIAS CAN NOT BE USED TO MEET THE PREREQUISITES FOR CAMOUFLAGE!!!

Seriously, how many different ways do we need to say this?!?!

Psycho-Pirate does not meet the prerequisites for Camoflouge with Alias, normalview, he meets the prerequisite with his own Shape Change. Once assigned the feat, any source of Shape Change allows him to use the feat.

Just like Vandal Savage can be assigned Brilliant Tactician and then can gain Perplex through ICWO to use Brilliant Tactician on his first click. I do not see any difference between the two.

Vandal Savage is assigned the feat based on his own power, and then uses the feat based on a power granted by another feat.
You could not, however, assign Batman Brilliant Tactician on the basis that ICWO would allow him to qualify for the feat later. He must qualify for the feat under his own power, and can then use the feat at any point during the game where he has access to the prerequisite.

The BT ruling for ICWO has been the same for as long as I remember and I thought it would ally here because it is the same argument.

The difference is that ICWO causes a figure to possess the power whereas Alias merely lets it use it.

Incorrect.

Via ICWO, characters possess Perplex (or Outwit, or MC, or whatever).

Alias only lets characters use Shape Change.

Possession =/= use.


ONE LAST TIME: Camouflage can NOT use Alias as the prerequisite. It does not matter if the character qualifies for the feat somewhere else on the dial; ALIAS WILL NOT WORK WITH CAMO!

Don't make me get out the Deputy taser

Oh, I see. I did get a look at the F4 rulebook PDF. (Thanks WK for providing one, though I would like it to be easier to find)

I see that the BT idea for vandal savage no longer works. Because to use BT, "In order for a character to use a feat assigned to it,
all prerequisites for the feat must be printed on the character’s base and/
or visible on its combat dial through the stat slot."

It was this dated ruling on BT through ICWO that led me to believe the Alias/Camo would work. That's me fault for not staying up-to-date.

Since Vandal meet the prerequisites during force construction, he can be assigned BT. Then, during the game, he can use ICWO to gain/possess Perplex and use BT.

The difference, again, is use vs possess.




(You know, I am beginning to think you're just messing with us )

Ok. Vandal posesses Perpelx on his first click.

"In order for a character to use a feat assigned to it,
all prerequisites for the feat must be printed on the character’s base and/
or visible on its combat dial through the stat slot."
Vandal possesses perplex. But it is not printed on his base and is not visible on his dial or through his stat slot.

ICWO lets him possess the Perplex power... if it bothers you that much that you can't "see" it, feel free to grab a brown marker and color it in. Just remember to grab some white-out when you are done using ICWO

You know what? This deserves a seperate thread

I heart the internet.

It certainly doesn't. We don't need another damn Brilliant Tactician question thread.... lol. And seriously, it says it right on the feat.

..... wow never thought I would have to quote Brilliant Tactician.... especially for this reason.

OK, perhaps they should have asked you to use correct punctuation.

Wow, talk about your over-use of the comma. *eyes bleed*

Yeah! You don't, just add commas, wherever you want because, they look good.


I was reading his post and my brain voice sounded like he was out of breath.

I would like to thank all who chimed in on this, got me in their sights and shot me down. In truth I was never 100% on this issue. I was determined to make a strong argument in it's defense knowing that the truth of it would come out in the end. I certainly hoped I was correct, but I always knew there was a high chance I was on the losing side. It's more fun that way.
I would especially like to thank VanisherPunisher for taking the time to both apply a sound counter argument while pointing out a major flaw in my defense (I always forget that Shape Change is NOT a defense power) rather than just saying "No". At any rate, I had fun debating it.


This thread started with me, let it end the same way.