Yeah that discussion could go back and forth for hours without accomplishing anything. You almost got me started again.

I like what other topics this thread has to offer though: player expectation, what they are entitled to if anything and how wizkids has responded to the plaster community. Those are topics that haven't been beaten to death.

The traits thing is good every few months or so. Maybe every fews decades. No one is budging.

My first post on these forums gets to be here fun!!

This is all a issue with "Game Design".

Let me pose this question. You as a designer want a duo figure to have and . You want both duo attack and Sharpshooter to be "counter-able". How do you accomplish this? (I can go about 5 pages explaining a bunch of options, but I'm curious to see a couple responses before adding more.)

Oh man, don't get dragged into this with your first post!

The whole brouhaha over this (non)issue is pretty hilarious.

Oh don't worry I'm not about to, and yes I think it is blown a bit out of proportions. =p But I do understand the reasoning why this particular character was made this way. Figured I'd get people thinking. =)

the traits cannot be outwitted at all

at my venu we give keyward to fig if it fits like say

like superman KC haveing JLA ECT

Mob rule is generally not a great way to run anything.

Man alive, look how long this has gone on for.

The original question got answered about 50 times already.

What else is going to get solved now?

Oh, I think I've got a pretty good handle on the rules.

This. Well said. Rep to you.

Then what's the point of making it a Trait? Why not make it a special power?

Well, sometimes the dial slots might be busy with other powers...
Take HoT Venom as an example. Giving him Leap/Climb through a Trait is a simple way to give him L/C throughout the dial...

So they still have the symbol or some such. For now I think people just need to be aware of the now two intances of ones that can be outwitted. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come as well. Was it intentional or sloppy wording on the part of game design we will never know.

I would just have put two symbols on the dial the same way they did with TAs.

This is the only game I'm aware of where the players have issues with the rules at this level.

do I blame the players?

nope. I blame a convoluted set of rules that just begs to be complained about.

Its a bit late to fix it now, but there are way way way too many exceptions in this game that come up far too frequently.

I'm not saying the game designers should listen to everything the players say and buckle under to every request... Obviously that would be impossible due to the fact that so few players agree on what those changes should be. However, they should look at it as a sign that their rules are not as airtight and straightforward as they should be; and compare the complaints they get about their rules to complaints that players of other games make about those rules systems. How often to you hear magic players saying "flanking doesn't make sense" or "the rules for Exalted should be changed"? uhm never? correct.

I had hoped the new rules were going to do what they said they were planning on: consolidating, simplifying and cleaning up the rules to make it easier for new players, and less confusing for everyone. Did that happen everyone? really, did it?

Having some experience with WK game design, I can tell you which. In fact, I'd bet my entire HC collection on it.

The "use" and "possess" terminology didn't come around until feat cards. GD used them interchangably and there was no distinction between them. It wasn't until a few rules-lawyery judges got hold of and started arguing about it on the old judges forum that GD got involved. A definition of each was created at that time.

But just because there was a definition doesn't mean that GD thought in those terms. Instances still arose where the terms were used interchangably... some I caught early on and some I didn't.

Like I said, I'd but my collection that there wasn't any conscious thougt that went into the trait in question. #GD simply wrote the wording. #There was no decesion that said "we want the Sharpshooter ability to be counterable, so we'll use 'posess' on this trait. #Sorry, it doesn't work that way and it isn't how the game designers think.

It's only because we have these rules lawyery types that we're stuck with this mess to begin with. #But WK shouldn't have bowed to them this time around. #If it comes from a trait it can't be Ouwitted. #Period. #Not every rule needs an exception in this game.