EXACTLY! And the discussion at hand is IRT a "Free" Action.

And...HOWDY! No kidding huh? I dropped the game almost 3 years ago and got back into it last Dragon*Con.

This I agree with...my point was IRT a free action and when "exactly" is it "declared".

There's definitely two camps in this.
Personally I prefer saying "yeah, go ahead" most of the time.
Yes, if too much time has passed or the mind changing comes practically every turn I'll be far less inclined to allow it, but that's all a result of expense... the expense of a good time.

Before my venue ran games I unofficially was the rules guy on Sundays. We kept it casual, as I had never even heard of HeroClix tournaments at the time.
The shop eventually got sponsored, and we had a judge come in to run games Saturdays. He encouraged a fun environment. If a mistake was made we'd be corrected, but there was some degree of leniency for the sake of making sure as many people enjoyed their time as possible.
That's more or less the example of how I've tried to run events as judge.

I've had times where I made a small oversight and asked to be able to take the move back, and after being denied it really messed my game up.
An instance like that is few and far between, but that definitely wasn't a fun game. All because he wouldn't let me take back a move action in the first round seconds after I released my hand from the figure, which was promptly slaughtered as a result.

I've seen more of my gamers enjoy there time as a result of a close match with back & forth action (with both gamers talking and laughing after the round) versus "oh, I destroyed him in 4 rounds, he messed up bad."

I guess it depends on where you game, and your style.
At my venue, my gamers are a bit forgiving about small mistakes, as they make some themselves. Does it make them dumb or bad gamers? Absolutely not.
It's how we enjoy our hobby, and how we take our break from the week for 3 or 4 hours.

I don't see why it shouldn't be like that. It's not a Wizard World tournament or anything high stakes.
Just find the right venue for you.
If you like to enforce rules with zero leeway, find a venue that has gamers like that too.

Just don't come by my venue, because that's not how we roll.

Running Shot attack portion isn't declared until the movement portion ends.

So if Manchine was a real wad he could insist his opponent find a legal target from that square, whether it was a different character, a wall, or an object.

I prefer to let players work these gaffes out themselves. If I am called over to make a ruling I'll rule you can redo your current action provided you have not rolled any dice nor have performed any other action. Declaration is not enough and I am not penalizing players who think out loud or getting into debates about whether he "meant" to say he was Outwitting or Perplexing something or not.

As pointed out before, it also doesn't say that you can't torch your opponent's figures, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

It is just common sense that once an action has resolved, it is over.

There is no rule stating that someone has to allow a guy to unresolve an action.

If you think the lack of something stating specifically that there are no take-backs means that there are, try it at a major tournament and see how the judge rules.

From the glossary: "resolve: Completing an action and determining its effects, including any of the following: declaring the action, completing a move, rolling a die or dice, taking any free actions allowed by the declared action, dealing damage, and taking damage."

If you say "I Outwit the Running Shot on Bishop." The effect is immediate, so the action is resolved.

Since it is resolved, there's nothing that can be done.



No, it isn't. This was ruled long ago. There was an entry in the FAQ when that existed stating that in order to use a power, it had to be declared. It did not make it into the player's guide, but it was affirmed by the RA that the ruling had not changed.

This is incorrect.

According to the rules, in order to even declare that Running Shot, a valid destination had to be chosen.

Since it was not a valid destination, the action is illegal and is therefore nullified, returning the figure to where it began. It would be illegal to force the guy to stay there.

Yes there is as declaring the Running Shot includes declaring the destination.

If he declares the Running Shot and you allow him to move there knowing that it is an illegal destination, you are indeed cheating.

EDIT (adding this):
If there's no legal target he cannot have used the power.

*sigh*

Ah, but you said "by the book".

OK then, "by the book" when is it "resolved"?

As a Judge, from a major tournament or two I have no need to ask anyone else.

OK, so accoring to this "declaring an action" also "resolves" it. And that, to put it mildly, is stupid. For example:

"I am going to attack Wolverine with Mystique, but first I am going to Perplex up her AV..." Um, according to the rules you just cited once the words "I am going to attack Wolverine with Mystquie" are said that action is resolved, period.

See Running Shot & Energy Explosion example given previously.


OK, now who's picking and choosing which rules are or aren't "official"? As you said Ah, but perhaps it was...if another target is in range from said RS ending posisiton. Yes?

Real quick...

From the Comprehensive HeroCLix Rules (Which I understand not to be "official") I find this:

And, officially speaking, from the FF rule book:
This is in regard to my previously given "Running Shot & Energy Explosion" example.

This "rule" has always bothered me, especially since we've had a series of high level envoys/RA that were very strict about not telling players at major events that they were not following the rules during games.

Incorrect. Unless Energy Explosion is declared, it would be a standard attack, so you argument is invalid.

As I've already quoted this in this thread already, I shouldn't have to repost this, but here goes...

Page 7: "If you have more than one action available, you must resolve one action before initiating the next action."

In the example given by the OP, the player had declared his next action. Since he cannot have initiated that action without the previous action having been resolved, the previous action was resolved.


Let me post that again...
From the glossary: "resolve: Completing an action and determining its effects, including any of the following: declaring the action, completing a move, rolling a die or dice, taking any free actions allowed by the declared action, dealing damage, and taking damage."
"declaring the action" is included in the list of effects and is not, nor is any single one of those, the sole determination of the resolution of the action.

Context is a good thing to use.


Well, that would be the RA who said that the ruling was still official.



And that's fine, but irrelevant to the situation.

The situation I presented was one where there were no targets, thus it was illegal. Another situation where there are targets is not illegal and is therefore not even related to the discussion.


As for your rules quote, please keep reading along in the book to the next paragraph.
Page 15: "Some powers require that a character be given an action in order to activate, or activate when you give a character a specific type of action. To use one of these powers, the player must declare that the character is being given an action to activate the power or that the action given to the character will activate a power."


In other words, if the player didn't say he was using EE, he isn't using EE.

Harpua=Gangsta

great discussion here, guys

"All powers are optional unless "non-optional" appears in their description, and are not required to be used during your turn; however, all powers (such as those activated by a specific type of action or attack) are assumed to be in effect during an action unless you cancel it at the beginning of that action." Fantastic Four Rulebook, page 15

In this case, strict rules would require being a Richard about canceling EE when declaring Running Shot in my example; however, good sportsmanship strongly suggests not following this rule to the letter.

To sum up: don't be a Richard about action declarations and their resolution unless the player has truly moved on to another action by rolling dice for an attack or physically moving another character, etc. This is modified by time considerations, though, so if the opponent seems to be stalling no mercy on these things can be called for.

I have other advice I could give re: "tournament mindset" but I'll save that for a more appropriate topic.

No...it would not.

See above:


And going back to the OP, the player did truly move on.
He declared and resolved his Outwit. We know that it is resolved from the fact that he declared his next action (which, as page 7 says, can't have been done unless that Outwit was resolved).

VGA is following the rules. His opponent is not.

1) VGA's opponent needs to learn to be responsible for his own play.
2) VGA wanting to follow the rules does not make him a jerk.

Which would cause no shortage of short-circuitry when playing SI Human Torch's FIREBURST SP ("Human Torch can use Energy Explosion and Pulse Wave") if it actually worked that way.

In my example, the main action declared is Running Shot, which grants a free action Ranged Combat Action. If EE is showing on the dial, that Ranged Combat Action must be EE unless it was specifically canceled when Running Shot was declared. The strict rules require this (the paragraph you quote applies when the Power Action to activate Running Shot is declared). Only a jerk would require his opponent to follow this rule strictly, though; and by analogy, force a free action to stick when the opposing player has done nothing else but speak.

The practical compromise could be to require players to place "Special" markers on characters with a countered power; this would concretely signify when the Outwit is "resolved" and can't be taken back. Until the marker is placed, the free action isn't resolved. This way a physical act and visible marker will clearly denote the game action's complete, utter, final resolution When that marker goes down you can declare "no taksie-backsies!"

When I read the OP, I immediately thought "gamer exhibit A: the Stickler". n The Stickler is a player type who loves the comfort a set of rules provides and basks in his knowledge of said rules independent of whether that knowledge is exhaustive or accurate. The Stickler struggles with social skills and relies on the written rule set to govern any interaction with opponents. Deviation from the rules set makes the Stickler uncomfortable and clearly demonstrates his opponent's inferiority...and perhaps his perfidy? Is he trying to cheat the Sticker? After all, rules are rules.

Sticklers often lie in wait, disguising their true nature until the moment is right to bust out chapter and verse. And who could blame them? That's how you win! Carpe diem! Sadly, Sticklers are often blind to their own rigidity and consider themselves "good sports" and "fun to be around", failing to notice that their games are usually tense and quiet and that their opponents abandon the table shortly thereafter to find someone, anyone else to talk with. "Ah, that person is just a poor loser. No fellowship for him!" They mistake their ability to spring incidental rules traps with strategic skill and feel compelled to regale all with their gaming prowess.

The Stickler is common in gaming circles, especially high-level tournaments. They are rarely seen in friendly environments as a high percentage of Stickers tend to make those environments hostile.

On the other hand, the OP could represent a different type of gamer: the Awesome Dude. It's hard to tell on the Interwebs sometimes.