Sorry if I ruffled some feathers. I shouldn't have called the counterpoints terrible. I think they are, but it was rude of me to say so. I would like to keep this civil, or at this point, restore it to civility.

I think you and chrisdosmil are not quite getting what I'm saying. I'm not a min/maxer. I don't play cheese, or fault those who do. It's not even maximizing I'm worried about, it just basic fairness. But, if I pay the points for a figure, I don't want to not be able to use their powers for what I consider to be a very counter-intuitive rule. I consider the rule itself to be the loophole. Essentially, the rule plays favorites. Grey Gargoyle can't use Mr. Freeze's gun, but Hired Henchman can. Why? The Freeze Gun is the same either way, the points were paid.

I'm not going to say it won't create loopholes somewhere. Munchkins are persistent. They'll find them if they're there to be found. I guess where we fundamentally differ is that I'll take the loopholes in exchange for the improved rule.

Yes, I will say with confidence that I know that if the rules were changed to the structure I suggested, it would not lead to loopholes and abuse. It is similar to saying 1+1 will never be 3. No, I don't know the future, but if you set up the logical construction to be such that it cannot happen, it will not happen. Make the rule to prevent overlap between the two powers and there will be no combo abuse. I know a pawn will never move anywhere but forward, not due toe clairvoyance, but because that's the rule.

As far as it being a non-issue to you, the same statement could be said about any single thread regarding a current rule. The statement "just deal with it, that's how it is" always applies. Just because something is does not mean it should be, and while not the biggest deal it is simply annoying when team building. Not from a competitive standpoint necessarily but just the general annoyance of having to know that rule in a game already laden with tons of important rules. Rules should have to be proven necessary rather than have it proven why they are bad enough to be removed.

This. Just this. Well said.

Your concern is that people will use sub-optimal combinations to break the game? Can you list one combo that would be broken if you had the player choice rule?
If anything this rule expands playability, increases simplicity without allowing combos.

Isnt this what we do in everyday life?

Why can't we all carry weapons? Because some small % of morons would kill you over a sugar packet in line at Starbucks.

Same goes here.

Sad.

That's okay. They aren't.

Giving it a shot.

Great.

Min/maxing is what I'M worried about, and I feel that a change to this ruling would add more tools to that particular toolbox.

Yeah, that toolbox? It doesn't need any more tools.

It is a rule that makes you make choices. Choices are good, IMO, particularly when dealing with such no-brainer elements as Resources and (to a lesser extent) Relics.

Does this hinder certain, VERY limited interactions like your Grey Gargoyle example above? Yes, it does. But does it also force more choice ("Do I go for the Freeze Gun, or do I use the already useful Incap power?" or "I'm running Dark Phoenix, but the Time Gem isn't going to help me in the Super Senses department, so maybe I should use another Gem?").

This. Magic has dropped and streamlined it's rules several times in its near 20 year history but the game offers no less strategy to playing and deck building because Interrupts are gone and combat damage cannot be stacked with game effects anymore. Companies should always look to streamline rules or risk losing players when years of additions make the game unplayable. Heroclix is just about due for an overhaul of it's current rules and written material.

Sure. Until a set or piece comes out that DOES.

NOTHING is certain in this game aside from the rulebook, and even that is more uncertain than it should be.

I knew a piece could never jump from one side of the board to the other without moving through squares, being TKed, or being carried. Then came Nightcrawler, Chase Thanos, etc.

See my point?

This statement directly contradicts the reality of the game.

FCCF - Fliers carrying fliers was a rule until the community proved why it was bad enough to be removed.

NAAT - Taking an action after being carried was a rule until the community proved why it was bad enough to be removed.

SIF - The Structural Integrity Field worked as intended as a rule until the community proved why it was bad enough to be removed.

Just about due? I would say its overdue at this point.

See, I don't see the pool un hindered figures being as small as you do. For the record, I hate the gauntlet, so let me get that out of the way. Between resources, special objects, relics, and special powers that allow other characters to do stuff, every power in the PAC can be obtained one way or another. Every single power. That's fine by me too. But, that's a TON of overlap potential.

In comics (which I don't really read, I confess), it seems characters are always getting imbued with someones power, using their toys, training etc. I don't think those characters are prevented from using their natural abilities in such cases. Does Black cat lose her powers if she picks up the Cosmic Cube? Wouldn't she be more powerful? The granted ability should ADD to a figure's capabilities, not take away from them.

I just want to come right out and say that I am the guy everyone in this thread is "fearing" or hating or whatever. I am absolutely a min-maxing powergamer, munchkin, whatever term is to be used. This is the reason this thread seems so absurd to me, because I look for these exploits and there is just nothing to be found if you simply prevented the combining of two of the same power from different sources. To say we need to lock in the usage of the one on the card only is cutting off the arm because a finger is infected. Yes, it prevents abusable combos which would exist if you could combo...but it also restricts the different ways you can play the game for no good reason. More restrictions for no gameplay reason are not a good thing, regardless of how many "choices" you have to make when team building. I would much rather being able to make the choice in-game of whether to gas pellet or use my carded smoke cloud.

this is a seperate issue than what he is asking.

Hey, if modifying the rule to allow choice and deny stacking is going to make the world a shiny happy place for whoever, fine. Run it up the flagpole and see what happens. Take it to the rules arbs and maybe they can provide more technical reasons as to why the rules stand.

Me? Not really seeing an issue. At all.

I feel the same way. I so no reason why it would break the game if I can use one special Smoke Cloud or another special Smoke Cloud. I don't think anyone is advocating that we insert sentence two from one ability into another to gain something completely unintended.