Really? And, just who exactly are you to define who has 'more experience'?

Anyone who agrees with you is 'more experienced' and anyone who doesn't ... ? Well, they clearly just can't use logic, don't know what they're talking about, or lacks the experience necessary to correctly interpret the rules, right?

The fact is, you are inserting things into the rules that aren't there.

I'm telling you what is there, and how the ruling should come down based upon what is there, and you think that is somehow less logical than adding in a bunch of text that's currently missing and then adding more to the erratta and clarifications documents to make things go your way.

Then by all means, point out the flaw in my reasoning. I could be wrong, I admit it freely. But so far all you've done is repeat the same 2-3 sentences that are not self-evidently derived from the rules and when asked to back them up have offered nothing but repeating those same things as if they could somehow support each other independent of any external point. That's what it's seemed to me, anyway.

Here is what I'm saying, as plainly as I can put it, asking you to take nothing on faith. If you disagree with any of these statements, please state why.

1) Modifiers can cause a figure to no longer meet the prerequisites for feats.

2) It is never stated, anywhere, that the modifiers from feats that are currently in effect, are to be treated any differently than any other modifiers.

3) If the prerequisites for a feat are only checked before the feat is actually in effect, no feat can ever invalidate itself. Furthermore, if this is the case, picking up an object as part of a Pounce will also not invalidate Pounce. These two concepts are inextricably linked--if a, then b.

4) If the prerequisites for a feat are checked a theoretically infinite number of times in order to ensure that if at any moment the prerequisites aren't currently being met the feat will stop working, then every time the prerequisites are checked after the feat has taken effect initially, the modifiers from the feat itself are to be taken into account in the checking process like any other modifier because they are modifiers, which we take into account, and nothing tells us not to. Hence, a feat may invalidate itself.

I've done my best to break my argument down into a number of things that should, I think, be unarguable, unless I've made a mistake as to what the rulebook does or does not say. If so, please, point it out. If you can think of a logical flaw, please, point it out. I'll then consider it, revise my opinion, and possibly concede if it seems that you're right.

And, for the record, I really have no idea how the Aerial Baffler situation has been ruled or would work--I wasn't trying to use it as part of my argument, just pointing it out as a pre-existing situation which is somewhat analogous.

And now you are starting to resort to personal attacks and blowing things that I'm saying out of proportion. All I said is that the judges that I personally know as judges with experience (because I've seen them a lot in the WK judge's forum, which is where I've spent most of my time in forums) were agreeing with me. I'm not saying that only "experienced people" are agreeing with me by any means.
I've already appologized if anyone has misinterpretted what I was saying.
If you insist on personal attacks, I am withdrawing myself from that debate until the RA brings the ruling back.
This is an entirely new interaction that has had nothing exactly like it before. I am merely looking at precedence in my opinions of what will probably be ruled. I'm not saying that I'm going to be right, I'm saying that this is my opinion of how it should be.

Tenketsu, there is nothing that I can think of off the top of my head that supports either one of our opinions more than the other. I'll take a look when I get home tonight if I have enough time. At this point, I'm going by other aspects of game logic that I've seen and what little precedence there may be for similar situations. At this point, Pounce in and of itself hasn't changed, it's just other powers added into it have changed. Pounce still requires 2 Dmg max, and increases that damage by 1 for the attack (which has never invalidated it before)... that hasn't changed, and that is the main part of my debate.
Without access to appropriate documents from work, that's the most I have right this second, but I'll look at home if I have time tonight (otherwise, it'll be when I have time).

No.

What you originally said was that 'multiple judges' had agreed with you and 'only a couple players' disagreed. Then, you revised your statement to say that 'the judges ... who agreed with me were more experienced.'

As an 'experienced' judge, you should realize that words mean things. You used certain words ('only a couple players', etc.), which had definitive meaning, and then when you were called on it you still attempted to slam those who disagreed again by saying they were less experienced.

If you're looking for someone here engaging in personal attacks, you might want to check the mirror first.
... and that those incapable of seeing things your way simply aren't being logical.
Except those portions of the rulebook that've been quoted here, at your request, to point out the fallacy of your argument?
Then, the main part of your debate is that modifiers are allowed once the Pounce action is initiated and those modifiers don't invalidate the action.

Thus, by your own argument, the modifiers given to Damage during the attack, by the objects being held, should also not invalidate the action.

Precisely what I've been trying to say. It's either one way or the other--it can't be half and half. And, since Pounce hasn't been invalidating itself so far, and the text of the rulebook supports it, I know which way makes the most sense to me--but I'm not even arguing for that. I'm saying that, either way they're going to rule it, they can't ignore the other implications without being incredibly inconsistent, and proving to my displeasure that our current RA is, in fact, not competent to do his job.

My prediction is that it will be ruled that a figure may not Pounce and use Super-Strength if the combined damage value of the object and base damage is greater than 2, whether the item is picked up before or during the Pounce action. At the time the attack is made as a free action, and the damage value is determined to be greater than 3, the action is invalidated and must be taken back.

This will, in effect, create the following rule which does not currently exist:

The effects of a Feat are ignored when determining if the prerequisites for that Feat are met.

As far as the "you must meet the requirements of the Feat for the entire execution of the Feat" part goes, I believe there is valid precedent. That precedent is regarding Running Shot. From the General Errate and Clarifications:
The example I use as a comparison is using the movement part of the Running Shot, then targeting a Wild Card in hindering who subsequently copies the Batman Team Ability. The move is revoked and action is taken back; i.e. the player couldn't use Running Shot to begin with.

I'm not 100% certain that this is an official method of handling this situation, but I know it is what is used in practice. Is there something out there that says if this happens, you're stuck there wishing you had something to shoot at? It's my understanding that if there's nothing to shoot at, then you couldn't have used Running Shot and you need to redo the move.

Incorrect.

If you get out there using Running Shot, and suddenly can't execute the attack portion due to your opponent declaring Batman Ally, you are left with two options:

a) Find something else to shoot at, or
b) Not attack.

Similarly, if you Pounce and your opponent uses Entangle or some other such Feat, Team Ability, or game effect to somehow prevent you from being able to attack, unless you've got someone else adjacent that you can attack, your Pounce action ends and you take the damage.

That does not, however, address the fact that the ruling that you predict will:
a) Create a new rule,
b) Add to the existing errata and clarifications document, and
c) Be inconsistent with the new rulebook it is aiming to clarify.

The difference between my example and your example of Entangle is that there is no roll involved in my example. Personally, I've never seen it played the way you have stated. Could you reference a documented rule that would support your assertion?

As much as JacinB and I are arguing about other points, he his correct about this part. When you activate RS/Charge/HSS and make the movement part of the action, then ready for the ranged attack, if the target changes in such a way that it makes the attack invalid, you still have to keep the move action as it has been made.

It typically only comes up when a WC changes to Bat Ally (for a ranged attack) or if the target makes a Shape Change/Skrull roll, but it happens. What REALLY sucks is when you use a feat like Pounce to attack a figure and they nail SC/Skrull so that you have to take a click and can't make the attack.

In friendly game, some players will let you take back the move action if they do it (or copy Bat Ally before you move), but you're stuck with it in a cut-throat game.

Well now...since you are obviously making notes, I am too a Judge. Have been for many a moon too. (CT like Jacin) And since you like toadvertise it like it means something (in your signature) I am a level 3 Judge. Again, doesn't mean squat. Maybe that I may have more free time than the average Envoy.

Does this make me more right (is that even possible?) than you? No. Than a player? No.

It just means...well, it means NOT-A-DAMN!

Okay, that's understandable. I just put it in there because I had the room (and the rest of my other signature didn't fit... it was part of a joke), so now it's gone.

I know being a judge doesn't neccessarily make a person right, but judges with experience do tend to have seen more questions and answers come up. No, it doesn't mean they always will be right... heck, for all I know, GD will declair a ruling against me, or against JacinB, or something that none of us expect.

I'm debating my view on this and stating what I believe to be correct.... but it doesn't matter what I think or what I believe the rules are or should be... it's what the designers decide the rule will be, and it's my responsibility to enforce that and back it up.

And for what it's worth, I'm not "taking notes", I just searched a little and didn't see anything about him being a judge, but I did notice a few members that I know as judges (who I've personally seen to have a lot of experience and activity in the judge's forum on WK) that had the same viewpoint as I did.

OK, I didn't intend to post to this thread again, but I have an overwhelming compulsion to address this. A running shot is a single action, as such, a wildcard figure can not choose to change its TA after the movement is completed, but must do so during the initial declation of the action, before the figure is moved. Because there is a requirement that the RSer be able to draw a LoF to a target from the square the figure will end its movement in, if the only legal target from that square is a WC in hindering terrain, and, in response to the power action assigned to activate RS, it declares the Batman Ally TA, the action becomes illegal and is invalidated before any movement occurs.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion....


BoT

Okay, I've searched through some of the judge's forum, and nbperp said (in response to a question about documentation for Pounce with Meteorite and the new object rules):
I've posted the question for nbperp to review and verify with GD, but he also posted that he's going to be out fishing for the weekend, so we won't be getting a response (even a "Tentative ruling") until at least next week. I'm going to leave this one alone until I have more input from there, since nothing really exists for either case at this point.

I didn't like it when it was ruled that you can not pounce with a meteorite, for the reasons JacinB and others have put forth. However, I feel nbperp did the right thing with his tentative ruling on this new issue, because it follows the reasoning behind disallowing the meteorite with pounce.(which that was a ruling from game design as well)
Hopefully, imo, game design will send back a ruling allowing objects to be used in a pounce, but we wait and we'll see I suppose.

JacinB,

I completely agree with you that the logical answer should be that an Object modifier on an attack combat value should have no bearing on a feat PreReq.

And I argued that and lost (under the DR rules in the judges forum).

The failure in your logic though is recognizing that the "current" Meteorite ruling makes no sense, but it is still the ruling.

Excluding the LoSH rules there is nothing different about your logic that should not apply to the Meteorite in the same way under the Danger Room rules.

But it does not, and simply because GD did not rule it that way the last time they gave a ruling to us via the RA.

Thankfully, GD reviews the rulings as well as the rules with each set. So your best bet is to wait until the RA comes back with an official ruling.

At that juncture we will either have a rule that makes sense or one that doesnt and we will learn to deal with it either way.

It certainly would not be the first time a ruling made no sense with the rules.

...and once thats done your local envoy can adjust the House Rules to give you sanity.