Sorry I haven't been around to much to reply to everyone's posts. I've been really busy at work and home with some projects. I'll read through and read everything soon. I didn't mean to create a firestorm, then not be around to reply.

On to the next part:

I enjoyed your psychological profile. That was quite the post. Rep given. In most cases, I would consider myself a stickler, as the opposite of that is chaos, anarchy, and arguments.

However, my social skills are great (I win fellowship more than anyone I know ), especially in person (over the 'net I seem pretty gruff, but don't take it personal). I attend many tournaments, along with my friends. I also run a weekly HeroClix game. Everyone that comes to my games prefers my games over tournaments because of the laid-back and friendly atmosphere, and great games.

I'm not a game nazi. I like to study the rules, which makes me a better player, and in return, makes my friends better players. When I run my weekly games I do expect all player's (myself included) to be held to the same standard of play in regards of rules. It avoids arguments and ensures fair play for all of us.

However, I am a very competitive player (and so are most of my friends). I used to play FPS vid games professionally. I have played in some very high-level tournaments, where the grand prizes can be anywhere between $5,000 to $50,000. When playing, I was sponsored by a few game companies and organizations, including Bungie, MS, Orion Games, iGames, and a few others. But I got tired of the über-competitiveness, and the amount of time I had to practice. I was good though, still am when I play, but just play for fun now.

As humorous as that was, i do not believe the OP to be a stickler.

He presented an issue and wanted everyone's opinion on it... to me right there makes him not a Stickler

I find myself in the same position the OP is in many times, I WANT to follow the rules, but at the same time i do not want to be precieved as a jerk (Stickler as you called it)

It is not being a jerk for the OP (or myself) to follow the rules and be held accountable to follow these rules. ESPECIALLY when playing in tournaments or against seasoned opponents who would like nothing more than to take advantage of your kind nature by allowing them to take back/change an outwit/perplex to benefit them and eventually lead them to victory.

More often than not I play under the assumption that my opponent does everything for a reason. Whether or not i understand that reason is irrelevant, if he says he's perplexing/outwitting something then to me its him doing his tactics. Who am i to question that?

It is my opponent's job to have his moves planned out, and to know what to outwit/perplex. Tactics are a major part of this game, so i will never ask "Are you sure?" or "Is that what you are doing?" because questioning someone's tactic is opening the door for them saying "What you are doing is silly" or "I'm a jerk and want to make you feel dumb for doing that"

So yes, I 100% agree with the OP. Once it is clearly said, the free action is done. (so long as it is a legal action to make)

Um...OK, maybe you just missed this so...

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

And, officially speaking, from the FF rule book:

So, in case you missed it...or just hadn't gotten that far in the thread (I do that all the time, respond to the post as I read it and not after reading through the entire thread).

I too can play this game.

Since this obviosuly refers to "token-able" actions I fail to see the relevance when discussing "free" actions; which can be done at any time and have no specfic order to them.

Blantanly false. The use of "Outwit" in the OP in NO WAY prevents the initiation of the attack on Iron Man.

Emphasis mine as you apparently didn't understand my point. According to your defintion if a player declares an action the opponent can then, at that point, declare that anything the player says after said declaration, in regards to that action, is null and void.

And again I wil give you an example:

If player A says, out loud, "I will attack Wolverine with Mystique, but first I will Perplex up my AV." Player A's opponent, lets call him player B, can then say "No, you cannot use Perplex at this time as you "declared" the attack before you mentioned Perplex."

Correct?

Yes it is. "Practice what you preach" is a good thing to use as well.

Um...who? Has NECA staffed such a position?

That's cool, in this case I was playing Devil's Advocate.

Is this the part where I mention "context" to you?

Let's look at that statement. In the example given the "power requiring" an action is "Running Shot"...which then allows a "Ranged Combat Attack". Now, since this particular character has "Energy Explosion" (an optional power) as well as "Running Shot" he must declare (according to Richard) that he is not using "Energy Explosion" or, by default, he is.

In other words, according to the rules, said player is using EE unless he says he isn't. That is, according to Richard and the Rules.

That is why SP's get their own paragraph.

And right from the FF rule book:

It's not just characters with special powers - if you've got a character with Close Combat Expert and Quake showing at the same time, you need to declare which power you are using when he makes a close combat action.

If you declare neither, then it's assumed that you've made a regular close combat attack with no powrrs involved.

Powers that require a specific action to activate them are not "always on unless cancelled". A character can have Mind Control and Ranged Combat Expert showing at the same time; if that character makes a ranged attack against a single target without declaring any powers, do they both take effect? Of course not. Neither power takes effect unless specifically activated by the appropriate power type (in this case, a power action).

It thus follows that if you take a ranged combat action, it doesn't default to a power that's showing on the dial. It defaults to a regular ranged combat attack. Only if you specifically activate a power such as Incapacitate or Energy Explosion does the attack become an action of that type.

This is the official position supported by the rulebook and by RA clarifications.
I understand why some judges hold that philosophy, but I feel that it is not conducive to building a strong and fair game environment.

Allowing players to inadvertently accept illegal plays for the perceived short-term benefit of "fairness" (that is, "if the judge can't correct every inadvertent illegal play, he shouldn't correct any of them so no player is disadvantaged") causes long-term harm to the game group and the metagame - it allows misconceptions to flourish, potentially disadvantages players who have taken the effort to acquire rules mastery, and tacitly allows for dinkish play from unscrupulous players.

I feel the same way.

As I wrote, I thought it was particularly embarrassing to adopt the position that players NOT IN THE FINALS had to be kept away from the finals table, while a bevy of judges and envoys stand an watch the players not follow the rules.

BTW I'm a "stickler", especially with less experienced players...but in my case I try to help the players make sure they do what they are trying to do and don't cheat themselves...because eventually they are going to encounter someone who won't allow 'takebacks'.

The rule has long since been changed that you have to declare use of a power to use it. It used to be that powers were automatically on unless you declared otherwise, but not anymore.

No. A power does not have to be canceled in order to not be used.

This was hashed out officially on the WK forums long ago.

There are two paragraphs in the rulebook on page 15. You seem to be ignoring the second one.
"A power is in effect when it appears on the character’s combat dial through the stat slot. 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. When a power is canceled, it is canceled until the end of that turn and resumes effect at the beginning of the next player’s turn.
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."
The whole thing has long been a thorn in my side which I have tried to get addressed, because it is poorly written.

However, the RA said that what these paragraphs mean is that you don't have to declare that defensive powers are being used for them to work, but you do have to declare which offensive ones are being used.

In other words, it is the "don't be a dink" rule covering both sides.
It prevents both the "You didn't turn of EE, so you only deal one instead of 4." and the "You didn't say that you weren't canceling Super Senses, so you get no roll."


First of all, free actions cannot be done at any time.

Secondly, it most certainly is not speaking of only non-free actions. It simply "actions" which means all types of actions. It has long been established that free actions are actions, allowing things like changing wild card TAs on their declarations.

You seem to be misunderstanding. I never said that the use of Outwit prevents anything. What I said was that if an action is unresolved, any new action is prevented from happening. Since a new action is happening, then all previous actions have clearly been resolved.


This argument doesn't hold water. First off all, everything is being stated in one sentence. As such, it is one statement. Secondly, the word "will" is quite powerful and already indicates a future, rather than immediate, action.

Um...no, but the fact that they haven't doesn't...uh...change the fact that...um...there was one, and...um...nothing would change legitimacy of the...uh...rulings that he...um...made when he was the...uh...RA.

Nope...see the above response to GG.

I´m sorry, but I don´t see it that way.
You have to use strategy (and luck) to win this game, if you make a bad choice then it´s your fault, not your opponent fault.
Learn with the bad choice and became a better player!
As far as I´ve been reading this thread I have the sensation of having to points of view:

a- be responsible of what you decide and play with it, this does not mean to be a super jrk and be lurking above your opponent waiting to NYA NYAAAAAA!! him for making a mistake.

b- you are a jrk cause you dont let me re do all the game! show me where it says I can´t take back all that I said!!!

As far as I see it players type "a" don´t want to be ruining games and play with grimm faces and be supercompetitive, they just want you to be responsible for your choices.
As far as I see it players type "b" just want to play as they want in the time they want and to re do everything they want and they call "unfair" to everyone that tells them no.

I´ll go with Harpua here and use his example... to the extreme...
If one of the players goes and never comes back he abandoned the game.
Where in the rules book says that you win cause he abandoned?
Where in the rules book says I can´t take your figs and put em out of the map and win cause you don´t have more figs on the map?
Where in the rules book says I can´t feed your figs to my dog and you loose cause you don´t have figs on the map?

Let´s not be ridiculous people, really.
Nobody is saying to chop the head of a new guy, heck I even tell him what to outwit or perplex when I see he is making the wrong choice, but everything
has a limit.
We can´t ask a new guy to have the same kind of knowledge or atention to certain details as a veteran in the game usually has (and even this is in doubt believe me).
The free actions like outwit or perplex are done at the moment they are declared, cause that´s all it takes from them, the declaration.
We can be nice, but the other guy also has to take responsability for his choices.
What´s next?
- "I rolled snake eyes I´m going to roll again"
- "Who´s using PC?"
- "Nobody..."
- "Then you can´t re roll"
- "Why not? You are not being fair play..."

This is incorrect.
An action is an action, it does NOT matter if it´s "token-able" or not.
They can not be done at ANY time, only in your turn, that´s when you take your actions.
And regarding the specific order, well... you CAN perplex up the attack value or damage value of your attacker AFTER you attaked, pretty useless but you CAN do it, so this would not be incorrect.

Really... what are you talking about?
He never said that the use of outwit prevents the initiation of the attack on Iron man, he said that the attack on Iron Man can´t be declared if the previous action was not resolved.
If the previous action is the outwit the only way the declaration of the attack is valid is if the outwit is resolved.

This is correct, the perplex can´t be declared until the previously declared action is resolved.
Up to you if you accept it or not as a small mistake from your opponent or a weird strategy, but it´s correct.

No one likes my "Special" marker idea?

Please tell me you're kidding. In the example given the player hasn't even given his piece a token yet, he's just vocalizing his intended strategy. That action hasn't even begun yet.

The thing here is that that whole policy is all about consistency.

The judges at those events cannot be at all places at all times.

It is really a lose-lose situation for the judges.

If the judge interjects when he sees an illegal move *here* and doesn't do so over *there* (because it went unseen), there's complaining about inconsistency.

Aside from that, as the tournament is the championship, there's a reasonable expectation that the players are both have a strong grasp of the rules and are bringing their A-games. As such, the worry of someone using this policy to cheat a less experienced player is lessened.

As for keeping the policy through the finals, are you saying that you'd prefer to have the rules under which the games are played change throughout the tournament? If the policy is no interjection without request for the early rounds, that has to be the policy throughout.

It's not a bad idea. It's similar to what I've seen used with Dr. Strange (a red bead means +/-2, a blue one means +/-1).