Agree. I believe it should.

And with new Rulings and Changes in the rulebook things get missed in the Player's Guide, like objects saying Continual when it is no longer a game term.

So yes with the way its Worded in the 2011 Core Rulebook if something say it cannot be countered after it was able to be countered and therefore nonexistent, then there is nothing to protect it.

So are you arguing for the way that you think things should happen according to the wording in the Core 2011 rules, or as they currently work, taking into account precedent set by the PG and Rip Hunter's Power? The PG clarifies/overrides the rulebook.

As I understand your argument, you state that when a power is countered then it doesn't exist on the dial. Ergo, when the conditions would be met that would otherwise make the power (that is currently not there) unable to be countered, the power doesn't exist and therefore can not return to a state of not being countered.

I don't see how the WL/Namor example is any different than Rip Hunter's power.

Using a similar example, say a Mindless One has his Penetrating/Psychic Blast countered via Outwit. There are no possible targets for his P/PB so even if it wasn't countered he couldn't use it. (Similar to Namor not occupying water when his SP is countered). It is no longer there. It doesn't exist on the dial.

Red Tornado TK's the Mindless One adjacent to Rip Hunter, where a target possessing Impervious is now within range and Line of Fire of the Mindless One. Conditions have been met that would allow him to use P/PB. (or, Tempest moves next to Namor, who is within 4 squares of the WL).

Rip Hunter then checks the conditions for preventing countering (Standard/Named Power? yes.) and his power kicks in, preventing the countering of P/PB and Mindless One fires away. (The PG says so).
Similarly, the WL would check the conditions for preventing countering (is it Regen or Support, or a SP granting their use? yes.) and it kicks in, preventing the Regen from being countered and Namor rolls his die.

It doesn't matter if the conditions for being able to use the power were not met when the power was countered. The power says that Namor can use Regeneration and the WL prevents powers that allow a fig to use Regen from being countered. The precedent set by Rip Hunter, still in the PG, tells us that if a power is countered and then conditions change where the power would no longer be able to be so, then it is no longer countered.

Before Nico has chosen a power, she can't use any power. If the power is countered, she can't choose anything. It is as simple as that.

that's exactly what I'm saying, the Player's Guide entry for Rip Hunter is old and prior to all the changes in the Core Rulebook. I believe that it was missed. With the way the rules are written the any power that is Countered would in fact no be on the dial and not therefore cannot be protected by WL/PC/Q. The Rip Hunter entry in the Player's Guide would be in fact contrary to the rules and would be the only exception since there are not similar entries for similar powers.

This is the point where I am at, as well. The Rip Hunter entry is the monkey wrench in my whole train of thought, slightly derailed though it may be.

Maybe we'll get an errata on the errata for Rip. Until then, I doubt the scenario will ever actually come up, but I still would like a clear resolution.

[points to the PG thread at the top of this forum]

If there is something in the PG that you don't think is in error, outdated, and so on, that's the place to mention it.

Just don't looking at me when the argument spills over into that thread.

Don't worry... if people start arguing in that thread, Harpua will simply lock the whole thing

Your argument that the 2011 rulebook requires a review/revision of past rulings is valid, but only where something is actually changed. Except that the 2011 rule book didn't redefine what countering means, or change how it works. Outwit doesn't do something different now than it did under the 2010 rule book, so why would there be changes to rulings based on the 2010 document?

Where does it say on any previously published rulebook that the power did not exist. It didn't it just stated that the player could not use said power for anything including requirements. The New Rulebook is the first time it has been stated that the power is not there.

It may have been explained as not being their in the past for ease of teaching players, but that does not make it the ruling.

For the record, I am satisfied with the original answer to the Nico question and really didn't anticipate a 7 page discourse. Sometimes I like to fall back on the Monolopy philosophy...Why do you collect $200 for passing GO? b/c that's the rules.

Why can't Nico qualify for powers that she "can use" but remain unnamed...b/c that's the rules.

Your profile says you've been here for years, but you expected anything less than 5 pages on this?

I actually LoL'd at that.

I think on staff of one, if you replaced the phrase"a standard power", with.. stealth, leap climb,...or outwit(all the power on the PAC.) She would be ok for the protection of white lanterns. Or would it still be no?

Even if she listed all the powers, she would still only be able to use one and therefore if it was not Regeneration or Support she would not be protected. Just like Namor is not protected when he is not in water terrain.