Already covered a few pages back.

It's not a coincidence that all of the figures you mentioned introduce broken game elements regardless of the rule in question. They don't represent heroclix. They do, represent a greater percentage of competitive play. I think I get what you're saying. You don't want the game's best figures to get even better as it would create a worse tournament scene. Right? To that, I'd say the "hot" tournament pieces change set by set. Next set's "scarlet witch" will replace the current one. Things have a way of naturally evolving.

it shouldn't be. it should be "choose a single source".

great minds think alike

I get that. However, it is pretty apparent to me that we're in an "arms race" design era.

Adding more powerful weapons with increasingly regularity doesn't make things less abusable as a whole.

And yeah, they don't "represent" HeroClix in total, but they're dominant pieces in the game. One shouldn't rule based entirely on the evolving meta, but one would be foolish to dismiss it.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that's why we're where we're at now: the "Eh, !@#$ it" school of playtesting.

Ok, yes new powers come out that break the rules. So if they made a character that granted some special effect when it used a power and then also stipulated that special effect would extend to powers granted from outside sources, then they could combo. If the rule is that powers granted by outside sources, redundant or not, do not trigger traits and powers which trigger off use of those powers, there will never be a loophole to be abused. It is logically impossible. Period. If they made a character that broke the rule preventing loopholes, you are right, there could be loopholes. But hey, they could make a character that insta kos the entire opposing team as a free action. Just don't do that.

Two examples of my point actually. Fliers could carry anyone, it was proved that a rule preventing such would be necessary. NAAT is the same, you could do it be default, needed a rule preventing it which was proven necessary. I wasn't playing during the SIF time so I don't exactly know what's being referenced there.

Great, we've got two ways to interpret the change. You're saying it was proven necessary to instate a rule, I'm saying that the rules were proven abusive enough to precipitate a change.

so should they only be changed to prevent abuse or is it ok to make things clearer easier and more streamlined? there is no reason that someone who couldn't normaly use incap or any other power should be able to use it better than somone who already knows how.

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, as I don't think it is all that confusing or problematic.

I am talking about going from less restrictive to more restrictive as the thing which needs to be proven necessary. In your two examples there was no rule restriction and then there was one proven necessary. In this example, there is an useless restriction which should be gotten rid of. I guess I should have said when moving from a less restrictive rule to more restrictive it should be proven necessary, rather than having to prove why bad restrictions should be removed.

I think you and I just met somewhere in the middle. I agree. I just don't like that the game (has to?) be designed around the meta. It's disappointing when the ugly side of things become dominant enough that they dictate to the norm. Or has meta become the new norm?

Alright, fair enough.

I'm waiting for an orange to weigh in with a possible explanation. If this is one of those things that is a rule because it always was, with no real reason, I'll accept the decision to change it.

That right there. Open your eyes. If you don't see the inherent unfairness of paying for two things but being restricted to use of the first thing only, then your stating that it's a non-issue is really just you being blind. It's not about optimizing by stacking, it's about the freedom of choice.

If it's one or the other, and not both, it really can't be more simple nor is it any more susceptible to abuse than anything else. The restriction currently in place is a needless complication.

Question: why the holy hell do we need the damn value judgments in here? Knock it off.

And "freedom of choice?" Eh, whatever. I'm not feeling my freedom of choice being hindered all that much (if at all), and, as such, don't feel the need to go shout "ATTICA" or whatever.

And, again, if it is ruled that way, I'll be fine with it. I'm just saying that I'm fine with it NOW. Because...I am. Sorry if that bothers folks for whatever reason.

I relate. I hate how the resources have become mandatory at the highest competitive levels. As a matter of fact, we restrict them at our venue on any games less than 401 points. But, as I said...

This will simplify the rule set, give players more options, and reduce confusion around which powers can be used when.

All are positive changes to the game from a mechanics and enjoyment standpoint.

That said, I hate to argue with Brock Samson... and never to his face.

Hey, if it turns out I'm wrong, and that this is a change that will have a net benefit for the game, I'll accept that.

Arguing is fine. I just don't dig the value judgments and rhetoric it can bring about.