No I'm just slow. You know it. That's why I asked.

In your defense, most of my jokes aren't funny.

It could be the Coulson avatar, it makes everything more serious to me. One of my favorite representations on T.V./movies. The reserved sense of humor and timing is just great.

I think it's rather funny now that I am up to speed.

I almost quoted that post my self. what this is saying is that Splitlips power is non-optional, meaning he cant choose not to use it. But the wording of the power itself does not force a free action relic roll. I still may give a power action to my fig and choose to use that power action to roll for a relic.

I think I see where your coming from thou. let me know if I'm wrong...
your saying that because Splitlip's can't choose to not use this power, that other characters must use his power.

This rule is specifically talking about powers and abilities. Not any type of actions. So yes this makes it so that Splitlip can not choose not to use his power. But neither this rule nor split lips power change the fact that actions are optional.

They are optional indeed but once you decide to take the action you are only allowed to take it as a free action as it is worded.

That isn't the point at all!

The point is that there was a whole thread devoted to this ruling, that there is a ruling, and that this conversation is even happening is proof that this could easily be made clearer. This is not about whether Splitlip should or should not work as worded. It is about the fact that there are still a ton of verbiage issues to work out and WK doesn't seem to have any better attitude toward it then before.

I completely missed the joke until you explained it. It's pretty funny

But, jtallday, do you see what I am saying? The word "can" itself is never necessary in a single English sentence because that's how language works. No one word is crucial and irreplaceable. Every word is capable of being altered. To argue "can" needs to be changed simply because it falls into the category of "every word ever" seems kind of weird to me.

But I'm not talking about an English lesson. This is Heroclix rules.

If can was so optional then we wouldn't need may.

I do agree that there needs to be a better effort put forth to make some things clearer. But I don't think there is an issue with 'can, can use, use, uses, is using". the proble with this is players try to over simplify the rules, which leads to misunderstanding. These misunderstanding then become ingrained as truth. Then we find a area where these miss-thruths don't fit, and they are seen to be conflicts of the rules. But are not actual there to begin with.

Giving actions is a very abstract concept, and when I fist started playing this game I had no idea what it meant. No one taught me how to "give my fig an action" or to properly call my actions. I had never played a game like this before, and it took me over 2 years to start to understand it. I see players to this day who have been in the game longer than me still struggle with this concept. Why? Because instead of being taught a deep understanding of the core mechanics, we where taught to memorize what works and what doesn't work, without understanding why. Then when something new comes along or there are some tweaks made to the rules players get thrown for a loop.

I say make sure players have a firm understanding of the core mechanics. Don't just teach them the basics.

I don't disagree, per se, but this section of the rule book makes any use of MAY and CAN that seem to contradict previous uses of MAY and CAN very problematic:

When two words that generally describe optional clauses are used to oppose each other, then we have an issue. If we replaced all instances with the correct instance of use, uses, is using, I don't think we'd have this problem.

This section outlines, though never exactly states, that the use of the word CAN removes any option that follows, unless the power it's referencing specifies MAY. So when a power says "Kbean08 can use Perplex and can use it to modify his own stat and the stat of an opponent", it doesn't seem to allow Kbean08 to ONLY modify his own or the opponents stat, even though that's most likely the intent.

Okay, let's start at the top.

"Character can use charge".

What would be a better way to say that?

"Character uses charge"
"Character should use charge"
"Character ought to use charge"
"Character should use charge"
"Character shall use charge"
"Character could use charge"
"Character would use charge"
"Character will use charge"
"Character must use charge"
"Character better use charge"
"Character is capable of using charge"
"Character is able to use charge"
"Character may use charge"

What would you have rather seen that doesn't itself create problems and replaces the definition they want?

Also, I have to agree with disciple on the Splitlip issue.

Did you forget this cuz you are the one that brought the ruling to my attention.

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500932

I don't understand where I contradict myself. In the linked thread, I am simply angry they did something that eliminated a different question I asked to avoid answering that question, and that something was entirely unrelated to the power action free action thing.

Splitlip says you can attempt relic rolls as free actions.
The rules say you can attempt them as power actions.
The rules say you can be given a close combat action to make a close combat attack against an adjacent character.

None of those mean it eliminates all other action choices from being legal options, it just provides additional options. You can punch a dude, pick up a thing with the power, or pick up a thing for free.

[Character] may Activate Charge.

If a Character can Activate a power, they are considered to be "in use" of that power, but not do not "possess" that power.

Would that work? I always thought "activate" would fit well in Clix as a term and mechanic. And Trigger.

That is a good one but I'm starting to think this whole discussion is futile. I really don't get the sense from WK responses I've gotten that they are ready or willing to do what is needed.


If you go back to the quoted threads, it reads to me like you are telling me Splitlip works per the thread you linked. I read the thread as Splitlip works that way but because they bandaged him with a say-so ruling rather than his wording actually being clear.

I doubt they will change anything if they fail to see it as a problem. If they think the rules work fine the way they are, they shall stay the same.