Besides I would not begin to predict what the interaction between...

Super Strength +
RuleOf3(
Meteorite +
Pounce -
Large Object Feat
)

will end up being.

And the implementation of this is that you say "I'm going to Running Shot to here and shoot this guy" and your opponent says "he'll copy Batman Team Ability" and then you say "I guess I won't then..."

The parallel to this Pounce scenario is you say "I'm going to Pounce over here, pick up this object along the way and use it on this guy" and your opponent says "you can't do that because it will bring your damage value above 2" and you say "I guess I won't then..."

I've only seen this type of thing come up a couple times. In all technicality, the attacker should say "I'm going to RS to hit ___", then the defender should declair any TA changes if applicable. If the player has already started the movement part of it, they SHOULD be allowed to take that movement back (although I know a couple players that throw a mini hissy-fit if someone "took back a movement".... whole different story).

The only time it would come up where you could NOT take the movement back is if it was a Skrull/Shape Change roll that the defender hit. By that point, the attack has been declaired and started, so the move can't be taken back... but you CAN choose a different target (assuming another is an option). It really sucks when your target gets a SC roll when you are Charging or Pouncing, though

I am not a judge, nor even that adequate of a player...

But I'd like to throw in some non-rules logic here. I have the feeling that the general ruling will be that objects are not allowed when using pounce.

Why? Well, I only feel this way because I think that in the past WK has done and is doing a sloppy job with wording things, and that their whole intention with this new wording was to exclude objects from being used. I really have no other way of backing this up besides that I really don't know why they would change the wording without that very intent. They just didn't cover all their bases and we're stuck here debating it.

In all honesty, though, I hope I'm wrong.

She's just run out of bullets

Those arn't uzis, the're staplers.

And the Intergang Medic? Lemme guess, a hypo-injector-type-thingy.

Hair Dryer

Nope, they're lighters.

I really think that WK will need to revert the Super Strength back to it's original text. Logically, that is the way Super Strength really works. For instance, I am relatively strong due to weightlifting (not bragging here). If I slam my fists onto a 2 x 4, I may break it or I may break my fists. If I take up a hammer, sledgehammer, pick, rock, etc. I am not increasing my strength in any way thereby increasing the amount of damage I personally can inflict (I didn't eat my spinach thereby having the tank appear on my biceps a la Popeye). But, my strength combine with the ability to wield an object or heavy object WILL do more damage to whatever target I choose. I would most likely shatter the 2 x 4! If I strike someone, they may get bruised and suffer a concussion. If I strike someone with a sledgehammer...

I doubt they will revert to the previous text.... they made a specific point to change it, and seldom companies that do that will change back.

Also, by your description, it still has the same effect as it used to (increasing damage by 1 or 2 points), it just changes the type of damage so it can't be so abused.
WK has changed a few things that "made sense" for the sake of game balance before (the most notable are "Rule of 3" and "fliers can't carry fliers"), and this is just another for the list of things that the game's designers felt was "too powerful" the way it was (especially with so many cheap perplexers).

The game is already unbalanced in the favor of ranged characters, why unbalance it further? For the sake of game balance does not make any sense in this case as it was not unbalancing (if you noticed the lack of your cheap perplexers + bricks in the tourney lists in favor of Range or LAMP). This rules change only hurts close combat figures in the end. It's hitting a fly with sledgehammer in effect. In nerfing your Black Adams from running rampant, you're killing any hope of the Super Strong brick figures from competing as well as the Pouncers that were helping close combat as well.

That isn't quite accurate because there is a big difference between not being allowed to pick up an object during a Pounce and not being allowed to Pounce while holding an object, (provided of course the object causes the DaV to go above 2 that is). The difference is, if you gave a figure a power action to activate Pounce, and attempted to pick up an object that would cause that figure's DaV to exceed 2, the Pounce would have to be completed without the object. This is because not being able to pick up the object doesn't make the Pounce illegal, but rather, activating Pounce makes picking up an object that causes the Pouncer's DaV to exceed 2 illegal. Therefore, this situation is actually much more akin to failing a break away to Pounce, failing the KC roll to Pounce Red Robin or Super Skrull making a Shapechange roll. None of those effects make the Pounce itself illegal and the figure still takes the action, the token and the click for using Pounce, even though the action doesn't result in any attack actually being made.

If the figure was already holding an object that made using Pounce illegal, then the action is invalidated in the same way as it is in the Running Shot example.

As an aside, the point of my original post was that the RS example given was not appropriate in this conversation because the timing of the events was not being handled in the proper order.

BoT

I believe that the Meteorite would negate the damage bonus provided by Pounce, and also allow an AV bonus from Large Object.

Let's assume that the Meteorite is just an ordinary heavy object:

1. Pounce in with +1 Attack, +1 Damage.
2. Using L.O. to further modify attack by +1 (-1 damage) for an AV max of +2 and 1 damage for the heavy object.
3. Make attack.
4. Total bonus of 2 damage from the object and Pounce for the attack.

Using Meteorite as a special object:

1. Pounce in with +1 Attack, +1 Damage.
2. Can the AV be modified if the Meteorite's damage value has not been established? Let's say it can (using the fact that it is a red/heavy object)-- we use the previous example (-1 damage), for +2 AV.
3. Make attack.
4. Pounce damage bonus is negated (Meteorite adds to unmodified damage value, period).
5. Player rolls for Meteorite damage. Minimum 1 damage (1-2), maximum of 3 (6), by Rule of 3.

If a 1-2 is rolled (1 damage), then would the AV bonus not count, and, as a result, affect/negate the attack roll? I say that the attack stands, and the minimum of 1 damage (or more, if the roll exceeds 4) is applied.

If the ruling stands, as is, then the implication is that merely holding a heavy object boosts your Damage Value +2, as that is why it invalidates Pounce.

So, now my E Supergirl is now going to be doing Running Shots for 6 Damage because she picked up a Heavy Object somewhere along the way.

I'm sure that is what the Game Designers intended ...