"Endurance Feat: Choose a Character. When the character would be dealt pushing damage, you can instead choose to deal no damage to the character and put an endurance token on this card. If there are endurance tokens on this card when the character is given an action, after the action resolves, roll a d6. On a result of 1 or 2, deal the character unavoidable damage equal to the result plus the number of tokens on this card, then remove all tokens from this card."

So, one of my players was abusing this card because "he saw it allowed" at a different venue. I disagree with the exploit, but technically it seems legal.

The player: Pushed; Endurance prevented the push damage, and a counter was put onto the Feat. Then he canceled Endurance during his turns, since "feats are optional". (but left it active during the opponent's turn in order to avoid push damage from incapacitate attacks)

I ruled against him even though he is technically rules-lawyer correct. I told him that was a flagrant abuse to get all the benefits of a card while ignoring the detriments.

Thoughts?

`Le

Well if feats are optional and you say "i am turning this feat off" so to speak, then would it be off until the character has another action, which would in turn "turn the feat back on" which would make you roll for the feat of Endurance? I would think it works that way. I don't see how you could say "Ok I'm turning the feat off and giving my character an action, then turning it on during my opponents turn" I don't think you can just turn it on and off when an action isn't being taken.

So you say "I'm not using the feat" but on the next action the character takes it turns the feat back on, so then you roll for the possible damage. I highly doubt it works the way he was using it.

Well, he was saying that the other venue allowed the figure to cancel Endurance at the beginning of any action that the same figure was taking.

So, "My Figure is taking a Move Action, but at the beginning off my action, I cancel Endurance".

But even canceling it during a different friendly character's action is exploitive in my opinion, and so I would rule against that if it happened that way too.

`Le

Theres no way it works that.. but since wizkids dosnt want to take the time to put an offical order of operations list out.i wouldnt doubt theres a loop hole. but good job for having the balls to tell him whats what. that was an on the spot judgemant call.

Yea but I think that it becoming "uncancelled" would require that character to be the one taking the action. So character says "I'm cancelling this feat and moving" the card is cancelled. Their next turn "I'm attacking with charcter" boom, the feat becomes uncancelled and they have to roll for the damage. If it's not ruled that way it will be for sure, that card alone will change the rule.

Err, if he "turns the feat off," why would he gain the benefit of placing a token on it when he pushes, whether it's his turn or not? If you want to rules lawyer him right back, tell him that by failing to roll when he pushes, he no longer meets the prerequisites of the card.

No no. The idea is that he uses it once during his turn to get the benefit of free willpower, then never uses it again during his turn. 5 points to avoid push damage once right there.

Then he keeps it on during his opponents turn to avoid push damage from incapacitate attacks; but never again does he keep it active on his turns.

`Le

Generally, any feat card which has negative side effects cannot be canceled to avoid said side effects. I'd expect to see this in the Errata when the fix for the Phone Booth goes up. You cannot cancel Sidekick to carry a figure and then still share DV on your opponent's turn for example, and you cannot Cancel Life Model Decoy to heal yourself. The ruling seems to be that feats are optional when their text describes something that you can do, but when they just state "when this happens, do this. You cannot do this.", they are not optional.

What are they changing about the phone booth?

So then the card becomes a "one five point damageless push," right? Because if he ever tried to push again he'd have to activate the card and take the risk of taking the damage. If that's how it was rolling, I wouldn't mind it so much.

Don't some feat cards have the word Optional on them? (This not being one of them)

To quote Melkhor: "All feats are optional... except when they are not."
Generally speaking, a feat that has both advantages and disadvantages is semi-optional in the sense that you can choose not to get the benefits from the card (damage reduction from LMD, for instance), but you cannot choose to ignore the disadvantages (no healing in the case of LMD).
Endurance should be the same: It is optional in the sense that you do not have to place a token on the card when pushing, but once the token is there you have to start rolling for feedback damage, when applicable.

Some do, yes, but not all - Nova Blast does not, for instance, but it is still very much an optional feat. The rulebook does state feats are optional though.

The phone booth is supposed to start with "Once per turn...", because you aren't supposed to send Gypsy to 19 Defend on your first turn, it was only meant to skip activation clicks.

But that's my problem with it -- WK has not officially said that yet. And who's to say what is a negative side effect? For example, one could rule that Double Time cannot be cancelled because it has a negative side effect, but only for certain characters.

So for now, its up to the judges to rule one way or the other.

I would very much like WK to start putting "this cannot be cancelled" errata on older cards. Shoot, just start using them on newer cards would help too.

`Le