Since someone helped me eat some crow it has made me wonder something. That would be about traits. (yes I know I'm really just looking for FRIENDLY opinions about something).

I come to the realization that they may indeed just be for extra space as people had suggested. If you don't think they actually are for extra space consider the question a hypothetical one.

The question is that if/since traits are just for extra space one the dial why the cannot be countered or ignored wording? I ask because the special power or ability could just be worded to avoid such things anyhow.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to make a case for anything. It is what it is and I'm fine with that. I'm just curious and want to know what people think.

Well, I am with you in spirit. Sometimes I think game mechanics are actually over-thought out. Ideally, all rules should work just how they read the first time you read them. Some examples:

Meteorite: Way too involved. Doesn't work as simply as it reads. Use it against Nano-armor and watch the eyes roll.
Any character with Fly-By: Break away wha?
Oots Bats: He doesn't have to break away cause he's Batman
Traits: Can't be countered. Unless they give Possession of the power. It's the battle between the has and has-nots!

Not arguing the rules here either. I understand the rules well enough to know why they work the way they do. That doesn't stop me from scratching my head sometimes.

Yeah I guess I would just like to talk about some of the rationality behind those what's the point rules and mechanics. I've seen some veteran players get shocked by the meteorite and nano-armor interaction.

I think this tends to be the basic rule of any strategy game unless its painfully spelled out. Feats and traits tried to add a new dynamic to the game but has ended up complicating the flow of battle a bit. Don't get me wrong...I enjoy feats/BFC/traits. I just get tired of people abusing X character by putting a lot of feats on them. It can make a match very drawn out or one sided (especially among newer players.) Venom is a good example of this...he has a wealth of feats that make him even more devastating than he already is (pounce, entangle, camo, vampirism and lunge). Add a BFC that limits range and adds a lot of hindering terrain and have him go to town. Heaven help us if he was an avengers TA.

Oops...double post. Sorry about that. Your avatar is still awesome KillerSavage...can I call you KS?

See, I don't believe they were added just to make extra space. I believe they were indeed added for the very reason you implied in previous posts: to be powers which cannot be countered or ignored. The exact wording of the text. The problem is that traits themselves can be worded in such a fashion that the possession/uses debate comes up and in that respect I have to side with the rules lawyers. The door was left wide open for that BS.

Truthfully, I think they just got sloppy with the writing of the text. There are several cases in the past where wording was a little ambiguous and causes all kinds of unnecessary confusion. Someone in one of your earlier posts mentioned that this adds layers to the game. Layers of confusion is not a good thing. The rules and game mechanics should be written as straight forward and simplistic as possible. No power should be so complex that you can't explicitly explain it in a paragraph. None of this alluding to references or making assumptions based on what hasn't been stated. That's not an easy task mind you, but if you put enough time into testing and proof reading it should be achievable.

Then how do you give someone a power for the whole dial when there is no space on the dial?

Like in the example of Thor/Loki. They have a SP on each combat ability, yet they wanted them to have Invul the whole dial.
easy the answer is traits.
Now if they wanted to give them a power for the whole dial and be outwitable all they have to do is put "posses" instead of "can use"

You guys act like they don't know what they are doing. They have know the difference b/w "posses" and "can use"

If you know how they can do this then speak up.
Traits were also created to add a new game element, look at Dr. Strange and Superman Prime.

In regards to the "making the game more complex"
If they did not add a new element to the game whats the point of getting new figures? At some point all it will be is just the same dials on diffrent sculpts.

For any game to last it needs to add new elements to the game to make it more interesting, if its just the same thing set after set it will be just repetitive.

Yeah I don't mind.

Well it would be interesting to know the full intent. Exta space, protection from outwit or not, etc. etc.

It seems to me that traits were originally introduced to do things that couldn't be done on the dial. We started with Esme Cuckoo's trait, which makes her a Cuckoo for the Cuckoos' special powers. Of course, not being able to counter or cancel traits stems from this type of use. It's a special rule for the figure and it doesn't make any sense to counter it. It would be like countering a character's point value: it doesn't make any sense.

Obviously, they've expanded beyond that. But that's my take on the original intent.

The rationality is simple. To play a game, you have rules. Rules depend on certain words meaning a certain thing. Rulings are based on the words being used (and sometimes leads to errata so a more correct game-specific word can be used).

You look at all of the "head-scratchers" up there and you can see in the wordings of the game effects in play that there is (or at least should be) a consistent policy for the words that are used.

The head scratching comes from the editorial. One of my favorite sigs (I know it was on the old WK forums I haven't seen it here recently, so I have no recollection whose it was) pointed out that a giant character could be standing in a square of playground equipment (hindering terrain) and couldn't be "seen". We think of Stealth as this ability to face into the night and thus unable to be targeted. But that's editorial. A game effect is not an editorial, it's just how something works.

Another thread just made me think of a great, new example of this.

The new Captain America has Deflection Trajectory.
I've already seen a large number of people saying that Cap ignores everything but walls and indoor blocking terrain for LoF. In actuallity, there's a big difference between ignoring the stuff that would block LoF and what his power does.

With many of these rules discussions I wish I had a clip from Monty Python's Meaning of Life on tap to link to. The scene where John Cleese is a teacher in a boy's school and rattles off a convoluted list of do this before that unless this other thing instructions, prefacing it with "Look. It's perfectly simple..."

Ultimately the rules are what they are and have to be accepted much the same way that we do gravity no matter how much we might want to leap three stories in the air. So, things such as a power within a trait being Outwittable if it says it's "possessed" but un-Outwittable if it says "can use" are not obvious prima facie; one cannot reasonably be expected to come to these terms and seriously be able to say "well, that's obvious." Once we know it's a rule we can work backwards to provide it some sense of support -- as in, if one possesses something it can be be affected, as in turned off, but if one is simply using it it's not "there" to be affected -- but it would be disingenuous to treat that as much more than a mnemonic. Certainly, if one's deeply into various strategy/combat games then it may be a very familiar structure to them, and so takes on a sense of being somehow self-evident... but it's not to those of us who aren't.

Some of us are only into Heroclix -- and this applies to many, many at least while entering the game -- because of the source material. Gaming itself, in general, may be of little to no interest to us; like law, some people are fascinated by it, but most of us quickly get a headache and decide it's not a fun activity. The desire to play with these heroes and villains in combat and missions is what we're after. Of course, we need rules, and as we want to have more nuances (to better convey what a given character should be able to do) the complexity ramps up. It's an acceptable trade-off. I just hope that the new Wizkids, as they pull together the rulebook for 2010's starter (and, hopefully sooner as an online resource) are at least trying to get all of the elements in a row for the clearest presentation... along with clear and timely updates to the players guide for specifics. (I understand that the current state of things is in flux and being assembled on the run as the new company is finding its stride, so no insult's intended.)

Items such as these nuances in Traits, and matters of what trumps what leading to so much reasonable confusion concerning Ulik, penetrating damage, Pulse Wave and matters such as what a Running Shot attack using Pulse Wave will do against Thorbuster... these are very evidently not as clear and obvious to many of us as some in the council of judges might believe them to be simply because they've discussed these and similar matters so many times that it is obvious to them.

Miraclo put it very well. I like his example of the law. I may like reading or watching a show about criminal law but if it were about tax law forget it. That is what some of these "nuances" feel like. There are those that enjoy those nuances as much as someone likes BFC's or giant figures.

I'm people know what they are doing. In fact I started the thread with the assumption that they do. I just want to know why they did what they did.

It just seems to me that if all it comes down to is the wording than just use the wording if they want something protected from outwit. Which would be much easier.

Though I've just thought of why they would make traits may not be countered or ignored. That would be so they could change it later on. Is they did it for each individual figure than they would have forever without any recourse. If they put the wording on the traits and decide this is too powerful or whatever they can just remove the wording.

I don't mind a possessed power/ability being counterable, even if it is from a Trait because it allows the designers more flexibility in what they create. Sure, they ahve to be more careful with their words, but that should be a significant part of their job, no?

Is "design flexibility" a good answer for you?

I'm not sure what you mean by
Firstly, traits can be ignored. Pulse Wave ignores traits. They can't be countered or canceled. Now, you might say "oops, slight wording error" but the crux of this debate is really "how important is wording to you?"

You seem like the kind of player that is using the characters in the spirit of the game. Fliers do this, range attackers do that. I do not mean this next part in a disparaging way, as I think "fun" is a great way to play this game (and it's how I typically play when I play with my kids).

But when you are dealing with a competition/tournament, you have to be ready for the other kind of player. Call them "rules lawyer", call them "didactic", call them "that guy who is a real jerk at my venue", call them "man, he doesn't even read comic" - but they have just as much right to play this game as you do. And in order to make the game experience consistent for all players, we have to use these semantics (i.e., "words") to carefully communicate what can and cannot be done.

When you're home, play however you want. Heck, I've always been much more in favor of the old WK policy that venues run the events they want, just be careful to announce house rules so that people know them in advance.

But you still have to have rules. And as soon as you have rules, you have people who will say "why is it this way, why not that way".

Not only that, but as my favorite philosopher/theologian has put it: The rules are there to protect the game. Those semantics that some would rather not bother with are vitally important to balancing the game experience.

To use the Captain America example from earlier, would you really want to lose a close match because players thought he ignored hindering terrain and thus your key figure didn't get the hindering terrain bonus to his defense and got hit with a supposedly exactly-enough attack roll?

Like Norm says, the rules keep the game consistent and fair. Otherwise you're just playing Calvinball.