I was told that once the Power battery was given an action and you decided to roll a d6 to turn the dial that if you rolled an odd number like say 3 you could chose to either click it 1 or 2 depending on which is better for you! Is this correct?? I thought you always had to round up??

Rules say round up. That's an awkward "house rule" though.

You always round up, no matter what in Clix.

I have to agree with them... that is an awkward house rule (benefiting those that know the dial better) and it is not in line with the rules as you do always round up.

Granted, that did get confusing for many with Invincible as you ignore half the damage so what is rounded up is how much is ignored (so dealing 3 damage means they take 1 since they ignore 2).

But yes, your judge has made an odd house rule. If they want to identify that as a house rule (publishing it where need be if necessary), then that's fine, but if they are interpreting the rules that way, it is an incorrect ruling.

Excuse me for saying but that makes no sense either?? LOL Half of 3 is 1.5 and the Rule says you always round up so why would It not be 2?? Anyhow, thanks for the info and we live and learn......

ROUNDING
At any point in the calculation of a value, if you have a
fractional value (usually caused by “halving” a value),
immediately round up to the nearest whole number.

Which is exactly why it caused confusion... you were rounding up on the opposite side of what some people were expecting it. You're exactly right that half of 3 is 1.5, which rounds up to 2, but there were quite a few people who thought that meant they would take 2 damage, not ignore 2 damage. Our entire venue played it like that for the WXM Marquee as Wizkids didn't give any advance notice on the clarification of what that meant.

No clarification was really needed. People read the power and assumed it said "take the half damage" even though it plainly said "ignore the half damage". It was basically a reading comprehension issue.

And I am not knocking anyone by saying that; it was a brand new effect and we'd not seen anything quite like it before. There were bound to be people that played it wrong (just like some people though Side Step would be halved if you were hindering terrain). But it wasn't because it wasn't clear... it was because it was new and different and people make mistakes and assumptions.

I think it was more about reading into it what they want/expect, not about reading comprehension. Many of the people I talked to when Invincible first came out thought the 1/2ing would go in the favor of the attacker, not the defender.

Yes, assumptions, I concur.

True... assumptions were made because it was so different than anything we had up until that point. But there were still quite a few that misunderstood and it took time to process and inform everyone of the correct interaction.

I agree 100%. I had to look it up and then after WES posted it, I explained it that "Whoever is possesing/using the halving, they always round up in their favor."

That was able to clarify and set the stage so-to-say for the player group.

After getting used to it, it made complete sense.

That is a horrible way to think of it. All it would take is one little change to the wording (go from "ignore" to "take") and the result would change, but anyone thinking of it they way above wouldn't realize that it did change.

Short hand is really not helpful. It really isn't.

Who is making this "little change" you speak of?

We don't "change" the wordings of powers and abilities at our venues as we read the powers and abilities as they're written.

Your opinion is your opinion but stating "That is a horrible way to think of it" and "is really not helpful" is a complete misfire as everyone got it 100% correct once this concept was introduced.

He's saying if the power was written differently... or if there were a special power that were written like he suggested, then the way that you stated the benefit of powers would be incorrect for that power.

He's not saying that you're stating it incorrectly, he's making a broad statement (which he has said many times) that making shorthand statements for rules very frequently leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and/or fights.

One common example of this that we've seen come up far too often is when a new player is taught that Penetrating Damage (eg. from PB or EW) "ignores" damage reducers... while that is a synonym in English, "ignore" is a game term that means a very different thing. Let's say if that player were to face the AoU Hulk on his last click (where he takes off tokens after rolling for Impervious), he may argue that Impervious can't be rolled when the figure is attacked with Penetrating Damage, which isn't correct.

Please don't take the statement as a personal attack, it's just that using shorthand terms for powers can get very confusing for many players and they may interpret incorrectly because of it.

WizKids. They release new special powers all the time. All it would take is something similar to Invincible, but just a little different, and then your shorthand is useless.

Opinion maybe, but opinion backed up by LOTS of anecdotal evidence. This forum is chock full of people who thought something worked one way because of quick, shorthand method they learned, but it really worked differently once you sit down and actually look at the effect in question and ditch the shorthand.

What you fail to see is that I stated that I researched the specific ins and outs of a ruling and expressed in a vernacular that MY demographic of players could comprehend. That "horrible way to think of it" is absolutely a biased opinion.

The lols of anecdotal evidence justifying your opinion is your agenda.

"You shouldn't learn it that way." mindset is disappointing.

Internet personal attack taken.

rdy2fyt