Maddox’s feat reads:
While in Maddox’s control range, firendly Faction models’ weapons gain +2 POW and Beat Back.
The Thunderhead has a special attack on its Lightning Coil weapon that reads:
Each other model within 5" of this model is automatically hit and suffers a POW 12 electrical damage roll".
Does that POW get the +2 of the feat?
The feat would not affect POW that isnt tied to a weapon.
Thunderhead’s gun would be POW 16 and the pulse would be unaffected.
Yes. It is an attack made with the weapon; therefore, it gains + 2 POW and Beat Back. 
Paging @elswickchuck !
The says that weapons gain +2 Pow, not that attacks (or that attacks made with weapons) gain +2 Pow. I.e. specifically the weapon’s Pow stat changes. So it looks to me like the weapon’s Pow would go from 14 to 16, but the Pow of special rules and attacks would not be affected because they aren’t the weapon’s Pow.
Ya, it’s not power related to the weapon directly, but to an effect.
@KhadorLord @SoulSamurai
Chuck has been paged, so we’ll see what he says.
In the meantime, here’s a thought to consider:
How literally are you willing to take the meaning of the phrase “suffers a POW 12 electrical damage roll”?
For example: would Ionization add to the damage roll or not, and why? How can you justify adding that one and not the other? 
(Edited to add:
Very specifically, what I challenge is this: find a section of the rules that you can quote that explains why one bonus would be allowed, but the other would not. I legitimately couldn’t come up with a reason that would exclude one but not the other.
If Chuck answers “Developer intent”, that’s obviously good enough for me. I couldn’t come up with a textually-supported rationale.)
Ionization specifically calls out additing +2 to the damage roll and doesn’t actually change the POW of the weapon or attack.
Energy Pulse is a POW independent of the weapon as it is a special attack in the weapon. Changing the POW of the weapon doesn’t change the POW of any special attacks associated with the weapon.
It is currently in discussion so we should have a final answer soon
(I am waiting for Chuck to return with an answer. This will be my last reply until he gives a ruling. I want to illustrate the dilemma.)
Yes, but as I asked above: can you find and quote an actual sentence in the rules that supports the conclusion “You don’t count a bonus to the POW, but you can add some other bonus”?
Because the first paragraph of, and specifically the second sentence of, “Damage Rolls” doesn’t give that sort of guidance.
I challenge you this. It’s not +2 because I don’t want it to be.
The weapon gains it, the specialattack will not
Just checking on the rationale. Is this “developer intent” or due to some other reason?
I guess it’s because the *Attack does not use the weapon’s POW, even though it’s made with the weapon. And the feat very specifically increases only weapon POW.
This is the correct reasoning
