My initial reaction to the WK ruling was based on my interpretation of standard syntax and subjective context. I probably should not have been so dogmatic in my reply to their ruling, but I feel like thats a page from your book, so I am in good company.

My main point is this: Lately, over the last year or so, you have been increasingly difficult on this forum with some of your interactions with other members and have been increasingly terse and as I said before, snarky.

If you were so sure of the ruling and its "obviousness" then you should have piped up here:

But you didn't. Granted the OP did not mention IM: characters, just IM:Blocking, but I mean, it was so obvious, that IM:Characters would have been the answer to Magneto's barrier effect, right?

You know, because of that part of the PAC that addresses Automatically Breaks Away, and that part in the Core Rule Book and Comprehensive Rule Book? Oh wait, those entries do not exist. At all.

So yea, its not an easily grasped interpretation of IM: characters being able to circumvent Magnetos special effect. It is NOT intuitive and that is part of the frustrating part of this game and some (not all) recent rulings.

Heck, even YOU, the great and mighty LJ, have been sidelined by some of WK rulings, but I don't recall anyone telling you, "yea dummy, thats what it says, duh." (Except for maybe Sassamo, but God bless, his posts are like books and I lose him halfway sometimes...)

Anyhoo, I hope its a phase you're going through and that it passes soon. Despite my beef with you for the moment, I actually admire a lot of your content and contributions to this forum, and I would be a liar if I said you have not helped my game improve over the years.

I have no desire to flame you or anyone else, so this is as far as I am taking it.

I always read that as making it extra clear you only need to roll for breakaway once if adjacent to both a token and an opposing character. The new rulebook makes this pretty clear though IMO and maybe it was back in the day as well.

This guy speaks Roderic Speak!

^_^

I *guess* someone could get hyper-literal and say the last sentence in the part I quoted only mentions characters when breaking away from multiple things... So it seems like a safe clause to have just in case

Seriously though, I think the parenthetical part I bolded makes it pretty clear how this works. Just add that parenthetical to IM:Characters when you read it and it all checks out