I've always felt it was a misnomer to say carried characters are off the board. For example, a wildcard can copy the team ability of a carried character. If that character was truely off the board, you could not do that. I'm hoping the next Player's Guide removes that type of language because it doesn't reflect how the game actually works.

Peak up above and you'll see that I agree with that. (This was the first time that argument had been raised and it seems to be a persuasive one.)

I wish they were a little more consistent about saying "it's under discussion" though. They too often retreat to the Deputy Cave without telling us, leaving us to conclude from their lack of response that it is so. If they told us that the adults were going off to debate it, it might alleviate a lot of the "But it's OBVIOUS" posts that sometimes occur with ambiguous new text. : - )

yup that would be nice. I noticed though that this set has less ambiguous descriptions. It seems like they are getting better at wording things.

Q: 1) Can I move larfleeze 11 spaces back and forth so he stays in the same sqaure, then move the constructs 11 squares? 2) Same question about moving back and forth to stay in the same square, but using telekinesis?

Complete agreement. The other thing I've noticed is that too often they will come to a conclusion in the deputy cave, but then not share it with the rest of us. nbperp has often said he lets one of the deputies report back the findings, but on a number of occasions, no reporting back is made.

Not sure if I'd go that far.

You'll need to use a triangle to do 11 squares, but either one is fine.

What does it friggin' matter? With this figure alone, we've already seen that it doesn't mean a hill of beans what we say.

If we say that something is under discussion, we get hounded through thread bumps and PMs asking repeatedly if we have an answer yet.

If we give you an answer, we get people saying that they're going to play some other way anyway because that answer isn't in the PG.

As with all things, play it to the best of your ability.

so, is it under discussion? lol

I'm willing to entertain a "parking lot" here on the rules discussion (that I would imagine gets stickied) that I or one of the deputies would be responsible for keeping up to date with things. We'd need to come up with some ground rules for this kind of thing, but I think it might help.

If you do some searching, you'll see some posts where I pulled back the curtain and showed how things are done and how a change introduced at one point won't see public perception quite a bit down the road. For example, Web of Spider-man issues that resulted in process changes won't be noticed by you guys (or, ideally, make problems less noticable from a rules perspective) until GSX comes out. Why? Because DC75 was mostly done (if not completely off our plate) by the time WOS released.

1) Yes (though strictly back and forth between 2 squares will result in Larfleeze being in a different square - but with 3 squares you can pull it off)

2) Yes

Some send Harpua some "happy pills". Sounds like he's having a tough morning.

Would some coffee do? It alway cheers me up...

Can't say that I blame him. The ruling thus far at the venue is that his OC are outwittable per the text in the rule book on page 15. I still get the good ol' "well what have the deputies said about it?" I always have to answer "when I know you guys will know." They've "veto" playing Larfleeze until then. I had to show them how good he can be so I made a 400 point team with him that wiped the floor clean.

Well, I did some searching and found that thread on Power Girl.

That's great. Playtesters do need to be involved in the proofing process.

For DC75, it seems like Larfleeze was that one that was royally misworded... they called the constructs objects, yet didn't think about what attributes an object has that might bring up questions... such as continual, heavy or light, etc...

the whole "constructs moving" concept wasn't thought out all the way thru...

But, other than that, everything else seems clear... ok maybe JSA Bats and that "adjacent to the red line" is ambiguous... to me that means also the grounded area... better would have been "on the rim of elevated" or "on the elevated side adjacent to the red line" rather than relying on people to decipher that adjacent didn't mean literally adjacent.

Some words in Heroclix such as move, adjacent, action, etc simply mean other things when taken out of the context of the game. So, when using these words, one must always consider that people may take it to mean something else.

This would be correct or, at least, how I would rule it. The Constructs are not contiunal, so if they were some how carried, their various special propreties would cease to function.



... and for those of you now say "Why didn't you say anything about this in the other thread?" the simple answer is "I didn't see that one, single post in the sea of other posts." We're not omniscient, you know. If it struck someone as off in the other thread, the smart thing would have been to discuss it in more detail there rather than wait to bring it up here.

First, thank you normalview for addressing the question. That said, I think it's clear that normalview was not making an official ruling so could other members of the rules posse chime in to confirm (and make it official) or let us know it is under discussion?

I thought that that last person on the rules posse that posts a ruling is the official ruling.

If normalview said that it is how he would do it, then that is his ruling. And if that is the latest one then that is the official one.

I do understand where the rules posse frustration comes from. I think normalview very clearly said "this is my opinion and not necessarily an official ruling." When a member of the rules posse does it in that style, it's just an opinion and not necessarily an official ruling. If people interpret anything they say as official rulings, even when they indicate it is more opinion, it makes it very difficult for them to discuss things with us.