From the PG:
If there are no actions remaining or the figure has been carried, the figure affected by Taunt cannot legally be given an action that satisfies the conditions of the feat.

Again, this is totally withing the spirit of the feat which is to keep the Taunted character from doing something else.

Edit: Another bypass would be to token him with TT or CSA PC.

Why would those bypass it (unless it resulted in 2 action tokens on the character...or is that what you meant?)

Not pointless. Any result that differs from what my opponent would normally have wanted to do works for me.

That's what I meant.

TT = Teen Titans? In the same vein, X-Men?

TT meant theme team.

How would CSA or Theme Team PC help? Unless you mean if you end up giving the character a second token, which I can see. Otherwise, my understanding is that these effects give a character a token, but not an action. They don't spend actions from your available actions and the tokened character can still make an action later in the term.

From above:

Sorry, but I'm struggling with this one. And while I often find the literal intrepretations applied by the arbs to be frustrating (bagman taking/dealing 13 clix of damage on a 12 click dial anyone?) I can at least see how the PG, PAC, Rules book, etc. can be wielded in such a way to justify the ruling. But here....seriously???

Spirit of the feat??? If that was truly the spirit of the feat they would have called it Stupify and not Taunt. The whole concept of a Taunt is that you are bothering the other person into taking action, not mildly annoying them so they can stand still and pretend you are not there. It's Spider-man yelling "Hey Gobby pick on someone your own size" and leading him into combat or away from the innocents.

On a side note I find it funny how many of the player's buying this line of thinking are some of the same one's who criticized the Bagman poster who said, "We should talk to the person who created the fig and see what they meant." But I digress.

Let me make sure I have this right. Even though the guide specifies that if you can legally take the action you must, you don't have to if you create your own situation where the action is not legal. Even if, say, you are playing an all Brotherhood team and you could legally make a free move with any fig, you can, instead, use your allotted actions and then turn off your TA and claim that you cannot legally fufill the feat.

So the terms used on both the feat and the PG, terms such as MUST are really just suggestions?

Names really are irrelevant. The text is what is important. It could have been called Floinkplooger and had the same effect.

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent there. If you can legally do it, then you must do it. If you can't legally do it, then you can't. It doesn't really matter how you ended up at the point where it is illegal.

That's fine.

Not at all, you must do the stuff if you can legally do it.

Wow... great thanks for the clarification. Now I know why today's poll had rules clarification at a lowly 13.44%.

BTW - are you going to the Maryland Clix for Cure? I'd love to put a face to the insanity.

Exactly this. MUST in heroclix is a suggestion you can get around. We lost this argument a long time ago.

I'm not about to shoot the messenger, but this sort of thing is at least irritating. While I can see the crooked path that led to the ruling... it would have been so much more defensible had the conditional "Must" been applied as any reasonable person would: To the conditions in play at the beginning of the Taunted character's (the one who was the target of the Taunt) player's turn. The way it has been worked out instead shrieks of rules lawyering.

Still, it is as it has been ruled. This is the sort of thing that makes this forum such a useful resource.

What is unclear about it?

The two important clarifications are (numbered for reference):
#1 states that the Taunted figure's controller still has full control of when actions are given to his characters.
#2 states that if you can legally make the action then you must do that. Because #1 exists, the possibility is open that a situation can arise where you cannot legally be given an action. If that happens then #2 doesn't really apply anymore as it cannot be legally given an action. (But the figure didn't do anything else, which IS the purpose of the card as we were told by the designer {through the RA} back when these rulings were made.)

im pretty sure this website wan't meant for threats.
Quit complaining and move on, its just a game