Or you could Taunt Xorn.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Jett though. It avoids many questionable situations. I'd even go so far as to let the player who used Taunt decide how the taunted figure moves to get to his taunter.

Normally I would agree that taunt isn't thebest way to stop a healing attempt. but in my case when it happened to base Colossus meant to base (or be scarily close to) Wolverine, Beast and Cyclops.

It also brought his healer away from the reast of his figures and into combat, as well as opening a line of fire to Colossus for me to deliver the kill shot

If you target a Skrull and declare an attack and the skrull makes his shape change roll, you can not choose to do nothing. You must take some action. A move or an attack, either way you take a token.

Okay what about this question...

What happens if you kill the taunter at the beginning of your next turn before your character moves or attacks? Then what does your character do...nothing at all?

I think azs meant a "Move 0" action which is essentially doing nothing at all but still taking a token. At least, I hope that's what he meant!

Taunt is just giving me a headache. I have trouble believing that this was extensively playtested. At my very first glance of this card I immediately thought the wording was far too vague. It's like Knockback all over again. (I still have a problem with Knockback in that the opponent is allowed to choose the direction I move my piece if there's not a direct path to the attacker. They just love to move my piece TOWARD the attacker since there's no rule against it. But back on subject...)

I believe the intent is that the target must move as close to the target as possible. I don't feel there's any stipulation on timing. If you saw your buddy getting taunted and about to get into a fight, wouldn't you try to break it up? Putting a barrier around the target, TK'ing it away, or flying it to another location are all examples of teammates trying to help the taunted character get some distance and clear his head. I don't feel that the target needs to attack the barrier unless it actually allows them to get closer to the taunter in the same action (a la HSS).

Anyhow, I hope that this feat is FAQ'd soon, or I agree that there will be a lot of busy and confused judges.

Well think about it this way:

X-empty space
A=Attacker/Taunter
T=Target/Tauntee=speed of 3=damage of 3
B=Barrier

XXXXBXXX
XXXXBTXX
XXXXXBBX
AXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

Ok in this example let's say the target moves three like this:

XXXXBXXX
XXXXBXXX
XXXXXBBX
AXXXXXTX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

Now there is 5 spaces of movement needed to make T adjacent to A....but what if T attacked the barrier like this:

XXXXBXXX
XXXXBTXX
XXXXXXBX
AXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

Now there is only four squares of movement between A and T!!! It seems like T actually made more effort to get closer to A by attacking the barrier...Which means attacking the barrier is an attempt at becoming adjacent to A.

So if the barrier was set up like this:

XXXXXBXX
XXXXBTBX
XXXXXBXX
AXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

Then there is an undefined number of spaces to get to A, which in math usually involves infinites and such...but if T attacks the barrier then there is only four which is an attempt to move adjacent to A...which is proved in the last example.

Even if T couldn't break through the barrier by attacking it he is still attempting to break through the barrier and therefore attempting to move adjacent.

Yes, it makes sense that Iceman would throw a barrier around Wolverine to 'cool' him down before he went to attack Sabertooth...but it also makes sense Wolvering would cut through that barrier to get at Sabertooth due to the taunt...

So what do you guys think?

I think that complying with Taunt should have to be the first move you make on your turn, you can't stop yourself in hindering if there's a clear, alternate path, and yes, you should have to try to break the barrier - you can't do NOTHING. That's the spirit of the card.

Throwing the barrier up, the taunted would still smash it, if only to vent their frustration on it.

Nice to see so many people feeding into the evolving of the game by clarifying what seemed like a simple upgrade on incapacitate (or alteration) because we all like to find loop holes to protect and win.

a) In my opinion you dont want to give taunt a end of turn start of turn scenario - the idea of a turn based game means all those actions happen approximately at the same time - it allows for some form of strategy and expectations.

b) because of a) it is possible to attempt to alter the skills of the taunted character , healing perplexing etc, or outwitting something of the tauntee (same as poison/outwit at start of turn idea)

c) the idea is to move towards or attack the character that taunted - you should not be able to attack any other character with quake pulsewave or multitarget exceptions.

d)the above 4 square around me barrier plan would have line of site to all 4 squares - (unless the character has trickshot to do it) is near impossible it would require two barrier figs - in that case the taunting character would attempt to move towards my character attacking whatever was in the way if I am unable to move at all. venting frustration.

At least thats what I'd say on the above.

Richard

Oh yeah forgot to add the last part - if another char TK's me thats fine - if someone taxi's I think it should avoid NAAT - for the reason that you are making them attack they are not attempting it on their own.