Yeah I don't even mean to preach ... it just annoys me a little when figures that weren't that great to begin with get f'ed in the a for seemingly no reason. One of my favorite not so good figures was IC Cyclops, and after Indy his 3 arrows were somewhat worthless (i know, hedge your bets, perplex etc.) ... sky isn't falling or anything I just thought multi-attack was neat and cool and now it sucks goat ballz

He can for 3 of the clicks where he has Incapacitate.

But he wasn't pointed to use it on those other clicks. Basically your complaint would be the same as someone saying that the Sentinel should still have Toughness on those last 4 clicks even it isn't there and he wasn't pointed for it.

The same thing can be said about many characters. I don't see Parasite played all that much...should we change the rules to make him playable?

But that's a bad way to make rules for the game.

I'm just saying it wasn't a bad thing. A bad ruling was corrected. This is good for the game.

To make a coherent rules system is a pretty good reason.

Yes, please.

Oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question... :disappoin:

(blows horn, brings out birthday cake, leads parade through town)

No ... WizKids doesn't remove Toughness from figures. For example, I decide Scorpion (a figure they nerfed from the design but hey thats another thread) has Toughness his whole dial. Then one day they release a FAQ stating that he only has it for his first two clicks. Well I am used to playing with one Scorpion and then the next day he is nerfed. Whether he was pointed for it or not isn't relevent to the person playing with it, maybe Jon L and Bro Mags lose sleep over improperly "pointed" figures (Thor anyone ?) ...


No but he never was playable ... he was a pile of ish right out of the factory in China. If he was playable and popular (but not overly abused) then a rule change nerfed him then I would think fans of his would complain.

Bad ruling / good ruling who cares ? If the game didn't already have a veritable encyclopedia of FAQs, Errata's and corrections this point would carry some weight. But at this point who cares ? The game is FAQ'ed to death. Even cries for errata and FAQ's on cards that aren't even out yet plague this game.

And in the big scheme of things for 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the players out there this rule change does nothing to make the rules any more coherent. It just makes Sentinel a big purple worthless pile. Plain and simple. It's no longer worth 100,200, or 300 points. So it will no longer be played in semi-competitive environments. Scratch another figure off the list of playable ones. Which is quickly being whittled down to those with a move and attack power, or with an important support power (TK, Prob., Outwit, Support).

This isn't good for any reason ... in my opinion, you have a different opinion which is fine. I won't lose any sleep over the Sentinels castration, I just won't play with it anymore.

On a side note, I've played Sentinels for years and I never remember playing it any other way - it's always been "a minimum of 1" when I've played. In fact, the official FAQ even stated it... I'm not sure why it's been changed now when someone went out of their way to rule expressly the opposite before.

I guess I subscribe to the philosophy "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I'm not quitting, I'm not flushing my clix down the toilet or anything... just disappointed, that's all.

BTW, you should fix parasite. It could be done with a simple rule - steal energy is optional.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I actually pushed for this change to help clean up the rules. So I obviously like it. You don't like it because it makes a character you like playing less effective. We just come at the game from different angles.

What you say is so untrue. This is the 3rd time (4th set) of multi-attack rules we have had. It was originally pretty much like we have been playing these last several months. Then at some point it was changed to minimum 0 on multi-attack. Then it changed to minimum 1. Now back to 0. So saying it was not costed for a minimum of 1 at the beginning is just wrong.

Frankly this whole conversation has moved out of rules clarification and into other territory. And this forum really isn't the place for it. So I'm going to bow out of it. My bottom line...staying within the purpose of this forum...is that this is a good change as far as the rules are concerned.