I just want to make a point - If Chapeau makes a ruling that all figures can only move have of their movement value, well that how the bloody rule will work from that point on. He doesn't need to justify himself. I'm sure all the necessary analysis of the issue of RCE/CCE and Willpower/other super powers was done, and the conclusion was that it would provide parity (or some other good reason). Let's face it, Batman becomes too much of unit if he can use both powers at the same time (CCE + Willpower + PermaStealth!). What we would then get is whingers saying Batman is too powerful and should be cut down ala Firelord. Accept the decision, ask questions where you are not sure, but just remember the Judges decision is final. As has been said a thousand times before, if you don't agree with the ruling, then make it a house rule.

I'm a west coast low life, so unlikely to happen. On top of that, I'm not a judge. Except for the fact the local judge doesn't know the rules very well and is dropping the ball on running events regularly, I wouldn't have much interest in being a judge, and would need to be sponsored in any event.

Because that's how it's been ruled. Sorry, that's the best answer I can give. The FAQ specifically says PC works with *CE, and that no other powers do. <shrug>

[back to the main topic]
I think the real question is not whether the ruling(s) on this issue make sense, whether they are "logical" or fit the way things work in the comics. I think the real question is did they know how the powers would interact and figure this in when they costed the figs. If E Batman, for example, is paying full price for both willpower and CCE on the clicks when he has both, then he should d@mn well be able to use both at the same time. If, on other hand, he's getting a discount on either - or both - powers because they knew he couldn't use both at once, then the current ruling is fine.

It seems pretty apparent (to me at least) that they've changed the cost formula since IC, so the problem is that no ruling will satisfy everyone. Bottom line, certain figs are going to get screwed no matter what the ruling is.

What're you gonna do? It's still a good game.

M!

Everyone sing along...this is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...

Technically you're correct on the non-stealthed bit, but I suspect that is an oversite in the FAQ and not an intentional ruling. Mind Control is specifically used to assign an action, it is not used for non-action powers (Perplex, Outwit, etc). The control you have on a Mind Controlled figure begins and ends with the action, it doesn't last the entire turn. So by extension neither should the duration of any optional power effects. As it stands, the FAQ/rules don't back me on this but I suspect its not by design.

Then consider the FAQ entry that Mind Control specifically allows the use of optional powers in mid turn that have been turned off (this runs counter to the usual limitation of waiting for the following turn). I suspect the nature of Mind Control is it ignores the on/off state of the figure's powers before the action, but likewise should (if possible, baring damage sustained) restore the state of those powers immediately after the action. Again, the FAQ only backs up the first part, I'd suspect the lack of mention of post Mind Control action power status is an oversite that needs addressing.

Now there's something! See this is what I need. Not people complaining about how it should work, but actually analyzing how the current ruling actually works.

I like how you really didn't discount what I was saying, which means you've got a good grasp on those rules.

Though you didn't expressly say what I'm thinking now....
Alrighty.. let me think on this a little more a make this more concrete.

I strongly disagree. I've seen that style of star chamber rules deciding before, and the result is usually a tattered mess of a rules set and a horde of ticked off players. Game systems lose players that way. Game systems die that way. I've been playing hobby games for 26 years - trust me, I've seen it happen.

A judge's decision is final. Until the next judge's decision. Rulings are reversed, in a well run rules set this *will* happen from time to time. Its an admission that mistakes are made, and rule sets are fluid.

A judge *always* needs to justify himself. The "what" must always be followed by the "why" - thats part of the job of being a *good* judge. Its patently narrow minded and dangerous to assume that someone's decision rational is so flawless that it not only does not need debate, it should never be subjected to it.

right on marshall

Nah, thats the "Lets fix this game" thread. last I checked it was almost to 800 posts and that was at 5 o'clock this afternoon.