I think you're asking for an unreasonable degree of realism when the self same GCPD Cruisers have an AUTO-PILOT mode. Not a thing I've ever seen in the comics.

(Although, what's far more amusing than the notion of someone getting locked into a car/jet/tank is someone getting locked onto a motorcycle, as the whole MC-to-be-captured-by-vehicle thing would work with those too.)

Those Motorcycles have side pouches, you could easily be put into one of those as easily as my Arkham Gaurd can Capture the Bike and stick it on his pocket.

Although I like to believe that the Arkham Gaurds are using prison rules and making any captured character walk around with him, holding his pocket!

This kind of stuff right here is why I've never bought a vehicle though. The rules just seem weird and off. But I feel the same way about team bases. Reg'lar Clix fer me an' mine, thank'ee!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...girlThanos.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MFz0z7jVEK...+vs+Doom+5.jpg

XD Hahahahahahaha!

All hail Monkey Joe, terror of the Nine Worlds! Bow before his unlimited cosmic power.

OT: When my friend and I found this out, we thought it was hilarious. So far, I haven't heard any complaints yet about it at our venue, and my friend is going to make a team around this idea. I honestly have no problem playing against a team like this, considering:

a)unlike others, I don't think the cop cars are broken. They are nasty and hard to take down and should never be able to deal unavoidable damage, but they aren't unbeatable. It only takes a handful of solid smacks to take them down.
b)Positioning will be everything for this tactic. If your opponent's force is more maneuverable than your force, then this idea can be quickly shut down.
and c)I don't let tactics like this change the way I build my force anyways. If I want to run an avengers team, I'm going to run it, regardless of what my opponent is playing.

Edit: sorry, didn't mean to necro a thread.

I wouldn't call 9 days necroing.

Viva Los Avengers!

I've read through this thread and still find it interesting how this conclusion has been arrived at, considering the wording given.

Here is mind control:

Here is the pertinent vehicle quote:

The character is not removed from the game. It's removed from the field of play. So it should still return to it's rightful owner after Mind Control resolves. It's not like possession where the power specifically says you get to keep the character into future rounds. Since a character cannot pilot an opposing vehicle, the character should simply be ejected and placed back on the board, following the same rules you use when the vehicle is destroyed.

I do hope that GD responds in a reasonable prompt manner to indeed indicate, "no, we did not intend for opposing characters to be locked in vehicles." I can see how such a sad interpretation of such a mechanic would cause frustration at venues.

On a side note, I have to say that it disappoints me how many times in this thread alone, I've seen orange banners around people's names and read them openly mocking other thread participants. Every time I've encountered a Wizkids employee, they've been respectful, patient and forthcoming.

Since a Wizkids representative appointed the rules deputies, I would think that Wizkids would demand the same level of maturity that they would expect from their paid employees. Hopefully this can be rectified because it sends some very negative messages to newer players reading those posts.

Good luck getting anywhere with your foolish request for sanity in this place. You may as well wish for a T-rex.

Don't be surprised, the oranges can get a little testy to say the least. Anytime WK messes up a rule and the oranges get tired of trying to explain so many things that make little to no sense they just say "well it's supported by the rules".

Shoot we still don't have word on whether you can Purple Ray from the jet to make a double power action and that has been in the cave for a long time.

Wizkids is gonna ruin the game again and too many old players don't want to make WK fix what's wrong.

Except that the rules don't say that. They say that a friendly character may be given a free action to BECOME the pilot of a vehicle, but they don't actually say that the character must remain friendly to remain the pilot.
I went back and read through all the posts by myself and the other rules deputies and didn't see any of us mocking other participants. What are you referring to?

Honestly vlad, since you guys always come in as the correct position, and if you aren't used to reading the rules forums, orange posts occasionally come off a little condescending. Like "It is obviously this way, could be no other way, why do you even think that". That said, I know they aren't meant to be condescending and are usually trying to either quickly address the issue or quickly get to the question the person is trying to ask without all the fluff. I think people interpreting the "mocking" tone just comes from the position of authority.

I do understand your position but it seems to make an assumption that's opposite to the assumption in my argument. Your argument is that it doesn't say they must remain friendly to be a pilot. My argument is that it doesn't say it's now ok for a non-friendly character to be a pilot. In my eyes, it's more logical that once they're no longer friendly, they no longer can qualify to be the pilot of the vehicle and thus get kicked in the most reasonable fashion possible.


I was ok until the last sentence. Being a business owner who contracts, sub-contracts, works with clients first-hand and manages the business itself, I have to deal with authority figures all the time and have to act as such, myself. Authority figures have to sometimes set a very direct tone, yes. On the other hand, they must remain professional. For authority figures, there's a line between being assertive, specific, single-minded or any number of adjectives, and being mocking or condescending.

Examples? Of the top of my head, I remember something about "not being someone's secretary" and something about someone "sipping mt dew in his mother's basement"? Quite honestly, I'm not going to go back and dig through, as it's quite late.

My point is not to sit and debate the issue, thereby running the thread off track. My point is to simply make the suggestion, "take time to think about what you write" and ask the question, "can I be just as effective without (to borrow the term) the fluff?" It really does help whenever you're writing to an audience. As a matter of fact, lots of non-orange folks could use the same advice.

Simply put, the deps have a no-win situation when posting.

If we simply answer the question and have no fluff, then people say we're condescending. If we answer with fluff, then people say we're condescending.

Posts #151 to #159 contain the exchange about the Mountain Dew. It looks to me like everyone involved is having fun with it.

What you further fail to realize is that the Mt. Dew post was made about Japete...a local with whom I've conversed several times on here about his desire to come to ButCon and dethrone the two-time defending ButCon champ. He's on my buddy list here. I think that he and I have a rapport which can comfortably withstand a little bit of ribbing in a post which also takes a jab at myself.

It may be a good idea to have a nice sticky thread that only you guys can edit about outstanding issues that once something comes back as unknown it can be added there, then the original thread can be thrown into some kind of "Rules Debate" sub forum.

I don't know what it is, but people (all people) get especially grumpy in here.

Though that idea may just make it worse.

Just because something is the most logical response, doesn't mean that it follows the rules of the game.

Unless I'm mistaken, the ONLY game mechanics that allow for a figure to no be the pilot of the vehicle, is if the vehicle takes an action to eject them or if the vehicle gets KOed.

I still like turtles.