If it says "round", it means "round".
So yes, it's much better to go first with your Cuckoo team as that makes the bonus last longer.

Yes, it means end of the round, which happens right after the end of the last players turn (usually player two, but that presumes a two player game).


BoT

This was ruled somewhere on the forum that a Round lasts from the beginning of Player 1's turn until the end of Player 2's turn in a 2 player game and from Player 1's turn to the end of Player X in an X player game.

Basically, if you're playing Cuckoo vs Cuckoo, it pays to get that initiative roll so you can bump your defense while your opponent cannot.

edit:WOW too slow I guess, lol

End of the round. So if you are player 1 with a swarm of Cuckoos, you can modify their defense untill the end of player 2's turn.

If you are palyer 2 and you want to modify the defense, it ends after your turn finishes (and thus the round). It's a case of noone in playtesting or designing catching the verbage "round" and correcting it to read "turn", and thus you have the first ruling in Heroclix history where a power is decidedly more benificial to player 1 than to player 2.

That is so going to get nerfed though....

Carry rules say you can cary only friendly figures.

There is on possible advantage to being player 2. If player 1 uses Hivemind to increase AV or Damage value and player 2 uses MC to have that Cuckoo attack he gets double duty out of Hivemind, since the first modifier still exists and he can also increase the other offensive combat value for added punch.

Maybe if that happens enough times, we'll get the eratta that should already have been...


BoT

Why would it?

Carry rules have exceptions. Grounded figures normally can't carry - unless they are a transporter, have the Passenger feat, or have other Special Rules allowing them to do so. I thought that perhaps, this might be such a case.

My apologies. I thought for whatever reason the Special Power superseded the carrying rules as it allows for a to carry two other 's. I see your point now that my are firmly on the ground.

For further support:
I was really rooting for it to work though...


BoT

I personally think the game designers intended the Cuckoo carrying mechanic to work on only friendly Cuckoos, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because I can see the otherside's argument as being potentially valid.

The above rulebook quotation doesn't put sufficient words of limitation, such as "may not" or "only", upon the carrying ability. If the rulebook said something like, "Flyers et al. may ONLY carry other friendly characters with the dolphin/boot symbol," then I think it would be pretty clear that the Cuckoos couldn't pick up opposing Cuckoos, because the rulebook would specifically preclude the carrying of opposing figures. The problem is that the rulebook rule doesn't include the "ONLY" language. Because the lack of limiting language, the rulebook rule doesn't specifically preclude a carrier from carrying an opposing character in all instances.

By contrast, the Cuckoo special power appears to contemplate a situation in which a character could carry an opposing character (i.e. my Cuckoo picks up your Cuckoo). Because the rulebook doesn't specifically preclude a character from carrying an opposing character in all instances, and because the Cuckoo special power appears to provide for a situation where a friendly character may carry an opposing character, it seems possible for a Cuckoo to carry an opposing Cuckoo.

[EDIT]
Alternatively, even if the rulebook does state a rule that precludes a carrier from carrying opposing characters in all instances, it could still be interpreted that the Cuckoos could carry an opposing Cuckoo. A general rule of statutory construction (and Heroclix rules are a form of statute) is that a more narrowly tailored rule takes precedent over a more broadly tailored rule. Although the Cuckoo special power (narrow rule) would appear to conflict with the rulebook rule (broad rule), the narrow special power rule would take precedent over the broad rulebook rule under the rule of construction.
[/EDIT]

Again, I think that the game designers probably intended for Cuckoos only to carry friendly Cuckoos. If that was the intention, the game designers could fix the problem 1) by stating in the Cuckoo carrying power that Cuckoos may only carry friendly Cuckoos, or 2) by adding to the rulebook that carriers may ONLY carry friendly characters with the boot/dolphin movement symbol.

Assuming your eyes haven't glazed over by this point, thanks for reading.

They don't need the word "only". The simple fact that "friendly characters" is specified instead of just "characters" is enough to indicate a difference between the two.

You're probably right, as far as the "only" stuff goes (although adding more limiting language would make the rule's meaning clearer). However, this doesn't address whether the narrower rule take precedent over the broader rule.

Why would the Cuckoo SP take any kind of precedent at all? The narrower rule of which you speak says Cuckoo can carry other Cuckoos. Fine. The broader rule, about carrying in general, says that a character can carry other friendly characters.

Put the two together and you get "Cuckoo can carry other, friendly, Cuckoos."

What isn't addressed?

Here's how. The special power reads essentially: "Cuckoo can carry other 'Cuckoos'." My opponent can have a Cuckoo on his team. His Cuckoo is a "Cuckoo". Therefore, under the special power's rule that Cuckoos can carry other "Cuckoos", my Cuckoo could potentially carry his Cuckoo, because his Cuckoo is a "Cuckoo".

This possibile result conflicts with the rulebook rule that carriers can carry friendly characters. If it's possible for a Cuckoo to carry an opposing "Cuckoo" under the special power's wording, then this would conflict with the rulebook rule of no carrying opposing characters. Since a narrower rule has precedent over a broader rule, the special power would take precedent over the rulebook rule.

Again, I don't think this was the intended result, but under a correct-strict statutory interpretation, I can see a plausible argument for letting a Cuckoo carry an opposing Cuckoo.