Mystics would indeed need to be cancelled at the beginning of the Mind Control action, i.e. before any attack roll is made.

Can you develop a little on why?

Because if you MC my fig A (who has charge) and fig A uses Charge to attack my fig B (who has the Hypertime TA) and let's say I want fig A to be based (and possibly take damage for some reason...) I don't have to elect to not use Hypertime when the MC action initial attack is made, but only when fig A attacks fig B. At least, I think so...

It has been ruled for some time now that wildcards can change their affiliation once per action within the Mind Control action (i.e., for each free action). This is not consistent with other bundled free actions (like within Charge).

Charge: You give the character a power action. My wild card changes to Hypertime. You roll to base him, getting a 6. When you do the free action within, I cannot change to Mystics.

Mind Control: You give the character a ranged combat action and target my wild card and my non-wild card. My wild card changes to JSA to get the high defense from the adjacent Jakeem Thunder. You succeed only at hitting the non-wild card. You give the non-wild card a free action to attack my wild card. For whatever reason, I want the non-wild card to take damage, so my wild card changes to Mystics.

It is commonly known as the "Mind Control Exception" - Harpua can probably go into much greater detail on it than I can. In a nutshell, when this question first came up (around the Universe rules, as best as I can recall) we were told that the free actions with Mind Control were like new actions.

You make it sound like I complain about this every day. Sheesh....I'd say that it is probably not more than twice a week.

Some of my complaints...
You can Perplex/Outwit during the MC action...which is expressly forbidden by those powers.
You can change TA's for WCs during the MC...which is expressly forbidden by the rulebook.
You can cancel powers and TAs during the MC...which is also forbidden by the rulebook.

The problem I've always had is that this has never gone any further than a forum ruling. Nothing in the official documents supports these things. Rather, going by what we do have officially, these things should be disallowed. I'm fine with them being ruled as they are, if that is what the intention is, but I've never been happy that the rules don't supprt that anywhere.

Thank you for the response, and this next comment is in no way directed at you but, that is great, because inconsistencies make the rules so much easier to understand.

I am very thankful to get the info from such good sources and with serious thoroughness. My question has been more than answered and I'm glad you give us the info as to be able to pass this on and let others know. I know that these sticky situations come up more than we'd like and its nice to be able to respond with more certainty, so once again thanks

DawG