No problem. I was just kidding by the way. That's why I put the "laugh" face at the end of the post

Thanks, G-C.

I'm with the Jackelope on this. The PAC says to ignore figure bases and hindering terrain and that seems sensible. If a cheap power like Barrier can work through walls then an expensive power like TK should be able to fly figures over the heads of other figures. The game is supposed to be fun. What could be more fun than dropping Spiral into the middle of a crowd of enemy figures ...?

Andrew

That's not what the line is for, though. When you're moving the figure, you don't have to worry about stopping in hindering terrain or coming adjacent to opposing figures, and in some situations can move through other figures. But completely separate from that allowance, the PAC then states that you must have LoF, and the FAQ repeats it. Keep in mind that this is also the entry's first mention of LoF, and so having had LoF already modified by the text is a bit unlikely.

For movement, ignore figures and hindering, but for LoF you don't have that allowance. Steenbock's ruling is the reason you can ignore the figure/object being TKed, and DrGandalf at one point added it to the list of finished clarifications along with just about all of those that went into the FAQ---those which have been "OKed." So yes, it is an annoyance that the ruling isn't in the FAQ.

Herocomplex,

It seems unreasonable to me to have a "clarification" be a deciding factor in how a tournament judge makes a ruling, especially when there sufficient "official" evidence in the FAQ that is contradictory to the "clarification".

Further, since the game players have no access to the Judges forums to know how judges will rule, the potential for getting screwed in a tournament due to this "clarification" technicality is very high; especially if the tournament organizer doesn't make such rules clear prior to the tournament.

The "letter of the law", so to speak, is the rulebook, PAC, and FAQ themselves, and not some "clarification" that hasn't made it there. Therefore, there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TOURNAMENT JUDGES to make rulings based on a "clarification" in instances where sufficient contrary evidence exists in the "official" rules.

Thoughts?

Jeez, if you have to have every rule that minutely clarified, I am surprised you play. You are the first one I know of that has been able to not send a figure forward because the figure you are moving is block los. You're judge needs to make a call, and that is what they are for. If you are the one arguing that this cannot be done because of LOF is blocked, then you just need to get over the "vague" part of the rules and have more fun in your games.

No offense, cscottk, I don't mean to imply that my enjoyment of the game is diminished. Not at all. I thoroughly enjoy HC!

However, this is the one ruling (to my knowledge) that is blatantly contradictory regarding what's in the FAQ vs. the arbitrator's unofficial "clarification". Imo, if the arbitrator's "clarification" was so valid, it should've been made official in the FAQ a LONG time ago.

Imo, if it weren't for the fact that the FAQ shows something so clearly opposing to the arbitrator's clarification, this argument would not exist.

Just my $.02.

It's not completely separate, it's right next to it. And note that the same clause applies to the use of TK with objects and friendly figures even though the separation is greater in that case.

Whatever Steenbock said is no longer available for anyone to check - it was deleted from WK's web site a long time ago. The tounament-legal basis for ruling on this matter is the current FAQ and PAC. To get a sensible result that allows for the way that people play this, you should ignore figure bases altogether, as the PAC indicates. That's what I'm going to do until the entry in the FAQ is updated.

Andrew

Honestly, this is pathetic. Harsh choice of a word, but are people that tired of playing this game that they need to dissect every rule now to find loopholes to give them that "uber" advantage in games?

Warden: I have no idea what you are seeing that is different than what others are seeing. You ignore hindering terrain and other figure bases during the MOVEMENT. You must still have LOF to the target square to place the figure there. Move the figure through every other opponent's figure if that's what you want. Move it in a huge circle. So long as it's 10 spaces total movement and the final space is in LOF then it's legal.

Phonixinmi: If you're the kind of person to take advantage of this, then by all means go for it. Don't expect to win any "nice guy" points from your fellow players though. Perhaps that doesn't bother you. In any case, this case was addressed a year ago, and everyone was fine and happy and life went on. Yes, it was forgotten about and not included in any FAQ for a year, but obviously the point was so broadly accepted that nobody thought to check and fix this. It's called human error, and every judge who has kept pace with this game from the beginning knows the intention of the rule. It's true that you are the first to find it's omission, and it's true that technically you could take advantage of this in a tournament and pretty much screw every TK player out there. Is that what you really want to do? This is where you see two doors, and you decide which to go through. One can make you a winning gamer. The other can make you a winning human being.

phonixinmi, your problems will soon end as the ruling will be added to the next FAQs. The figure or object being TK'ed does not block LoF to the target square. This has been a ruling for quite some time now, but for whatever reason, had been left out of the FAQs. Heck, technically the objects portion was only just added to this FAQs, although you could gleen the information on objects from the Rules anyway.
where T = figure with TK, F = friendly figure getting moved, and X = the target square. T cannot see X because F is in the way. This is definitely ALLOWED already, but to make it easier for everyone, it will be added to the upcoming FAQs.

EDIT to the above statement:

T can see X even though F is in between them. You ignore the target's base when determining LoF.

Funky Jett,

Thanks for the info. It's good to know it's getting fixed.

daedalus25,

I certainly mean no offense, but imo the inconsistencies between the "official" FAQ TK and LOF rulings vs. the "clarification" by the "ruling body" arbitrator were directly opposed to one another and had to be corrected.

If not corrected, the loophole that was created would continue to exist and would be to the constant advantage of the player knowing it vs. the player that is mistakenly treating the arbitrator's "clarification" (in this case) as being the "right" ruling when it has no basis in the "official" rules documentation (rulebook, PAC, FAQ).

By eliminating the loophole, it removes the ability for it to become a debatable issue in a match. That leads to a consistent rules base and more enjoyable game play, imo.

Unfortunately, I also believe that it's one of the responsibilities of the game players to question those that make the rules. In general, authority MUST be questioned if anything is going to change for the better.

I'm just glad this issue is finally close to being resolved.

I'm glad at least another judge (warden) saw it like I did. I'm not about to "go to the mat" on this one. I think its probalby correct that you need clear LOF after re-reading it. Just kind of mis-leading when it says "ignore all figure bases".
*shrugs*
It is fun to drop Spiral into a crowd. The others are making break-away rolls and (trying) to scatter like roaches! lol
Anyway I guess we won't be playing that way anymore.

Um...Wizkids has set up a system where the judge of record is the final authority during the event. There is no debate about this. This is one of the fundamental rules that we accept when we participate in organized play.

I think we can all agree that the PAC on TK requires interpretation - that's why there is already an extensive FAQ entry for the power. My approach is to consider the consequences as well as the precise words and make a ruling which balances three factors:

* common-sense and intuition
* exact wording
* game balance

Naturally, I think that my approach is the best one - that's why I take it. I can understand why other people take a narrower view but, IMO, that's often rules lawyering - overloading the words with more meaning than was intended, or reading too much into careless phrasing.

More generally, some people keep pushing the idea that this game is chess not an RPG and things like comic-book authenticity are irrelevant. They are welcome to their point of view but it's a subjective one. The game is clearly not chess nor is it an RPG like D&D. It's something of a mix of the two and its varied appeal is one reason for its success. The game ought to work well in all these respects - there's no excuse for poor quality in any area. My aim is to improve this overall quality and that's why I'm proactive when it comes to issues of this kind.

Andrew