I think you mean if they are somehow removed from the map? The closest Heroclix has to removing something from the game is a character being defeated. Characters that are pilots or even the Flash that disappears are all still part of the game just off the map.

Might also want to keep in mind that this might be in the next PG, but it might not make it in until a later one. So you may have a fairly long run of playing by the intent against the actual written rules.

This is something that's always a bit infuriating:

Why can't we get an official rules change before the PG comes out?

Is it because not everybody will know what the official rules are if they're not in the PG? But if so, how is that different from any other ruling made on the forums?

Because the rules say the written rules override forum posts where they conflict. We know from Harpua's posts what the intent of Game Design is. And when the article he refers to comes out more of us will know. But the written rules will still allow both these things until they receive errata, so per the tournament rules the forum posts will be invalid until then.
When something is open to interpretation, or the meaning is unclear, a forum post to clarify it does not conflict with the written rules and so is a valid ruling, again per the same tournament rules.

It's a touchy balance, indeed.

Personally, once we get a confirmation post like Harpua made above, I will always follow that even if the PG doesn't yet back it up. In my (inflammatory) opinion, anybody who knows of such a change and doesn't it [sic] either a d-bag or a judge with unfortunately d-bag players.

Or missed the thread with the ruling.

Glad I decided to see what was going on.
I thought it was going to be more debating, at 25 pages, I really didn't want to have to sift through all this.

Lucky check!

My apologies. I intended to include the word "knowingly" in my post. An edit will be made to clarify that intent.

As such, you're completely right, that's a big part of things. I was referring to the vocal crowd of "I know what the correction is and know what the corrected text/intent will be, but until its printed I will continue to exploit my preferred loophole."

Them's the d-bags (or unfortunate judges forced to oversee those d-bags).

The PG is the absolute definitive guide that must be followed unless a contradictory rule is preestablished before a tournament (house rules can override any rule in the game).

Rulings on this forum generally clarify peoples questions and explain how things actually work within the rules. What the Oranges mention in this thread is no a ruling but rather them specifying that although Mind Control/vehicle capture is currently legal by the rules, the rules will most likely be changed at a future date to prevent this from happening. But them saying this does not in fact change the current rules.

If your venue would like to use this possible upcoming change now instead of waiting for the official change, go ahead and do so. But do not assume the change is officially in effect now and always double check with your venues judge where they stand on the subject.

I'd prefer to be ruling it as it's intended, but I'd also prefer to have the documentation to back that up. Sometimes things happen between "we plan to make this change" and "here's the change". I can remember at least one case where a change we knew was going to be made somehow never got done, and there we were cheerfully rolling along assuming the rules said something they didn't. And I have to disagree on the d-bag comment: it's entirely possible that the judge and/or players prefer to play by the rules until they actually get changed. My personal intent is to explain the situation to my players and see how they'd prefer to go on this specific issue.

Two points: First, by this logic will you be ruling that resources must be turned even in range of catwoman and off the map? That's another "guaranteed" change coming up the pike but isn't here yet. I ask because catwoman preventing gauntlet turning is a little less controversial but also a change guaranteed but not yet made

Second, the level of d-baggery depends on the judge. If the judge allows it then it isn't a d-bag move to use it if it is a tournament you are looking to win. A cheesy tactic, sure, but rules allow an arms race in the right situation and if other people will be doing it you have to be prepared for that and may do it yourself if it is the best thing to do. I would be totally fine if my judge house ruled it to the later intent, especially because I agree with the change. But if other people can do it, I'm certainly not going to rule it out for myself.

Well put. If a tactic is allowed then it is legal. Too many people cry too much rather than do the work to prepare themselves.

That's another ruling where I would consider the "interim" ruling to be replaced by a new "interim" ruling. As a specific example, it's a non-issue among my group, but that's neither here not there.

My idea is really that prior, we had nothing to go on and ruling according to the strict wording. Perfect, that makes sense. Now, however, we've received notice that it will be changing, and what te end result will be. We don't have the exact wording, and it's not "live" yet, but as far as I'm concerned this holds as much weight as the prior ruling, and since it will end up that way may as well play that way. I'm not worried about cheese, I'm only interested in clarity. Were I to travel to another venue, I'd clarify their rulings in the interim. But in my personal games, I'm using the new rulings, and informing my other players of them. I don't foresee any problems with this. That's all.

So has it been answered if you roll for resources if they are within 6 squares of Catwoman that stops resources?

Currently you do not, but harpua has said that is going to eventually be changed. However it has not been officially changed yet. Take that for what you will.

So as of right now, I take it the mess with a mind controlled character becoming a pilot hasn't been ruled on