Tsannik,

Your last comment confused me. Are you saying that tournament judges should NOT rule according to the Wizkids FAQ (which to my knowledge is the official updated rulings document players use-AND have general access to), but SHOULD rule the way it states in the judges forum instead?!?!

If that's so, then where can PLAYERS obtain a copy of the judges rulings that will be in effect that will override the existing FAQ when playing in a tournament?

Speaking personally, I always bring a copy of the FAQ, Rulebook, and PAC to defend my stand regarding occasions where there's a rulings dispute. When the judge comes over, he/she will then have all the tournament-legal information in order to make a decision.

To have a tournament judge do what you suggest implies that having the FAQ, Rulebook, and FAQ are virtually irrelevant! As a PLAYER, if I don't have access to ALL the OFFICIAL rules prior to going into a tournament, then I don't play!

If the "official" rulings adjustments in the FAQ are NOT going to be enforced in tournament play, then all tournament players need access to the "Judges FAQ" or whatever you want to call it, so as to be prepared to deal with the liberties that you're implying.

Please advise if the judges forum will have player access now or in the future and whether or not such a "Judges FAQ" is published anywhere that players can view it.

Thanks.

So LOF in this case does not have to be applied until THE MIDDLE of the action. Call it a two-part action if you want, but LOF is being addressed in the middle of an action in a way that COULDNT be resolved at the BEGINNING of the action. I'll remind you that the PAQ specifically states that you need LOF to place the affected figure or object. "The attack does no damage. If the attack is successful, move the target figure up to 10 squares in any direction, ignoring hindering terrain and figure bases. This character must have a clear line of fire to the destination square."

At the beginning of the TK move, you also had no LOF to place the affected figure. When you declared a TK move in the first example you had no LOF to the square you want to move the figure to. It's the use of Telekinesis itself that breaks the application of standard LOF targetting. If Telekinesis allows you to re-apply LOF DURING an action, it should apply in all uses of the TK power.

Rulings stated in the FAQ are to be used in sanctioned play if the FAQ is in direct conflict with rulings made in the Judges Forum as stated in the FAQ. However, a tournament can use houserules as long as those houserules have been published before the tournament takes place.

Most rulings are clarifications but some are indeed rules changes and those are subject to the above mentioned restriction. Sometimes the FAQ is unclear or incomplete and then the judge must interpret the rules based on his/her best knowledge of the way it is supposed to be and in those cases he/she could use the rulings. The same goes for those times when the player and judge disagree about what a sentence really says. In all cases though, the judge does have the final word but it is their responsiblity to judge it to the best of their knowledge.

The Judges Forum will not be open to non-judges since it is a forum to discuss many things that are not meant for public eyes. However, a good judge will print off rulings and bring them along to support his rulings and provide info for the players.

I think our intentions are completely different here. You seem to be lobbying for a specific change to the rules. I'm not saying I disagree that you should be able to smack the Stealth guy (I think Stealth should have some drawbacks or weakness) I'm simply restating for clarity what has already been ruled on by the Judges:
1) You need LoF to the target square, but the figure or object you're holding doesn't block it. Other figures do.
2) You have to declare what 'version' of TK you're using at the time you declare the action, and as such all parts of the action must be legal.
3) Since you can't target Stealth at range, you can't attack them with a TK'ed object, even if you remove the thing activating their Stealth.

Parts 2 & 3 are what cause the confusion. You're can't declare a "TK Move the Object" action and then once you can see the target suddenly change it to a "TK ranged combat" action.

I certainly understand your point, but until they update the FAQ and make the distinctions between the various forms of TK clear and "completely official", this will still be a sticky issue.

Xanth,

If the FAQ is unclear, I can certainly accept a judges ruling. I also agree that house rules should be published and that specific judge rulings that could occur should be made available to players prior to the tournament's start. That's all good.

However, if the FAQ IS clear (i.e. LOF requirement for TK movement of a friendly figure in front of the TK'er), but is under review, I don't think that a judge should be able to "overrule" the FAQ based on information in the Judge's Forum. Imo, that should NEVER be done.

I'm not lobbying for anything other than consistancy. As it stands right now, there is one ruling on TK that is in direct violation of the PAQ and the Rulebook. Saying "it's been ruled that LOF passes through an affected figure during a TK move" is one thing if there's a basis for it and we are just clarifying what's already in the rules. But this "clarification" is in direct conflict with the PAQ, as well as a breaking the precedent set by the TK/Stealth on object ruling. There's nothing to support this ruling other than that it makes someone at Wizkids happy.

Trying to find a logical way of applying this ruling just opens up another can of worms since it's also been ruled that you can't TK an object off a Stealth character and back at him for an attack. These rulings are in direct contradiction to each other, and it's a stretch to say that they were arrived at through logical application of the rules as written. As it stands, the only way to obey these rulings is to say the PAQ has errata in the Telekinesis entry with regards to a TK move, because the PAQ is clear that LOF was needed to relocate the figure. To my knowledge that hasnt been suggested anywhere.

If Wizkids said they made a mistake (errata) when the wrote the TK entry I'd be satisfied. But right now this is all supposed to be 'clarifications' which mean the rules as written are correct, and we are being shown the proper way to interpret them. That can't be if the clarifications are in direct opposition to one another.

Do the Judges see this inconsistancy as well?

But the point is to pick up the object and attack the stealthed character with it. I would need to be in b2b to do a close combat attack with the object.

(((What if you have Charge and Super Strength, move 1/2 movement to the object, pick it up and use it versus Stealthed target?

Also, can the object that the Stealthed figure is on/behind be the target of a ranged attack to destroy the object? I understand that Stealth would still be active because of hindering terrain markers placed where destroyed objects were.)))

I don't think the rulings as they are are necessarily inconsistent.All of the PAC text for TK talks about a close combat action, and so is discussing a different concept than the rulebook's ranged use of TK for object-based attacks. Only at the end does it mention using objects as weapons, and at that point it points towards the rulebook for the rules of that form of attack. The two uses of TK are already following different sets of rules, and so widening that gap isn't as dramatic as its been made to seem in this thread.

When using TK for movement, the figure being moved does not affect LoF, as the earlier quote from Steenbock said, with the physical justification that the object would be floating and therefore not interfere. It is almost akin to Super Strength's note that an object being carried is not considered terrain, really.

However, the rulebook says that an object-based TK attack should follow the rules for ranged combat actions, and as such the above quoted rule from the ranged combat section is followed. LoF is drawn before the attack is made, and so the physical justification used in the movement example does not hold true; the object has not yet begun to move and so would still be in the way. Or, using the SS analogy, the object would still be considered terrain, as the power has not yet begun to work. It essentially comes down to the fact that the LoF must be drawn before the attack and power take effect, so the object must still be accounted for.

dax---

teeman's comment was addressing your question. Once the Charging figure come's adjacent to an opponent, the movement portion of his action has ended. As such, he is unable to pick up an object as he comes adjacent; he cannot pick up the object from under a figure unless he waits for a later turn, breaks away, and so forth.

And yes, an object token may be attacked and reduced to rubble.

Alright! Go HeroComplex!

That's what I was trying to point out earlier. TK has several different forms, each with different rules and quirks. It's the same as Hypersonic Speed; you can't use the same rules for the repeat attack that you do for the hit'n'run. Ranged combat and close combat each have their own requirements, and you can't apply one to the other. I'm just glad to see that this is less of a stretch to confirm in the rules than I thought.

Herocomplex,

Your following comment is contradictory to what's written in the FAQ with regards to TK movement:

"When using TK for movement, the figure being moved does not affect LoF, as the earlier quote from Steenbock said, with the physical justification that the object would be floating and therefore not interfere. It is almost akin to Super Strength's note that an object being carried is not considered terrain, really."

This is inconsistent with the rules in the FAQ as follows:

Per the FAQ, for TK, it states very clearly: "You must have a clear line of fire to the target of a Telekinesis attack or to the target square of a Telekinesis move".

Also in the FAQ, for LOF, it states: "Execpt where otherwise specified in the printed rules (for example, Sentinels and the rules for elevated attackers on p.19), a square that is occupied by a figure always blocks line of fire."

Nowhere does it state, per your comments, that a figure is in front of a TK'er is considered "floating" and "would not interfere". This would need to be added to the FAQ stating just that. Otherwise, the square should still be considered "occupied" by that figure to be TK'd per the LOF ruling.

Lastly, your comment comparing moving the figure with TK to that of a figure with SS picking up an object is entirely opinion and is also nowhere in any of the written rules.

Are there plans for these adjustments to TK to be added to the next FAQ or will players have to be put at the mercy of judges that follow the implied assumptions that a figure is "floating and therefore not interfere " yet has no support in the written rules?

Please advise.

As Steenbock was HeroClix's first Rules Arbitrator, the comment of his being referenced is not merely conjecture or opinion, but an official clarification to the rules. Just as a ruling made by Chapeau would be now, it is either a clarification or addition to the rules as existing in the original rulebook. Yes, the FAQ confirms that LoF is needed for a Telekinetic movement, and Steenbock gave an exception to be applied to the establishment of that TK LoF.

I agree that it's unfortunate this ruling isn't in the current incarnation of the FAQ, but sometimes that's just the way it goes for whatever reason. Keep in mind, however, that one of the FAQ's first clarifications is that statements made by the rules arbitrator's are to be considered official, so its absence from the FAQ does not make it meaningless.

Regarding such Official Rules Arbitrator rulings, it also states that: "The ruling is only tournament legal when the FAQ is published on the Wizkid's website. The FAQ will have a Tournament Legal date on it."

Therefore, since some "official rulings" may not be "tournament legal" yet, shouldn't a tournament judge make his/her rulings solely based on those that ARE "tournament legal" per the FAQ?

I have a possible use for telekinesis

you can use it to bring a figure from soaring to hovering so your ground based figures can attack

Not purely, no. If there was a ruling, not yet in the FAQ, which stated that figures with Leadership could taxi, it would be a drastic change to the rules. In that case, until the ruling was made public it would be considered a house rule if enforced at a tournament.

On the other hand, something like the confirmation that Poison ignores Impervious would be considered a clarification, not a change, as it is already interpretable from the rules. If that came up at a tournament, the Judge would no matter what have to make a rules interpretation, and so he could make his ruling with the knowledge that WizKids themselves had also made that ruling.

HeroComplex,

For the "Poison ignores Impervious" example, you are correct in saying that it would be a clarification that can be interpretable from the rules.

However, the "floating figure" TK theory would definitely be a drastic change to the rules similar to your example about allowing figures with Leadership to taxi.

And because the "floating figure" thoery is NOT interpretable from the rules, and since there already ARE clear, cut-and-dry, interpretable rules in the FAQ regarding TK LOF requirements and the effect figures in front of the TK'er have on LOF, the "floating figure" theory should not be considered allowable in a judge's decision for "tournament legal" play (house rules aside).

To do so would contradict the FAQ, and then it'd be a MESS to decide which "official" rules should overrule those that are "tournament legal" per the FAQ. And then explaining the reasons behind it to players.