I gotta admit, it's a guilty pleasure of mine to witness these self-implosions. Kinda like reality TV only without the skanks.

Honestly, the only way I want to respond is simple: "it doesn't work the way you want. Deal with it or make your own house rules. Or just go play another game."
But I'll actually respond to your idea here. It has no merit. Whatsoever. Like, seriously, none. If the old Colossals all had universal rules and there was a clear demarcation point at the release of the GSX Colossals, you'd have a point, but still not a cause for argument like you seem to think. The fact is, all the old Colossals had different rules from each other. The first Galactus could attack three times, and the second one couldn't. Clearly the JL CoG Galactus' lack of the "Cosmic" Multi-Attack is an over-sight that requires errata, right? Wrong. The first two Galactus' ignore Penetrating/Psychic Blast and the third one doesn't. Clearly the GG Galactus' lack of immunities is an over-sight that requires errata, right? Wrong.
It is a very simple rule here. So simple that if you can't get it, then you're playing the wrong game... Every "old" colossal has a rules sheet. Every "new" colossal has a character card. These sheets/cards are required to play the figure. These sheets/cards spell out what that character can(not) do. If that sheet/card says that they can(not) then they can(not). Very simple.

If we were voting, I would vote to get rid of the destroy objects rule for all colossals.

Wow, you are stubborn.

The old colossals have a special sheet that comes with them that have special rules for each colossal. That has also changed. So you think that was an over site? Do we need errata that the new colossals are sold in blind boosters but the old ones were ALWAYS sold in clearly marked packages?

Stop being so dense.

You have received an answer. Same answer several times.

So tell us, did you lose a big game because your colossal couldn't go stomp the Gamma Bomb out of exsistance?

I'd rather just have the skanks.

You ain't lyin', brother...

@ Comic Junkie: No, Calb, the best answer isn't to play MA, it is to acquire all copies of said older collosals and melt them, using the combined plastic to create bullet proof vests to wear when all of the collectors who notice their GA collosals missing come looking...

You guys seem to think I'm bothered by the ruling. Or that I'm bothered by Colossals either destroying, or not destroying objects.

It seemed unreasonable to me that Old colossals all destroy objects, but new ones don't. So I thought there was a chance it was an oversite which was errataed somewhere, so I asked here.

I got the Official word that there was no errata, and I not only accepted that, but I thanked the person for clarifying this.

Now I did express my opinion that I think it adds extra complexity to the game for no good benefit to have two different rules governing this situation. It just makes memorizing the rules that much harder with no up side. Comically speaking there is no logical reason why half the Sentinals would destroy stood on objects and the other half wouldn't, ditto for Galactus.

But what really surprises me is everyone here doggedly defending having two different rules for this. Maybe I'm going the wrong direction with this. So if two different rules for handling colossals on objects is better than one, maybe we need 3 or 4 different rules. That would be even better. Better yet; Every colossal could do something completely different when they land on an object. Think of all the beneficial added complexity there!!! If every colossal did something different when it landed on an object, there would be pretty much no way anyone would be able to remember all 25 different rules, and everyone would have to refer to their figure card or rules sheet. WOW what a massive improvment that would be! Am I going the right direction now? I mean if 2 rules for the same condition are better than one, surely 25 different rules would be even better yet!

Or you just read the darn rules for each colossal when playing them. If you actually did that, tou'd see that they already aren't the same. So more than 4 colossal rules exist... And don't cause problrms for those that read the rules!

Dude, I understand the ruling. I'm not confused (anymore, thanks to the original responce), about what happens.

What I'm commenting on, is that we have several differenet rules for what happens when a Colossal figure moves onto an object. While I understand the rule, my point is, it's unnecessarily pointless, to have multiple rules.

BTW, I just reviewed the rules and picked up on something I didn't notice before:

If a the original Sentinal lands on an object, it destroys it leaving a rubble marker.

If an advanced Sentinal lands on an object, it detroys it, but doesn't leave a rubble marker.

If a new sentinal from GSX lands on an object, it doesn't destroy the object.

My point is, this is unnecessarily confusing. The game doesn't benefit from having three different rules governing this situation. In the future if someone else is confused and asks what happens when a Colossal moves over or lands on an object? Instead of being able to give that person a straight simple answer, you have to answer either answer their question with another question to find out which colossal they are talking about, or you have to tell that person to look up that particular colossal's special rules card or character card, AND, if nothing is written on the character card describing this situation, then that colossal does not destroy the object when it lands on it. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THAT COMPLICATED? We have bonus complexity, with NO BENEFIT! It doesn't enrich the game in some way having three different things happen when three different sentinals stand on an object.

You seem to have omitted the part here where you started bashing the designers by claiming that they obviously overlooked something when designing the new figures.

First of all, you are neglecting Groot. (To be fair, he couldn't move while having the symbol.)

Secondly, people are simply bound to believe whatever they want about colossals either way. I still know people who seem to think that all colossals can Capture. Why? Because many of the first ones could and nobody who was not a colossal could. Ergo people drew the false conclusion that all colossals could capture.

You seem to be wanting to do the same thing. Simply because the first few colossals crushed objects, you expect that they all do.

Whether or not something makes sense comically is irrelevant. This always is true for any and all rules, not just this one. I cannot stress this point enough. The rules are the only things that should ever be considered when trying to understand how mechanics work. One should never allow what might happen in comics to be considered in any way shape or form.

Also consider that when the majority of object crushing colossals come from a time prior to special objects...specifically they come from a time before objects cost a player points to field. I suspect that the newer ones lack this because it is too unbalanced in the modern game to allow any figure to simply make most objects go *poof*.

That's not true. The older sentinel uses the Advanced Sentinel rules for everything but points.

I don't see that as complicated. Nor would the progression go as you state.

It would simply be this:

Colossal figures do not automatically destroy objects. Certain ones do, though, and you should check their rules to see if the colossal in question has such rules.

I've actually answered the question pretty much exactly like that several times in the past.

And our point is that this same thing happens throughout the game. How many different Professor X figures are there? How many have a 12 range? How many can make attacks via friendly characters? How many have a hover chair vs. a standard wheelchair? It adds complexity and options. The same way the different Colossal characters do.

This thread is hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

Posting in a black hole, indeed.

"Bashing" ??!? That seems like a harsh description of me pointing out there might be an oversite. I don't recall calling them names or saying they were stupid, or anything of the sort. I just said it seemed like an oversite.


Incorrect. I actually don't care one way or another if they destroy objects, or don't destroy object or leave rubble when they do or not.

What I do want, is ONE RULE. I don't care what that rule is, so long as it is one answer. When someone asks a simple question like "Do colossals destroy objects when they land on them?" It would be better for the game if they got a simple "Yes or no" answer, and not have to answer that question with another question to find out which colossal they are talking about, or answer their question by telling them they need to read the colossal they are talking about's rule sheet or character card.

This is not entirely true. The indoor/outdoor map packs with the dumpster, lamp post etc, etc I think predates all the colossals with the possible exception of the first sentinal. You have a some ground to stand on where special objects that cost points are concerned, but most of those you would place close to your own starting area so that you would get to them before object destroying colossals. And objects like the Gamma Bomb are indestructable, so it could easily be ruled that indestructable objects aren't destroyed by colossals. (If you choose to make the universal rule that colossals do destroy objects. Which I really don't care either way, I'm just as happy if the unversal rule were colossals don't destroy objects. I just want ONE rule, not 3 (or more).

I should confess that I find it sorta funny you would bring up the Gamma Bomb in a discussion about "Game Balance" since it's widely regarded as a massively unbalanced object. Probably the second most unbalanced object to the Infinity Gauntlet.

Really? The Original Sentinal rules are obsolete? So if you do answer a question about Colossals and Objects, like you did below, you ALSO need to include that cevat that "if the special rules for the colossal you are using happen to be the original Sentinal rules, you need to ignore those and instead look in the advanced Sentinal rules.

WOW, so do you notice that your answer here doesn't actually provide a funtional answer for the person who asked you this question. You are basically telling them to "look it up yourself". Which sort of "isn't helpful".
Especially since you didn't even give them the warning about which Special Rules Sheets are obsolete.

This question keeps becoming more and more of a mess. (More reason to have a single rule about this behavior. Then you wouldn't need to give confused questioneer answers that are cryptic answer. You could just answer them directly with an answer they could immediately use without further research.)