Thanks.

There's a quote of the ruling on page 7 of that thread.

ComicJunkie, you were involved in that very discussion, and even stated the ruling yourself in post #6. Though after reading the entire thread, I can see why you maybe have repressed the memories of it. My head hurts now.

Let us learn from the past so as not to repeat its mistakes.

Now that this thread has been well and truly derailed, I wonder what ever happened to those 100 chases?

So, has it ever been the case that resources like the round table were considered assigned to the whole team?

And what happens if you run the BOTS with Overdrive, you just can't make the vehicle?

No. As I said, there are only 2 resources with this wording.

You can make the vehicle. It will not be assigned the resource. Other posts by RD's made it clear that the "Assign" part only mattered during force construction. The weird part is that neither the Power Plant nor the Book of the Skull actually care whether a character was assigned the resource or not, since any friendly character could use their effects. So, characters that joined your force during the game could still use them, even though they were not actually assigned.

I just realized that in a 1600 point game it is technically possible to start with 19 special objects. Not a good team but just funny that you could.

I mean, sure, if you play any and all figures that start the game with something equipped/assigned. Thor chases and other characters, Sins, stuff like TT Wonder Girl and Harvest, etc.

The ruling has been removed and the text of the rule book no longer supports it. It looked like a stealth change which is why I asked. Subsequent rulings of similar mechanics have gone the other way (equipment) and I still find nothing in either rules document indicating that it is still true. The sentence about KOing resources once no assigned figure seemed like it was addressing it. I really wish they kept previous rulings archived for situations like these.

I guess it’s a play it as you always have thing.

The rule book supports simply because there is nothing, anywhere, making an exception. I don't understand why you need a rule book entry telling you an illegal game state isn't legal.

I'm also not sure what other rulings you think apply here. I can't think of any. I'm not aware of any equipment that tries to forcibly equip itself to something that cannot legally be equipped. Even if there was something, you can't equate 2 entirely different mechanics. Equipment does not work "similarly" to resources, or relics, or whatever else. Don't conflate unrelated game mechanics.

It's an odd case, and is likely one of the reasons they stopped using that wording on resources after those 2, which came out back-to-back. It was also clearly discussed by the rules team, and they decided to keep it as-is.

I just looked at some of those older threads and my head exploded.

I was playing while some of those elements were in the game, but never realized that these issues existed.

Perhaps because all of the mechanics have been reworded and previous made mention of contradictory situations.

Rulings about equipped characters whose size changes and what becomes of the equipment because an illegal situation is now occurring. I stated my reasons, pointed out the questionable statement, and looked for a ruling that has been taken down for unknown reasons. There’s no need to question why I think a way when I clearly mentioned it, hence a question in a rules forum.

As I didn’t use any declaration of right or wrong a simple answer with documentation would suffice as opposed to stirring the pot and stoking a fire. If you can’t answer a question without rudely questioning ones lack of understanding you should allow another volunteer to assume the position, or get some good rest first. I’m not your average idiot, just slightly above

Once again thanks for taking the time to help me find the answer (or rule on it at least) and apologies to anyone who feels misled.

No one is stirring any pots or stoking any fires. Sorry if you feel like I was being rude. Not my intention. But you made an statement that the rules don't support what the ruling is. Given that the basis of the ruling is that you can't do something that the game elements specifically say you can't do, I just didn't understand your reasoning. I was more asking you to show me what, exactly, you were thinking was the supporting evidence on your side, because I simply am not aware of any.

Trying to use other rulings about unrelated things in a rules discussion, even just vague references, isn't helpful. Especially when we don't really have any idea what, specifically, you're referring to. To use your equipment example, the size changing issue was something they had to change later on. They specifically added something to the Equip rules themselves to deal with it. For a while, that situation caused the equipment to fall off. Then they issued an intent ruling, and rolled that into the base rules for equipment in the new rules.

Saying "all the mechanics have been reworded" isn't really true. A couple things have changed, but nothing relevant to how these specific resources are assigned has changed, nor have any of the rules about characters that can't be assigned resources in general.

As for stating that I should "allow another volunteer to assume the position", I'm not the only one on the HCR Rules Team. I'm just by far the most active. Not throwing shade at any of the others, and I can't speak for them as far as how much time and effort they put into things here. But I read every single post in every single thread in the Rules Forum. And I spend a ton of time researching pretty much every answer I give. Usually, its as simple as copy/pasting a quote from the rule book or PAC. Other times I spend literally hours trying to dig through threads from 4 years ago trying to prove a negative to someone because they can't accept something. And no, that isn't meant to be rude, just a bit of sass. If I was going to purposely be rude to people, I wouldn't put nearly so much time and effort into this. I would hope that maybe I'd have earned the benefit of the doubt in that regard by now.

I just try to cover when Lantern is sleeping.

Plus I've been terribly sick the past week and sleeping waaaaay too much.

Plus...working on...other projects...

You lazy devil!!

I’ll admit to being too lazy to look things up today but I will review the available resources, cite specific terms and rulings once I have had an opportunity to organize them and pose my questions more concisely. I will create a new thread once I’ve done so as to not derail this thread any further. Keep in mind it’s not an attempt at a different ruling, more of seeking clarification as to why certain instances create x but sometimes y.

I understand the time allotment involved, it’s why I thanked you for taking said time. The why should they put a line in a rules document comment I found to be unproductive as the answer is people are still confused and now you have to take time from your day to answer questions about it. The more clarifications in the rules the less questions you need to answer as I review them before posting (as we all should). Once again I appreciate your time effort and energy and your contributions to educating the player base.