EEMMMMM Subway

And that is the bottom line.

Eh, not my fault that they don't know their own rules... If I don't agree with them that much, then I will fight to the death to argue my side to our local judge... Most of the time I just suck it up and play by their rules, regardless of how arbitrary some of their rulings are... but this one I wouldn't let slide.

The new giant rules are a boost because now they can go where they want without getting tied up by a lousy pog from two squares out. They can Charge who they want without needing some overpriced feat card to do so. And being able to carry gives them a little bit more versatility, too. A few of the cheaper giants like Stature and Toyman lost a lot with the changes, but more got a bit more playable, IMO.

Didn't under the old rules, either.

The "improved" mobility came at the cost of being unable to tie up figures two squares away. In my book, whether it was Toyman or Trigon, the trade-off was bad.

Old rules:
The grounded giant in a square immediately next to the elevated figure was adjacent. That figure could not make ranged attacks. (Excluding the exceptions via flight, of course.)

This is a change.

How so I was right, but with the old rules.

There's a Subway next to our venue....

There's one next to the venue I used to go to.

So you're saying that to further stretch their money Norm made this ruling to drive the Clix crowd to Subway more often? Is WK's now getting a percentage of those sales?

There is one next to Comic Town, isn't there?

All of a sudden I am waiting for a Jared clix.....

10 speed, 6 attack, 12 defense, 0 damage, special power that does the same thing as Nanobots called "Subway Sammich".

You see, Wizkids is more sinister then anyone ever contemplated.
If we strike down their rulings they'll become more devious then we could ever imagine.

So, I've read through this thread, along with other threads about Norm's rulings that are questionable or bring up a lot of...discussion, for lack of a better word.

Now I wonder if Norm even plays clix. Just some of the rulings seem obviously incorrect when used in a game. Whereas outside of the game they can seem have a decent reason behind them.

Thoughts, queries...

I typically stay quiet when people don't like the rulings I come back with. Mostly because I understood going into this job that that kind of sniping was inevitable.

My job is to (a) give people my opinion on rulings when questions come up (b) take questions that I think need clarification to Game Design (c) get answers from them, get clarifications on those answers, help WK to see where consistency issues may lie and (d) bring the answers back here.

For whatever its worth, when this question first came up, my instinctive answer was that there would be one roll. Do some searching on the WK forums and you'll find it. However, as the conversation with WK took place, the answer I got back was that you roll per perplex. It's consistent with other mechanics like Lex Luthor and Spider-Woman.

With all of that, I've not said anything on this thread, because I honestly don't care what people's opinions are of the rules.

But to accuse me of not playing clix - sorry. That makes me regret negative rep being off this site. Playing clix is one of the few things I do for the pure unadulterated enjoyment of it. I play as often as possible. I discuss teams with friends and plan for weekend games with them, even when I don't get the chance to play.

Get to know me before you insult me like that.


EDIT: Went through this thread from the beginning - in a nutshell, 8 opinions beside mine were expressed. The fell about 50/50 as to whether or not they agree with the ruling. So whatever your opinion may be, the ruling is not that far off base, despite your opinion. So if you're gonna call me out as someone who you don't think plays the game, you may want to look for something that a little more of an outlier than this.

Actually, I can't. Seeing as how every time I've brought a question up WK's has taken away my ID/post/or other ability to comment on their boards. Being censored too often tends to leave a bad image and I decide to post here instead.


Not really sure about the SW connection. But:

Lex's:

EVERYTHING HAS A PRICE: Lex Luthor can use Perplex. When he modifies the combat value of a target friendly character, roll a d6; on a result of a 1, deal the target 1 unavoidable damage at the end of the turn.

and Strange's:

WAND OF WATOOMB: Dr. Strange can use Perplex. When Dr. Strange uses Perplex, you can roll a d6; on a result of 5 or 6, you can modify the target's chosen combat value by +2 or -2.

It's a different wording on both powers. One is when the figure activates the power and the other is when the modifier is made.

BT requires the use of Perplex to activate. It doesn't grant multiple uses of Perplex:

When the character uses Perplex, the character can affect every target friendly character that shares a team symbol or keyword with it. The character must have a clear line of fire to each target.

Since Strange's roll is made during the use of Perplex it should only be rolled once. Whereas Lex's is rolled specifically when he modifies a combat value.

Though I don't see where asking whether you actually play or not is an insult. I know I've both given and received worse comments than that and folks don't take them as insults.

Apologies there for I knew not how sensitive you were. But my offer is still open, PM me and I'll get you that 1200pt team list you can use. Play a couple games and see if you'd like to bring the issue back up on that ruling. If it ends up blanketing Lex & future figures, cool. If not? Oh well, I'll just be taking a lot of time during my turns trying to keep straight who has what Perplexed and by how much.