I personally do believe the intention of the power is:

When giving Beast Boy a Move action to Morph, he will not take pushing damage. And yes, the only way to use Morph is to first take a Move action.

That's how I read it, but I do understand the semantical arguments otherwise.

You can kind of see what they're going for here, which is very similar to the Alter Egos switcheroo.

This Move action is comic book flavor, because traditionally, Beast Boy does "run" while transforming quite often.

So all that WK/NECA is saying that yes, you can change BB into another form, BUT, you have to Move right before doing it.

And oh yeah, if you move and have 1 token already, you won't take pushing damage for the second token!

Note also that powers based on triggering off other powers/effects traditionally start with 'Whenever ____'. The wording of Beast Boy's power, in contrast, is exactly the same opening as every power in the PAC.

This interpretation makes the most sense to me.

As mentioned, this is one possible correct interpretation given the current wording, but you cannot say that the other one is incorrect simply because you read it this way. I personally think the use of the word "Tokens" helps to justify the other interpretation, but again, that is just the way I read it.

I'm pretty sure there a rule that says an action cannot be made that would result in a character occupying an illegal space on the map (blocking terrain, wall, other character, etc.), so this one is way obvious. The only question regarding the double->single base transition is if you fail to breakaway with the Dino, can you place the new version in a square not-adjacent to the person you just failed to break away from.

"that deals no pushing damage" Seeing it can only deal the damage if you give the action shouldn't the wording (if meant to not be able to push) be this

"Give Beast Boy a move action that wouldn't deal him pushing damage"
or "Give Beast Boy a move, unless it would deal him pushing damage"

Either way i will concede that it is one of most poor wording choices since the original Time Walk in MTG "Target player looses his or her next turn." They loose the ability to have that turn or they loose the game on that turn?

Ha ha! I think they loose their next turn, as it let it loose on the opponent!

If that's actually how the text was printed, it's completely understandable that no one would know what the card's effect was meant to be!

My two cents:

1. The power is worded descriptively:

-----"Give BB a move action that does not deal pushing damage..."

Grammatically similar:

-----"Give me an apple that does not have a worm..."

The "that" which is utilized seems to be describing the type of action that is going on, but does not seem to be telling the person giving BB the action to not apply pushing damage.

In the past, when Wizkids wanted you to use a power as an action but not apply pushing damage, they stated it much more clearly. Something like "this action deals no pushing damage if it normally would."

2. Move actions and break away.

If a character is adjacent to an opposing character, that character can be given an action and may attempt to break away as a necessary part of that action. The player guide (I'm using the FF4 reissued) refers to the action as thus "when given an action....that character fails to break away and can't move; the action is over..." (pg. 8). The language indicates that the type of action would be conserved. If it were a power action, the power action would be over. If it were a move action, the move action would be over. This is different than, say, shape change where a character cannot do the action, but must take a different action at minimum.

Furthermore, the guide says that "[t]here are only four types of actions that you can give to a character: power action[s], Move action[s], Close combat action[s, and] Ranged combat action[s]." (pg. 7). If the break away fails on an initiated move action, what type of action would result, except a move action? The alternative are that the action would result in a ranged combat action, a close combat action, or a power action. None of these make sense. The result must be that the type of action remains the same even if the break away fails.

Since the type of action remains the same even if the break away fails, BB would be able to transform even if the break away fails.

gfishfunk: fully licensed lawyer, looking for work, spending free time arguing heroclix rules.

The other logical way to look at it is this:

Why would WK/NECA allow Alter-Egos to push to change form, but not allow Beast Boy to push to change form?

Semantics aside, the idea that Beast Boy can ONLY transform when he has zero action tokens really doesn't make sense.

Therefore, the most real-world (and Heroclix) logical interpretation is the other interpretation, which was the one I stated above:

When giving Beast Boy a Move action to Morph, he will not take pushing damage. And yes, the only way to use Morph is to first take a Move action.

I'm going to admit that I haven't read the whole thread, but I'l try to keep up with this going forward.

1 - Beast Boy is given a move action and gets to move. If he is doing so in order to Morph (which you declare before moving) then after the move is done, he gets to change. If this action assigns him a second token, no pushing damage is applied.

2 - Because the swap takes place after the action resolves, if Beast Boy fails to break away, then the action resolves (though the power is not done). Now resolved, you can exchange Beast Boy.

3 - When exchanging Beast Boy, it is one of three possibilities:

Both Beast Boys bases are the same -> the new figure occupies the same squares as the old one.

The new Beast Boy's base is smaller than the old one -> the new figure occupies one of the squares the old one occupied.

The new Beast Boy's base is larger than the old one -> the new figure occupies the squares the old one occupied and the other bases can be wherever the active player wants them to be.

Thanks for the clarification Norm.

The only remaining question I have is if one square of the T-Rex is based and he fails to break away, can he swap out the new form into the square that wasn't adjacent to the character he failed to break away from?

O = Opponent, 1&2 = the bases of the T-Rex, X = blank square

XOX
X1X
X2X

If the T-Rex fails to break away, can the new Beast Boy occupy square 2?

Just thought of a new question as well:

Say you are using Beast Boy prime, and he is equipped with Shellhead, and has 1 action token.

EDIT: Beast Boy can't be assigned Shellhead because he has no damage reducers, I'm an airhead, but the question still stands sans the Shellhead part!)

Can you use a Move action to use Morph to change into another Beast Boy prime (ie the exact same character), and avoid the pushing damage, but still get the second token?

Essentially what I'm asking, can the Cheetah turn into another Cheetah, or can the Bear turn into another Bear?

And if so, do you actually need 2 copies of that certain piece? If I change from a Cheetah into a Cheetah, do I need a second Cheetah off the board?

I imagine that you would have to Morph into a different figure to get the bonus, otherwise it is just abusive, other than that, Cheetah doesn't qualify for the bonus as it does not have a defense reducer.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Shellhead prerequisites, but I'm guessing the question still stands, thanks for pointing that out, ChiRocker.

Aside from my Shellhead misstep, there may be a future feat or something which also activates when a character has two tokens, so it could come up in the future.

The trait says: Replace him with any character with this trait on the same click number.

Any character with the same trait would include the exact same character, correct?

But the bigger question is whether you would officially need to have one off the board to change into the exact same character.

I imagine you would need to have a duplicate off the board.

I guess you could trade a T-Rex out for another T-Rex to get a 20 defense, but you would have to waste a turn (the move action would not allow you to do anything other than move), but I would rule that you would have to have another one physically there to pull it off, but that is if the judge will allow such skulduggery.