If you mind control a figure and it your opponets last figure do you automatically win the game due to him not have any members on his team to use. The rules are a little vague on this one way you can read it says yes because he has no figures left on his force .But another says after the action on mind control as a free action you can use the figure then it returns back to your opponet .

No, because you need to do something with the figure, after the free action the figure is released, so it is only temporarily a member of your party.

This question belongs in the rules forum.

The rules actually aren't all that vague, but easy to miss. From page 14 of the recent book:

When you mind control an opposing figure, the figure becomes friendly, but the action has not yet resolved. When the mind control action resolves, it is over, and the figure is back in the control of your opponent. So, mind control cannot be used to quick-end the game this way.

Note that Deadman and Jericho have a power called "Possession", which allows for long-term mind control that lasts well after the action that triggered it resolves. If you use one of them on your opponent's last figure, you can indeed instantly win the game when the action resolves.

Great way to deal with Galactus or other colossal as part of a force .

That depends.

If you Possess the colossal and it was the last (only) piece your opponent had, then he game will end.

Just hope that you have more victory points at that point because you score none for the colossal.

Like Harpua implied, it isn't an instant win if you use Possession on your opponent's last character. Rather, the game ends immediately (the rules don't seem to require the action to resolve but it doesn't make much of a difference) and you total victory points.

From the Player's Guide:

On the contrary, the rules explicitly state that the action has to end.

Page 14:
If the action hasn't resolved, the game won't end.

Possession is unlike Mind Control in that the target is still friendly to you after the action has resolved.

I would think the Player's Guide creates its own ending condition independent of the one you quoted in the rulebook.

From the Player's Guide:
Although you could argue that using Possession means letting the Possession action completely resolve. (Which would be a completely reasonable ruling.) And if you wanted to further support that position, another Player's Guide entry might do that.

From the Player's guide:
But I don't think the quote you provided has any bearing on this at all.

You can think that all you want, but you'd be incorrect.

The statement you quote is a derivative of the line I quoted. It was added to clarify how the situation occurs.

I can only imagine a world in which the Player's Guide actually represents the rules.

I like to think of it as a guide to help the players.

As in...

"Hmm...the rulebook says that when an action resolves and a player has no figures left the game ends. Well, with this Possession thing an action has ended with my opponent sorta having no guys. It would seem like the game should end. Well, let's see what kind of guidance I get from the Player's Guide. Well, whaddaya know? I was right."

But if something in the Player's Guide wants to reference something like that, it should explicitly say so. The Player's Guide shouldn't be so opaque that you need to have been playing Heroclix from Day 1 to know that the rule in the Player's Guide is connected to another rule.

The Rulebook also says that if only one player has (undefeated) characters at the end of the game, that player is the winner. However, the other part of the rule in question clearly says that isn't the case. But in the first example, you're suppose to know that the action needs to resolve even though it doesn't say it. Just too much inference going on.

Why does one need to know this?


It most certainly does not. At the end of the game, the Possessed figure has not been defeated.
If one reads the rulebook, one sees that.
Or yet again too much trolling unsuccessfully to find the molehills with which you seemingly love to make mountains.

To make the connection you've suggest.

But it would seem to someone unversed in the history of Heroclix as you that the Player's Guide is providing an alternative, not connected, end to the game.

Why if someone disagrees with the way you interpret the rules are they making a mountain out of a molehill? First, any issue can be fixed through the Player's Guide. (This particular issue actually exists entirely in the Player's Guide.) Second, I can actually see a completely different rational for the ruling. I'm disagreeing with your rationale; that's all. If you don't want to engage in the discussion, you don't have to.

How can you be so sure? You've been around longer than me writing up popular threads on movement and lines of fire. To say that you can somehow magically see how someone unversed would read it is ludicrous.



This issue DOESN'T exist. You are trying to make one exist where there is not one. That's making a mountain out of a molehill.