Yes you read the title correctly... Apparently if I am emailed a ruling and I post that email here then that ruling is not official for everyone

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
Jun 27 (5 days ago)

to heroclixrules
Good Afternoon,

I have a question for you. Lets say you have a force that includes an
Entity and a Team Base. You use Solo Adventure for one of the figures
on the Team Base. The Entity is then KO'd. Can the Entity choose to
posses the character on a Solo Adventure? If so what happens to the
Entity if that character returns to the Team Base via A Team Reunited?

Thank you,
Matt

[email protected]
4:59 PM (15 hours ago)

to me
Hello Matt,

The entity can possess a character that entered the game through Solo Adventure. If that character reattached to the Team Base, you would turn that characters dial to a KO click and the entity would match the click number of that dial.

Heroclix Rules Team

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
5:00 PM (15 hours ago)

to heroclixrules
Thank you. Would this turning of the dial cause the Entity to be removed from the game?



[email protected]
5:07 PM (15 hours ago)

to me
No, the entity would remain on the sideline until the possessed character enters the game again.



-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
5:09 PM (15 hours ago)

to heroclixrules
Hmmm ok. Can you please explain how this different from the Z-Virus? It was ruled that if a Solo Adventure character received Virus Tokens and then Reunited the tokens would be removed.



[email protected]
5:17 PM (15 hours ago)

to me
Can you please forward to use the email in which that question was ruled?



-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
5:19 PM (15 hours ago)

to heroclixrules
It was quoted as being an official email response on HCRealms. Is that not an accurate ruling?



[email protected]
7:17 AM (1 hour ago)

to me
Hi,


We have recently made a change to the process for submitting rules inquiries for HeroClix:

For all HeroClix rules inquiries, please email [email protected]

This is a change from the previously used Gmail address. Inquiries sent to the email address above will be responded to directly via email. Please note that this is the only official method for rules inquiries. WizKids Games will periodically post rules-related documents, articles and other information on our HeroClix Rules Questions webpage ( which can be found by clicking the “Rules Question” tab on Heroclix.com).

This is from the announcement. Any rulings posted on other sites are not official. You can continue to contact us here for rulings, as well as your tournament Volunteer/Store on any rulings that happen during an event

Hope this helps

- HeroClix Rules Team





-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
8:29 AM (0 minutes ago)

to heroclixrules
Thank you for that reply and I was already aware of this. The ruling
was from an email given to another player and was quoted directly from
that person's email.

So now I have two questions.

1) If a character uses Solo Mission to pop off of the Team Base and is
then given Z-Virus tokens. What happens to those tokens if that
character is then put back onto the Team Base via A Team ReUnited?

2) Are rulings delivered via email only official rulings for the
person who received that email or are the the official rulings for all
players?


I will repost any updates that I get, but this could be very bad as that would mean that the rules are literally different for everyone and sending them an email with a rules question is 100% useless....



====EDIT====

Here is their reply and my follow up question. Right now I'm very happy with the sensible reply that I received.

[email protected]
10:28 AM (3 minutes ago)

to me
Hello Matt,

1. The tokens would remain on the card of the character that was removed. If that character enters play again, they will keep the assigned tokens.

2. Answers to rules questions provided through [email protected] are official rulings to the question(s) asked. The person that receives the ruling is free to share the information as they wish.



-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
10:32 AM (0 minutes ago)

to heroclixrules
Thank you very much for that. You had both myself and several others
very worried about the ramifications of being unable to share those
responses.

Is it ok to send follow up or confirmation requests to rules questions
that were sent to this email address by other players? I'm just
worried that various nefarious individuals might try to abuse the
system and I want to ensure there is as much clarity as possible for
everyone.

===EDIT===
[email protected]
10:37 AM (10 minutes ago)

to me
Any and all rules questions can be sent to [email protected].



-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
10:39 AM (8 minutes ago)

to heroclixrules
I understand that, but is it OK to quote a ruling that was emailed to someone else or would that create confusion and be a bad idea?



[email protected]
10:43 AM (3 minutes ago)

to me
You may quote a previous email ruling if you have the exact quote available.



-----Original Message-----
From: "Matt Wishart" <[email protected]>

Matt Wishart <[email protected]>
10:44 AM (2 minutes ago)

to heroclixrules
Thank you. That is perfect!


A good sensible response that clears the waters and will make our lives MUCH easier. I'm actually very happy right now.

This will work well.

Hmmm does this also mean that ALL previous rulings given by a Rules Deputy on this or any other site is no longer the official ruling?

If so that will change a lot of things as there are multiple rulings that were made, but never updated in the Rules Documentation....

Cans opened, worms everywhere.

I don't see anything too terrible here... there have been disagreements among the rules team in the past. They have this magical cave where they work things out.

It seems like your current email partner doesn't agree that the tokens would be removed if a Solo Adventure character received Virus Tokens and then Reunited.

So if someone else previously posted an email response on hcrealms, you gotta get that other person's email to see who answered the question differently previously via email...

...

...

Ohhhh, NOW I see why email is gonna be harder to keep track of than forum posts.

Instead of "here's a link where another Orange said differently," we have no way of showing previous "official" rulings that were given to someone else.

This was one of my first thoughts when this whole thing started. But why does the recent website post overrule the Comprehensive Tournament Rules about where official rulings come from?

WOrms worms woRMS!

If a ruling is only official for the person emailed then an opponent may possibly have a different ruling from a separate email during the same game for the same question?

sweet.

This is what I was most afraid of happening with this kind of system, as it's exactly the situation Warhammer/WH40k players experienced with GW's identical "Rulezboyz" system. What players of GW games experienced was a ton of issues with their system, including inconsistent rulings, contradictory rulings and rulings that were just flat-out wrong. Eventually most players lost faith in the Rulezboyz system and the community created it's own rules committee on the Direwolf message board, including a Direwolf FAQ. This document became the main resource outside the rulebook and army books for most major tournaments not run by GW. This was the case for years. That situation has since been corrected by GW issuing regular FAQ documents, but I still wouldn't email the Rulezboyz as a Warhammer player, if the email address is even still valid.

I was hoping WK would implement a system with more consistency and oversight (and still am hoping that is the case, FWIW). Hopefully we'll get word that this is just a miscommunication and isn't really as bad as it looks.

And the fun bus rolls along!

Here come the post with 5 different rulings via email on the same question.... Dem worms doh....

Awesome Sauce! Chaos Awaits!

Seems more than a little ridiculous.

Opps wrong thread. This issue is weird

It seems that they intentionally want as little transparency with rulings as possible.

My theory on that is that with the new method that they instituted at Origins (the 'don't be a rules dink' rule) is that when they need to make an on-the-spot ruling at a major event, they can neuter 'problematic' or abusive strategies right there and the player will have no 'official' rule to reference unless they happened to have previously e-mailed the rules team and gotten a response.

... So anyone planning on running a strategy with a weird rules interaction, you had all better e-mail the rules team and get your response *before* Gencon. Otherwise, I'd see them ruling against you on the fly to keep with their 'don't be a rules dink' policy.

It's ironic that they are planning on moving in the direction of player rankings with the new WES, but have effectively cut off any central source for collected rulings. Why bother trying to rank up if rules have the potential to be interpreted differently from venue to venue?

The solution is not great. But the root of the problem is poor design. They have little to no consistency in the rules terminology and they allow too many problematic elements to intermingle with little element interaction testing.

Furthermore, they dont have a good grasp of what would cause a "problem", so they dont do a good job of testing.

Here's another observation: could they effectively institute a new Playtest system without making new figures seem like they are underpowered compared with all of the untested OP stuff we've gotten in the last 3 years?

Would having balanced figures actually end up having players lose interest if every release isn't introducing new and 'moar broken' strategies?