SOUL MAGIC: When Faust KO's a character, you may choose a standard power from that character's card. He can use that power until he chooses again.

If Faust Ko's a character like Teekl or the Brain could he take a power from one of them, even though their "card" is the back of their master's card?

Is a bystander considered a "carded figure"?

Interesting question.

I can see a "no" - the "master" has a card, the "servant" doesn't - as a possible WK answer.

It was one of those weird things I was thinking of, like where a pog has a special trait or power it is printed on the cardboard piece where the token gets punched out of. I wonder if that is a card as well?

I've asked on WIN to be sure. Whether or not it is approved is another matter since they deleted the other Faust thread.

Subscribing for curiosity.

And what if it's a character that is too old to have a character card?

Curse you team majestix for making something more complicated.

Ruling: As long as the bystander is printed on a character card (example: Teekl and The Brain), Faust's Soul Magic can copy the Bystander's standard power as if they were characters themselves.

http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....3d39928#p23065

Good lord that is a terrible ruling. There are too many "spwaned" bystanders now that aren't printed on cards because they included the tokens with the figure. Just a blanket "No" for bystanders would have been fine (especially since bystanders never have cards, that card is another figures, not the bystanders), but this "sometimes, sorta maybe" crap needs to stop. Game design keeps saying they want to streamline and simplify the game. I do not think that means what they think it means.

Taking powers from Dr. Demonicus' colossals is fine, but god forbid we let Faust get Defend from Bowstring. Ugh.

I fail to see how this is terrible. No matter how this was answered, it is an arbitrary decision, since these bystanders don't fit within the wording of the effect. No matter how they sliced it, someone wasn't going to be happy.

If anything, I think this solution is the best since it does involve a character card (even if it isn't, strictly speaking, the bystanders's).

Its terrible because its inconsistent. Bystanders don't have cards, I think we can both agree on that. Its really not an arbitrary ruling. Technically, it should just be "No". If design wanted to allow it to take powers from bystanders, then they could easily just say that the stuff printed on the face of a bystander token is considered its "card" (which follows the logic of that also being considered its "dial").

Differentiating how a power interacts with something because of the material its printed on is not a good ruling. A "yes" or a "no", for whatever arbitrary reasons they want to come up with, is perfectly fine. This isn't. Its counter-intuitive, is in no way supported by the actual rules, and completely flies in the face of everything the company has been touting about trying to make improvements to the game for months now.

This is incorrect. Some bystanders do have cards, like HENRY, the Spider-Bots and Toyman's toys. Those are bystanders and they have cards.

[Emphasis added]

A bystander has no dial, not a card. That is how it is supported.

*ALL* rulings are, at their heart, arbitrary. They are they way they are because WK says so.

Now, ideally, they say so based on other material (like the rule book), but it is still because WK says so.

Like special power wordings and keywords?

Not really. Is there a character card? Yes? Then you're good. That's pretty easily intuitive. Not perfect, sure, but still pretty easy.

How so? Or, at least, how so any more than some other "because we said so" rulings?