If I mind control someone's batman, can I use his outwit? If so, why. If not, why. Thanks

Yes you can. Even if your opponent already used it on his turn, you get to use it again.

Why? Because you have taken control of Batman. All his abilities are at your disposile. But under the new rules if you use his outwit, that is the only action you can give him.

How so? Outwit is a free action.

And Mind Control allows you to assign one free action. If you choose to use that free action for Outwit, so be it, but you are only allowed one action, and that's it.

In other words, the free action you are allowed to assign to Batman when he is MCed can be used for a combat action, a power action, a move action, or a free action as is.

Ah... thanks HC. That really bites. MC got screwed a second time!

Agreed. That really sucks for MCers. I will no longer be using Prof. X... ever.

Are you guys sure? I think that it's been ruled that the free action you get with mind control means free from your ALLOTMENT of actions, not a "free" action as in Outwit.



Happy Clixing,
Mike

Yes, they are sure. From DrGandalf:

"The Free Action given with Mind Control may be used for a Power Action, a Combat Action, a Move Action, or another Free Action. Using Free Actions such as Outwit with the Free Action given by Mind Control ends the Mind Control action."

And yes, this isn't quite what was originally stated / ruled on the subject, but it does match the PAC description and makes sense in that context.

Another victim of the poorly written rules...

Maybe after playing a while it won't be too bad, but the game is sounding more and more legalistic. "8 yrs and older", yeah if the 8yr olds use the figures to be shot with dart guns and firecrackers because many 8 year old won't be able to keep up with these rules.

I was playing Panzerblitz when I was 10. I've played against a couple decent pre-10 year olds in HeroClix (played more who couldn't play worth snot, played some 30+ year olds who couldn't play worth snot either, but I digress).

IMO if the rules were a bit more "legalistic", i.e. precisely worded and with a well defined terminology, it would be easier for people - including young players - to play. WizKids IMO rushed the new rule set, but their efforts were in the right direction. They've attempted to clarify things, clean the rule wording up, and make some necessary changes. They just let the horse out of the gate a little too early. If I was to make a prediction, I'd guess the next rule set incarnation will be even more "legalistic", and almost usable out of the box without any FAQ / errata. And that is a good thing.

8 is not 10. For adults the game will be challenging with the new rules. But few 8 year olds will want to take the time to research when perplex can and can not be used. There will always be a few who will go the distance, but more rules make is a less desireable distance for 8 year olds especially if they are playing more experienced players well versed on the rules. Unless the older players have a strong balance with being educaters compared to satisfying self ego needs with victories (and at 8 that may be a lot to ask) the rookie 8 yr olds will have difficulty. All of this is with the assumptions that adults love to read rules and love the game enoungh to give up other fun things with family and freinds to do it. I personally do love the game, but I don't think the average person does enough to do this.

Yes and no. They can fix this, but the fact they won't (so far) because that is what the PAC says even though Dr. G. has admited that this is not what they intended.

Fix what?

What it does is limits the actions that a MCed figure can be given. So you can only do one thing. Unless you just happen to have a figure with MC and two bolts.

If I understand how MC works now, you could then use one figure to Outwit/Perplex and the other to attack. This gives the extra options to figures with multiple attacks. And while it may leave sngle MC figures somewhat handicapped, it seems like (much with other rules) the change was made in the interest of balance and making the rule what it originally was supposed to represent. So they fixed what was broken as opposed to breaking what was fixed. This is all, of course, just my opinion.