Rules Team HQ - Open for Business

[quozl]

Originally Posted by tcglkn

We already said a figure who can't move because they are stuck can't use an instead of moving power. They're being prevented from moving by a special power in the game.

Link, please.

[tcglkn]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

So trying to parse it...(this whole thing makes my head spin a bit.)

1) First we need to determine if the power is referring to the act of moving Amazo (instead of moving) or the part of Amazo's turn during which he moves (instead of moving normally)

2) I'm assuming this power was intended to refer to the part of the turn.

3) We've ruled that a design like Cyclops II that lets you take a turn with a figure "during which it cannot move" cancels out the 'move' part of that figure's turn.

4) I don't think the language on Cyclops and the language on Blob are necessarily different. So I think under our current understanding, Blob cancels out the 'move normally' part of a figure's turn, in addition to stopping a figure from physically moving. But I think that's also down to the fact that we still don't have an easy way to distinguish between those two effects wording-wise.

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I won't get into 1 and 2, as that's a whole different conversation.

4 seems the relevant area for discussion. On something like Psionic Grip, I guess you're actually beginning to move, so it's not relevant for something where you choose to do it instead of moving. You'd choose to do the instead of moving power before Psionic Grip could take away your move. The same way with something like Weather Wizard's Fog Cover and attacking.

I guess if you were next to a figure and they had a power that said "Figures engaged with this figure cannot attack" then you wouldn't be able to give up your attack to do an instead of attacking thing either.

Seems reasonable.

Back on 1, though, I'm 90% sure that we defined "moving" as any move and "moving normally" as moving on your turn, so pretty sure, regardless of intent (who remembers?) that Amazo can do that instead of any move.

Originally Posted by quozl

Link, please.

Just two pages back in this same discussion.

[IAmBatman]

Reworded with LP's suggested since that's no change in the ruling, just preferred wording by two of y'all.

Not making the other change since it'd change the ruling and go against where the discussion took us.

[IAmBatman]

Just need a vote from Tickle and a clarification for where this leaves quozl's vote.

[quozl]

Yep, definitely agree with the power Stuck. I was talking about when you can't move because there are no open spaces or you're in a hole you can't climb out of.

[Lord Pyre]

Originally Posted by quozl

Yep, definitely agree with the power Stuck. I was talking about when you can't move because there are no open spaces or you're in a hole you can't climb out of.

You can choose to "move" zero spaces! So there's no issue there.

[quozl]

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

You can choose to "move" zero spaces! So there's no issue there.

Yep, so we should add it to the examples.

[IAmBatman]

Feels unnecessary to me, since the fact that you can move zero spaces is a previous, well-known ruling. But if you write up what you want to see, I'm willing to consider adding it (as much as I'd like to just wrap up this current vote as is to get something off my to do list).

[quozl]

Here you go!

Originally Posted by quozl

Agreed with LP about the wording. "If the figure does not have a target for an attack, it still has an attack to give up."

You should probably also add the equivalent for move:

If the figure cannot move because it is stuck or has no open space to move to, it still has a move to give up.

It gets the point across I guess so Yea after those changes.

[tcglkn]

Yea to what Bats already had. Nay to anything else without more discussion.

[IAmBatman]

Seems better to say “if a figure could move 0 spaces, it has a move to give up.”

[quozl]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Seems better to say “if a figure could move 0 spaces, it has a move to give up.”

That wouldn't have the symmetry of the attack sentence and also moving 0 spaces is a weird rule. We should strive for clarity.