Sentinel Question

[Bloodsword]

I know feats were not allowed during the Multi-Attack with a sentinel. I can no longer find it in the new Players guide, or the new rule book. Some one please point me in the right spot. I'm brain farting here.

Also, the Sentinel ignores steal energy. Now none of them have this, I assume that this means if a figure with steal energy hits a sentinel, they will not get a clock back. Is this correct?

Not much on the big guys any more. We so need new ones.


Thanks

[normalview]

From the PAC:

MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use two free actions. These free actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from this power can’t be used to activate this power. Resolve the first free action before giving it the second. Modify this character’s damage value by -1 to a minimum of 1. This character can’t use feats when using this power. This ability can’t be countered.

[ShadowMark]

From the PAC:

MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use two free actions. These free actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from this power can’t be used to activate this power. Resolve the first free action before giving it the second. Modify this character’s damage value by -1 to a minimum of 1. This character can’t use feats when using this power. This ability can’t be countered.

Since we brought this up and, after reading it, I came up with a question.

Now, unless I am reading this wrong, the Multi-Attack ability can only include attacks? I was wondering with powers like Phasing/ Teleport that are a power action, but don't include an attack (I italicized my part of the ability in question).

It happened at a venue I was playing at, where one guy used the Anti-Monitor's Multi-Attack, but used P/T, then attacked. I thought he couldn't do this, but the judge deemed it legal, so I went on with the game.

[normalview]

Since we brought this up and, after reading it, I came up with a question.

Now, unless I am reading this wrong, the Multi-Attack ability can only include attacks? I was wondering with powers like Phasing/ Teleport that are a power action, but don't include an attack (I italicized my part of the ability in question).

It happened at a venue I was playing at, where one guy used the Anti-Monitor's Multi-Attack, but used P/T, then attacked. I thought he couldn't do this, but the judge deemed it legal, so I went on with the game.

Phasing/Teleport does not include an attack.

It is possible that they may be confusing the Multi-Attack with the old Galactus' Cosmic Multi-Attack; that ability allowed Galactus to take three actions (any actions) as free actions. He could move, then attack, and then move again if he wished.

[ShadowMark]

Phasing/Teleport does not include an attack.

It is possible that they may be confusing the Multi-Attack with the old Galactus' Cosmic Multi-Attack; that ability allowed Galacuts to take three actions (any actions) as free actions. He could move, then attack, and then move again if he wished.

Thanks! I keep wanting to run some Colossals in either force-type games, or a "colossal themed" tourney. But, I am trying to understand some of the rules of them more.

[Bloodsword]

Thanks. I knew I was just missing it.
Am I correct on the Steal Energy? They also Ignore mastermind. Does that mean that a figure with mastermind can not shove the damage from a Sentinel off to another figure?

Thanks. These have not seem play in years at our two venues. Just trying to refresh my brain.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Phasing/Teleport does not include an attack.

It is possible that they may be confusing the Multi-Attack with the old Galactus' Cosmic Multi-Attack; that ability allowed Galactus to take three actions (any actions) as free actions. He could move, then attack, and then move again if he wished.

They changed it to include the "that include an attack" part. I don't recall when, but I believe it was in Arkham Asylum. I do recall at one point being able to have a "move and attack" thing going with The Anti Monitor where he could have one of his power actions be phasing teleport, then finish off with an attack.

[Harpua]

They changed it to include the "that include an attack" part. I don't recall when, but I believe it was in Arkham Asylum. I do recall at one point being able to have a "move and attack" thing going with The Anti Monitor where he could have one of his power actions be phasing teleport, then finish off with an attack.

Well...it got clarified, not changed.

[normalview]

They changed it to include the "that include an attack" part. I don't recall when, but I believe it was in Arkham Asylum. I do recall at one point being able to have a "move and attack" thing going with The Anti Monitor where he could have one of his power actions be phasing teleport, then finish off with an attack.

Not really.

For example, from the FF rules:

MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use
two free actions against up to two targets per action. These free
actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat
actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from
this power can’t be used to activate this power. Make an attack roll
for each attack, if any. Any damage dealt by one of these attacks
is reduced by 1, minimum 1 damage. This character can’t use feats
when using this power. This ability can’t be countered.



It is true that there was some ambiguity waaaaay back in the day. "Could HT Sinestro use Barrier with Multi-Attack?" was a pretty common question. But by the time Critical Mass and Galactus rolled around, the wording was definitely in the direction of attacks only... that was one of the reasons that Galactus (and his Cosmic Mutli-Attack) were so gosh-darned good; he could move and attack.

[Suttkus]

No one has yet answered the Steal Energy question (unless I somehow missed it).

I believe that the Sentinel ignoring "steal energy" does not mean anything to another character using the power, since their steal energy doesn't have any effect on the sentinel to be ignored.

Rather, if the sentinel somehow got Steal Energy in some fashion, he would ignore his own.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Not really.

For example, from the FF rules:

MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use
two free actions against up to two targets per action. These free
actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat
actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from
this power can’t be used to activate this power. Make an attack roll
for each attack, if any. Any damage dealt by one of these attacks
is reduced by 1, minimum 1 damage. This character can’t use feats
when using this power. This ability can’t be countered.



It is true that there was some ambiguity waaaaay back in the day. "Could HT Sinestro use Barrier with Multi-Attack?" was a pretty common question. But by the time Critical Mass and Galactus rolled around, the wording was definitely in the direction of attacks only... that was one of the reasons that Galactus (and his Cosmic Mutli-Attack) were so gosh-darned good; he could move and attack.

No way.... Wasn't SI (Fantastic Four starter) about the same time as Arkham, which is when I said I thought it was changed? I'm pretty sure that Anti-Monitor had a little bit of time where he was able to Phase, then Attack when we were still under the LoSH rules. Look it up. :laugh:

Well...it got clarified, not changed.
Eh... whatever. That doesn't change my point at all... that a character with multi attack could phase one action, then attack the next.

[Harpua]

No way.... Wasn't SI (Fantastic Four starter) about the same time as Arkham, which is when I said I thought it was changed? I'm pretty sure that Anti-Monitor had a little bit of time where he was able to Phase, then Attack when we were still under the LoSH rules. Look it up. :laugh:


Eh... whatever. That doesn't change my point at all... that a character with multi attack could phase one action, then attack the next.

No...you never were allowed to do that. It was ambiguously worded, but the ruling was always that each action had to have an attack.

[normalview]

No way.... Wasn't SI (Fantastic Four starter) about the same time as Arkham, which is when I said I thought it was changed?

Arkham was the last set released before the hiatus and the FF starter (with the rules) was released a bit before SI hit the shelves. So if you call a gap of almost 5 months "about the the same time", sure, whatever you say.


Eh... whatever. That doesn't change my point at all... that a character with multi attack could phase one action, then attack the next.

But your point is completely changed when you read the rest of my post and realize that since at least Critical Mass and the release of Galactus, the difference between an attack action and any old action was made very apparent.

And, for the record, LoSH has the exact same wording for Multi-Attack as the FF starter. If you're going to try an argue a point using old rules, you may wish to make sure those old rules actually support your side ;)

[Questions]

Thanks. I knew I was just missing it.
Am I correct on the Steal Energy? They also Ignore mastermind. Does that mean that a figure with mastermind can not shove the damage from a Sentinel off to another figure?

No one has yet answered the Steal Energy question (unless I somehow missed it).

I believe that the Sentinel ignoring "steal energy" does not mean anything to another character using the power, since their steal energy doesn't have any effect on the sentinel to be ignored.

Rather, if the sentinel somehow got Steal Energy in some fashion, he would ignore his own.

Bloodsword was correct. It means that if a character with Steal Energy attacks a Sentinel with a close combat attack then the character with Steal Energy will not receive a click of healing.

Looking at the Advanced Sentinel Rules (which are to be used for all Sentinels) I did not see it say that they ignore Mastermind (but I could have missed that part.)

[Bat-Phreak]

Bloodsword was correct. It means that if a character with Steal Energy attacks a Sentinel with a close combat attack then the character with Steal Energy will not receive a click of healing.

Looking at the Advanced Sentinel Rules (which are to be used for all Sentinels) I did not see it say that they ignore Mastermind (but I could have missed that part.)

Many of the Colossals have their own rules set. Some ignore Stealth, some ignore Mastermind, it depends on the fig.

For Sentinels, the following excerpt applies:

It is not affected by Exploit Weakness, Force Blast, Incapacitate, Mind Control, Plasticity, Poison, Psychic Blast, Shape Change, Steal Energy, Support, or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers.

Stealth and Mastermind are not ignored by Sentinels.

[Bloodsword]

I was remembering the Starro rules for mastermind. My bad.

[IceHot]

Is Running Shot legal with Multi-Attack?...It gives an Action that leads to an Attack, but doesnt explicitly give an attack itself.

Which of course leads us back to the old debate...

Can you then choose not to make the Ranged Combat Action as part of the RS-Multi-Attack?

And the followup question:

Can I use RS as the first part of a Multi-Attack with no legal target that I can actually shot within range?

[normalview]

Is Running Shot legal with Multi-Attack?...It gives an Action that leads to an Attack, but doesnt explicitly give an attack itself.

Running Shot includes a (free) ranged combat action, which results in a ranged combat attack. It is fine to use with Multi-Attack.

Can you then choose not to make the Ranged Combat Action as part of the RS-Multi-Attack?

Nothing in the Muti-Attack description says the character must make an attack; it only specifies the kind of actions that can be given. If the action type is appropriate, that is all that matters.

Can I use RS as the first part of a Multi-Attack with no legal target that I can actually shot within range?

I sincerely doubt there is ever a situation where, say, a Sentinel couldn't attack something... even if it is only a wall or a chunk of blocking terrain. The attack might not necessarily destroy the terrain feature, but it would still be an attack.

That said, as I mentioned before, as long as the action requirement for Multi-Attack is met, I see nothing that says your character must attack.

[IceHot]

Running Shot includes a (free) ranged combat action, which results in a ranged combat attack. It is fine to use with Multi-Attack.
While I completely agree with your every reasoning on this issue I brought it up because it reminded me of the old debate about using RS for the half move.

Thanks for the answer.

[The7ofDiamonds]

And, for the record, LoSH has the exact same wording for Multi-Attack as the FF starter. If you're going to try an argue a point using old rules, you may wish to make sure those old rules actually support your side ;)

Actually, you're wrong (I'd have thought by now you would have at least looked it up). I just looked it up yesterday, I just wasn't sure where to post it from since it was difficult for me to find an online source for the LoSH rules.

But anyway, just look at page 44 of the LoSH Rulebook.... you'll see, just as I have been saying, that the "Must include an attack" part is nowhere to be found. If you're going to try an argue a point using old rules, you may wish to make sure those old rules actually support your side. ;)

[IceHot]

Actually, ....
In some regards your both kind of mistaken. While the LoSH rulebook removed the word "Attack", the July 2007 OHEAC stipulated that Phasing could not be used with Multiattack.

;)

[Questions]

Can you then choose not to make the Ranged Combat Action as part of the RS-Multi-Attack?

And the followup question:

Can I use RS as the first part of a Multi-Attack with no legal target that I can actually shot within range?

Nothing in the Muti-Attack description says the character must make an attack; it only specifies the kind of actions that can be given. If the action type is appropriate, that is all that matters.

I sincerely doubt there is ever a situation where, say, a Sentinel couldn't attack something... even if it is only a wall or a chunk of blocking terrain. The attack might not necessarily destroy the terrain feature, but it would still be an attack.

That said, as I mentioned before, as long as the action requirement for Multi-Attack is met, I see nothing that says your character must attack.

This is why I have a problem with nbperp removing things from the Player's Guide because "In some cases, we removed a bullet from a section that seemed to us, based on the questions we see at events and online just don’t come up anymore. (http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2010/06/17/normal-distribution-players-guide-update-and-more/)"

It was long a rule that when using the Multiattack a character must make an attack. It was in the Player's Guide for a long time. It's been a rule since 2004 (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99668).

Recently removed from the Player's Guide:
Colossal characters using the Multiattack ability must make an attack during each of the free actions granted by Multiattack.

Did this rule change? Why?

[Harpua]

This is why I have a problem with nbperp removing things from the Player's Guide because "In some cases, we removed a bullet from a section that seemed to us, based on the questions we see at events and online just don’t come up anymore. (http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2010/06/17/normal-distribution-players-guide-update-and-more/)"

It was long a rule that when using the Multiattack a character must make an attack. It was in the Player's Guide for a long time. It's been a rule since 2004 (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99668).

Recently removed from the Player's Guide:


Did this rule change? Why?

It didn't change. It was removed from the PG. There was no need for it with the definition on the PAC.

"MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use two free actions. These free actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from this power can’t be used to activate this power. Resolve the first free action before giving it the second. Modify this character’s damage value by -1 to a minimum of 1. This character can’t use feats when using this power. This ability can’t be countered."

[Questions]

It didn't change. It was removed from the PG. There was no need for it with the definition on the PAC.

"MULTIATTACK Give this character a power action. It can use two free actions. These free actions can be power actions that include an attack, close combat actions, or ranged combat actions, though free actions gained from this power can’t be used to activate this power. Resolve the first free action before giving it the second. Modify this character’s damage value by -1 to a minimum of 1. This character can’t use feats when using this power. This ability can’t be countered."

But it either changed or it's worded poorly. The part you quote says that the free action can be power actions that include an attack. It does not say that you must make an attack. That said, does it mean that you must make an attack? The ruling since 2004 and included in the Player's Guide until the most recent edition said you must make an attack. That was specifically to avoid using Running Shot to move half your distance without making an attack. normalview's post indicates that the new rule doesn't encompass that. Is that a correct assessment? If so, why the change? The old rule wasn't confusing or difficult to apply.

[Harpua]

But it either changed or it's worded poorly. The part you quote says that the free action can be power actions that include an attack. It does not say that you must make an attack.
Yes it does. It gives you a specific list of things you can do. If it is not listed, you can't do it.
Power actions which include an attack obviously have an attack involved.
By default, the other two things also only result in attacks.
It leaves no room for anything which is not an attack.
That said, does it mean that you must make an attack? The ruling since 2004 and included in the Player's Guide until the most recent edition said you must make an attack. That was specifically to avoid using Running Shot to move half your distance without making an attack. normalview's post indicates that the new rule doesn't encompass that. Is that a correct assessment? If so, why the change? The old rule wasn't confusing or difficult to apply.

I see no reason why it is not a correct assessment.

Why the change? Simplicity.

[Questions]

Yes it does. It gives you a specific list of things you can do. If it is not listed, you can't do it.
Power actions which include an attack obviously have an attack involved.
By default, the other two things also only result in attacks.
It leaves no room for anything which is not an attack.

I see no reason why it is not a correct assessment.

Why the change? Simplicity.

Just so I'm clear, are you agreeing with normalview or not? In your opinion, do you have to make an attack when using the Multiattack ability? (normalview clearly said you do not, but from your post I'm not sure if you agree with him or not.)

[Harpua]

Just so I'm clear, are you agreeing with normalview or not? In your opinion, do you have to make an attack when using the Multiattack ability? (normalview clearly said you do not, but from your post I'm not sure if you agree with him or not.)

You can only use powers which would result in an attack. If something happens that would not allow that attack to happen, so be it.

[Questions]

You can only use powers which would result in an attack. If something happens that would not allow that attack to happen, so be it.

And what about the choice to just not make an attack? For example, use Running Shot with the Multiattack and the only character in range is a Mystic. I don't want to attack the Mystic and I don't want to attack walls or objects. Would you say that's fine?

[Harpua]

And what about the choice to just not make an attack? For example, use Running Shot with the Multiattack and the only character in range is a Mystic. I don't want to attack the Mystic and I don't want to attack walls or objects. Would you say that's fine?

Sure. Why not? Is it really any different than trying to attack a Skrull and having him make his roll?

[Questions]

Sure. Why not? Is it really any different than trying to attack a Skrull and having him make his roll?

Just seems to lose a bit of the attack aspect when it could be used simply to make an extra long running shot. Plus, this seems to be another one of those areas that didn't really need to be fixed, but was changed anyway. (After 6 years if it's not broken...leave well enough alone.)

[Harpua]

Just seems to lose a bit of the attack aspect when it could be used simply to make an extra long running shot. Plus, this seems to be another one of those areas that didn't really need to be fixed, but was changed anyway. (After 6 years if it's not broken...leave well enough alone.)

Well, it has been simplified.

[Questions]

Well, it has been simplified.

Only if explaining to someone why something called Multiattack doesn't really require you to attack is simple. :)

[ShadowMark]

Quote
It is not affected by Exploit Weakness, Force Blast, Incapacitate, Mind Control, Plasticity, Poison, Psychic Blast, Shape Change, Steal Energy, Support, or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers.

Another colossal rule that has bugged me for a while is the bolded. Now this was from the Sentinel (as quoted earlier in this thread), but every colossal has the same wording at the end. "it is not affected by...or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers".

Does this mean, powers like the SP's of Cloak and Dagger and Johnny Storm(I think he has this power) -SI LE, state that they can use EE, but it deals penetrating damage. (loosely worded, didn't have time to get text) Would this not affect colossals because it is like a reproduction of how EW and PB work?

There are more, but I am pressed on time and this was top of my head.

[normalview]

Quote
It is not affected by Exploit Weakness, Force Blast, Incapacitate, Mind Control, Plasticity, Poison, Psychic Blast, Shape Change, Steal Energy, Support, or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers.

Another colossal rule that has bugged me for a while is the bolded. Now this was from the Sentinel (as quoted earlier in this thread), but every colossal has the same wording at the end. "it is not affected by...or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers".

Does this mean, powers like the SP's of Cloak and Dagger and Johnny Storm(I think he has this power) -SI LE, state that they can use EE, but it deals penetrating damage. (loosely worded, didn't have time to get text) Would this not affect colossals because it is like a reproduction of how EW and PB work?

There are more, but I am pressed on time and this was top of my head.

It is mostly a hold over from the days when TAs (like the Batman TA) didn't actually let the character use a power, but gave an effect that was basically identical to the PAC entry for that power.

Off the top of my head I really can't think of any current TAs or game effects that reproduce power effects without specifically naming said power.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Quote
It is not affected by Exploit Weakness, Force Blast, Incapacitate, Mind Control, Plasticity, Poison, Psychic Blast, Shape Change, Steal Energy, Support, or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers.

Another colossal rule that has bugged me for a while is the bolded. Now this was from the Sentinel (as quoted earlier in this thread), but every colossal has the same wording at the end. "it is not affected by...or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers".

Does this mean, powers like the SP's of Cloak and Dagger and Johnny Storm(I think he has this power) -SI LE, state that they can use EE, but it deals penetrating damage. (loosely worded, didn't have time to get text) Would this not affect colossals because it is like a reproduction of how EW and PB work?

There are more, but I am pressed on time and this was top of my head.

Perhaps you should have though. Just because they work similarly to the powers ignored, doesn't mean that it gets ignored. It does specify that the damage is penetrating, but that doesn't mean it is that power. A team ability or power that would reproduce that power would be like a special power that says that they can use the power such as Sinestro's SP that states that he can use Psychic Blast. No, his power isn't Psychic Blast, but it does "reproduce" the power by letting him use it.

Another example being if the character ignored outwit or probability control, these powers could be reproduced via the CSA and Superman Enemy Team Abilities, so this is there to cover instances similar to that. Mind control can also be reproduced by the Squadron Supreme ATA.

[IceHot]

It is mostly a hold over from the days when TAs (like the Batman TA) didn't actually let the character use a power, but gave an effect that was basically identical to the PAC entry for that power.

Off the top of my head I really can't think of any current TAs or game effects that reproduce power effects without specifically naming said power.

One example might be Dark Beasts...Cruel Experiment if he rolls a 6....the other rolls are pretty much different, but if he rolls a 6...its pretty close to the same effect as Poison


....On a 6, deal 1 damage to each adjacent opposing character.

Maybe not since it doesnt happen at the beginning of the turn.

Maybe a better example is Thunder of Qward....Qwa-Bolts

...When Thunderer of Qward is given a ranged combat action, you can choose one of the following options: .... or 2) damage from the attack is penetrating damage.

Thats Psychic Blast right.

[IceHot]

I dont envy the judge in this situation as the line gets grey pretty quick with powers like Arcade..maybe some of these are in the PG, I will look.

Yikes after briefly looking (still looking) I think the issue might be even more Grey. I noticed that the Light Post Object doesnt apply an action token to Colossals...Its really only losely worded like Incap, and appears to be an extrapolation of Incap. That may bring into question several SPs that wish to apply action tokens like Icicle.

This then brings in more Grey Issues like Toro.
And could cause issues with any attack that wants to be Penetrating like one of Darkseids options.

This could easily get of hand...and you may want to review where to draw or re-draw the line as the case may be.

I also notice that the Skrull TA and Danger Girl TA is specifically in the PG even the the power is now slightly different then Shape Change.

[The7ofDiamonds]

You guys are reading it wrong.... Darkseid, Thunderer, Cloak & Dagger, and all others like it are fine.

You guys are reading it like this:
"...or any team ability or effect that reproduces the effects of those powers..."

when it actually says this:
"....or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers..."

You guys are interpreting it as because the effects of the powers (penetrating damage in this case) are similar to psychic blast, and so then it must be ignored... but it doesn't say "that reproduce the effects of these powers", it specifically says "reproduce those powers".

[Questions]

You guys are reading it wrong.... Darkseid, Thunderer, Cloak & Dagger, and all others like it are fine.

You guys are reading it like this:
"...or any team ability or effect that reproduces the effects of those powers..."

when it actually says this:
"....or any team ability or effect that reproduces those powers..."

You guys are interpreting it as because the effects of the powers (penetrating damage in this case) are similar to psychic blast, and so then it must be ignored... but it doesn't say "that reproduce the effects of these powers", it specifically says "reproduce those powers".

It was a great point and then what do the Dr. Manhattan rules say:

From the Scenario portion:
...as well as any game effect that duplicate the effects of those powers.

From the Part of Your Force portion:
...as well as game effects that duplicate the effects of those powers.

[The7ofDiamonds]

I'm just commenting on the wording we have here. Whatever Dr. M's says is irrelevant because the wording is different.

[Questions]

I'm just commenting on the wording we have here. Whatever Dr. M's says is irrelevant because the wording is different.

Actually I was saying your point was right on and it would have been nice had Dr. Manhattan continued to use the wording of the Advanced Sentinel. Your post ended the issue and then WizKids had to go and change the wording to open the issue right back up.

The7ofDiamonds 1
WizKids 0

[Spider-Bat]

Also, the Sentinel ignores steal energy. Now none of them have this, I assume that this means if a figure with steal energy hits a sentinel, they will not get a clock back. Is this correct?Did this question ever get officially answered? And if so, where?

Sorry if I missed it, as the thread kinda went all over the place with various Colossal rules.

[Questions]

Did this question ever get officially answered? And if so, where?

Sorry if I missed it, as the thread kinda went all over the place with various Colossal rules.

Check Post 14. (And there is no correction from the orange after since it was the correct answer. Click here (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4851592) for orange policy)

[Spider-Bat]

Check Post 14. (And there is no correction from the orange after since it was the correct answer. Click here (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4851592) for orange policy)

Ah, well there's the problem. It wasn't confirmed, so I assumed it was being ignored.

And that policy would seem to me to lead to confusion like that. Oh well.

[normalview]

Ah, well there's the problem. It wasn't confirmed, so I assumed it was being ignored.



'cause that's what we do: ignore things :tired:







Seriously, if something has already been correctly answered, what is the point of posting? It is almost like saying, "Hey, guy that correctly answered earlier! Yeah, you. You're answer is irrelevant. Pbbbbth :p"

[Spider-Bat]

'cause that's what we do: ignore things :tired:







Seriously, if something has already been correctly answered, what is the point of posting? It is almost like saying, "Hey, guy that correctly answered earlier! Yeah, you. You're answer is irrelevant. Pbbbbth :p"

Well, considering that the question was asked again, I assumed that the answers given were incorrect. And I didn't think it was intentionally being ignored; maybe "missed" would have been a better choice. Simply Quoting the post and saying, "this is correct" means that people who are looking for an official ruling know which post of the many is correct. But that's just me.

[normalview]

The question may have been asked again, but that doesn't mean anything has changed.

If something had changed, it would have been addressed. Simple as that.

[Spider-Bat]

Which I understand. However, for someone who doesn't read this site everyday, I assumed that unless is comes from an official source, the answer isn't official. I'm sure there are others out there, so maybe having the previously referenced policy of not restating things posted on the front page (or in the "Forum Rules" or whatever) might help alleviate any repeat questions.

[Maraud]

Which I understand. However, for someone who doesn't read this site everyday, I assumed that unless is comes from an official source, the answer isn't official. I'm sure there are others out there, so maybe having the previously referenced policy of not restating things posted on the front page (or in the "Forum Rules" or whatever) might help alleviate any repeat questions.

If you want the official answer go ask your local judge.
They have more power over the rulings than anyone on here.
All Nbperp and the deputies do is say how WK intended it to work and how it will be ruled at Gen*Con.

[The7ofDiamonds]

Actually I was saying your point was right on and it would have been nice had Dr. Manhattan continued to use the wording of the Advanced Sentinel. Your post ended the issue and then WizKids had to go and change the wording to open the issue right back up.

The7ofDiamonds 1
WizKids 0

Oh.... haha. Thanks I guess.