Captain Marvel Capture Question.

[WildTurkey]

When Captain Marvel Captures someone, Can Captain Marvel then be TK'd.



Can some move this to the right forum, Sorry guys lol.

[red king]

I think he can. Thats the way I have played him. If you have a few mandroid armors in line you can juggle him all the way home, and possibly back again after you clear.

[WildTurkey]

That's what I thought, but I can't find anything on it. So I'm hoping for an Orange to jump in here. Looking at a game plan for a match I have coming up. And hope I just came up with an easy solution for CSM.

[normalview]

In cases like this, it sometimes help to take the position of Devil's Advocate: can you point to anything in the rules that says he couldn't be TK'd?





(No, nothing like that exists. He can be TK'd just fine.)

[snatreaper]

In cases like this, it sometimes help to take the position of Devil's Advocate: can you point to anything in the rules that says he couldn't be TK'd?





(No, nothing like that exists. He can be TK'd just fine.)

Well technically he can't Capture anymore either. Like Arch-Enemies, wasn't that ability removed from the latest PAC/Rule Book?

[WildTurkey]

Yeah I couldn't find anything that said he couldn't. Thank you.

You guys do an awesome job. keep up the good work.

[Quebbster]

Well technically he can't Capture anymore either. Like Arch-Enemies, wasn't that ability removed from the latest PAC/Rule Book?
No. It doesn't contain the actual description - just a reference to heroclix.com. The text can be found in the Player's Guide.

[Questions]

What, if anything, happens to a character captured by Captain Mar-Vell if Captain Mar-Vell is captured?

[Dremak]

What, if anything, happens to a character captured by Captain Mar-Vell if Captain Mar-Vell is captured?

Mind blown. Also... seeing creepy mental images of Captain Mar-Vell nesting dolls...

[UniqueLoginNamor]

It would work like normal capture. When Mar-Vell A captures a guy. Mar-vell B captures A. If he releases A place him into the empty square and Ko him (then the captive is released like normal when the captor is defeated)

[Questions]

It would work like normal capture. When Mar-Vell A captures a guy. Mar-vell B captures A. If he releases A place him into the empty square and Ko him (then the captive is released like normal when the captor is defeated)

It shouldn't make a difference that the rules aren't worded too well, but just as a note, captives are freed when the character that captured them is knocked out, not defeated. And a released captive is defeated, not knocked out.

From the Player's Guide:
If this character has any captives when it is knocked out, before removing this character from the game, the player who knocked out this character (including the player controlling this character if it was knocked out due to pushing damage or a similar effect) places each captive in an unoccupied square adjacent to this character’s base and gives each an action token.

AND

Releasing captives. When it occupies its starting area, this character can be given a power action to release one of its captives into an adjacent unoccupied square also in the starting area. A released captive is immediately defeated, and this character’s player receives additional victory points for the released captive equal to 50 points or the released captive’s point value, whichever is less.. If the game ends and this character has captives, no player receives victory points for the captives. If this character captures the last opposing character, the game ends after that action resolves.

So that should probably say defeated, not knocked out, where bolded above. Knocked out = defeated, but (other than the glossary which we know is weak) the rules never say defeated means knocked out. (I don't know if any effect defeats without knocking out, but you never know with this game.) Either way, the bolded should probably be changed for clarity.

From p. 9 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
When a KO symbol appears in a character’s stat slot, that character is defeated.

Other than that adjustment in the rules, it sounds good (and orange hasn't said otherwise). If Captain Mar-Vell is captured while Captain Mar-Vell has his own captured character, the captured character remains captured until either Captain Mar-Vell is rescued and then the captured character is rescued or Captain Mar-Vell is released in which case the player who released Captain Mar-Vell places Captain Mar-Vell in an unoccupied square adjacent to the capturer in the starting area and then places Captain Mar-Vell's captives in unoccupied squares adjacent to Captain Mar-Vell, gives each released character an action token, and them removes Captain Mar-Vell from the game.

[VanisherPunisher]

I think that when the first capturer is captured the captured characters of the first capturer go to Limbo and become slaves to Kang and/or Immortus.

[Harpua]

It shouldn't make a difference that the rules aren't worded too well, but just as a note, captives are freed when the character that captured them is knocked out, not defeated. And a released captive is defeated, not knocked out.

From the Player's Guide:


So that should probably say defeated, not knocked out, where bolded above. Knocked out = defeated, but (other than the glossary which we know is weak) the rules never say defeated means knocked out. (I don't know if any effect defeats without knocking out, but you never know with this game.) Either way, the bolded should probably be changed for clarity.

From p. 9 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:


Other than that adjustment in the rules, it sounds good (and orange hasn't said otherwise). If Captain Mar-Vell is captured while Captain Mar-Vell has his own captured character, the captured character remains captured until either Captain Mar-Vell is rescued and then the captured character is rescued or Captain Mar-Vell is released in which case the player who released Captain Mar-Vell places Captain Mar-Vell in an unoccupied square adjacent to the capturer in the starting area and then places Captain Mar-Vell's captives in unoccupied squares adjacent to Captain Mar-Vell, gives each released character an action token, and them removes Captain Mar-Vell from the game.

In this case, you can use the glossary. (I love how you fail to quote that definition, btw.)

Here are the "weaknesses" of the glossary.
1) The definitions are not comprehensive.
2) Well, I can't really say that this is a weakness of the glossary, but rather a misconception by some people that if something fits the definition of a term, then it is that term. (Humans are mammals. My dog is a mammal. My dog is therefore human.)

That's not the case here.

"DEFEATED: A character that is knocked out and removed from the game."

So, you can substitute "knocked out and removed from the game" in there.
Releasing captives. When it occupies its starting area, this character can be given a power action to release one of its captives into an adjacent unoccupied square also in the starting area. A released captive is immediately knocked out and removed from the game, and this character’s player receives additional victory points for the released captive equal to 50 points or the released captive’s point value, whichever is less.. If the game ends and this character has captives, no player receives victory points for the captives. If this character captures the last opposing character, the game ends after that action resolves.

As for what happens when he's captured while holding a captive...

The current PG says this...
"Characters that are removed from the battle map (but not eliminated) may not use their own powers, team abilities, or feats except as stipulated by the effect removing them from the battlefield."

This is currently under feats. I know that it was being reviewed to be made more generalized for the new PG. If that makes it to the final draft when it is released, then the answer is clear.

When Mar-Vell A is captured by Mar-Vell B, Mar-Vell A would not be able to use his power anymore, releasing the captive.

[Questions]

In this case, you can use the glossary. (I love how you fail to quote that definition, btw.)

I didn't quote the glossary on purpose -- because I wasn't using it. Seriously, you can't use the glossary when it suits your purpose, but ignore it when it doesn't. You either use it always or not.

Here are the "weaknesses" of the glossary.
1) The definitions are not comprehensive.

Not comprehensive? Some are downright incorrect.

2) Well, I can't really say that this is a weakness of the glossary, but rather a misconception by some people that if something fits the definition of a term, then it is that term. (Humans are mammals. My dog is a mammal. My dog is therefore human.)

That's not the case here.

As someone pointed out in a different thread your logic is flawed. If we're going to discuss Venn diagrams then let's discuss Venn diagrams. Logic says your example is flawed.

"DEFEATED: A character that is knocked out and removed from the game."

And that is the only place in the entire rulebook that says that. Again, if you want to use the glossary...use it every time. If you're not going to use it every time then don't apply it for the few times where it supports a poorly written rule (that can easily be corrected.) With the amazing resistance to errata (and this time we're actually talking about correcting something that is only in the Player's Guide and would actually make the Player's Guide shorter) I almost feel like the attitude of the rules posse is that something bad would happen if the rules were written properly.

As for what happens when he's captured while holding a captive...

The current PG says this...
"Characters that are removed from the battle map (but not eliminated) may not use their own powers, team abilities, or feats except as stipulated by the effect removing them from the battlefield."

This is currently under feats. I know that it was being reviewed to be made more generalized for the new PG. If that makes it to the final draft when it is released, then the answer is clear.

When Mar-Vell A is captured by Mar-Vell B, Mar-Vell A would not be able to use his power anymore, releasing the captive.

So wait for the new Player's Guide and revisit the issue then?

[Harpua]

I've never said that you can't use the glossary.

I ave said that there are ways in which the glossary can't be used.

For example, I've said that you can't use the definitions to arrive at terms. You can use the terms, however, to get the defiitions. (Though I admit that the definitions are not always comprehensive.)

RANGED COMBAT ACTION: An action given to a character that allows it to make a ranged combat attack.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Psychic Blast is a ranged combat action.
Therefore, Psychic Blast is an action given to a character that allows it to make a ranged combat attack.

WHAT YOU CAN'T DO:
Ranged Combat Expert is activated by an action given to a character that allows it to make a ranged combat attack.
Therefore, Ranged Combat Expert is a ranged combat action.

In the case above, you have a term (defeated) and a definition (knocked out and removed from the game).

[Questions]

But if that's the case then we get this:

From p. 20 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
Any character on a themed team (including bystander tokens) can use Probability Control. The character using Probability Control in this way must not have already taken an action this turn and must be given an action token. This ability can be used once for every two characters on the team with the shared keyword.

Now what does action mean?

From the 2010 Core Rulebook Glossary:
ACTION: A character’s attack, move, or use of a power or ability.

So when we plug that in we get:

Any character on a themed team (including bystander tokens) can use Probability Control. The character using Probability Control in this way must not have already taken a character’s attack, move, or use of a power or ability this turn and must be given an action token. This ability can be used once for every two characters on the team with the shared keyword.

That would mean if the character used a power this turn then it could not use PC for theme. But that's not true.

My other problem with this glossary entry is that it is circular (and doesn't reflect reality):

DEFEATED: A character that is knocked out and removed from the game.

KNOCKED OUT: A character with KO symbols showing on its combat dial; such a character is defeated.

Defeated = Knocked Out
Knocked Out = Defeated

So let's say we release a character. That character is defeated per the rules.
Defeated
A character that is knocked out and removed from the game.
A character that is a character with KO symbols showing on its combat dial; such a character is defeated and removed from the game.

The only problem is that the definition doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. The character never showed KO symbols on its dial. I know you said we can't look back at the definition to prove the term, but the definition doesn't even match reality in this case.

[Harpua]

And that definition of action is one of the ones which is not a comprehensive definition that I mentioned above. So?

Take any of the non-comprehensive definitions and put them where their glossary entries don't cover and it isn't going to make sense.

There is no issue here. This is yet another case of you amusing yourself by trolling to stir stuff up where there isn't anything to stir. It is clear what defeated is. If you are defeated, you have been knocked out and removed from the game. If you want, go ahead and turn the dial to the KO click to satisfy the other part of your statement.

[Questions]

And that definition of action is one of the ones which is not a comprehensive definition that I mentioned above. So?

This may turn on what you mean by not comprehensive. What do you mean by that? And how do we know which ones are not comprehensive and which ones are? Too much guess work here.

There is no issue here. This is yet another case of you amusing yourself by trolling to stir stuff up where there isn't anything to stir. It is clear what defeated is. If you are defeated, you have been knocked out and removed from the game. If you want, go ahead and turn the dial to the KO click to satisfy the other part of your statement.

And I'll politely repeat that the rules are poorly written. Could that one change that I suggested make them clear and cohesive? Yes. Will it happen? In my experience, no it won't. I'll never understand the opposition shown by the rules posse to cohesive rules. If there are two effects in two related passages that are the exact same thing, why use two different words? Why use knocked out for one and defeated for the other when you either mean knocked out for both or defeated for both? That's something I'll never understand. Is this game suppose to be purposefully unnecessarily confusing?

[Harpua]

This may turn on what you mean by not comprehensive. What do you mean by that? And how do we know which ones are not comprehensive and which ones are? Too much guess work here.

You are citing a definition as wrong.

"ACTION: A character’s attack, move, or use of a power or ability."

That's not wrong. An action can be that.

It just doesn't paint the whole picture. The glossary really can't do that. If it did, the glossary would be about the same size as the rest of the rulebook.



And I'll politely repeat that the rules are poorly written. Could that one change that I suggested make them clear and cohesive? Yes. Will it happen? In my experience, no it won't. I'll never understand the opposition shown by the rules posse to cohesive rules.
There's no resistance when it is warranted.

The PG is thick enough as it is. The glossary is a quick reference, but in no means is it comprehensive.

Is there a change warranted when a power says defeated and you want it to say knocked out? No. It is clear what is meant. Moreover, I've shown where there's nothing wrong with it as written.

If an erraum was added to change Captain Mar-Vell's power from saying defeated to saying knocked out, more players would be confused than there are confused by the current wording.

If there are two effects in two related passages that are the exact same thing, why use two different words? Why use knocked out for one and defeated for the other when you either mean knocked out for both or defeated for both? That's something I'll never understand. Is this game suppose to be purposefully unnecessarily confusing?
Not at all. I'll just point out that the writer of the power is not the same person who updated the rulebook. There are going to be stylistic changes. It's just part of the game evolving. One example is "within range and line of fire" that is found in the current rulebook. This is a new phrase to convey what the previous designers would have said by saying "within the character's range, to which it can draw a clear line of fire." Do we need to go back and create errata for every instance of the old wording to bring it in line with the new choice of wording? No.

[Questions]

There's no resistance when it is warranted.

My experience differs.

The PG is thick enough as it is. The glossary is a quick reference, but in no means is it comprehensive.

I've actually argued that the glossary should be removed. (Rules become smaller.) What we're talking about here only affects the Player's Guide and could actually make it ever so slightly smaller.

Is there a change warranted when a power says defeated and you want it to say knocked out? No. It is clear what is meant. Moreover, I've shown where there's nothing wrong with it as written.

If an erraum was added to change Captain Mar-Vell's power from saying defeated to saying knocked out, more players would be confused than there are confused by the current wording.

I never said change Captain Mar-Vell's power. I said to change the entry related to Capture (which only appears in the Player's Guide) to say defeated, not knocked out. (Or vice versa.) Consistent terms in the same passage.

Do you think people would be confused if it said this?

If this character has any captives when it is defeated, before removing this character from the game, the player who defeatedthis character (including the player controlling this character if it was defeated due to pushing damage or a similar effect) places each captive in an unoccupied square adjacent to this character’s base and gives each an action token.

Or do you think people would be confused by this?

Releasing captives. When it occupies its starting area, this character can be given a power action to release one of its captives into an adjacent unoccupied square also in the starting area. A released captive is immediately knocked out, and this character’s player receives additional victory points for the released captive equal to 50 points or the released captive’s point value, whichever is less.. If the game ends and this character has captives, no player receives victory points for the captives. If this character captures the last opposing character, the game ends after that action resolves.

Either change would lead to consistent terms in congruent passages. That's all I'm saying.

Not at all. I'll just point out that the writer of the power is not the same person who updated the rulebook. There are going to be stylistic changes. It's just part of the game evolving. One example is "within range and line of fire" that is found in the current rulebook. This is a new phrase to convey what the previous designers would have said by saying "within the character's range, to which it can draw a clear line of fire." Do we need to go back and create errata for every instance of the old wording to bring it in line with the new choice of wording? No.

I'm talking about one long passage on page 13-1 of the Golden Age Player's Guide. Did two different people write that passage? That actually would explain a lot. :rolleyes:

[Harpua]

Do you think people would be confused if it said this?

If this character has any captives when it is defeated, before removing this character from the game, the player who defeatedthis character (including the player controlling this character if it was defeated due to pushing damage or a similar effect) places each captive in an unoccupied square adjacent to this character’s base and gives each an action token.

Or do you think people would be confused by this?

Releasing captives. When it occupies its starting area, this character can be given a power action to release one of its captives into an adjacent unoccupied square also in the starting area. A released captive is immediately knocked out, and this character’s player receives additional victory points for the released captive equal to 50 points or the released captive’s point value, whichever is less.. If the game ends and this character has captives, no player receives victory points for the captives. If this character captures the last opposing character, the game ends after that action resolves.

Either change would lead to consistent terms in congruent passages. That's all I'm saying.
Yes. People would be confused by that.

They would look at that entry and say "Dear lord, why did this get changed? What's different about it? How does this work differently than it did before?"

Then we'd explain that it was changed for consistency and we'd be flooded with posts about how the PG is thick enough without having petty things like this changed which cause no confusion to, as best as I can tell, and no offense intended, anybody except for you.



I'm talking about one long passage on page 13-1 of the Golden Age Player's Guide. Did two different people write that passage? That actually would explain a lot. :rolleyes:
Well, as I wasn't privy to that kind of info at the time Capture was written, I can't answer.

[Questions]

Yes. People would be confused by that.

They would look at that entry and say "Dear lord, why did this get changed? What's different about it? How does this work differently than it did before?"

Then we'd explain that it was changed for consistency and we'd be flooded with posts about how the PG is thick enough without having petty things like this changed which cause no confusion to, as best as I can tell, and no offense intended, anybody except for you.

You act like it will make it bigger. It won't.

There really isn't much I can say to this. It's really like hitting your head against a wall.

It makes me wonder why nbperp even asks for help with the Player's Guide.

[mola ram]

Just out of curiosity, what happens to the captured character if you mind control Captain Marvel and then use his capture ability on his character?

Can you just cancel the power and the character is dropped?

[normalview]

Just out of curiosity, what happens to the captured character if you mind control Captain Marvel and then use his capture ability on his character?

Can you just cancel the power and the character is dropped?

Nope. The only way a captured character is 'dropped' is either by releasing the character in the starting area, rescuing the character, or if the Capture character were to lose the Capture power or have it countered.

The only real option then with an MC'd Mar-vell is to either push him off the power or attempt a rescue.

Rescuing captives. Characters friendly to a captive can attempt to rescue that captive. To do so, give a friendly character a power action; it makes a close combat or ranged combat attack against the target character that captured the captive. The target modifies its defense value by –1 for the attack for each of its captives. If the attack succeeds, the attack deals no damage; instead, the attacker chooses a friendly captive. The captive is rescued and put into an unoccupied square adjacent to the target of the attack. Give the rescued character an action token; it can be given an action in the same turn it is rescued, but it is pushed normally.

Since your characters would be friendly to the captive, you could at least try to attempt a rescue. It isn't a gauranteed way to get it back (and it would have a token), but at least you don't have to push Mar-vell.

[Harpua]

You act like it will make it bigger. It won't.

There really isn't much I can say to this. It's really like hitting your head against a wall.

It makes me wonder why nbperp even asks for help with the Player's Guide.
One person crying out that there's a problem does not necessarily mean that there is a problem. (It doesn't mean that there isn't one, either, of course.)

I know that to you it may seem really important, but you haven't shown me anything which shows that there's a problem.

There are plenty of things people request for the PG which do make it in there. That's why he asks. Your pet grievance not making it in to the document doesn't mean that there weren't tons of others which did. It doesn't even mean that yours wasn't given consideration. It means that the issue was reviewed and deemed to not be necessary.
Just out of curiosity, what happens to the captured character if you mind control Captain Marvel and then use his capture ability on his character?
The figure is captured and you can prety much only do one of two things.
- Release him (which still awards the points to the other guy).
- Lose the power.

Can you just cancel the power and the character is dropped?
Nope. That's not one of the ways the guy will be returned.

[Questions]

Nope. The only way a captured character is 'dropped' is either by releasing the character in the starting area, rescuing the character, or if the Capture character were to lose the Capture power or have it countered.

The only real option then with an MC'd Mar-vell is to either push him off the power or attempt a rescue.

Rescuing captives. Characters friendly to a captive can attempt to rescue that captive. To do so, give a friendly character a power action; it makes a close combat or ranged combat attack against the target character that captured the captive. The target modifies its defense value by –1 for the attack for each of its captives. If the attack succeeds, the attack deals no damage; instead, the attacker chooses a friendly captive. The captive is rescued and put into an unoccupied square adjacent to the target of the attack. Give the rescued character an action token; it can be given an action in the same turn it is rescued, but it is pushed normally.

Since your characters would be friendly to the captive, you could at least try to attempt a rescue. It isn't a gauranteed way to get it back (and it would have a token), but at least you don't have to push Mar-vell.

The figure is captured and you can prety much only do one of two things.
- Release him (which still awards the points to the other guy).
- Lose the power.

Like Harpua said, I don't think rescue is an option. A rescue requires attacking the capturing character (your own Captain Mar-Vell) and I don't think the rules allow that.

From p. 8 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
You can’t target a friendly character with an attack, and a character can’t target itself unless specifically allowed.

My question is: why would the opponent get the points?

From the Player's Guide:
Releasing captives. When it occupies its starting area, this character can be given a power action to release one of its captives into an adjacent unoccupied square also in the starting area. A released captive is immediately defeated, and this character’s player receives additional victory points for the released captive equal to 50 points or the released captive’s point value, whichever is less.. If the game ends and this character has captives, no player receives victory points for the captives. If this character captures the last opposing character, the game ends after that action resolves.

"This character's player" is clearly the player with the capturing character. So shouldn't Captain Mar-Vell's player get the bonus points?

As for the base points....

From p. 14 of the 2010 Core Rulebook:
Defeated characters. Every opposing character that you defeated during the game earns a number of victory points equal to its point value.

Shouldn't they be awarded to no one? Captain Mar-Vell's player didn't defeat an opposing character so he shouldn't get the points. The non-Captain Mar-Vell player didn't defeat anything so he shouldn't get any points either. Why is the non-Captain Mar-Vell player getting points?

One person crying out that there's a problem does not necessarily mean that there is a problem. (It doesn't mean that there isn't one, either, of course.)

I know that to you it may seem really important, but you haven't shown me anything which shows that there's a problem.

There are plenty of things people request for the PG which do make it in there. That's why he asks. Your pet grievance not making it in to the document doesn't mean that there weren't tons of others which did. It doesn't even mean that yours wasn't given consideration. It means that the issue was reviewed and deemed to not be necessary.

As far as I know, this is the first time it's been brought up. nbperp hasn't even had a chance to consider it.

(And it's really not that important to me. It's something I noticed for the first time today and it's one of many mistakes in the rules. It's something that can be fixed pretty easily. I understand that the rules posse doesn't really care about making the rules tighter.)

[Harpua]

My question is: why would the opponent get the points?
Because that's what Norm said. (Seriously.)

The 2010 rulebook had a conscious effort made to ensure that you can never score points from your own guys. (Like if you KO your own Superman while he's Possessed, you can't get the points.)
As far as I know, this is the first time it's been brought up. nbperp hasn't even had a chance to consider it.

(And it's really not that important to me. It's something I noticed for the first time today and it's one of many mistakes in the rules. It's something that can be fixed pretty easily. I understand that the rules posse doesn't really care about making the rules tighter.)
Where is there a mistake?

It uses two terms, but there is nothing wrong with how those two terms have been used.

[vlad3theimpaler]

Because that's what Norm said. (Seriously.)

The 2010 rulebook had a conscious effort made to ensure that you can never score points from your own guys. (Like if you KO your own Superman while he's Possessed, you can't get the points.)

Where is there a mistake?

It uses two terms, but there is nothing wrong with how those two terms have been used.

I would just like to point out that there is at least one exception to scoring points off your own characters. If you knock your own Clown Prince of Crime onto his AA symbol clicks (with an energy explosion or pulse wave, for example) you get the token from his card, which gives you 75 victory points at the end of the game. Of course, it could be said that this falls under the "don't be a dink' category, but it IS in the rules.
He‟s Escaped Again! The Clown Prince of Crime begins
the game with four Arkham Asylum tokens. When the Clown
Prince of Crime’s dial is turned so that AA symbols appear, he
is removed from the map and an Arkham Asylum token is
given to the player who caused the dial to be turned. If the
Clown Prince of Crime’s player caused AA symbols to appear
via pushing damage, the last player to damage him gets the
Arkham Asylum token. If you still have at least one Arkham
Asylum token at beginning of your next turn, put the Clown
Prince of Crime in your starting area (rolling to determine
which starting line will be used). When the last Arkham
Asylum token is given away, remove the Clown Prince of
Crime from the game.
Collect Your Reward: At the end of the game, players
receive 75 victory points for each Arkham Asylum token they
were given. (Victory points are not awarded