Wizkids Rules!

Molecule Man: Dinosaur, Colorado
While Molecule Man is active, your opponent must pay 2 to block each of your Fantastic Four character dice.

Suppose I have Molecule Man and a Sidekick active, and no other characters. Am I able to use global abilities that force my opponent to block in this scenario or does Molecule Man's ability prevent that? (see previous ruling)

https://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16592&p=34872&hilit=namor&sid=1f0f9bb713d46773a274db2c72dd14d0#p34872

If I can use the global, am I required to attack with at least 1 non-Fantastic Four character so my opponent isn't forced into paying a cost? What if I don't attack with a non-Fantastic Four character?

Suppose I have Molecule Man and a Sidekick active, and no other characters. Am I able to use global abilities that force my opponent to block in this scenario or does Molecule Man's ability prevent that?

Yes, you could pay for the force-to-block global and attack with the Sidekick.

However........

If I can use the global, am I required to attack with at least 1 non-Fantastic Four character so my opponent isn't forced into paying a cost? What if I don't attack with a non-Fantastic Four character?

These questions present an ethical play situation.

Given your scenario, you could pay for a force-to-block global because you have the choice of attacking with your Sidekick, thus avoiding violating Rules 3.1.10 (2) and 3.1.21 (stated below). However, when you initiate the Attack Step you instead attack with Molecule Man alone and your opponent must block and be forced to pay a cost, which would be disallowed because this violates Rule 3.1.21. While your opponent cannot be forced to pay a cost to block, you still spent the energy for the global. This sets-up a de facto violation of Rule 3.1.10 (2).
When you paid for the global in the Main Step, your intention could have been either to attack with the Sidekick (no ethical violation here), or to attack with Molecule Man alone (hence an ethical violation because you knowingly did something that if disclosed would be illegal). Because the rules in this case do not account for a player’s intention to do something, technically, the paying for the global would be legal.

In the spirit of ethical play, if a player choses to change their mind after paying for the global and instead attack with Molecule Man alone, they should cancel the paying of the global and return the spent energy to their Reserve Pool.

Rule 3.1.10 Energy cannot be spent, or an ability initiated, under any of the following conditions: (1) there would be no result or potential result that changes the game state; (2) there are no legal targets available; or (3) the resolution of the ability duplicates an existing game state.

Rule 3.1.21 A player cannot be forced to pay an ability cost.

So if the attacking player decides not to attack with the non-Fantastic Four character, the energy is refunded. What if instead the non-Fantastic Four character was somehow removed?

Examples include: Magic Missile Global, Thor of Higher Avalon: Fighting Dissidents, Emma Frost: Manipulative

Also, what if the blocking player chooses to pay the cost and Block the Fantastic Four character? Is the energy still refunded?

So if the attacking player decides not to attack with the non-Fantastic Four character, the energy is refunded. ?

No, because Rule 3.1.10 (2) was not violated. The Sidekick could still attack and an opponent’s Character die could have been forced to block that Sidekick. The Attack Step not being initiated in this scenario does not preclude there not being legal targets available.

What if instead the non-Fantastic Four character was somehow removed?

At the time the energy for the global was spent, if the Sidekick was active there is no violation of Rule 3.1.10 (2) because a legal game state exists – the Sidekick could potentially be forcefully blocked (if that Sidekick attacked).

Also, what if the blocking player chooses to pay the cost and Block the Fantastic Four character? Is the energy still refunded?

In this case, the opposing player is not being forced to pay a cost, so there is no violation of Rule 3.1.21, and the spent energy is not refunded. Here the opponent may want to pay the cost so they can trigger some other ability or create a desired game state (e.g. having their blocker KO’d). You would not know of your opponent’s intent to instead pay the cost until after you initiated the Attack Step. If your opponent decides not to pay the cost to block, provided you had a non-Fantastic Four Character die active when you paid for the global, the energy was still spent under a legal game state and would not be refunded. In any case, your opponent cannot be forced to pay the cost.

Again, this discussion focuses on playing ethically. The suggestion for ethical play is to refund the energy if the Active player forces a block and knowingly intends to attack with only Molecule Man instead of with the Sidekick either by itself or with Molecule Man – or just not spending the energy at all if the Active player’s intent is not to attack with the Sidekick.

From the rules perspective, as long as a non-Fantastic Four (FF4) affiliated Character die is Active when the force-to-block global is used a legal game state exists and the energy can be spent. Therefore, regardless of whether the Active player decides to not attack, attack only with a FF4 Character die, or no longer has a non-FF4 Character die Active after the global was used, does not preclude the paying for the global or the refunding of the energy.

There are a number of cards with abilities related to using global abilities. Take the following for instance.

Jubilee: Fireworks
While Jubilee is active, when you spend energy from an x-men die to use a Global Ability or field a character, deal 1 damage to target opponent or character die.

If the energy is refunded because the global use was deemed "unethical," do abilities such as this need to be reversed as well? Otherwise what's to stop a player intentionally playing unethically to get a refund only to use the energy again to trigger such an ability? (I assume the player must refund the energy to the same die they previously spent)

Further consider this hypothetical instance in which I was the blocking player. My opponent has legally forced the sidekick to block (using the original example above). We then resolve triggered abilities from the global which now change the game state in some manner, to which my opponent may now be rethinking their original intention of attacking with that sidekick. How am I to determine my opponent's intention if they don't attack with the sidekick? When my opponent is refunded the energy, how am I to know if the refund was done in the spirit of ethical game play or because it was no longer strategic?

Short answer – you cannot, nor should you try to adjudicate intent.

Our discussion on ethical play is meant for the individual player to think upon - a player knowingly (or intentionally) performing an action that will get reset.

If the play is legal, but afterward a player has second thoughts about their choice of action, there is no rule to compel or allow that player to reset to the previous game state so they can do a different action.