|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 9:26:47 GMT -5
So, moving figures in and out of back-ups is less radical than saying Luke = Luke? Also, saying that they named then differently in order to keep game balance doesn't make sense once one remembers that we have at least two, if not three, different rulings centering around the "as Stormtroopers". I know for certain we have one that says they are the same and one that says they aren't the same. If they were named for the sake of game balance, I highly doubt we would have contradictory rulings on whether they're the same or not. Look at it this way. Luke Skywalker is named Luke Skywalker while in his Farmboy outfit which was the first version released. He is named Luke Skywalker while in his Jedi outfit which was in the same set as "as Stormtrooper". He is named Luke Skywalker in his Hoth outfit which came after "as Stormtrooper". Why then is he called "Luke as Stormtrooper" in this one case? It goes against every other naming convention, it goes against logic, and it has caused many an odd ruling. To me, there is no reason why Luke as Stormtrooper shouldn't count as Luke Skywalker. If you ask me, they called him that so it was abundantly clear that he wasn't in Clone Trooper armor, that it was Luke Skywalker and not some random Stormtrooper, and so a kid can instantly remember why the heck he's in disguise. Transform, however, causes blurry area like moving things into back-ups when they have been knocked down. It adds wording which there is no in-game precedence for (AKA there is nothing to base the argument off of but the thought that Transform doesn't equal defeated which is an out-of-game argument whereas the L/a/S has the fact that other costume changes don't cause name changes). It seems like a great house rule but not something I would want to see happen at a tournament if one were to use these official unofficial house rules.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 13, 2007 9:35:49 GMT -5
So, moving figures in and out of back-ups is less radical than saying Luke = Luke? Also, saying that they named then differently in order to keep game balance doesn't make sense once one remembers that we have at least two, if not three, different rulings centering around the "as Stormtroopers". I know for certain we have one that says they are the same and one that says they aren't the same. If they were named for the sake of game balance, I highly doubt we would have contradictory rulings on whether they're the same or not. Look at it this way. Luke Skywalker is named Luke Skywalker while in his Farmboy outfit which was the first version released. He is named Luke Skywalker while in his Jedi outfit which was in the same set as "as Stormtrooper". He is named Luke Skywalker in his Hoth outfit which came after "as Stormtrooper". Why then is he called "Luke as Stormtrooper" in this one case? It goes against every other naming convention, it goes against logic, and it has caused many an odd ruling. To me, there is no reason why Luke as Stormtrooper shouldn't count as Luke Skywalker. If you ask me, they called him that so it was abundantly clear that he wasn't in Clone Trooper armor, that it was Luke Skywalker and not some random Stormtrooper, and so a kid can instantly remember why the heck he's in disguise. Transform, however, causes blurry area like moving things into back-ups when they have been knocked down. It adds wording which there is no in-game precedence for (AKA there is nothing to base the argument off of but the thought that Transform doesn't equal defeated which is an out-of-game argument whereas the L/a/S has the fact that other costume changes don't cause name changes). It seems like a great house rule but not something I would want to see happen at a tournament if one were to use these official unofficial house rules. Ummm... Ya, I really would call renaming any figure you feel was named incorrectly a radical move. You pointed out my point perfectly... Its funny how you seem to do that... Yes, the naming of the "as stormtrooper" figures goes against all the other naming conventions before and after. Well gee, you think that was just a goof? Yeah, I think maybe they were planning on having a "Luke - farmboy" and a "Luke Jedi" figure. They named them differently so that when someone looses a "luke as stormtrooper" they cant bring in another "luke as stormtrooper". Tell me... What exactly are these "blurry" areas you speak of regarding transform = back ups? I really dont see any draw backs other than we have never done it before... Kind like how we never used to vanquish figures, or just rename them at will..
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 13, 2007 9:56:24 GMT -5
I'll argue what I perceive as the "strict" position here. Luke as Stormtrooper and Han Solo as Stormtrooper are not the same as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, respectively. Here are a couple of reasons I'd use to support this position (none of which are strictly necessary or sufficient to demonstrate my point, but jointly are good enough reasons for me). - These figures have a unique effect that mark them as different sorts of characters.
- In-universe, they represent an amalgam of characters (i.e., hero and Stormtrooper), not a pure character.
- Other characters with compound names (e.g., Super Battle Droid) aren't considered valid targets for such powers (even though I know they represent different characters; see point above for my answer to that).
- Even if it's a misprint, Hasbro didn't even put the full "Luke Skywalker" name on the base.
- Until we have a full set of rules in place based on strict wordings of powers, effects, and the like, it seems unwise to worry about making errata, as we haven't considered fully the effect of those errata on other figures.
Transform should be played as written on the base, with the following reasons: - The special power wording clearly states what should happen.
- The mechanics for this power are already established.
- Our full set of rules should not contradict what Hasbro has explicitly established; otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to come to any meaningful agreement with each other.
- By so changing a clearly worded power, we also lose credibility with those who want to play the game as Hasbro has designed it, for better or worse.
Now, I agree that Hasbro made a big mistake by capitalizing the "Vehicle" in the robot modes' special power wordings, and it leads to a situation in which a named figure doesn't currently exist for a power to be used. Thus, to preserve the game mechanics, I'd be OK with considering that capital "V" a typo (as we know, Hasbro has been known to have them present on figures), but relegating "as Stormtrooper" to the same status is a bit more radical than changing a typo. However, strictly speaking, one could assume that Hasbro planned a "Super Optimus Prime Vehicle" figure in the future, and so we shouldn't even accept this erratum for now - which will be my position for consistency's sake until we actually have a full list of rules. Only then will I be comfortable talking about errata
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 10:05:19 GMT -5
And you, Malform not Yodabreaker, missed my primary argument. If the reason they were named differently was so you can't use powers that target Luke to bring back L/a/S then we would not have contradictory rulings.
The blurry areas are: 1. Defeated figures always go to the defeated pile 2. There is no precedence in any wording that states otherwise 3. It is unknown if 1/2 is a limit like "You can only hold up to 10 apples in that basket, no more than that" or if it is a starting point "Start with only 10 apples in that basket, you can add more later if you'd like". 4. Stating how we "never used to Vanquish figures" is fallacious because Vanquish didn't exist at the time nor was their precedence for it.
Simply put, I believe that this project should not fundamentally rewrite any rules, merely clear up Hasbro's droppings. We should stay as close to designer intent as possible. There are arguments inside designer intent for knockdown not equaling defeat (Rally figures that have "defeat" on them), Evade protecting completely (cannot attack means cannot attack, period), Emperor (Emperor's effect is listed as an attack, one is allowed to attack more than once, Emperor's attack is the clasping of his arms, Emperor can therefore clasp or de-clasp his arms), and the re-naming of figures (Every other Luke Skywalker, every other Han Solo, every other costume change, has the same name. If meant for balancing, why the conflicting rulings?).
Changing Transform has no designer intent, it doesn't clear up any of Hasbro's droppings, it merely makes the game fit a fan's logic. If we were to base these rules on that, I have quite a few rules I want changed...
EDIT, post Yodabreaker: I am not 100% committed to changing L/a/S for balancing reasons although I do believe there are any. There are exactly two powers that specifically target Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and those are L/a/S and H/a/S's Recruit powers (That, and Chewbacca who is a 30-point shooter with a 50% chance of Recovering from Han Solo. However, I also doubt that this would break gameplay any more than the current 20-point Recover: Warrior Han Solo teaming up with the carptet) . At best, this gives a player a 38% or 31% chance of practically having a Rescue that takes up 20 points worth of back-ups. I see no balancing issues here.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 13, 2007 10:13:22 GMT -5
Transform should be played as written on the base, with the following reasons: [/li][li]The special power wording clearly states what should happen. [/li][li]The mechanics for this power are already established. [/li][li]Our full set of rules should not contradict what Hasbro has explicitly established; otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to come to any meaningful agreement with each other. [/li][li]By so changing a clearly worded power, we also lose credibility with those who want to play the game as Hasbro has designed it, for better or worse.[/quote] Ahh.... I totally agree that specials should be played out as they are worded... But the core problem with transform appeared no where in writing, not even in the sp wording on the base. Transform is phrased as: "If White > Put [NAME/NAME VEHICLE mode] into play from your back-ups."... So the real question in my mind, is where does the one that brought the special into play go? We just assume that it goes to the defeated pile, as this is the historical resting place for those that rally, or recruit. But my argument is that transform is something very much different than someone running in to avenge a fallen comrade on the battle field. This is the same character taking another form, and they should maintain the ability to return to the former form. And you, Malform not Yodabreaker, missed my primary argument. If the reason they were named differently was so you can't use powers that target Luke to bring back L/a/S then we would not have contradictory rulings. Bah... I think you just like the sound of your own voice... Or keyboard. Contradictory rulings is what you base the idea of renaming figures to correct what you see as an error? The rulings contradict, so they must have messed up when they named the figure... Or it was a misprint right? Doesnt seem like a whole lot of logic in there.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 10:15:44 GMT -5
Uh, we do have Webhead (a person who worked with Hasbro on these) that said Transform = Re-Named Recruit. I can dig up the post if I must.
EDIT: No, contradictory rulings is not what I'm basing my errata off of. It is my counterpoint to your "Maybe they're named that way for balance?" point. I'm basing my errata off of the fact that there is precedence in-game (costume changes by Luke and Han aren't named otherwise, there are no balancing issues because there are only three figures that effect Luke/Han and none of those powers are game-breaking, adding "stormtrooper" adds no additional power to the figure due to the "exact name" rule Hasbro has) and out-of-game (a character is not different because he wears a suit of armor) that L/a/S and H/a/S should be called Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 13, 2007 10:30:03 GMT -5
The blurry areas are: 1. Defeated figures always go to the defeated pile 2. There is no precedence in any wording that states otherwise 3. It is unknown if 1/2 is a limit like "You can only hold up to 10 apples in that basket, no more than that" or if it is a starting point "Start with only 10 apples in that basket, you can add more later if you'd like". 4. Stating how we "never used to Vanquish figures" is fallacious because Vanquish didn't exist at the time nor was their precedence for it. 1. A transformed figure should not be a defeated figure... This in fact is a core point of my argument. 2. So? Thats how it goes when new abilities are introduced. 3. This is just silly... They dont say you have to maintain a certain amount of points in backups, so obviously they dont say you can add to them later. The only thing I ever remember reading was something along the lines of "Each team starts with....". 4. Umm, yeah... Kind of what I said in 2.. New abilities are introduced, so you got some new rules to follow as well. All of these are rather silly in my eyes... They barely rank as "blurry areas" and certainly have no detrimental effects on the game. If you do happen to think of one, do please share.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 10:36:26 GMT -5
Sigh, here's my main reason for arguing against Transform = Back-Ups. I'm not arguing it any more after this. Key argument 1:There is absolutely no precedence anywhere written in the game that Transform should be used in anyway other than written. Key argument 2 (counterpoint to "we're only going to Defeated because of tradition"):1. How exactly does the Transform power work? Most of us just replace the dead figure with the alternate mode at the point of attack. Someone said in one of my threads that a Hasbro person said that the figure comes into play in the starting area, and the effect worked just like recruit. This really doesn't make sense to me, as if the effect was exactly like recruit, why give it a new name? Also, is the defeated figure now dead? In theory, since the figure Transforms, shouldn't the defeated figure go into your backups instead? The robot modes tend to have low success rates for Transform, so that interpretation wouldn't be game breaking, and would give Transformers some figures that could really stand up to the best of Star Wars. 1. Transform is a specific form of Recruit, and works the same way. (The alt mode figure is placed in your starting area.) Do I think the game would be more logical if Transform would have been worded to allow a Transforming figure to go to the back-ups? Yes. Do I think we should re-write an entire power in something that is more meant to clear up Hasbro rulings? No. In fact, I am so adamantly against it, I'll drop my L/a/S errata if ends up being used to argue for a major re-write. We should merely add Amendments to the Attacktix Constitution, not re-write the Bill of Rights (or special power list, in this case ).
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 13, 2007 10:53:26 GMT -5
Sigh, here's my main reason for arguing against Transform = Back-Ups. I'm not arguing it any more after this. Key argument 1:There is absolutely no precedence anywhere written in the game that Transform should be used in anyway other than written. Key argument 2 (counterpoint to "we're only going to Defeated because of tradition"):1. How exactly does the Transform power work? Most of us just replace the dead figure with the alternate mode at the point of attack. Someone said in one of my threads that a Hasbro person said that the figure comes into play in the starting area, and the effect worked just like recruit. This really doesn't make sense to me, as if the effect was exactly like recruit, why give it a new name? Also, is the defeated figure now dead? In theory, since the figure Transforms, shouldn't the defeated figure go into your backups instead? The robot modes tend to have low success rates for Transform, so that interpretation wouldn't be game breaking, and would give Transformers some figures that could really stand up to the best of Star Wars. 1. Transform is a specific form of Recruit, and works the same way. (The alt mode figure is placed in your starting area.) Do I think the game would be more logical if Transform would have been worded to allow a Transforming figure to go to the back-ups? Yes. Do I think we should re-write an entire power in something that is more meant to clear up Hasbro rulings? No. In fact, I am so adamantly against it, I'll drop my L/a/S errata if ends up being used along the lines to argue for this. The answer from Brett is quoted from a discussion on where the figure entering into the game starts. He wasnt trying to give an answer on where the fallen one is placed. Quotes out of context are not meant to answer all questions. So really... There is NO hasbro ruling on my problem with transform. So this means nothing. There is also no precedence to take upon yourself that "luke skywaler" = "luke as stormtrooper"... My potentially game altering problems with that are: 1. You could replace "luke as stormtrooper" with a "luke as stormtrooper" 2. You could then by extention swap "battle droid" "super battle droid" and "battle droid commander" (I know I know, they are different characters ) 3. You could interchange "super optimus prime" and "optimus prime". Kind of the same as 2, but there is a differance between sop and op, even thought they are the same character.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Manzo on Jun 13, 2007 10:57:51 GMT -5
There is also no precedence to take upon yourself that "luke skywaler" = "luke as stormtrooper"... My potentially game altering problems with that are: 1. You could replace "luke as stormtrooper" with a "luke as stormtrooper" 2. You could then by extention swap "battle droid" "super battle droid" and "battle droid commander" (I know I know, they are different characters ) 3. You could interchange "super optimus prime" and "optimus prime". Kind of the same as 2, but there is a differance between sop and op, even thought they are the same character. Right I KNOW that LUke = L/a/S was the mind set, but it was overlooked/not cared about when it came out. I think we can EASILY get an edit or official statement from Hasbro for THIS FIGURE ONLY, but without that it is an error that Hasbro made that can't be fixed without slipping all over the other rules. I'll work on seeing if we can get something official, released on the site, an error page or something
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 11:01:54 GMT -5
Wrong, malform. Thecasualoblivion very specifically mentions the "back-ups" issue in his question. Despite this, Webhead still stated that "Transform is a specific form of Recruit." I bet you $1000 forum cash that if you PM Webhead, he'll say the same thing about putting the figure into the back-ups.
I myself said, if my L/a/S argument is going to be used in other arguments for much larger changes, I don't want it in. However, you are misconstruing my argument.
I am not arguing for a non-literal reading of the words. Any power that targets a Battle Droid targets a Battle Droid because that is what it says. I am arguing for the sole name change of L/a/S and H/a/S because their names don't make any sense. SOP and OP are different characters from different universes. BD, SBD, BDC are different droids. Luke and Han are Luke and Han. Period.
I want an errata, not a rule change. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 13, 2007 11:05:02 GMT -5
Wrong, malform. Thecasualoblivion very specifically mentions the "back-ups" issue in his question. Despite this, Webhead still stated that "Transform is a specific form of Recruit." I bet you $1000 forum cash that if you PM Webhead, he'll say the same thing about putting the figure into the back-ups. I myself said, if my L/a/S argument is going to be used in other arguments for much larger changes, I don't want it in. However, you are misconstruing my argument. I am not arguing for a non-literal reading of the words. Any power that targets a Battle Droid targets a Battle Droid because that is what it says. I am arguing for the sole name change of L/a/S and H/a/S because their names don't make any sense. SOP and OP are different characters from different universes. BD, SBD, BDC are different droids. Luke and Han are Luke and Han. Period. I want an errata, not a rule change. Big difference. Yeah, I would think that renaming figures would be a much bigger move than clearing up a botched special. I move that we rename all "Han" figures to "bubba".
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 11:08:10 GMT -5
Sorry, malform, but calling Han "bubba" has no in-game or out-of-game precedence. Nice try, though .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2007 11:26:21 GMT -5
SOP and OP are different characters from different universes. Though not a direct sequel, Cybertron is based off of the "big picture" that G1 laid down. Optimus Prime died and was rebuilt, then with every following series, he was presumably upgraded. Because, somehow, magically, even though, as you say, they are 2 different characters, they still have the same personalities.... Funny huh? That because they're the same robot! That's like saying that Luke in his Tatooine outfit is a different character than Luke in his Endor outfit, since he went through the cyber-netic hand "upgrade". As I've said, if we keep arguing over things like wording and *suspected* typos, we will never get to working on the real problems at hand. You can't change what was typed, and something as significant as "Skywalker" being left out of a label, I doubt was accidental. I believe, as Malform said, it was because of balance.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 13, 2007 11:39:37 GMT -5
For reference, here's the thread in which the Transform question was raised. Furthermore, all the Transform figures I have in front of me (SOP robot and vehicle, Megatron robot and vehicle, Skyblast robot and vehicle) specifically state on their bases "into play from your Back-Ups." Thus, it would seem that they were at least thinking of backups when making this power, making the absence of a mention of returning the figure to backups notable. Apparently, my "strict" position could also be the "conservative" one: absent actual special power text to the contrary, assume that the existing mechanics are the ones to be used. Thus, the defeated area is historically to where figures go once knocked down, so they should only go there with Transform, especially inasmuch as it's a "specific" form of Recruit. It's times like this when I wish the starter sets still came with CD-ROMs that would help answer some of these questions. Hasbro was able to put a lot more information on those than they chose to put in their quickstart guides. See below for more on that. I realize I should have put in votes on the other questions, too. Again, this is from a strict perspective based on what I perceive to be the received wisdom, which forces me to adopt a logic that might be peculiar. 1) Knocked down = defeated. We check the special power because the figure is defeated. Yes, this would mean that we've been playing Rally all wrong, if Hasbro hadn't already ruled otherwise. From the SW S2 Starter CD-ROM: "Rally allows you to bring in a listed figure from your defeated area."If Rally is activated, choose an eligible figure that is currently in your defeated area. Bring that figure into play two TIX from your side of the play area." (italics mine) Thus, Rally pulls from the player's own defeated area, and we've been playing Rally right, inasmuch as the knocked down figures have not reached the defeated area yet. I like the graveyard analogy here best. 2) Strictly speaking, only the exactly named figure should be affected when specifically named. Characters in different disguises (e.g., Luke as Stormtrooper, Darth Sidious as Palpatine or Emperor) aren't eligible for such consideration. Absent errata to the contrary, I'll stick to this. 3) Attacking figures from Evaded classes directly should be strictly prohibited, as the power wording is clear on this. The problem with the other options is how "attack" should be defined. Which of the following should be acceptable? - An "attack" consists of one figure targeting only another specific figure. All other actions are not "attacks." Thus, "attacks" may need to be called in advance. Also, no tossing of Evaded figures back to achieve positional advantages, taking advantage of their inability to be defeated to strike them out of attacking range.
- An attack consists of one figure's targeting of another specific figure and any other figures that first specific figure touches. Thus, an attack may result from either the direct action of one figure on another (e.g., Wicket striking Darth Vader) or the indirect effects of that first direct attack action (e.g., Wicket striking Darth Vader, who then flies into a bunch of Stormtroopers who were Evaded due to the defeat of an Imperial Gunner on the previous turn, knocking them all down).
- An attack consists of one figure's targeting of another specific figure and any other objects that first specific figure touches. This one only matters when you're playing with terrain. In the case the GE was citing in the tournament, he had five figures clustered around a command post (which would move if hit). Here's my ASCII art diagram (the numerals are his figures, the asterisk is my striker, and the parentheses are the command post:
.....5.... ...4.....3 .....(..)2 .....*1..
I tried to knock 1 into 2 and 3 (4 and 5 were Rodimus, which I didn't want to knock down before taking all command posts, lest he be able to put Destroyer Droids in from backups). I struck 1, which hit the command post (which I think then hit 2 and 3), leaving 1, 2, and 3 knocked down and the CP on its edge as follows:
.....5..)... ...4.......X ...........X. .....*...X..
I called superflytnt to rule on this one, as I wanted to confirm that this fell under his "hockey goal" rule. As I recall it, he said that striking the CP directly to send it flying into other figures was not a licit attack. However, if a CP moved and knocked down other figures as a result of a first attacked figure flying into the CP, the knockdowns resulting from the CP's incidental motion were licit. If the CP had been tethered down, I probably would have gotten 2 down, but I likely would not have gotten 3 down, given the angle the original strike would have required. Now, none of GE's figures were Evaded, but if 2 and 3 had been, the motion of the CP could have been considered an attack.
If either of the the last two options are considered valid attacks, what if the first targeted figure is a member of one's own team or of the opponent's team? Does it matter? I wouldn't think so, but it would suggest that any Evaded figures that are knocked down should be stood up. And where should they be stood up? If they can't be attacked, it seems that any changes in position or defeated status should be reversed as a result of their being attacked. Thus, they should be stood up in their original positions, rather than where they fell. However, this particular ruling would be rather difficult to enforce. And even worse, what if a non-Evaded figure is knocked into an Evaded figure, which then knocks down a non-Evaded figure? Under the principle of "an illicit attack action against an Evaded figure should be treated as null and void," even those figures should be stood back up, right where they were. But then, how can you demonstrate that the non-Evaded flung figure wasn't the one that actually knocked down the other non-Evaded figure? It gives me a headache that I'm not prepared to resolve right now. 4) Defeated Transform figures go into the defeated area. There is no wording on the special power contrary to this (in the face of special power wording that explicitly mentions backups), and there exist Hasbro employee rulings defining Transform as a "specific Recruit" - not an "altered Recruit" or a "special Recruit", but a "specific Recruit". My reading of backups (as of SW S2, which I realize was issued before TFs were released) suggests that they're not meant to be repositories of figures with which you started in play. According to the SW S2 Starter CD-ROM, "If Recruit is activated, choose an eligible battle figure that did not start the game on your side. Bring that figure into play two TIX from your side of the play area." (italics mine) I think that the talk of "imbalance" comes about because it would be possible to ping-pong figures between backups and the play field. However, one can do the same thing with existing Rally figures in between the defeated area and the play field (M1 Beast is a great example of this), so it may not be as imbalancing as is feared, especially given the relatively low probability of the robot mode's Transform power kicking in and the relative weakness of the attacks of the vehicle mode.
|
|