|
Post by Joe Manzo on Jun 15, 2007 10:58:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I was hoping to see some landslides in the voting... 25 to 5, but 50/50 means that half the people are not going to play by the community rules either, meaning this will all be pointless.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 15, 2007 11:03:07 GMT -5
I was pondering this today and came up with the same thing Phoenix did, just have a section for House Rules and list every single little thing there. I personally got the idea from the Epic Duels wiki I frequent who's house rules page can be found here. Superfly could have his own personal "TNT Rules of Awesomeness" article, Malform could have "Transform Correction" page, I could have my "Luke = Luke, period" page, heck, YodaBreaker could have "Force Speed is Fine" on there somewhere, and then everyone is happy. If someone wants to see how other people play the game, they just hit the House Rules main article and then follow the links. No fuss, no muss, no bruised feelings, fingers, or toes. Does anyone agree with me? Is there any flaw in this logic? Are there any others who have been arguing here that are as disenchanted as myself and just want a fair compromise like this one?
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Jun 15, 2007 11:04:05 GMT -5
I, of course, agree.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jun 15, 2007 11:09:16 GMT -5
A robust, and separate part of the wiki devoted to fun variations and "house rules" would be excellent. It would give new players some ideas on different scenarios that can be used in the game and allow for experimentation and adaptation independent of the tournament rules. It could be done here: attacktix.wikia.com/wiki/House_RulesFeel free and post variations you and you crew have found to be fun or enhance gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 15, 2007 11:36:13 GMT -5
I like the idea, but my idea of a robust, full-featured 'replacement ruleset' was going along the idea that Brett would look at it, perhaps look at the logic behind why we changed each rule, and then use that to direct Brian Wilk in the A.T.E. section at Attacktix.com.
Basically, I think that if we get the ruleset out there more people would use it than the Tournament rules. Eventually it would become the new standard, and then the comminuty will finally have a voice in how new powers (which will be better worded, and far more well-thought out) are interpreted moving forward. Giving people a choice is always better.
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Jun 15, 2007 11:53:27 GMT -5
Exactly, a choice to pick their own house rules out of all those listed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 15, 2007 12:32:55 GMT -5
What Superfly said is what I thought as well. I thought we were creating something in hopes of changing some of the current "gray" areas in the game.
If that is not the case, then I am a little shocked as to what this thread was originally made for? It we don't need to establish anything other than what Hasbro has already established, then lock this thread up, throw it in the sea, and pray that it never rises again. ;D
And yes, Phoenix, this did become a pissing match. That is why after a few posts here and there I became exasperated with this thread. I was sick of the same arguments being posted over and over. Then it was getting to the point where people were being attacked. I am just as guilty. However, with that said, I would either like things to change on this thread, or do the above mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 12:44:19 GMT -5
I've tried to stay out of this but I've heard Joe moaning about it quite a bit. I've removed the announcement to vote in the polls (originally Joe told me to put it up) since their author superfly don't like them anymore. Seeing as things are 50/50 on the voting I don't think making a committee will really help things. This whole thing is simple to me but maybe because I like things black and white. There are the OFFICIAL RULES and there are HOUSE RULES. So you don't like the official rules? Play with the house rules you like. There does not need to be "official" community rules. There can be a list of house rules people play with on the Wiki site and you can include all variations. No biggie. There is no way that people are going to eventually agree on one set of rules for community rules. And even if you post them who is really going to follow them if they disagree? I am not. I will use my own House Rules. I just think this whole argument is a waste. Am I missing something here? I've tried to read through the eight pages of this thread but it's a bit of a pissing contest (no offense guys). I'm not trying to be too much of a thread troll but I just want you to think of a peaceful solution. Because if you vote on a committee there is going to still be a lot of arguing going on. I like Phoenix's state of mind. I'm a big fan of black and white, and debating the rules has so much potential for the dreaded "gray" area. I don't see this coming to an end anytime soon, if ever. Not to be pessimistic about it all, but the Wiki is a great idea without the focus on the rules. We could possibly ruin a wonderful thing by trying to mix oil and water here (Hasbro rules and voted house rules). A committee would be the best possible way to tackle this endeavor, but from what I see right now (now that Pheonix has re-opened my eyes), that's the choice of the "lesser of the evils". If you guys want me on the team, I'm in, but I am starting to question how efficient the committee will be.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 15, 2007 12:55:51 GMT -5
I just want to reiterate that I really would of loved this to work. I hate to see a good thing go so bad. However, based off of what I had seen going on, I can see why. Someone PM'd me and had a good idea. I know that Brett works directly/indirectly with the big H. Why don't we put together all of our ideas and submit them to the big H. and see if we can get a response? How cool would that be to get around 20 to 30 different ideas and see if they would accept them. Even if they only took 1 of them would be a victory in my eyes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 13:12:57 GMT -5
I just want to reiterate that I really would of loved this to work. I hate to see a good thing go so bad. However, based off of what I had seen going on, I can see why. Someone PM'd me and had a good idea. I know that Brett works directly/indirectly with the big H. Why don't we put together all of our ideas and submit them to the big H. and see if we can get a response? How cool would that be to get around 20 to 30 different ideas and see if they would accept them. Even if they only took 1 of them would be a victory in my eyes! You might be onto something there...
|
|
|
Post by Yaggleberry Finn on Jun 15, 2007 14:02:11 GMT -5
Whew, I've not been a part of this conversation and spent the last 45 minutes getting up to speed. Even though you're all off on a different topic now (discussing having a large listing of house rules) I want to throw in two thoughts on some of the previous questions regarding official Hasbro rules.
As far as whether or not knock down = defeated, I can only say it definitely means defeated in Hasbro's eyes. 1-09 Wookiee Commando's Rally power reads as follows: "Return another one of your defeated Wookiees to play." The only reason the word another would be included is because that Wookiee himself was defeated - even while he is still in your hand and you're reading his special power.
On the Luke/Han as Stormtrooper question - I just wanted to throw out a more practical thought as to the naming, because several have said the "Skywalker" was obviously left out on purpose. Now, I don't have L/a/S here in front of me, but is it possible they left the word "Skywalker" out simply because there wasn't enough room on the label? And then to keep continuity, they made Han the same way? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 15, 2007 14:10:08 GMT -5
I like the idea, but my idea of a robust, full-featured 'replacement ruleset' was going along the idea that Brett would look at it, perhaps look at the logic behind why we changed each rule, and then use that to direct Brian Wilk in the A.T.E. section at Attacktix.com. I guess I'd not thought of that as an ultimate goal. I've posted a question for Brett here to see how likely it would be that such a project would even be received. Obviously, the fan base is clamoring for it, but if the head honchos aren't up for supporting it, then it would dictate some sort of Reformation. I'm not even sure he'd be able to answer such a question, but it seems worth asking, at the very least. We're obviously passionate about this game, but it might be helpful to have a preliminary gauge of how much use our efforts will be before going all-out again. I think this debate demonstrated nicely the lessons my religious studies major taught me - and why I doubt I'd find a career in the humanities rewarding. As much as we argue, debate, whine, and ad hominem, it's not going to change a darn thing unless the powers that be...well, be receptive. As Phoenix and Joe pointed out, there didn't seem to be any landslide poll results, suggesting that there's not a critical consensus among us to derive the One True Rulebook. Thank you, Phoenix, for housebreaking us all of our nasty habit of pissing where it don't belong. I'll grab some paper towels.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 15, 2007 17:58:22 GMT -5
Posted by YodaBreaker on Today at 3:10pm
Thank you, Phoenix, for housebreaking us all of our nasty habit of pissing where it don't belong. I'll grab some paper towels. |
I am not apologizing for anything. We did our best to neuter you over the weekend so you would stop spraying. ;D
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 15, 2007 20:17:39 GMT -5
Still I say that this would be SO easy. 1. Make the committee. 2. Open a thread. 3. Review the agenda and make changes to the voting OPTIONS for each rule. 4. All panelists opine in 1 post. 5. All panelists rebut in 1 post. 6. Once all have posted or abstained, VOTE. No poll, just an Aye or Nay. 7. Tally, and record. Move on to next issue.
As far as Brett's involvement, I see it as a good idea, but not prerequisite. Those of us that play VERY often, are involved with tournament play, and have been here since the beginning are, in my opinion, the most qualified to correct the rules as we've seen more real-life scenarios, opponents, and team mixes than anyone. We, collectively, hold the keys and we have seen the many doorways.
So, are we going to AGAIN pointlessly debate, or can we get the project started?? Irrespective of anything else, I feel this an important endeavor, and I will start this going. I am going to contact several people, and see if they want in. If not, fine. If so, fine. Once I've got the panelists, I will begin.
The format will be thus: I will start a thread named PANELISTS. In this thread I will take the rules we've been talking about, as well as the Ask The Expert rules, and one by one we will go down them. 1 Post, 1 Rebuttal. We're all adults, so we can control ourselves. Ones that do not wish to be involved may simply post "I abstain" and can pass. Once all arguments and rebuttals are in, I'll call for a vote. All the Ayes and Nays will be shown, and there you have it. Rule amended. I'll then amend the ORIGINAL post, writing the outcome after the question, and then we can move on.
Sound Good? And BTW - so what if the polls have been 50/50? Does that mean that we shouldn't vote? Look at the 2000 Presidential election....
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 15, 2007 20:51:38 GMT -5
Sound Good? And BTW - so what if the polls have been 50/50? Does that mean that we shouldn't vote? Look at the 2000 Presidential election.... I think the more appropriate analogy is to amending the Constitution, with a three-quarters majority of the "states" necessary to pass an amendment. Inasmuch as we've already demonstrated that we probably don't even have the two-thirds majority to shove these proposed rule changes though our "legislature". I dunno...the more I think about this, the more I lose enthusiasm for it, as the prospect of having the stated goal of "hav[ing] NO gray area" (at least, in the domain of public opinion) seems less tenable. The reason the supermajorities for the big issues are required in the US system of government is to ensure that the overwhelming consent of the governed is obtained, thus ensuring widespread adoption of a measure. As Joe noted, without that widespread agreement (which heretofore hasn't even come close to being obtained), community rules will be toast. I foresee it basically being the Protestant Reformation all over again, with the attendant splitting of the "community" into ever smaller camps.
|
|