|
Post by ionicdesign on Jun 19, 2007 13:25:37 GMT -5
I'm content with the state of things as they are here (though some better conceptual clarity would be nice).
Knocked down = Defeated.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 19, 2007 15:25:31 GMT -5
Posting what the QSG has to say is irrelevant. We know that Hasbro made Knock down and Defeat synonymous. What we are arguing is what rules Hasbro has laid out before us.
Logically it doesn't make sense. A figure should not be technically considered defeated if it has the ability to recover or any of the other reviving specials.
With that said, my concern is if we try to change this, what is it really going to effect? Could we be throwing off some balance to the game? I am thinking of the butterfly effect. If we do something here, what is it effecting in the long run? Are there other figures in the mix that we know nothing about that are going to be greatly effected due to a change of this magnitude? Could we possibly create more imbalance due to this? That is my greatest concern. We have no idea of the future of Attacktix and making this kind of change could become detrimental.
Nuff said. I am ready to vote.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jun 19, 2007 15:31:01 GMT -5
No rebuttal
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 19, 2007 16:00:12 GMT -5
I view the QSG's utter consistency about the equivalence between "knocked down" and "defeated" to be heartening, rather than a point of contention. The reason the first page I posted states that a knocked down/defeated figure is to be removed immediately from play is because that section of the QSG is designed for games that don't take special powers into consideration. Thus, I don't believe that statement "demonstrates it's own invalidity"; rather, even in the rules for beginners, the equivalence between being knocked down and defeated is established. The second page's wording shows that these terms are to be considered equivalent, even in higher-level play in which special powers like Recover and the like are taken into consideration. I suspect that the reason different terms are used in the Master Battles section is that "knocked down" refers to the physical state of the figure (i.e., the way the figure is positioned on the playing field), whereas "defeated" refers to the game state of that figure (i.e., what the game labels a figure in that physical position to be). I also suspect that they used the phrase "knocked down" to describe when special powers are activated to ease comprehension: "knocked down" is a concrete and observable state, whereas "defeated" is a more abstract and theoretical state. The subsequent CD-ROM information makes it clear to me that only figures located in the defeated area can be used for Rallying purposes (as does the special power wording for Starter 5 "Han Solo on Hoth", for instance). Therefore, though one could try to argue that figures that are defeated but not in the defeated area would be eligible for Rallying, that argument would go against previous Hasbro rulings. Thus, there aren't any inconsistencies that are created by ruling that knocked down = defeated, from my perspective. One need not invoke "purgatory" or any other such state to explain how figures are defeated without being placed in the defeated area. Their physical positions on the playing field are sufficient to do that for me. Therefore, there's no reason to need to propose a "limbo" state - we've already got it covered Also, for so many figures, reading the special powers has no bearing on their status as defeated. Therefore, continuing with the ruling of knocked down = defeated ensures that all special powers are treated equally when it comes time to decide the application of effects and the like. I agree that there are some unknowns in how changing this ruling might affect future gameplay. Notably, the "Manipulator" and "Jedi Teacher" effects on the S5 Emperor and Yoda, respectively, rely on defeated figures. In particular, they can rely on defeating figures (Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader, respectively) that have high-probability Recover powers in addition to other types of powers (e.g., Force Push for their S2 booster molds). I think that the knocked down = defeated ruling will ensure consistent application of those effects, no matter what the special power of the knocked down figure may be. Finally, it seems important to keep in mind that S1 Daredevil doesn't get a free move and attack if his attack is successful, as some posts on this subject have seemed to indicate. Rather, his effect simply states that his successful attack on a figure meeting the specified conditions doesn't count against your team's attack actions. Thus, he wouldn't likely get another good shot at a defeated-but-Recovered figure like S1 Prodderine would.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 19, 2007 22:42:23 GMT -5
Excellent points all.
Please now vote on the choices at hand:
1. Defeated is equivalent to Knocked Down. Any figure knocked down (except those incidentally that are Evading) is ruled as Defeated.
2. Figures that are Knocked Down are NOT defeated. They are only Defeated if they go to the Defeated Area.
Please vote, and thanks all.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 20, 2007 6:55:09 GMT -5
1. Defeated is equivalent to Knocked Down. Any figure knocked down (except those incidentally that are Evading) is ruled as Defeated.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 20, 2007 7:12:04 GMT -5
1. Defeated is equivalent to Knocked Down. Any figure knocked down (except those incidentally that are Evading) is ruled as Defeated.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jun 20, 2007 9:28:19 GMT -5
1. Defeated is equivalent to Knocked Down. Any figure knocked down (except those incidentally that are Evading) is ruled as Defeated.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 20, 2007 9:46:54 GMT -5
1. Defeated is equivalent to Knocked Down. Any figure knocked down (except those incidentally that are Evading) is ruled as Defeated.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 20, 2007 9:53:53 GMT -5
Well Boys, the "Aye's" Have it. 4 Votes for "Defeated = Knockdown", and that's the ruling of the panel.
<Editorial Note to the Panel from the Chair> I would like to state that I would really like to see better REASONING behind the arguments. It's all well and good that Hasbro has been cited so often, but the point of this panel is to augment and enhance gameplay. If we just cite Hasbro, without much real thought on alternatives and why gameplay should be changed or left based SOLELY on gameplay, then we're not really doing anything here but reiterating what Hasbro says. Let's talk more about how the rule affects gameplay, why we feel that a rule should be left or changed irrespective of Hasbro. Let's focus on the actual gameplay rather than the edicts from on high. <End Editorial Statement>
That being said, we've got things rolling along quite nicely now, so let's move on to ISSUE #2!
Q. Are figures' labels open for interpretation or not, regarding SPs? (Luke as ST=Luke Skywalker/ Optimus = Super Optimus)
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 20, 2007 10:18:35 GMT -5
Rule - Are figures' labels open for interpretation or not, regarding SPs? // Argument 2
Gentlemen, I feel that figures' nameplates should NOT be open to interpretation and should be taken literally. Han as ST and Luke as ST should not be called into play when a "Rally - Luke/Han" is enacted. Similarly, I think that Super Optimus Prime should not be the same as "Optimus Prime". It could be argued that these are one-in-the-same since "Luke in a Duck Suit is Still Luke", but I think that for gameplay purposes, if we start leaving things open to interpretation then we will fall victim to the rule of unintended consequences. I've also noticed that the S5 Luke and Han On Hoth actually have the nameplates listed as "Luke Skywalker/Han Solo on Hoth" which indicates to me that there is a difference in certain figures and that both the original intent and the gameplay logic dictates that there should be differences in the names, and hence they should NOT be used interchangeably.
In short, we open a big can of worms with allowing 'interpretation' and the only perceived benefit is cast upon a handful of figures, whereas if we rule that nameplates are finite and not open to interpretation, we close the road to "mid-game debate/confusion" at the cost of that same few figures not being Rallied or Transformed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2007 10:21:53 GMT -5
That being said, we've got things rolling along quite nicely now, so let's move on to ISSUE #2! Q. Are figures' labels open for interpretation or not, regarding SPs? (Luke as ST=Luke Skywalker/ Optimus = Super Optimus) Well, Hasbro once stated... J/K Leaving figure labels up to interpretation will leave any printed words in Attacktix up to the same interpretation, thus voiding the very same logic and SIMPLICITY that allowed us to come to a ruling on "Knocked Down=Defeated" in such a timely manner. In my eyes, blatantly ignoring or purposely mis-interpreting the wording on the figure is a step away from cheating, if not there already. In the case of Super Optimus Prime/Optimus Prime and Luke Skywalker/Luke as Stormtrooper, the labels should be read exactly as they're printed, because I believe that there was a reason behind the wording. In the case of the "Transform" SP stating "vehicle" mode capitalized, all I have to say is: . Using that to justify the purposeful misinterpretation of figures is a weak way to prove a point. As for other figures, those I dub as obvious typos, this is how I feel: IG-88 : A clear mistake, and one that was rectified in later runs of the figure, so there's no argument that could possibly persuade me to believe that he's anything other than a Bounty Hunter. New SW-S5 figures stating "Imperial" rather than "Empire": Obvious mistake on Hasbro's part, we're left to believe that, in 'Tix language, the two are synonymous. After all, in the real world language, they are! I say labels are [glow=red,2,300]NOT[/glow] open to interpretation unless a mistake has clearly been made, similar to the figures listed above. If anyone believes that a mistake has been made with SOP/OP and Luke/L-a-S, please state a valid reason for your mistake theory, not just because it would be "convenient" for your squads.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 20, 2007 10:27:54 GMT -5
<NOTE FROM THE CHAIR REGARDING TYPOS AND ERROR FIGURES>
Typos are just that - misprints are just that. Let's assume for the debate that these are anomalies and are not subject to the purview of these rules. Further, the use of the word "Imperial" is still viable as Imperial is the adjective of the word "Empire", and hence one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 20, 2007 10:45:20 GMT -5
I dunno...I think I made a fair number of points above and beyond Hasbro's verbiage as to why knocked down = defeated was a good rule (e.g., specific game play instances in which this allowed consistency in rulings on the application of effects, the lack of need to invoke a special "limbo" area) *shrug* I believe that the labels and special powers should be strictly interpreted when it comes to the action of special powers, short of an official erratum or set of errata posted on Hasbro's official Attacktix website or the presence of typographical errors. My original reading on why that's the case (i.e., effects on the Luke/Han Solo as Stormtrooper but not on other figures) is weakened by the whole "on Hoth" set of verbiage on non-effect-carrying S5 Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, but I still believe the position. As I've noted before, though it may be careless or purposeful, we're not privy as to which sort of game design the "as Stormtrooper/on Hoth" wordings represent. Adding words onto a figure's base seems purposeful. With respect to the "Vehicle" capitalization problem on the Transform special power (thus leaving the target unspecified), I could easily be persuaded to view it as a typographical error. That is, case and hyphenation seem to be slippery things in this game (e.g., the QSG calls them "backups", whereas the Transform special power text calls them "Back-Ups"). Thus, when there's that sort of nebulous area, in which the same thing is referred to in different ways, I'm inclined to look for the meat of the construct in question, not the particulars of how it's named in any one instance. Similarly, it's difficult for me to understand how some IG-88s within S4 would not be considered a Bounty Hunter for the purposes of special powers (even without the symbol), as that's what he is in-universe, it'd make him the only non-Mega figure without a Universe class, and other IG-88s from the same series were released with the Bounty Hunter symbol. The "Imperial" wording also carries with it the symbol for the "Empire" faction, so I'm not worried about it. With respect to my comment that I'd accept errata only from Hasbro's official website, I take that position because that's where new players will go to find their information. Furthermore, if this thread is being read and taken seriously by the powers that be, I want them to take responsibility for clearing up some of their gameplay rulings. I know that the target audience for this game is different from Magic, HeroClix, or SW miniatures - that's why I play Attacktix instead of those games. However, I think it's also clear that part of that target audience would be served by a more formal set of errata and clarifications. Such a set wouldn't hamper the play of the kiddies, who might be served well enough by "Ask the Expert", but it'd let the more serious players have the clarity they seek, too - and it might allow the correction of production errors (e.g., IG-88's Bounty Hunter symbol, S5 Yoda's ambiguous effect wording). Fortunately, in the case of the "as Stormtrooper"s, even "Ask the Expert" has ruled that "Han Solo as Stormtrooper" is not affected by powers referencing "Han Solo".
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 20, 2007 10:54:16 GMT -5
Alright, as the main constituent for arguing for this, prepare to hear more of the same and perhaps some differences. First, I am not quite so much arguing for a non-literal reading of the rules but for an errata. There is a large difference there. Errata-ing the wording of something to clear it up and bring it in line with what it should be is very different from arguing for open interpretation of wordings. The main thing I am arguing for is the change for solely the following three figures, no one else; Luke as Stormtrooper, Han as Stormtrooper, Han Solo on Hoth. Now, to the meat of the argument: 1. Luke Skywalker is Luke Skywalker no matter what he is wearing. He has the exact same identity no matter what he is wearing nor who he is disguised as. Same with Han Solo. Darth Vader is not the same as Anakin Skywalker because Anakin is effectively dead while Vader is alive. I have very little knowledge of Transformers but it seems to me that each Optimus from each different saga (Classic, Beast Wars "Primal", Robots in Disguise, Cybertron Trilogy, Movie) have differences between the characters and, as such, do not have the same identity. They are effectively different characters and, as such, should not be able to be targeted by a power that specifically target another version of him. Same should apply to Megatron although that opens a whole different can of worms that makes things far more complicated than I'd like. I could very well be wrong on these TF points but I'm only assuming from the facts I have. If one who has more TF knowledge than myself (DoNP) would like to clear this up if I'm wrong, please do so. As such, the conclusion of this portion of the argument is, Luke as Stormtrooper, Han as Stormtrooper, and Han Solo on Hoth have the same identity as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. As such, they should be allowed to be targeted by said powers. 2. The main issue with a purely literal reading of Transform is not that "Oh no, it is capitalized!" The problem is that nowhere is there any way that one who says "Things should that target Luke Skywalker should not target Luke as Stormtrooper due to having a different name despite OBVIOUSLY being the same character with the same identity" can then go and say "Well, Transform OBVIOUSLY targets the vehicle mode of Super Optimus Prime which is clearly this figure over here." It's hypocritical and illogical. 3. Balance should be no issue when errata-ing H/a/S, L/a/S, and H/o/H. As I've said before, there are currently four (not three as I originally stated) powers that target Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. These are S2 Chewbacca's Recover, Han/Luke as Stormtrooper's Recruits, and Dengar's effect. What balance is lost in allowing these powers to target the above three figures? H/a/S and L/a/S effectively get "Rescue: if this figure is also in your back-ups 30-40%" based on who you're using. This is not a strong power. S2 Chewbacca already has a vastly superior Han Solo to operate off of (S4 Starter Han in which both can recover 50% from each other). Finally, Dengar would be able to get a free attack from shooting either Han. Whoop-dee-doo. Another thing, why would Han on Hoth be named that in attempt to balance the game? The figure is average at best besides his slightly above average speed. The "balance" argument could possibly be seen with H/a/S and L/a/S but I cannot see it here with such a bland figure. In conclusion, I highly doubt (but cannot confirm) that there would be little change in game balance if Han on Hoth, Han as Stormtrooper, and Luke as Stormtrooper were errated. 4. My newest argument. Why is Han on Hoth named that while Luke Skywalker (on Hoth) isn't? Check the sticker. At the very least, the internet photos of Luke show absolutely no "on Hoth" on his sticker. Why would this be, especially since Luke is a better figure than Han and as such would be more likely to be looked at for balancing? 5. Theory ahead. It is my theory that the figures in question here were named this way as an oversight. There are many other characters who have the same name with different costumes (Princess Leia, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker himself, Clone Troopers) but are named the same. It is my theory that these figures were named "on Hoth" and "as Stormtrooper" during the making phases and during the brainstorming phases as ways to clearly differentiate this Han from that one but slipped through the cracks and were unchanged before release. Again, this is a theory with little facts behind it other than other costume changes are unpunished. Take it for what it's worth (next to nothing ). 6. It makes the game simpler. A kid is going to shoot at Han Solo on Hoth with Dengar and is going to see exactly what I'm arguing for, that he just shot Han Solo and the power should activate because it is Han Solo whether the tag says exactly that or not. Same with Luke as Stormtrooper and all that whatnot. The characters are the same and it simplifies to just say they are the same, whether they state it exactly or not. In conclusion, I will reiterate my main argument that this is not a call for non-literal readings, merely a request that Han Solo and Luke Skywalker be Han Solo and Luke Skywalker no matter what they wear. Change these two characters, not the whole game. Make an errata, not a rule change. When you vote, vote for literal readings with these very clear exceptions. Han Solo on Hoth, Luke as Stormtrooper, Han as Stormtrooper, and Transformers Vehicle modes. These were (presumably) oversights by Hasbro and not attempts at balancing or any other whatnot. Fix these figures but don't open the door for relativism. Thank you for your time, especially if you read through this entire spiel .
|
|