Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 17, 2007 11:09:02 GMT -5
So, if you're trying to snipe someone from across the table, but the missile gets stuck and won't leave the barrel, you're launcher has just magically "transformed" into a prodder? Actually, that sounds like a defective figure. Different topic entirely. I never said you were against using reverse strikers, my point is that the difference between them and Spidey is all in the head. Yes, but we're dealing with a game that has a specific type of attack that involves a spring-fired projectile that never leaves the barrel. To use the ones that are designed to launch in this fashion is to misuse the figure. Whether or not you allow it is another matter (I don't think there's much question that most of us would), but the fact is that in a launcher's attack, the bullet is designed to clear the launcher. Well, since your real-world example doesn't have a thing to do with the game, the game design, and the game terms, then no, of course not. I know, I know, we can go back and forth on this all day and still end up going "you house rule it your way, and I'll house rule it mine." I see your side of it, and frankly, Hasbro would probably rule it that way too. I just think that with nearly every figure in the game able to attack in ways that that they were not, strictly speaking, designed to, this this really isn't a big deal, a huge strategy, or frankly, a reliable tactic. Creative and maybe useful once out of a hundred times, yes, but that's all.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Sept 17, 2007 12:53:58 GMT -5
I'd like to say that I've found this debate interesting but I see a few points I'd like to talk about.
1. Intention A few posts back, this was brought up and Whizkid's way of writing it off was that intention doesn't matter. He uses the example that if someone accidentally killed Venom in this manner, it'd be regarded as a lucky kill whereas if someone did so purposefully, it would be called foul. He goes on to claim that intention should not matter and the kill should matter either way.
I'd like to bring up the real-world example of manslaughter and murder. Law states that these two acts are separated solely by the intention inwhich one does them. Manslaughter is accidental death, murder is purposeful. In the same vein, the "laws" of Attacktix can apply. If one is purposefully screwing with the rules, then they should be punished more harshly than if it was accidental. If someone accidentally miscounts a tix, it is less of a crime than purposely Force Speeding.
2. But What About Prodding? This is all about Attack Surfaces. It is not Hasbro law whatsoever but it is a logical extension of it. Each figure has a surface it uses to attack with. Classical Strikers have their entire upper half but primarily use or a lightsaber, "paw", or any other number of items which are used to attack horizontally. Uppercutters and Downward Smashers have their springloaded arms. Prodders have the end of their spear. Shooters and tossers have their missiles/web balls. All of these are plastic surfaces that hit an opponent and were designed as how such a figure would attack the opponent.
Operating under these principles, a classical shooter can become a prodder because both attacks still use their attack surfaces as originally intended. A downward smasher can become an uppercutter because it is still using the original attack surface. However, a tosser could not use an attack via its arm going upwards because it is not in fact using its original attack surface but is instead using another part of its figure to attack.
Again, this is all fan-made theoretical ruling philosophy but it sticks to the letter of the law as stated by Hasbro. Using the above Attack Surface Theory, many rulings would become much clearer. If only Hasbro would mention even just Striking Surfaces at least once. Maybe it's on the CD-ROM...
With that, I leave this debate. I'd like to just say that Whiz Kid now has my respect and officially gets a karma for being an excellent "new recruit" to the boards. You write well and, while I disagree with your thoughts, you state them and defend them well. Welcome to the board!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Manzo on Sept 17, 2007 13:44:54 GMT -5
I'd like to say that I've found this debate interesting but I see a few points I'd like to talk about. 1. Intention A few posts back, this was brought up and Whizkid's way of writing it off was that intention doesn't matter. He uses the example that if someone accidentally killed Venom in this manner, it'd be regarded as a lucky kill whereas if someone did so purposefully, it would be called foul. He goes on to claim that intention should not matter and the kill should matter either way. I'd like to bring up the real-world example of manslaughter and murder. Law states that these two acts are separated solely by the intention inwhich one does them. Manslaughter is accidental death, murder is purposeful. In the same vein, the "laws" of Attacktix can apply. If one is purposefully screwing with the rules, then they should be punished more harshly than if it was accidental. If someone accidentally miscounts a tix, it is less of a crime than purposely Force Speeding. 2. But What About Prodding? This is all about Attack Surfaces. It is not Hasbro law whatsoever but it is a logical extension of it. Each figure has a surface it uses to attack with. Classical Strikers have their entire upper half but primarily use or a lightsaber, "paw", or any other number of items which are used to attack horizontally. Uppercutters and Downward Smashers have their springloaded arms. Prodders have the end of their spear. Shooters and tossers have their missiles/web balls. All of these are plastic surfaces that hit an opponent and were designed as how such a figure would attack the opponent. Operating under these principles, a classical shooter can become a prodder because both attacks still use their attack surfaces as originally intended. A downward smasher can become an uppercutter because it is still using the original attack surface. However, a tosser could not use an attack via its arm going upwards because it is not in fact using its original attack surface but is instead using another part of its figure to attack. Again, this is all fan-made theoretical ruling philosophy but it sticks to the letter of the law as stated by Hasbro. Using the above Attack Surface Theory, many rulings would become much clearer. If only Hasbro would mention even just Striking Surfaces at least once. Maybe it's on the CD-ROM... With that, I leave this debate. I'd like to just say that Whiz Kid now has my respect and officially gets a karma for being an excellent "new recruit" to the boards. You write well and, while I disagree with your thoughts, you state them and defend them well. Welcome to the board! While I agree with Grievous and Defender, the only issue that I can see coming up with striking surfaces is something like Vader #16. I have knocked down opponents with his hinged cape... and that was my intent. It was the only way to make contact with a certain figure, but perhaps that was misuse as well.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Sept 17, 2007 13:59:06 GMT -5
HEY!! Long time, no see, Joe!
That's the one flaw in my Attack Surface theory, classical strikers using other parts of their figure to attack. One can either label it misuse or one could argue that since it is the entire upper body that is being given motion, it is the entire upper body that is the Attack Surface and, therefore, anything that moves while the spring is being coiled may be used as an attack. However, the problem with such a definition is that one could argue that since it is the arms of a Tosser that are moving then they can be used as an attack.
In all, you've found the one major weak point in the Attack Surface Theory. It's the only gray area that I have yet to figure out a good way to define. I'll definitely post on here if I can figure my way out of this little sticking point.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 17, 2007 14:41:34 GMT -5
I'd like to say that I've found this debate interesting but I see a few points I'd like to talk about. 1. Intention A few posts back, this was brought up and Whizkid's way of writing it off was that intention doesn't matter. He uses the example that if someone accidentally killed Venom in this manner, it'd be regarded as a lucky kill whereas if someone did so purposefully, it would be called foul. He goes on to claim that intention should not matter and the kill should matter either way. I'd like to bring up the real-world example of manslaughter and murder. Law states that these two acts are separated solely by the intention inwhich one does them. Manslaughter is accidental death, murder is purposeful. In the same vein, the "laws" of Attacktix can apply. If one is purposefully screwing with the rules, then they should be punished more harshly than if it was accidental. If someone accidentally miscounts a tix, it is less of a crime than purposely Force Speeding. But miscounting a tix is a flagrant violation of the rules, regardless of intent. My point was that had Mal accidentally defeated Venom with this maneuver, I doubt that many people would question it. The fact that he did it on purpose is throwing people off, and it simply shouldn't be a factor in this instance. If I strike one of my opponent's troopers and fling him into a huddle, does whether or not I meant to come into play? Not at all... yet I'm using the figure in a way it wasn't designed, just as surely as Mal did. With you so far. Ah, but the intent is clearly for the bullet to leave the launcher before hitting the target, not to stay within it while hitting the target. So if Spidey was instead designed to downward smash, you'd be perfectly okay with the reverse uppercut? The fact that they have the same spring and actual motion means nothing? The fact that is still not the intended method of attack doesn't phase you? The fact that launchers can be prodders and strikers can launch figures without anyone batting an eye doesn't make this being "wrong" seem a bit... off? I'd lay bets that if Hulk/Chirpa/Spider-Man simply clubbed someone over the head with their object, no one would call foul. Heck, they could probably reverse-uppercut someone with said object without getting too many complaints. Further, no one is using instant replay to make sure that the "hands" of the figure aren't impacting. What's the difference? That Mal used Spidey in a way he knew would work? That it's obvious the "hands" did the work? Sorry, but the precedence here isn't respecting "attack surfaces," it's using the attack in a way that works to defeat the opponent. The Spidey reverse-uppercut worked. Is it the "letter of the law"? No, I'll be the first to admit that. However, we've seen something like half a dozen specific examples of doing what works versus following the intent, with most of them widely accepted and used. This one is a bit more unorthodox, but when you come down to it, it used the character's attack to get the job done. By the way, thanks for the kind words. I'm really glad I got into this game. Honestly, it's kind of a blast to see a game where every rule isn't set in stone, and that invites debates like this to help figure them out... granted, it looks like most of them end up with everyone house ruling as they best see fit, but it's really fun to get the ideas out in the open and talk them out.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 17, 2007 14:49:12 GMT -5
Your Surface Strike Theory also does not address the inconsistency in allowing strikers to become launchers (striking a figure with the intention of projecting it into other figures).
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 17, 2007 14:56:45 GMT -5
Your Surface Strike Theory also does not address the inconsistency in allowing strikers to become launchers (striking a figure with the intention of projecting it into other figures). I think, and this is just my understanding, that since the striker is hitting the launched figure with the designated "attack surface," it would be perfectly legal using the "Attack Surface Theory" outlined by grievous. The launched figure impacting and knocking down others is simply collateral damage. That is, in my opinion, the big flaw: It focuses entirely on using a specific area to make the attack, rather than on if the attack should be made in the first place. It's an interesting way to clear up a lot of rules discrepancies, but I think it would also open to door to a lot of abuse. Frankly, despite my side in this debate I'm actually not too comfortable with reverse-uppercutting, but under grievous' AST, it would not only be unquestionably legal, but preferred.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 17, 2007 15:30:48 GMT -5
I think, and this is just my understanding, that since the striker is hitting the launched figure with the designated "attack surface," it would be perfectly legal using the "Attack Surface Theory" outlined by grievous. The launched figure impacting and knocking down others is simply collateral damage. If it's your intention to use the launched figure to knock over enemy figures, I don't see how it can be considered collateral damage. When using strikers to launch figures, the actual striking surface of the attacker (light saber/claw etc.) does not actually even touch the i ntended targets (much like Spidey's actual striking surface - his web - doesn't actually touch the i ntended target). In both instances, neither of the actual striking surface of the attacker makes contact with the intended targets, yet one is considered a good strategy while another is considered illegal. In all respects, using a striker to propel a figure is simply using his spring attack in a way to render him a launcher, just as Spidey's spring attack is used to attack as a striker. In both cases, neither of the actual striking surfaces (light saber or web) make contact with their intended targets.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Sept 17, 2007 16:37:55 GMT -5
A simple clause can be added to the "Attack Surface Theory" to patch up the whole caused by striker multi-kills.
Simply put, an attack must begin via use of the attack surface. All effects caused by an attack done by an attack surface are fair game. However, these events must be caused by the use of the attack surface. If firing a web ball causes Spider-Man's arms to fling backwards and hit an enemy figure, this is not a legal attack because it is not the attack surface (the web ball) that caused the knock down (it was Spidey's arms).
There you go. An attack must be made by an attack surface. Any events caused after the attack that are a direct result of the use of an attack surface are legal.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 17, 2007 20:52:10 GMT -5
I guess I have a more liberal idea of a legal attack, because I think that any event caused directly by a figure's fire mechanism (and any indirect events caused thereafter) should be considered legal. I guess my theory is not an "Attack Surface Theory," but a an "Attack Fire Mechanism Theory," which defines a legal and satisfactory attack as one made successfully from the figure's inherent firing mechanism. This branch of thought encourages a more creative way to use your figures so that, should any hiatus of Hasbro lasts any longer, we can hopefully get more life out of our playtime
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Sept 22, 2007 21:02:59 GMT -5
You've got an interesting point there, AWOL. I've always assumed that launchers must be reloaded at that start of one's turn, which would preclude an attack such as the one described for MV S2 web-ball Spidey. However, if you play that one need not reload a launcher figure, then web-ball Spidey (and the tossers' attack handles, too) could become licit under your house rules. However, I posted on the first page of this thread a wordier version of grievous's notion. To resolve ambiguities as to what the licit "attack surface" is, I would say that the part of the figure that would do the most damage "in universe" should be considered the "attack surface." Thus, in the case of Armored Vader's cape being knocked over, I'd argue that it's not a licit attack surface because his lightsaber would do far more damage "in universe." Now, if Vader's lightsaber hand were amputated by figure breakage, and you didn't have another Armored Vader to bring into the game as a replacement, then I might argue that he might continue to play, using his cape or fist as the attack surface. Also, I have no problem with multiple knockdowns being treated as completely licit. Whenever I launch a first figure into other figures, that first figure is definitely the first target of my attack. I don't "intentionally launch a projectile with the sole purpose of knocking down your targets" - I also intend to knock down that "projectile" Also, I'll also fling figures across the table (especially Recover figures) to make sure that they can't pop back up again. If a few other figures happen to be taken out in the process, so be it If one were to disallow multiple knockdowns, then one would likely need to introduce the notion of "targeting" a specific figure for the first attack - or paying really careful attention to who got knocked down first. And these sorts of considerations are ones that Brett has specifically stated aren't part of the Attacktix game proper.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 23, 2007 1:50:51 GMT -5
... Now, if Vader's lightsaber hand were amputated by figure breakage... Is it bad that I read the entire post and all that I got out of it were a few giggles at YB's seemingly unintentional ROTJ reference? Well, not ALL, but you get my meaning...
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Sept 23, 2007 6:44:46 GMT -5
Holy smokes! I never even noticed Yodabreaker's post which is almost exactly the same as mine! No purposeful attempt to plagiarize YB. I will admit that I just took a logical step from the "striking surfaces" that we all refer to that I think you first labeled in your striking tutorial but if I would have known you'd already said what I did, I wouldn't have bothered in taking the time to post what I did.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Sept 23, 2007 8:34:38 GMT -5
Posted by webhead817 on Sept 10, 2007, 1:52pm Off the top of my head I would allow this...after all, the defeat of the figure resulted from the attacking action of the Spider-Man figure...which is the general criteria for a successful attack. (After all, we allow you to strike an opponents gun and have that shoot into someone else entirely...) |
Posted by webhead817 on Sept 10, 2007, 9:04pm I'd refer everyone to the Quick Start Guide for the Transformers set...Scorponok is shown to have a Special Attack...there is no indication that anyone with a free moving arm can use the same sort of attack.
I'm playing around with this now...I'm having a hard time hooking his hands under anyone, and the web ball gets in the way as well... |
Posted by webhead817 on Sept 10, 2007, 10:15pm I think you are missing my point.
Almost all figures have a limb or two that moves, but is not part of their attack in some way...most shooters move at the shoulder for example. However, only Scorponok (among the standard sized figs) is explicitly allowed by the rules to have his shoulder joint physically manipulated to attack figures directly, and only the one shoulder with the "scoop" arm.
In virtually every other figure with an attack in the game, you rely only on the spring loaded weapon for the attack itself. Forget the distinction between strikers and launchers and focus on the spring idea for a moment...the spring is causing some part of the figure to move, and the release of the spring energy results in the attack in some way.
Separately...I don't know that we've ever ruled that you couldn't use a "hammer fist" character like Thing as an uppercutter instead...the arm can be adjusted to multiple positions...I don't see a reason why one position should be illegal, but the next "click" over would be legal to use... |
I think you guys are trying to over think this situation. Webhead has clearly stated in the above 3 posts his feelings on this. Come Tix Con time you better be prepared that this is a legitimate move. I for one agree. Personally, I don't care how you use your figures attack mechanism to attack my figures as long as you are using your figures basic mechanism. For instance, I see nothing wrong with using Vaders cape to attack. Why? Simply because you are using the BASIC attack mechanism in his attack. The lightsaber is not the mechanism. The cape is not the mechanism. Twisting his waist IS his mechanism. I have done exactly what Mal did with my Chief Chripa. None at my house ever called it illegal. We understand the basics of the mechanisms and leave it at that. Now, if you wish to talk about flinging figures into one another is constituted illegal? If someone comes crashing into you at 100 mph let's see you get back up and shake it off. Flinging is the same deal. You are using a figure to throw into another. This in real life would lead to some form of damage, so why would we not feel the same when it comes to Attacktix?
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 23, 2007 11:40:35 GMT -5
Now, if you wish to talk about flinging figures into one another is constituted illegal? If someone comes crashing into you at 100 mph let's see you get back up and shake it off. Flinging is the same deal. You are using a figure to throw into another. This in real life would lead to some form of damage, so why would we not feel the same when it comes to Attacktix? I don't think anyone is really advocating flinging be ruled illegal. Those who support using Spidey to uppercut are using it as an example of something that is in the same vein. If using Vader to catapult a figure (your own or your opponent's) into other figures is creative strategy, why is using Spidey in a creative and strategic manner "wrong"? That's the question those in support are posing.
|
|