Post by YodaBreaker on Sept 29, 2005 19:35:44 GMT -5
lordgravesmythe said:
You might as well delet this, for it is all micromanagement. Tournament organizers set up the divisions as their participant demographics require. Most tournaments are considered "open," meaning anyone of any age and ability may enter and they are paired either randomly, round robin, or by ability rank.What you call "micromanagement," I call "completeness." This is designed to be as complete as possible so that anyone could take them up and use them. However, I've added section 6 to make it clear that tournament organizers can modify these rules at will.
I like this, but a meter square piece of white posterboard afixed (taped) to the tabletop is inexpensive, easy to make, and just as effective.
OK.
Why does there need to be a "midfield line" on the surface? This has no effect on game play. Why are the side boundaries so stipulated? If the boundaries of the battle surface are clear, defeated figures may simply be laid over to one side, while backups are standing on the other side of the battle area.
a) So that it's obvious as to which side is which, and so that there is a visual indicator of progress across the playing field.
b) So that it's clear which side is the backups side and which is the defeated area. It can be confusing in the heat of battle
No need for this here.
I disagree. This statement makes the rules more legible by directing people to the rules about how figures come to be defeated.
As long as players do not interfere with their opponents' moves and attacks, you're going to need to have players moving about their tables. Think fluidly...more like a pool game than a chess match.
Yes, but even in pool tournaments (at least the professional ones I've watched), only one person is around the table at any one time; they're not both just hovering around the table.
Combine 2.2.2 and 2.2.3: Each player must use a battle squad that totals no more than 100 points (the point total may be altered by the tournament organizer). Each player may supplement his or her battle squad with a selection of backups whose points total no more than half of the point allowance for the main battle squad (typically 50 points).
I think it's a bit clearer to have separate rules for main figures and for backups.
New 2.2.3: Players must register their battle squads and backups prior to the beginning of the first match. Players may not alter their registered battle squads and/or backups during the course of the tournament.
After thinking about this for a bit, I've decided that I'm really not a fan of this idea. I like the idea of having fluid team compositions more than I like having registered teams.
Add: This includes modifications to weight, balance, and striking or shooting ability.
OK
These instances will never be "practicable" in a tournament environment...Unless you want registration to last longer than the tournament itself. Scrap these rules for:
2.2.4.1: An opponent may request a tournament official to inspect any figure he or she believes to be illegally modified.
2.2.4.1: An opponent may request a tournament official to inspect any figure he or she believes to be illegally modified.
Again, these are in this ruleset for completeness. I like this rule, though, so it's now rule 2.2.4.3.
The last half of that is micromanagement and can be dropped. Change the word custom to "customized."
The wording change is fine, but again, the last half of the rule is put in for completeness so that there is much less room for ambiguity about what defines a "customized" figure.
Shouldn't that be the *front* edge? The beginner's guide/rulebook says to move each figure 2 tix onto the battle area and this is the starting line. So if you draw your starting line roughly 2" from the edge (where 2 tix for the large-base figures is), each figure must have the front of its base on or behind the starting line. There is no room between the starting line and the edge of the battle area for "stacking" figures.
I know some people want to minimize "initiative" and protect their BBGs (big bad guys) from a cheap shot at the beginning of the game, but to allow figures to start in formation is like stacking the deck.
I know some people want to minimize "initiative" and protect their BBGs (big bad guys) from a cheap shot at the beginning of the game, but to allow figures to start in formation is like stacking the deck.
Count me as one of those people. This is one of those rules on which I think Hasbro is mistaken, and from what's been said elsewhere on here, HeroClix has instituted a rule that's similar in intent to this one. I agree that letting figures start in formation is stacking of some sort, but I don't think it constitutes an unfair "stacking the deck," as both players are free to stack as they see fit.
LOL! There should be 1 referee for every 4 to 5 tables!
Not in my opinion. I recognize that my rules are somewhat idealized for these purposes. However, without someone watching the whole ebb and flow of the game, it'd be awfully hard to make an appropriate call at times (or even to validate a complaint from a player).
Aside from 3.1.4, this is all good.
3.1.4 is there to ensure that a neutral party spots any figures. When organizing a tournament, unfortunately one cannot assume that all players are completely ethical.
Forget the whole umpire idea. A second judge is overkill.
Again, I recognize that this is an idealistic rule, but I put it there to ensure that one biased referee wouldn't have some sort of counterweight.
Does the referee really need to do this? Most players are cordial enough to manage this on their own.
Most, but not all.
Scrap the doubles match stuff and the 4.1.2.5.9.7.X.0.3.Y.8.Z rule. If you knock over a figure with your own hand, incidental or not, stand the figure back up where it was. If there's a dispute, call the judge.
I enjoy playing doubles matches, so it seems reasonable that the doubles rules stay in. See above for why I want a referee to respot the figure, rather than the player.
...shall not move or attack again until the start of the next turn, unless a special rule or ability allows otherwise.
Good point! This is now changed.
redemptionrocks's point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. On rare instances, as I'm pulling back for an attack, I've had a striker slip out of my hand, barrel into (and knock down) a figure or two, laying the striker out in the process, as well. This is more disruptive than a simple incidental contact and is not good form in tournament play. It makes it very difficult to respot figures properly, and I wanted to penalize this really bad form.
Maybe make a section of definitions:
Defeated: Generally, any figure which has any portion of the bottom surface of it's base out of contact with the playing surface is defeated. (Exception: the Emporer)
At any rate, totally avoid using two terms for the same game mechanic (ie: "defeated" and "knocked down")
Defeated: Generally, any figure which has any portion of the bottom surface of it's base out of contact with the playing surface is defeated. (Exception: the Emporer)
At any rate, totally avoid using two terms for the same game mechanic (ie: "defeated" and "knocked down")
I have avoided doing this. "Defeated" refers to figures that have been placed in the defeated area; "knocked down" refers to figures that have been knocked down but have yet to be placed in the defeated figures area.
Furthermore, wasn't this already covered earlier...like twice, already???
Not precisely, no. Hence this rule.
I, too, play Magic. And I agree with the other response about timing. The player who controls the defeated figures decides the order in which the effects resolve.
Example, I have a Wookie Commando (Wookie) and a Tarrful in play. A single attack knocks both of them over and both of their bases show white (a miracle!). I can choose to activate the Commando's Rally to bring back a second Commando from my defeated area, then activate my Tarrful's ability to stand him back up. Then the game would check to see if I had any figures standing. I would, so I wouldn't lose at that point.
Similarly, the Commando's window is white and Tarrful's is not. I could check Tarrful's window, and move him to the defeated area, then check the Commando's window and use the ability to return Tarrful to play.
Now, what happens if each player has a defeated figure? In this instance, the active (attacking) player decides who's effects resolve first, his or his opponent's. If I defeat 2 of my opponent's figures and one of my own figures in a single attack, I could decide to let my opponent's effects resolve first. Then my opponent would decide which order his effects resolved. Then my effect would resolve.
Example, I have a Wookie Commando (Wookie) and a Tarrful in play. A single attack knocks both of them over and both of their bases show white (a miracle!). I can choose to activate the Commando's Rally to bring back a second Commando from my defeated area, then activate my Tarrful's ability to stand him back up. Then the game would check to see if I had any figures standing. I would, so I wouldn't lose at that point.
Similarly, the Commando's window is white and Tarrful's is not. I could check Tarrful's window, and move him to the defeated area, then check the Commando's window and use the ability to return Tarrful to play.
Now, what happens if each player has a defeated figure? In this instance, the active (attacking) player decides who's effects resolve first, his or his opponent's. If I defeat 2 of my opponent's figures and one of my own figures in a single attack, I could decide to let my opponent's effects resolve first. Then my opponent would decide which order his effects resolved. Then my effect would resolve.
You're certainly welcome to play the way you describe However, the way I've described removes any ambiguity about who decides about the order in which attacks should be applied (i.e., the attacking player always decides about the timing of effects), and it rewards good attacking practices. Thus, following the rule of parsimony and my own preferences, I let this rule stand.
Oh my god. Stack effects. (Magic players know what I mean.) Last in, first out.
Now, now....no need to get snippy The phrase "stack effects" could be ambiguous to those who don't play other games, and I figured it would be good to specify this, even if it seems overly verbose.
Randomize the grind and lose the doubles match stuff.
The grind is randomized by the "at least" qualifier.
How about, after all legal attacks and moves are made, a turn ends? A player may also end his turn by stating "Done;" "I end my turn;" "Go;" or a clear statement such as those.
This is essentially what it says. The wording of this rule was changed slightly in the last version of these rules because Hasbro has indicated that the attack phase of the turn is the last phase.
Hey, how about breaking the turn into "phases"?
Reload step;
Move phase;
First Attacker phase;
Second Attacker phase;
End of turn.
Reload step;
Move phase;
First Attacker phase;
Second Attacker phase;
End of turn.
Works for me, with the exception of the two attacker phases. This is changed in rule 4.1.6.4.
4.1.7 End of match
4.2 Determination of Knockdown
4.2 Determination of Knockdown
Skipping the rest. The penalty section is fine and the tournament setup is micromanagement that you can leave out of the rules. Tournament organizers can decide structure of the tournament and that has no bearing on the rules. Nor do the rules have any bearing on single elimination vs. Swiss vs. round robin. They are mutually exclusive elements, so keep tournament structure out of game rules.
They're not mutually exclusive, in that decisions made about the conduct of each match largely do not limit the decisions that can be made about the tournament between matches. Thus, because these two domains of tournament conduct are independent, I'd argue that it's actually necessary to have a between-match section of rules. Hence, I've kept the rules as-is so that tournament organizers can have a barebones guide to possible structures.
Good job. Hope these suggestions clarify/help in a meaningful way.
Largely so, yes.