|
Post by webhead817 on Jun 13, 2007 12:40:03 GMT -5
Is this section for House Rules or Official Rules Clarifications?
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 13, 2007 12:48:43 GMT -5
Given that Joe stated "[T]his should be a definitive collection of FINAL rules agreed on by the community.
It should have NO gray area like Ask the Expert... but we also should note it is NOT official Hasbro rules for the same reason."
I'd say that it's more for community-agreed rules. However, inasmuch as rule clarifications from The Source would help from the debate on them, I'd personally welcome them here, especially if they obviate some of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 15:46:48 GMT -5
3 points for Yodabreaker. Nice choice by consulting those fun CD-ROMs. I agree with YB on all counts other than Evade (I am 100% behind replacing figures where they were when they were hit or at least roughly estimating where they were) and possibly L/a/S. When I stop to think about it, there isn't much to even be gained by changing the names. Perhaps in the future I'll petition for it but, for now, I'll let sleeping errata lie. Also, to everyone who have been talking about the "as Stormtrooper" name being for balance (YodaBreaker, DoNP, Malform), I've already addressed that. There are exactly three figures that reference Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Han Solo as Stormtrooper: Recruit Han Solo: 31% Luke as Stormtrooper: Recruit Luke Skywalker: 36% S2 Chewbacca: Recover if Han Solo is inplay: 50% So, errating them would do the following to be done: A. Han and Luke as Stormtroopers would have the equivalent effect of "Rescue, if Han/Luke as Stormtrooper are in your back-ups: 31/36%". Not gamebreaking considering that Pole-Swing Spidey has practically the same effect for 60 points (if one were to use Avengers Spidey, Elektra, and Electro to fulfill the Teamwork requirement), compared with one of the "As Stormtroopers" who would cost 40 points counting Leia, but arguably better since ANY of those character may make the free attack rather than just a small missile launcher. B. Chewbacca would be able to recover from Han Solo as Stormtrooper. When one thinks of balance, which of these is more unbalanced? 70 point mini-squad containing S2 Chewbacca, Han as Stormtrooper, and S3 Princess Leia 2 small missile shooters (one gets a free shot), one large missile shooter One 50% recover figure (S2 Chewie), one 31% rescue figure (H/a/S), one 46% rescue figure (S3 Leia) OR 50 point mini-squad containing S2 Chewbacca and S4 Starter Han Solo 2 large missile shooters One 50% recover figure (S2 Chewie), one 54% recover figure (S4 Starter Han Solo) Personally, I find both about an equal good-ness level, maybe leaning towards the H/a/S group but they have a higher cost and smaller missiles. Still, as I said, I'll let sleeping erratas lie. There isn't much to gain from it anyways, other than clearing up one the strangest naming conventions Hasbro has done. 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". Really? Wow, shows you how much I know about the TF series, I always thought that each one was from basically a different universe, or at least a different part of the timeline and they're just named after each other. Didn't Transformers: Universe do some sort of big team-up between various series? Were their multiple Optimus/Megatrons in that? It could still be argued that they're different identities, though, like how I put it with Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 13, 2007 19:48:02 GMT -5
This is a classic - YB, Mal, and Grievous all whipping out Mr. Johnson. May be illegal (in some states). To start, Hasbro be d**ned. The fact that their poor planning, slow (utterly slow) responses to user request for clarification, and the fact that their answers often make no sense or contradict previous rulings make this conversation even nessecary. I have no interest in clarifying what cannot be clarified. With all due respect to Brett, they had NO concept that their little pet project would blossom, and they left a lot of wiggle room, hence the requirement for house rules. If the game was easy to understand as it was in S1, then we wouldn't be here, whipping out the respective JJs and pissing into the wind. Now, as for the rules debate, this thread is NOT to clarify, or in some way better Hasbro's position. This thread is to completely revamp certain rules for playability, understandability, and to ONCE AND FOR ALL come to a rule-set that most everyone can agree is within the confines of the originalist perspective of the rules, yet make certain specific changes to make the waters not only less murky, but crystal clear. That being said: 1. We've determined that there is a tremendous flaw in the current verbiage and ruleset regarding DEFEATED and KNOCKED DOWN. This was amended under the new ARC official rules (again, not Hasbro - they know what they can eat) so that a figure knocked down is NOT defeated and a team is not known to have a Defeat until the figure is in the DEFEATED area per standard, understood rules of order. 2. We've determined that although there is a great and quite valid argument that figures that are CLEARLY in spirit the same as others with different variations in name, to make a FINITE and BINDING set of rules with no wiggle room, poor Optimus Prime and Luke/Han as ST are not called into play by Rallies/Recruits/Transforms as the names stipulated on the bottom are to be treated as FINITE AND BINDING, and no 'interpretation' is to be given as this creates room for doubt and consternation. 3. The Evade issue is clearly NOT resolved based upon the conversations I've read, so let's continue the discussion, and furthermore come to a vote at some point in the near future. 4. The Emperor WTF? issue is also unresolved, and this needs to be addressed by the party proper at a future time and date. 5. Transform is still under debate, and although personally I think this is, again, pissing in the wind, as long as there is a valid argument to be made I feel the party proper should allow for debate, and take up a vote as well. Any other outstanding rules issues? And please try to keep this cordial as possible (can you believe I'm saying this? ) as the grudgery that can form over some of these issues will certainly not help. Grazi!
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 13, 2007 19:54:22 GMT -5
One thought guys on the L/a/S and naming issue. If it is OK to change Luke as ST to Luke Skywalker, and it is OK to change Transform to (swap this figure with SOP in your backups), then when an S3 Heavy ST's power comes up, why shouldn't one be able to Sacrafice a Luke as ST or Han as ST as Stormtrooper is in the name? You see the slippery slope that can be ridden whence you start changing the basic concepts of the verbiage on figures' specials.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Manzo on Jun 13, 2007 20:02:37 GMT -5
One thought guys on the L/a/S and naming issue. If it is OK to change Luke as ST to Luke Skywalker, and it is OK to change Transform to (swap this figure with SOP in your backups), then when an S3 Heavy ST's power comes up, why shouldn't one be able to Sacrafice a Luke as ST or Han as ST as Stormtrooper is in the name? You see the slippery slope that can be ridden whence you start changing the basic concepts of the verbiage on figures' specials. Now, if you are making up your own rules, screw the slippery slope and just decide if you can call him a Luke AND a ST, one, both, or none. Since this IS un-Hasbro rules, now is your chance to make SPECIFIC CORRECTIONS L/a/S = Luke Skywalker L/a/S = Stormtrooper OP <> SOP Droid <> Battle Droid The examples are not my beliefs, but all you need to do IF you want to mix Names to the EXACT WORDING (we can NEVER use Plo K loon or some IG-88s), or what sticker SHOULD mean. There is no argument in this post, just saying if you guys REALLY are gonna rewrite the rules do it your way. Make all figures that LOOK like Wookiees part of the Wookiee class. So that when you have a Wikia sanctioned tournament you can play that way. (Then forget them all at the next TixCon )
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 20:39:44 GMT -5
My opinions, once more, in order. Note that I have no feelings that can be bruised from this since it would be stupid to hold a grudge because someone doesn't like your opinion on a silly plastic toy/game. Flame them away, I could really care less:
What sort of precedence does Hasbro have? It is my opinion that we should not go incredibly far in rewriting the Hasbro law. Errata a few figures, change idiotic rulings, and all that fun stuff, but definitely do not go about changing special powers from what they were designed or changing point costs to balance figures or whatnot.
Does a knockdown = a defeat? Alright, I'm swinging back onto the Defeated ruling fence. I was one side, then the other. It seems obvious that both are logical and it seems to me that it truly is six of one, half dozen of the other.
Does a power have to specifically target an individual character that has the exact names stated in the wording of the power or can it target someone who is obviously the same character? I have decided to give up the fight on this one, mostly because I have never wanted anything else. I am 100% behind this idea. My true argument is not for this but for the below...
Should Luke/Han as Stormtrooper and Transformer figures with Transform that reads "Vehicle mode" be errataed? I vehemently argue yes. Luke = Luke, Han = Han, Super Optimus Prime = Super Optimus Prime, Luke <> Stormtrooper (he never was one, just disguised as one), Super Optimus Prime <> Optimus Prime (different identites). One hypothetical question, if someone has a power that targets "Western Ghost Rider", would you or would you not want to be allowed for it to target the figure who is currently named "Western Ghost Ridrer"? The name is different, despite it being the exact same character. What is the difference between this and errataing L/a/S, H/a/S, and Vehicle mode wordings?
What does Evade entail? An Evaded figure cannot be attacked, any effects of an attack that effect an Evaded figure are nullified, any effects of an attack that effect an Evaded figure that then effect another figure are null (e.g. if one figure is flung into an Evaded figure which then hits a non-Evaded figure, the Evaded figure and the figure it hit are stood up where they were).
What can the Emperor do? The Emperor may attach itself to any character its owner wishes. He can also detach from any character. Both count as an attack action. If the Emperor is knocked off a figure he is attached to and stands on his feet, the Emperor is still alive and the previously possessed figure returns to its original owner's control. If the Emperor is knocked off a figure while said figure is being defeated and the Emperor falls off said figure (even if he lands on his feet or not), the original owner gets to use the power.
What does Transform do? Transform is a specialized Recruit, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 13, 2007 20:50:02 GMT -5
Look guys, no offense, but either sh#t or get off the toilet. Put these questions up to vote and lets be done with it.
I would suggest (I can't belive I am going to say this) a poll in the "general gabbery". Let it run for about a week and see what results you get.
Otherwise we are just going to be debating the same B.S. here forever and still get no where.
This is a boards decision, no just us mainly four who are debating back and forth. Make a poll and we can each post our ideas on it and let the people decide.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 13, 2007 20:57:40 GMT -5
I concur, although I do believe that polling should be done as follows:
First, it should be done in the Attacktix section. This is a semi-important discussion about Attacktix that the community must participate in. "What Mega is Best" polls are just for fun and should be Gabbery-ed. This is important enough, in my opinion, to be done in the Attacktix section.
Second, we need to iron out the wording of each position on each question so it can concisely be added to the poll.
Third, we need to slightly less concisely explain each position in the first post of the poll so people can see what each position entails and why they should vote for it.
Fourth (and final), little discussion (more like arguing) should be done in the thread. Announce your vote if you feel like it and move on. We've argued each point to death here, we should not do so in the official polls. Just post the concise points of each argument in the first post of the poll and let people make their own decisions rather than arguing more.
Anyone agree/disagree with any of the above?
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 13, 2007 21:00:17 GMT -5
To start, Hasbro be d**ned. The fact that their poor planning, slow (utterly slow) responses to user request for clarification, and the fact that their answers often make no sense orThis is a classic - YB, Mal, and Grievous all whipping out Mr. Johnson. May be illegal (in some states). contradict previous rulings make this conversation even nessecary. Though I agree with the frustration, I don't agree with the overall sentiment. If we take that attitude of "Hasbro be d**ned," then whatever "community rules" we end up promulgating will have far less applicability and "narrative uptake" by other players. Like it or not, there are rules that the vast majority of other people are going to follow based on how things are worded by The Source. In my opinion, ignoring those pre-existing (and clear) rules is short-sighted. I don't have any interest in clarifying what can't be clarified, either. However, there have been places where Hasbro has clarified things in its printed materials, and I think it's important to use those materials (e.g., the CD-ROMs) when possible. If you view that as the ultimate desideratum, then I can't agree with the fundamental premise of this thread. I'd say if that's the ultimate goal, just throw away the rulebook and start over, because that's what this can ultimately lead to.As I noted, I'm taking the strictest, most conservative position possible here to provide a "devil's advocate" position. I think it's important to know when it's necessary to clarify the rules and when they're already been sufficiently clarified so that further debate would put us at risk of playing at variance with the ways in which those who go by what has already been ruled (in a non-contradictory fashion) will play. And this was decided in one hour and three minutes (compare the time stamps of this post and this post). As I noted, the CD-ROM helps explicate why you can't Rally a defeated figure that's lying on the playing field. This is most agreeable to the strict spirit I've adopted I agree that this isn't resolved; however, the need for a quick solution to this is (in my mind) less than the need for a good solution to it. This is a case in which we've had conflicting rulings from Hasbro, so I agree that it's a case in which The Source has abdicated its primary responsibility to provide consistency. Because the Possession action was described as an attack in the Starter 1 QSG, I'd initially take the position that attacks are generally irreversible, so the Emperor should have to stay latched to the first figure it possesses. However, it could be argued that the Possession attack is a particularly weak one, and because Attacktix is so heavily skewed toward offense right now, it's important for a figure like this (with abominable defense on account of its base size and lack of special power) to have some offensive capabilities. Letting the Emperor detach would allow a player to possess an opponent's figure, move it back to the player's nearest striker figure, then detach the Emperor to allow the opponent's figure to be struck into the opponent's other figures could be an interesting offensive manuever. Thus, I think a case can be made for detaching the Emperor, too, though it only seems logical for the detachment to count as another attack action. On balance, because it seems to favor better gameplay, I'd advocate that the Emperor be allowed to detach from the figure it is possessing, at the cost of one attack action. To me, this is a clear case of what happens if we take the "Hasbro be d**ned" approach. If we start making these sorts of allowances, which contradict a number of established game mechanics on account of a desire to make a certain special power work "better", we could end up questioning everything (e.g., if we let a Transform figure go to back-ups, why not let a figure whose character never *really* dies, like Starter 2 Kenobi, go to backups, as well?). That's why I'm taking as strict a line as I can. Nope, I can't believe it - IT'S NOT BUTTER! Ahem. With that in mind, I would propose that in the spirit of cordiality, those wanting to take up a particular position should post the CONTROVERSY that led to the need to take a position (when it's first brought up, anyway), as well as at least one PRO and at least one CON of that position. I'll rephrase my above discussion of the Emperor detaching in such a manner. POSITION: The Emperor should be allowed to detach from any figure it possesses, at the cost of one attack action. CONTROVERSY: Our FAQ states: Q: Can the Emperor "UN-possess" a figure at will? A: No, you can not unpossess/repossess anyone unless the Emperor is shot off the target and manages to still stand. This is the only exception. [HASBRO] However, Hasbro's Ask the Expert states: Q: Can the emperor possess more than one person? - Josh R. , age 11 , Massachusetts A: Yes. If your Emperor figure is in possession of a figure, you may decide to un-attach him as one of your attack actions. The figure that was previously possessed is returned to the original owner’s control. On your next turn you would be able to possess a new figure controlled by your opponent as one of your attack actions. Thus, there is a direct contradiction in official rules about this matter. PRO: The Possession attack is a particularly weak one, and because Attacktix is so heavily skewed toward offense right now, it's important for a figure like this (with abominable defense on account of its base size and lack of special power) to have some offensive capabilities. Letting the Emperor detach would allow a player to possess an opponent's figure, move it back to the player's nearest striker figure, then detach the Emperor to allow the opponent's figure to be struck into the opponent's other figures could be an interesting offensive manuever. Thus, I think a case can be made for detaching the Emperor, too, though it only seems logical for the detachment to count as another attack action. CON: The Possession action was described as an attack in the Starter 1 QSG, I'd initially take the position that attacks are generally irreversible, so the Emperor should have to stay latched to the first figure it possesses. Also, why should it cost an attack action to unpossess? Is there any precedent for such a thing?
That said, I think such discussion should be limited to this thread. I agree that the interested parties can read this and inform themselves; any polls should have a minimum of discussion. In fact, I'd say that the poll thread should be created as locked, so that only poll votes can be recorded. However, I wish there were a way to restrict voting only to those who have at least evidenced a substantial comprehension of the debate on each rule thus far. I also am not in favor of "quick" votes, as deliberations made in haste will likely end up producing more of the ill-conceived rulings we're trying to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 13, 2007 21:36:51 GMT -5
Well put, all. My point here is not to rewrite the enitre ruleset, just to clarify to the point of vaccum the rules herein that are under debate.
Hasbro be... is to put in clear and certain terms out there that Hasbro has left us hanging for far too long on too many things, and we need to amend the ruleset so that the ambiguities are utterly destroyed.
The Source has absolutely no relevance as it's credibility has been completely undermined. Had they had some forethought as to the nature of the evolving game, they would've put together a simpler approach and a clear 'flowchart' to powers and activation criteria.
If it were not for Brett's experience in the field of gaming we would truly have no insight into the madness at Hasbro, and many of the new powers are unambiguous and finite, so I'd have to say that anything beyond Series 3 SW is well within his realm of comment and his words conveyed should be measured heavier than that of the "Ask The Expert" where it is obvious that "The Expert" doesn't clearly weigh what they say against settled prinicple or precedent.
I concur about polling, but I believe that unless the arguments are laid out so precisely that anyone can clearly understand it if these polls are to be opened to the general board. We must consider that many boardies are of the younger to far younger variety, and the lack of practical experience and uncommon sense will allow people with no concept of balance, continuity of theory and principle, and emotional and/or button-click voting to muddy the collective will.
I still think that the people that have opined in this thread, as well as any others that are nominated due to their deep understanding of the game and the consequences that will proceed after making this alternative ruleset should all get on a free teleconference once we've identified issues that are collectively misunderstood or ambiguous, and vote/discuss them.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Manzo on Jun 13, 2007 21:48:55 GMT -5
If I vote.. I would keep the rules as close to Hasbro's as possible...
So I'll just stay out of these rules discussions from now on... but I will still be answering all the wikia questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2007 23:06:29 GMT -5
If I vote.. I would keep the rules as close to Hasbro's as possible... Exactly what I'd like to see done. Why even bother amending some rules if all some people are trying to do is completely rewrite them? Why not just rewrite them all, to suit our needs? I think not! I do look forward to the polls, which will hopefully bring an end to this dance. The L/a/S topic is really getting old, and closure on other MORE IMPORTANT subjects would be nice also. I think I'll follow Joe's lead and step out of this argument, atleast until the L/a/S bickering is over.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 13, 2007 23:46:23 GMT -5
Done. As unofficial chair ;D I deem this issue resolved.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jun 14, 2007 6:50:52 GMT -5
I have officially voted on all 3 subjects listed on our polls. I hope this helps......
|
|