Post by superflytnt on Jun 20, 2007 12:24:03 GMT -5
<Note> Choices raised for Voting at Voting Stage Are at This Point: 1. Literal reading of Character names with no interpretation (ie. Luke As Stormtrooper is NOT Luke Skywalker) 2. Interpretive reading of Character names (ie. Luke as Stormtrooper IS Luke Skywalker) 3. Character names are LITERAL, but with exceptions regarding continutiy of character (Option 1, except Luke ST is Luke Skywalker, Optimus is Super Optimus...)
Last Edit: Jun 20, 2007 12:24:42 GMT -5 by superflytnt
Post by ionicdesign on Jun 20, 2007 14:04:09 GMT -5
As fun as it would be to be able to freely apply abilities and effects across the board whenever a similar character is in play, I would suggest that it needs to be an exact match in order to be available for specials/effects, for the simple reason that if it was open to interpretation that might stymie Brett and other Attacktix Designer/developers in making new figures because, "oh we can't do that because it could be parred with so and so's effect and significantly imbalance the game. New dynamic figures can alway be Luke, Han, Optimus, etc, with a specific in the name so as to not make it overlap with previous effects and powers that would unduly lopsided matches.
I agree that errata should not be the issue here and Hasbro should definitely publish a list of such so there is no misunderstanding regarding who is and isn't mislabeled.
Post by greyelephant on Jun 20, 2007 15:05:47 GMT -5
Here is a problem we could see if we open this can of worms.
"Put up to 2 battle droids into play from your back-ups". Does that include super battle droids or destroyer droids? All of us know what battle droids are. However, someone ignorant to the Star Wars universe may make this interpretation to mean the following 2 are applicable.
With that said, no other figure in the Star Wars universe has the name Luke or Han that I am aware of. In the world of Attacktix we definitely have no other figures that would possibly make us think it could be someone else. Han is Han, Luke is Luke. Now in the Transformers universe I am ignorant as to the history of O.P. and S.O.P., so I would need further information on that.
And Grievous makes a very good point. We want fluidity in the game. A kid shoots over Han/a/st with Dengar. He is expecting a free attack.
With that said, I also understand that kids can learn. It only takes 1 to 2 times for them to realize that H/A/ST is not the same FIGURE as Han Solo.
I capitalize figure for a reason. We have a vast array of figures. Some of us more than others (Y.B.). ;D And we must remember that they are just that. Figures! Hasbro has made several of the same figure over and over. The point is, some figures are going to have different effects, specials, speed, base sizes, bullets, lightsabers, and yes, names. I think we can consider these two figures to be different only by name on their respected bases and nothing more. Were they made this way on purpose? None of us know this answer for sure.
Remember, if you start with this one, you might as well start clarifying what exactly constitutes a battle droid.
I want to see more radical "out of the box" thinking when it comes to our little alternative set of rules. Basically I think, if there is a good logical reason for the alteration from the standard, and there is no detrimental effect to game play; so be it.
I really think that renaming any figure despite what reason you have is the start of a very slippery slope. I firmly believe that h/a/s and l/a/s were named differently so that one cant bring in another "as stormtrooper" when one falls.. I know I dont want to see someone replace their fallen l/a/s with yet another l/a/s. Nor do I want to see anyone replace their G1 "Optimus Prime" with a "Super Optimus Prime"
The newer "Han solo on Hoth" figure has no bearing on this issue, because he has "Han Solo" in his name, and is therefor already interchangeable with any other "Han Solo".
So, does "Luke as Stormtrooper" = "Luke Skywalker", I say no... Does "Han as Stormtrooper" = "Han Solo", NO.
*update* I just had a complete reversal in my thinking on this matter. While entering new figures into the wiki, I realized that the 2 figures in question are names "Luke as Stormtrooper" and "Han Solo as Stormtrooper", I know grievous has probably pointed this out numerous times... But it just didnt sink in till now.
The original thinking on my part was that the figure would have to have the full name included in its name tag (I was thinking h/a/s was "Han", not "Han Solo"), so why would one have the full name and the other one not? It just doesnt make a whole lot of sense does it?
So I'm reversing my thinking completely on this matter... I am now in the opinion that all figures referencing a named figure should reference any form or abbreviation of that particular name. Unless of course that name is used in reference to a completely different character (such as the G1 "Optimus Prime" and "Super Optimus Prime", or "Battle Droid" and "Super Battle Droid").
Really, I dont want to see people bring in another l/a/s when their original one falls... But really, I dont see why it would hurt, or impact on the game enough to worry about it too much.
Last Edit: Jun 21, 2007 10:50:15 GMT -5 by malform
Remember, if you start with this one, you might as well start clarifying what exactly constitutes a battle droid.
That's a good point. I would prefer that there is some grace in the names interpretation (option #2), but where do we draw the line?
I'd be OK with someone putting in a Super Battle Droid into play when their Battle Droid turns up white.... Which is very similar to the Super (and not Super) Optimus Prime.
And if there is something effecting Clone Troopers, why not have that apply to Clone Commanders as well? After all, they are genetically identical to the troopers.
So, I suppose an easy way to solve this is that only named characters can have liberal interpretations of their names. ...but then what qualifies as a "named character"?
I think ultimately I'm OK with the liberal interpretation of the names. It might get to the point where there needs to be a tournament errata on certain figures (battle droid), but to tell kids that "Luke as Stormtrooper isn't really Luke" seems silly to me.
And that is really the big issue for me. If a kid wants to put his Luke as Stormtrooper in play from back-ups, good for him.
Post by superflytnt on Jun 21, 2007 18:52:19 GMT -5
That falls under option 3, Finite reading but with exceptions, and I think that is quite a valid point.
Because of GE, I am having to re-evaluate my position. I am truly 100% in favor of not allowing any interpretation so that there are no circumstances where someone can get in a debate or argument, and our findings become binding. On the other hand, Grievous' point about Luke and Han, for the purpose of Rallies, makes some sense to me.
The major issue I have comes in the form of Dengar. If old D-unit kills Han as ST, why SHOULDN'T that be construed as applicable for his effect. It is, after all Han Solo. This really is a sticky issue to me because as was pointed out, a Battle Droid can be a Destroyer Droid, Super Battle Droid, et cetera. Same with the Clones - They're genetic equivalents that came from the same Bantha drippings, so why not?
I'm going to err on the side of conservatism and say that for the reasons of continuity, ease of understanding (for young and old) we should rule that the nameplates are binding, and not open to interpretation, simply because it only affects a handful of figures, and of those, none would be more penalized then equally rewarded if we ruled that names were open to interpretation, but things become substantially more complex.
So, I say that the Committee should find that the nameplates are binding, not open to interpretation, and there should be no errata for the purpose of ease of understanding for everyone, and to stem the tide of questions regarding the current and future figures.
1. Literal reading of Character names with no interpretation (ie. Luke As Stormtrooper is NOT Luke Skywalker)
Saying that doing otherwise will only effect 3 figures (or whatever), is not only naive, but near-sighted. If we set a precedent for label interpretation now, that could cause us many head-aches in the future. Being that the work we're doing here on the rules will be much more than "the flavor of the month", we need to seriously consider how label interpretation could affect the game in the future.
I agree that Dengar's situation is unfortunate, but by excluding label interpretation, I only see that figure being negatively affected by the ruling. On the other hand , opening up the labels/specials/effects to interpretation will have a countless amount of affected figures in the end.
Did you know that Omnicon, Skyblast, Arcee (S2), and Strongarm (S2) are all part of a smaller race of Autobots collectively known as Omincons? If a SP or Effect ever comes out that utilizes an "Omnicon", then , why not interpret it to mean the other 4 also? After all, that's what they are?
And if Luke Skywalker=L/a/S is permitted, then I'd love to see you contradict your ruling by telling someone that they can't bring in Super Battle Droid, Destroyer Droid, and Droid Commander with their regular Battle Droid.
While we're at it, why not allow Sidious/Palpatine/Emperor to be one in the same? Anakin and Vader too?
And, as I've said before, no matter what, Optimus Prime is always Optimus Prime and always has been, whether he's Super or not. It's a mere costume change. Are Luke in his Tatooine outfit, and Luke in his Endor outfit not the same person?
I foresee a problem when a "Black-Costume Spiderman" is eventually released. How would you rule then? Still Peter Parker, is he not?
As you could probably tell, I was not only left un-moved by the arguments advocating label interpretation, but actually a bit angry. Mostly because:
Allowing Luke/a/S and Han/a/S to be an interchangeable with their correctly named counterpart figures, while over-ruling any other interpretations, is also quite biased to the SW side of the game and is a ridiculous exception to a rule that should be solid throughout the Attacktix universes.
If you set this precedent, then just sit back and watch the chaos, which you helped create, begin.
*Make the smart choice and vote against any label interpretation.*
Ah, theres some good thought processes going on here, and Im all so very glad to not see a whole lot of hasbro ruling references. Actually makes me think we are accomplishing something, rather than regurgitating past rulings that put us here in the first place.
Defender of New Paradron has some good points, its hard to say just what kind of consequences a ruling for label interpretation can have down the road. I gotta say Im really riding the fence on this issue, I was originally against the idea... But now Im thinking it wouldnt be that big of a deal to allow all Hans to be Hans, or Lukes to be Lukes. But yet I understand the arguments against interpretation.
I think Ill stick to my last response and vote for interpretation. I really dont think anyone will be trying to bring in a destroyer droid rather than a battle droid. The difference between "l/a/s = Luke Skywalker" and "battle droid = destroyer droid" are pretty vast.
Anyway, this was really just a long way of saying, no rebuttal.
Last Edit: Jun 21, 2007 22:13:32 GMT -5 by malform
Post by YodaBreaker on Jun 22, 2007 16:45:04 GMT -5
Guess I'm going to have to gleefully keep "regurgitating past rulings", inasmuch as previous rulings have already been made on some of these subjects, and those are going to be the first thing the broader Attacktix playing Community (as opposed to our relatively small community here) will have most easily available to them. A hierarchy of my perceived canonicity of various materials can be provided upon request
At any rate, Hasbro apparently can't make up its mind on this, as "Ask the Expert" says no to having "Han Solo as Stormtrooper" affected by special powers specifically targeting Han Solo, whereas our FAQ says yes to this. I had also initially thought that the "as Stormtrooper"s shouldn't count because they might somehow be uniquely construed as figures "in disguise", but the "Han Solo on Hoth" (without a corresponding "Luke Skywalker on Hoth) stretches, then breaks, this particular in-universe argument.
Thus, I'm going to go with Defender of New Paradron's reasoning on this. I looked up "Super Optimus Prime" on Google, and all I got back were toys, not different Optimus Prime-type characters. If we make a specific erratum for the "as Stormtrooper" and "on Hoth" characters, the game will be unbalanced in favor of the Star Wars universe getting the exceptions, particularly if these three are the only ones to be considered for all time. What if Hasbro makes another name that we don't like (e.g., Luke Skywalker on Bespin, Professor X on Genosha) and it's "obvious" it should also be the subject of an erratum? Too bad, so sad, inasmuch as we're allowing only these "three figures, no one else" to be considered in this rule change.
Furthermore, even if we don't go to the extreme of letting different names for the same character benefit from special powers and effects (e.g., Palpatine/Emperor/Darth Sidious can all be subject to special powers and effects benefitting any one of them, inasmuch as they're all exactly the same character, no "death to Anakin" involved), there are problems with looser interpretations. What if the Marvel line sees a Phoenix and a Dark Phoenix figure? The same underlying person is there (i.e., Jean Grey), so should any power targeting "Phoenix" apply to both figures, include Jean Grey as well, or apply only to figures named Phoenix and only Phoenix? Now, what if the figures are named "Jean Grey as Phoenix" and "Jean Grey as Dark Phoenix"? Heck, let's not go theoretical - should "Dark Crumplezone" in TF S2 be allowed to trigger S1 Ransack's Recover power, too?
Finally, one could argue the following. OOM-9 (the main battle droid commander on Naboo in EpI) is one "Battle Droid Commander" who was promoted from the rank and file "Battle Droid"s. Thus, shouldn't "Battle Droid Commander" at least be able to be called into play by the Battle Droid's Recruit power? I'd hate to then have to draw the line there to say why it's OK to have "Battle Droid Commander"s as valid targets for that special power, but not Super Battle Droid (oh, one could make arguments that Battle Droid/Commander are the same sculpt, which is more than can be said for the "as Stormtrooper" figures, but it degenerates into a mess)? The difficulty with allowing any non-literal interpretation of the rules (absent errata issued on a per figure basis by Hasbro itself on its own website) is that the decision rules to be applied become quite difficult to reconcile when they conflict (as they will).
Thus, as an official position, to maintain maximum consistency across all figures and all universes, I go with: Literal reading of Character names with no interpretation (i.e., Luke As Stormtrooper is NOT Luke Skywalker) with the proviso that if Hasbro comes out with an official list of errata posted on the official Hasbro Attacktix website, I'd consider their errata to supersede this rule. The hope would be that their errata would follow an in-house decision rule tree to which we're not privy.