Post by greyelephant on Jun 28, 2007 6:42:28 GMT -5
I am with Y.B. on this one. "Transform" is nothing more than "Recruit". Look at Thor, his special is called "Thunderclap". This is nothing more than "Force Push". However to keep it in harmony with the Marvel universe they named it appropriately so.
Transform is done the same way. They wanted to make it harmonious with the Transformers line. Recruit would be just as good, but they went a little further and made it what it is, nothing more.
I, like YB, am an advocate for keeping things as close to Hasbro's official rulings (if there are any, despite contradictions). Rewriting rules and purposeful misinterpretation, as stated, is a dangerous precedent to set, which will eventually come back to bite you.
With the "Transform" misinterpretation in mind, I believe that my R2-D2, to make it more similar to the actual one in Episode 2/3, should be able to fly with it's invisible rockets, so when playing with him, he won't "tix", he'll just float to wherever I need him.
Sound ridiculous? Just about as ridiculous as putting "words" in the Transform SP's "mouth". The details of options 1 and 2 are not stated even to the slightest extent within the text of Transform.
Post by superflytnt on Jun 29, 2007 8:54:03 GMT -5
We're awaiting RADAR to opine before rebuttals. If he's not responded to PM or at least printed "Abstain" I will then abstain for him "en absentia" and we can move on to rebuttals. We'll vote like normal after all rebuttals are in, and we'll wait on GE for final verdict, assuming that there's not enough votes to carry any one theory.
Thanks for the heads up GE, and enjoy the party on the big boat!
REBUTTAL #3 - How should the Transform play mechanic come into effect?
I think that this is the perfect time to make some changes to basic gameplay. Although some have noted that 'mainstream' gamers will not follow our rules, I think that by NOT changing it for the better we marginalize ourselves more than the alternative of making changes.
My point in all of this regarding Transform is that Transform should be it's own unique power as it is named "Transform". We would be making the game less new, exciting, and common-sensical by treating Transform as a simple Recruit. In my opinion, the BEST way to rectify this would be to move the defeated mode to the defeated pile and then move the transformed mode to the spot where it's counterpart was defeated. This makes the 'are backup point values dynamic or static' problem potential less than if we simply swapped the figures from backups to play, and it makes a HECK of a lot more sense than just treating a figure with Transform as a recruit power.
Also, there are no direct references to Transform anywhere, as is the 'new standard' for Hasbro, and the only insight we have is from Brett, who admittedly was not privy to the design prior to T2. His opinion was that it was not good to have SOP transform and come back into play at the 'death bed' of his former mode as it would be too probable that the figure would be killed again. I see this a a giant crock of BS simply because if that was a concern, why would they have made Recover figures, OR rule that "recovered figures are defeated" allowing Wolverine #9 to take another shot at an enemy Leader. It simply defies reason. Again, the only reason I think that figs need to be put in the defeated pile rather than swapped out into backups is that I feel it would overpower SOP in his many variations and possibly create a problem regarding "Are Backup Points Values Static or Dynamic After Gameplay Begins". I am not against this "Swap" Option 1 on priniciple, and I really believe it makes a lot more sense even than the Option 2 that I am promoting, except that it may cause some problems down the road. I guess in essence I truly favor Option 1, but I fear later problems. On the other hand, there are situations that can occur in-game currently that increase the maximum amount of points on your "Played Team" such as a 200 point game where a battle droid is killed, comes up white, and brings in 2 from backups, leaving 210 points total in play at once, breaching the 200 point start total, so maybe it's not that big of a deal. All I can say is that it's a very thin line that I am not fully prepared to walk at this point. If I DID have a vote, I'd vote for #2 without reservation, would COMPLETELY DISCOUNT the option of treating Transform as Recruit, but could EASILY be swayed to the "Swap" option.
In short, doing nothing and treating Transform as Recruit does nothing for the game, marginalizes our Alternative Set of rules even further, and makes little sense to the 'common player' as evidenced by the boardies that opined that they ALREADY treat Transform as a "Swap" figure. Vote for Option 2!!!
Last Edit: Jul 2, 2007 11:03:53 GMT -5 by superflytnt
The answer given to my question to Brett has been sighted as “gameplay reasons” for transform being a renamed recruit…. And I really have to say that Brett’s statement of: “I can comment that I feel that the Transform power works well within the context of the game, even though it may not feel like the best thematic fit.” is NOT a solid argument against transform = backups. I can say all kinds of things play out well, that doesn’t mean they are the best options. This was merely a opinionated comment from Brett, because he had no real knowledge of the reasoning for transform = recruit. “TF1 was just before my time.”
Brett’s other point that seems to be in favor of holding transform to a form of recruit was this: “”Recruit"ing figures to the exact spot the previous figure occupied runs too many risks that the follow up attack could easily finish off the newly brought in figure.”. I really tend to disagree with this assessment. It is a pretty rare occurrence that one can knock down a recover figure 2 times in a row… Most often you hit them with a striker, and they stand back up a foot away…. And even if they did get knocked down 2 times in a row…. So what? How’s that a bad thing? Nobody seems to be able to point out a detrimental side effect of a transformed figure going into backups. And you know, if it came out in the beginning that a transformed figure went into backups no one would be questioning it.
The R2-D2 argument… Really, I’m not sure that was supposed to be taken seriously. But if it were, I would argue that R2 flying is not at the core of his character. If he were flying in every scene, then sure; I would want to see something to reflect that… In some sort of way (although the proposal for a flying R2 is impractical and very silly). But nobody thinks of flying when they think of R2… What do you think of when you think of transformers? I bet no one thinks of them dying and then being reborn in another form.
You have to ask yourself, “What am I doing here? Why am I on a committee to write a new set of rules?” Well, I don’t know why everybody else is here, but I am here to help write an “alternate” set of rules. I really don’t care what Hasbro has said in the past, especially if I don’t think what they said makes sense. If someone has an idea for an alteration to traditional rules, and there are no detrimental side effects (ie, said new rule unbalances the game in an unacceptable way); I say go for it.
This is a chance to make a logical and possibly better set of “alternative” rules. And don’t forget to keep in mind; nobody is being forced to follow these rules… I really doubt any one will anyway. I just really hope that it doesn’t end up being an exact copy of previous Hasbro rulings. Because if it does, really…. What a waste of time.
Any option that puts a transformed figure into the defeated pile is just plain wrong. The whole idea of a transformed robot being defeated is immensely illogical. The only logical and thematically correct answer to this question of transform is that, a transformed robot goes into backups, and the alternate mode stands in the place the transformed robot was standing.
Post by greyelephant on Jul 2, 2007 11:30:00 GMT -5
I like the idea of being able to put my figure into play right where the defeated one fell. However, #1 is totally out of the question. The figure is defeated no matter which way we want to look at it.
I am still a stickler for #3 and it is going to take a bigger argument for me to change my mind.
I understand we are basically making our own rules. However, that does not give us the power to totally change wording on specials just because we like the idea. Hasbro could have ideas for this in the future and we just need to be patient enough to wait for them to come.
With that all said, #2 sounds good. I will wait until voting comes to make up my mind.
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 2, 2007 12:01:40 GMT -5
When there are three options, might I suggest a run-of for the top two choices?
As for changing the wording of specials: "Put Skyblast into play from your Back-Ups." "Put Skyblast Vehicle mode into play from your Back-Ups." I'm not sure what these options do that is contrary to anything in our three options. You are to:
1. Put the named character into play. 2. Such character is to come from your back-ups.
I stay with #1, or #2. With percentages the way they are I have no problem with 1 as it makes my wife's TF teams more viable, they still don't bring the vehicle back in very often. I have to agree with the conceptual clarity of mr. Malform that a transformed robot is not a defeated robot.
Post by superflytnt on Jul 2, 2007 12:08:50 GMT -5
<Note From Chair> After issues at hand (1, 2, 3, and/or any other concepts brought up to the panel) are voted upon, if there is no clear majority (and no TIE on any, which would invoke my right to vote) then there would be a runoff as stipulated under our parliamentary rules. Hence if Opt1 gets 1 votes, Opt2 gets 3 votes, and Opt3 gets 3 votes, I would be able to vote, which would break the tie (potentially). The best placing 2 options that remain would then come up for a run-off. If those 2 tie (becuse someone abstains from voting on principle, which defeats the purpose of this panel) then I would again cast the tiebreaking vote.
Last Edit: Jul 2, 2007 12:14:15 GMT -5 by superflytnt
Recently, I was in the bathroom thinking (great place for thinking, by the way, got some good rebus answers in there when that contest was running ) and thought, "You know what? Screw the rules, let the Transformers roam free." I'm not sure what brought on the thought (I had just got done playing the new TF video game so that could be it) but, really, what can it hurt?
My only true argument against going back and forth from back-ups was game balance. Would it make Transform figures unfair to use?
That argument is broken by one thing. This rule set could, and should, be a living document. If it turns out that going back and forth from back-ups would make Transform figures to good, we can change it to sending them to the defeated pile. If they're still overpowered, then we'll have found out why Transform = Recruit and we change it back to the Hasbro standard.
I will vote for whatever all the other Transform /= Recruit people vote for since I don't want one bad vote into the wrong option causing option #3 to win. Let me know which of the two other options to vote for and I'll do it.
Let the robots run/drive free unless they get to powerful for their own good. In that case, shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery.
EDIT: Oh, and ionicdesign, that wallpaper rocks. The only thing is, which ones are Radar, DoNP, and Malform? I'd guess they're R2-D2, Gunship, and Quad-Gun Clone respectively but I'm not 100% sure.
Last Edit: Jul 2, 2007 16:20:06 GMT -5 by grievous
"All in all, a most unpleasant fellow." - Obi-Wan's candid thoughts on General Grievous