|
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 10, 2007 11:01:09 GMT -5
Indeed Evade should be just that, players of the class in question should not be involved in a direct attack, because they evaded.
If knocked over they should be ground and placed where they originally were.
That class should not be involved in a blatant direct attack, such as Vader launching Logray into a pile of others figures.
As for projectiles that can be much more tricky, so unless a protected class was the only possible target I would suggest that the pieces fall that fall and those who Evaded are ground and stood back up, a first hand strike, on the other hand, is much less in question and ought not be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 10, 2007 17:22:06 GMT -5
As one might guess, I think that this is one instance in which Hasbro's ruling contradicts the special power text. Though I understand that there isn't a concrete "targeting" system in Attacktix, I think that the business of being completely agnostic about the target of attacks is short-sighted, at best. As ionicdesign pointed out, strikers target at least one figure explicitly, based on the nature of their attack. Indeed, even when figures are present in a group, it's typically easy to tell which figure is being targeted by a striker's attack (i.e., the figure closest to the tip of the striking surface, whether it be a horizontal or vertical strike). Furthermore, I'd hope it's now clear (even to Hasbro's rule-makers ) that flinging figures into other figures is a potent way to attack. Furthermore, the examples that Brett used about dual-bladed strikers in his examples wouldn't have any meaningful effects in gameplay. If a dual-bladed striker positions itself between two figures, one of those figures won't be able to fly at all because it'll be blocked by the player's hand holding the striker's base or legs (or the arm attached to that hand). Even if this somehow isn't the case (using some striking alchemy of which I'm not aware that would allow a person to strike without holding onto the figure in such a way as to impede the flight of either struck figure), one can use the same simple heuristic I've detailed to say which figures were the targets of an attack. I'm sympathetic to the projectile-based argument (i.e., one doesn't "call shots" like one does in other CMGs or pool), and I agree that adding a requirement to "call shots" would add an extra and perhaps unwarranted mechanic to gameplay. It's also much more difficult to create collateral damage with a launcher attack if the figures aren't touching without the damage being due to the projectile, inasmuch as it's likely going to be the projectile flying around than the figures. Nevertheless, I will note that in much older kinetic games (i.e., pool and billiards), in tournament play, it is typically necessary to call shots - and an opponent may require the calling of even obvious shots. Thus, here are my three postulates for Evade: 1) Figures under protection of Evade may not be attacked directly or indirectly. 1a) Ordinarily, this will mean that Evaded figures may neither be defeated nor cause non-Evaded figures to be defeated. 1b) All figures that are knocked over while under protection of Evade shall be stood back up where they were originally positioned after grinding. 2) In case of a striker attack on an Evaded figure that results in multiple figures being knocked over, at least some of those being non-Evaded figures, all figures shall be stood back up in their original locations, as per 1b). None of these figures shall be considered defeated. 3) Collateral damage from a launcher attack shall be dealt with according to the positions of the Evaded and non-Evaded figures. 3a) Non-Evaded figures that are touching Evaded figures (either the figure sculpt itself, figure base, or projectiles) before the launcher attack and are knocked down shall be considered defeated. 3b) Non-Evaded figures that are not touching Evaded figures before the launcher attack and are knocked over shall be stood back up in their original locations, as per 1b). None of these non-touching figures shall be considered defeated.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 11, 2007 7:03:03 GMT -5
I look at Evade like this: Evade protects the figure from direct attack, but in a game where ANYTHING can happen, one cannot give blanket protection to an ENTIRE team of figures with just 2 wickets on it. If a figure flings another figure into a grouping of figures that include an evading wicket, I just don't think that the entire group should be protected.
If an Obi Wan attacks a Grievous Bodyguard via saber, and the GBG flies into a group of figures that includes an evading Wicket, I think that for gameplay's sake, the Ewok should be the only one that can stand back up where it started. If we rule that all the figures can get back up, we slieight the guy who's attacking as the argument could be made that some of the figures were NOT killed by the Wicket. This will just result in arguments.
In the case of bullets, that's a lot easier...the same rules apply - no direct attacks on an Evading figure.
So in short, I believe Evade protects only the figure that is Evading, and not everyone else that he may be cast into. I do not see an 'indirect attack' as a genuine, bona-fide attack - only saber hitting fur is an attack to me. The Ewok should still always stand back up at the point where he started, but the rest of his cohorts that died with him should stay dead.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 11, 2007 7:30:43 GMT -5
I have given this a lot of thought and agree with the above statement.
By no means should an Evading figure ever be struck other than by incidental contact. And once the figure is defeated or knocked down. It should stand back up.
Now here is my question for all of you.
Where does the figure stand back up at? I believe this is the real issue to me. Do they go where they originally were? Do they go where they land?
Can you elaborate on this more? Are you saying Non-Evading figures should not be able to be knocked down?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2007 10:15:41 GMT -5
I don't have much to say about this issue. I'm fond of this idea: 1) Figures under protection of Evade may not be attacked directly or indirectly. 1a) Ordinarily, this will mean that Evaded figures may neither be knocked down nor cause non-Evaded figures to be knocked down. 1b) All figures that are knocked down while under protection of Evade shall be stood back up where they were originally positioned after grinding. What's the point of even having Evade to protect a figure(s) if everyone is just going to conjure up loopholes to disregard that protection.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 11, 2007 17:28:43 GMT -5
<Note>
The Chair would also like to point out the inconsistency in the use of the phrase, "Knocked Down" in the arguments to the "Evade" rule. In light of the fact that we determined Knocked Down to be equivalent in all cases to "Defeated", it seems as though Defeated may not truly be interchangeable with "Knocked Down". I simply wanted to point this little paradox out and if anyone would like to re-adress this at some time in the future, please bring it up in a PM. If 4 people ask for a re-argument at any point concerning the same rule, I will reopen argument at the end of the current voting period.
|
|
|
Post by Radar on Jul 12, 2007 1:26:45 GMT -5
Wow, harsh. It is impossible to determine where a figure was before it was moved by an attack. It is also impossible to determine which figures were the intended targets. For these reasons, I suggest "evade" should simply mean "if the chosen class is defeated, grind and stand back up" basically an auto-recover.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 12, 2007 17:34:40 GMT -5
REBUTTAL TIME!!!!! -EVADE
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 12, 2007 17:48:37 GMT -5
My rebuttal is simply this:
I think Grievous has it right, but it also makes Evading figures pretty much untouchable and makes the facilitation of the gameplay hard as it forces you to argue where a figure was before the attack, and as he and I BOTH have learned together, ONE tix makes all the difference.
I think Malform has it dead on the head - I just don't think that intentional attacks will happen. This is, of course, difficult to prove with a flinging figure (such as the Vader/Luke example) as one could claim bad aim. So, this is good. I will add to this thesis at MY theory.
ID also has some good anecdotes, but I really am not too sure where he stands, so I'll pass here.
YB's rules are quite well thought out, BUT I think far too thought out. Nobody is going to go through this rigumroll (sp?) every time. I do agree that calling shots is a good helper to this, but it's too easy for someone to say "X" and do "Y" and then sprout expletives. This is unworkable too, in my eyes.
Now to the meat:
I feel that to make this playable, we need a one-liner. I have come to the conclusion that if an evaded figure is to be worth the ink on the bottom, Evade should indeed protect the figure from death BUT because of the problems with 'Where was he...NO HE WAS THERE...NO!!! (pulls gun)" we need to make this simpler.
Here's my suggestion, overriding my original argument that was clearly pretty Effin Stupid:
Evading figures MAY NOT BE ATTACKED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. If an incidental attack happens, ALL FIGURES KNOCKED OVER DURING THIS ATTACK ARE STOOD UP WHERE THEY LIE. This will solve many problems with the only loss being that in the case of an incidental attack the defender may lose some field position, BUT the figure that was ORIGINALLY used as a projectile stands up, giving the defender a 'free recover' for the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 12, 2007 18:24:14 GMT -5
Now see, I really don't agree that a figure, under the protection of Evade, should surrender Defeat or Field Position.
No, I would have to say that if the figure is accidently knocked over (Defeated isn't tecnically correct here). He should be stood back up where he was originally. Or atleast close to the approximated spot.
Otherwise we could have figures "accidently" flung across the table just so we wouldn't have to worry about them being able to reach and attack us on our next turn.
Remember, field postition can sometimes make or break a game. One tix could be the final tix needed.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 12, 2007 18:33:48 GMT -5
Now, here's the issue as I see it:
If one allows for an Evaded figure that is indirectly and accidentally attacked to lose field position due to the fling, there becomes no reason whatsoever to not "accidentally" fling figures in the general direction of an Evader. Let me give an example.
Imagine that Wicket's Evade power is in effect for Ewoks. I move my Darth Vader in striking range of my opponent's Luke Skywalker. I have a line-up for a shot on my opponent's Greedo but there also ever so happens to be a Wicket standing nearby. I then "accidentally" launch Skywalker into Wicket rather than Greedo. I put up the argument that I was aiming for Greedo and missed. His Wicket has now lost four tix worth of distance and Luke Skywalker is well out of range to get a hit in next turn.
See, the field position argument works both ways. In this case, my opponent's Evade did nothing to really help him except by giving him another turn in which to, most likely, die.
The easiest way to solve this is to let the attacker place the figure. In this way, the defender can call him on any insane change of placement but one or two tix will pass through fine and is a decent exchange for Wicket to live another day. If the player still loses, bad luck.
Here's the simplest possible paragraph for my argument:
Evading figures may not be attacked directly or indirectly. If an Evaded figure is affected by an attack, the Evaded figure and any figures the Evaded figure effects are stood up by the attacker in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 12, 2007 20:17:22 GMT -5
<Note> If you would please, during REBUTTALS (Please edit for those that have opined already) please stipulate an "OPTION" for voting. Right now this is such a complex ruling already that I am having trouble nailing down 'voting options', per se.
Thanks guys!
So far, I have as OPTIONS: 1. Evading figures MAY NOT BE ATTACKED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. If an incidental attack happens, ALL FIGURES KNOCKED OVER DURING THIS ATTACK ARE STOOD UP WHERE THEY LIE.
2.Evading figures may not be attacked directly or indirectly. If an Evaded figure is affected by an attack, the Evaded figure and any figures the Evaded figure effects are stood up by the attacker in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 12, 2007 22:05:26 GMT -5
I'm happy with number two...though not sure that it needs to be stipulated who stand them back up, it is an approximation either way, and not something that people should get too hung up over I would think.
Evading figures may not be attacked directly or indirectly. If an Evaded figure is affected by an attack, the Evaded figure and any figures the Evaded figure effects are stood up in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jul 13, 2007 10:48:26 GMT -5
I like number 2 also... I see the logic behind standing them up where they fell... But I really dont think that a figure that was never supposed to be attacked (or moved for that matter) should loose any ground.
On the slightly off topic of "knock down"... I strongly feel that this is an area the committee really dropped the ball... But I was one of the few that were in favor of a separate "knock down" and "defeat", so I dont really feel like Im the one to call on a revisit.... It seems to me that in order for a revisit, someone would have to be willing to change their vote (example, YB would PM superfly saying something, similar but most likely better sounding to this: "I think I was wrong in my decision on the knock down = defeat vote, I would like to revisit it if possible")... I mean theres no purpose or reason to revisit, if everyone is just going to vote the same way again.
|
|
|
Post by Radar on Jul 13, 2007 11:48:22 GMT -5
I agree that they shouldn't lose ground, especially because that player is just about to have an attack coming up, but ...where do they stand up? Ideally it should be where they were before, but are the players going to agree on that placement? Often not, so I suggest #1. The figures should stand up where they lie.
|
|