Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2007 14:50:02 GMT -5
No rebuttal. I like:
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 greyelephant on Jul 13, 2007 16:18:50 GMT -5
Are we still rebuttling or voting?
I vote:
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 YodaBreaker on Jul 13, 2007 16:26:27 GMT -5
The fundamental postulate I forgot to put in my previous post is this:
0) The attacker should not be able to benefit in any way, shape, or form from an illegal attack, whether that attack be direct or indirect.
Thus, even if two players can't agree on where figs should be stood up exactly, then it's the fault of the attacking player for trying to derive benefit from an illegal attack. Inasmuch as I can't reduce my position any further on the matter than my previous post, I'm closest to Option 2, and disputes about knocked over figures resolve in favor of the defender. Attacktix is already a game weak in defense - there's no need to make it even more so by letting the attacker have his or her say after an illegal attack.
As for the terminological issue, greyelephant's got a good solution by saying the figures are "knocked over" rather than "knocked down" - the quickstart guide also uses this terminology. I've edited my previous post to reflect this terminology.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 13, 2007 19:48:05 GMT -5
<NOTE>
We're rebutting, Tim.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 13, 2007 19:58:47 GMT -5
Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Based off of this comment, I would like to see a Opt.3.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 13, 2007 20:19:42 GMT -5
<Note> Guys, what I really need are some viable options for voting. I will cut and paste them so there is no discrepency, so please go ahead and pop them into your rebuttals. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 13, 2007 20:24:07 GMT -5
How this...
3.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 DEFENDER/OPPONENT in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
I only changed Attacker to Defender/opponent.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 20, 2007 11:41:34 GMT -5
I know this is out of order so feel free and delete it after the fact, but are we at a sufficient point to vote on options, it appears the committee at large is generally agreed, it is mostly a matter of subtleties, or would it be better to have a second round of rebuttals to be sure on the voting options?
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 20, 2007 12:14:46 GMT -5
I agree with the former. Let's vote! Just vote what you think, and we'll reconcile afterward based upon the options shown.
|
|
|
Post by malform on Jul 20, 2007 12:16:29 GMT -5
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.
Gets my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 20, 2007 12:19:35 GMT -5
I'm of the same save I think it should be the defender doing the placing.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 20, 2007 12:23:00 GMT -5
Thus, I think ionicdesign and I would vote for GE's Option 3:
3. 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 DEFENDER/OPPONENT in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 20, 2007 13:39:29 GMT -5
I vote #3 as well.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 21, 2007 16:13:08 GMT -5
Yodabreaker's rebuttal showed just how good an idea it is to let the Defender choose the location instead of the attacker. I won't even vote for my own option in this one...
3. 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 DEFENDER/OPPONENT in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 21, 2007 20:45:07 GMT -5
The votes are in:
Evade is ruled to mean: 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 DEFENDER/OPPONENT in the estimated area where they were before the infraction.
Moving on!
|
|