|
Post by superflytnt on Oct 30, 2007 7:20:28 GMT -5
This thread is so people who wish to enlighted the committee with their pearls of wisdom may do so. I can't guarantee it'll sway the members or panelists, but if it makes you feel better, do it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Nov 1, 2007 15:14:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure whether that's so much of a rule as just common sense. If you have rally powers that could be activated, you'll want all the black-wiondow defeated figures to be in the defeated pile so you have the best chance for the rally actually being able to bring someone back in, like in your "Han the Man" example. I definitely agree with most of what I've been following so far though. I like the idea of me deciding the activation order of my figures when my opponent kills them, and that's the way I've usually played.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 5, 2007 11:01:12 GMT -5
The current rules discussion (regarding the order that specials are resolved in) has some thought-provoking stuff in it. While I'm normally on the same page with YB, I disagree with his contribution: Here's a third option: 3. Upon defeat, each controller of the defeated figures must declare an order of resolution of special powers before the figures' bases are checked to ascertain whether they are black or white. Figures with SPs activated must be resolved in the standard order, and then individually placed into the defeated area. My problem is that not everyone knows what every figure does, and I don't think they should have to. Sometimes (a lot of times, really) you just want to cobble together a team and knock down figures with your friends. Declaring special resolution before checking intones that you know both every special on your team, AND the most advantageous order of resolution. I think this to some extent discourages friendly play. I realize that the idea is to clarify rules that are good for competitive and friendly play, but I think that declaring special resolution before checking clearly puts the advantage with the experienced (and most likely, older) player, who would know the specials and construct the team accordingly. Honestly, the more advanced players are likely to do this anyway, but if we go by some of the suggested methods (black figures go in the defeated pile, then Recover/similar types, then Attackbacks and the rest, as what I feel is a good example), this puts both players on roughly equal ground, regardless of skill and experience. I think that the majority of the strategy involved in the game should take place while the figures are standing. Once they fall, let's make it easy on everyone. No need to confuse things by going sight-unseen on special resolution.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Nov 5, 2007 11:17:04 GMT -5
I agree with that statement - you should be allowed to check ALL figures, then remove Blackies from play.
Here's the rub with YB's proposal - there is a rule on the books that ALL recovery "Stand Up" powers are done first, so if you decide the order sight unseen, there could be a situation that causes this rule to be violated. This isn't a dealbreaker, but why should we make contradictions when we're trying to remove them?
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Nov 5, 2007 13:46:20 GMT -5
Here's the rub with YB's proposal - there is a rule on the books that ALL recovery "Stand Up" powers are done first, so if you decide the order sight unseen, there could be a situation that causes this rule to be violated. This isn't a dealbreaker, but why should we make contradictions when we're trying to remove them? I'd assumed that we'd be following the established rules for special power activation, so I'd assumed that you'd always have to check the figures who'd stand up first. Seems simple enough to me. Then again, I suppose you'd already have to know whether each figure's special power allows it to stand up or not - heavens to Betsy, the cognitive load we're already imposing on people ;D And I seriously doubt that those looking to engage in "friendly play" are going to care about this issue one way or the other. If the goal is just "to cobble together a team and knock down figures with your friends," then it would suggest that strategic concerns aren't paramount in that sort of gameplay, anyway. People are free to play however they want, in those cases. The option I advanced preserves as many strategic considerations as possible, from my perspective. I don't expect people will like it, but it best reflects how I play, and it's the most satisfying one to me. Incidentally, this also permits the use of defeated figures as a sort of mini-terrain during special power resolution - which I'm sure is another reason why people won't like it, but again, it creates a valuable strategic complication that wouldn't otherwise exist.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 12, 2007 12:39:44 GMT -5
In the Committee thread yesterday, TNT laid out the following: <<NEW RULE>> Q. After launching Slave Leia's harp00n, should you be allowed to pull it all the way back into the barrel to make it click back in? or only far enough back in that it doesn't click? or must part of it be left on the playing field? TNT's Take: Due to the 'optional' reloading that has been passed, I think this MUST be an optional clause. My thoughts on this is that you can NOT reload a figure that has already fired: <Answer provided for "Is Reloading Optional" A player has the OPTION of loading missiles in any or all figures at the beginning of a match, and at ANY point during their turn, provided that a figure has not already fired. A figure may be reloaded to enact an Attackback and/or Shootback if one is awarded. In my opinion, the string may NOT be pulled back at all. The use of the string is limited only to reduce the range of the launcher. If you allow the string to be pulled back and reloaded it would violate that rule, and I believe that the hook laying on the ground way out in front of Leia should be viewed as a denial-of-area action. That's my take on it. I'd challenge that there is still wiggle room in this question. There are exceptions to every rule. I point to the following as precedence (relevant statement in bold/underline): The selected sentence backs up established rules that no figure can be moved after attacking. HOWEVER, there is also a seemingly unspoken understanding that flying figures are an exception to this rule, as they must be returned to their base. Figures like Ransack and Scorponok are also clear exceptions to the normal rules for attacking, although not this one specifically. I think the board should decide how Leia's attack is meant to be performed. If the intent is to perform a "normal" attack, then it seems clear that yes, TNT is right on the money. However, if her attack is intended to "harpoon" figures and reel them in like trout, then it's not likely that she would not fall subject to the reloading rule. The Committee-clarified rules for reloading don't really change the question, as the question is effectively whether or not she is an exception to how the figures normally work.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Nov 12, 2007 13:24:29 GMT -5
There's nothing prohibiting you from starting a Leia poll thread, amigo, and it may prove valuable in swaying the opinion of the committee, but you need remember that the panel's job is to be independent and reasoned, hence we cannot open the debate to the entire world.
Feel free to lobby as you must, that's probably the best thing to do to sway things to your side of the fence. It's a shame you didn't come on board earlier as you would've made a nice addition to the panel.
Now for my rebuttal: I agree with most of what you've said, but the one exception I see is that the placing of a figure back on it's pedestal is a design inherent of the figure, and is not necessarily applicable to this application. Furthermore, there is a long standing (hasbro and the ARC) understanding that reloading figures after firing is prohibited. The recent 'reloading' argument also underscored this.
Where we sit now is that we have a figure that has a weapon with a lanyard to limit it's travel, and do we allow the "troutfishing" practice or not? The two sides here are that it could be argued that it's part of the attack, but where does one place the hook after being retracted? You can't reload it (long standing precedent) so where does it end up? The other side, which I see as more fitting, as it makes the most sense to me and seems the least prone to having problems with interpretation, is that the string is only there to limit the distance the weapon can travel, a bit like the chain on a flail. This would preclude any problems with 'where to put it', and furthermore can actually be a really slick way to protect figures. Since it is OPTIONAL to reload, let's say Leia is in front and to the left of a group of figures and shoots her lanyard out. It lays down, and now figures on the opposing team (strikers) cannot cross that string. They have to take Leia out first.
That's my 'Extrapolated' take. ;D
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 12, 2007 17:25:13 GMT -5
There's nothing prohibiting you from starting a Leia poll thread, amigo, and it may prove valuable in swaying the opinion of the committee, but you need remember that the panel's job is to be independent and reasoned, hence we cannot open the debate to the entire world. What part of "I think the board should decide" opens it up to the entire world? I honestly have no strong feelings one way or another on this. I don't have the figure in question, and likely wouldn't use it a lot if I did. I just disagree with you that the question is properly answered through the already-covered points. That's exactly my point. I think that the board needs to decide what the design is so that we know if it is applicable or not. Agreed. But again, is it part of the design? If so, then it may be an exception to the rule. If that is the case, stabbing fingers at the rules means nothing. And again, I must disagree. You are assuming that no reloading can take place. It has not been established (through Committee vote or designer input) what the intention was behind her specific design. Intriguing strategy and makes just as much sense as the alternative. Again, I have no strong feeling on this (unlike some other arguments I've made). I just don't believe as you do that the previous rulings have pre-answered this. Because she is a unique design, the Committee has to consider that she may in fact be an exception to the established rules in order to answer the question of how the figure works.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Nov 12, 2007 22:34:10 GMT -5
You misunderstand. I do NOT feel that we've answered this, or it wouldn't have made it to the committee floor. Remember that I am the ultimate arbiter of what make it to debate (at least in this council ;D ) My point is that there are some prohibitive factors that need to be weighed - we had rounds and rounds making 'exceptions' before on specific figures, and that caused a lot of heartache, eventually having 6 of 7 people come back and want to re-evaluate (and then reverse) the ruling.
What I am saying is that we need to really think about the long-term implications of making character-specific decisions, that's all. I like to use broad brushstrokes that encompasses classes of figures if I can help it, so that we're not making single-figure decisions that may down the road become problematic.
Now for the second-to-last paragraph you wrote regarding the "Reloading": Yes, it is a figure, and hence it may not be reloaded per the rules of Hasbro as well as the rules of the ARC. This is not debatable vis-a-vis reloading, unless you (which you appear to be) are trying to argue that she is a 'special' figure that is indeed allowed to reload, in which case I think you're probably barking up the wrong tree - I would suspect that the overwhelming majority would disagree that she is so unique (not to say she is not indeed unique, just not RULE BENDINGLY unique) to allow her to reload and thus lose the advantage of the Denial of Area effect she is allotted. From those I've spoken to it appears that the answer will lie in the middle - the string will likely be ruled to be allowed to be 'fished' but not reloaded.
Finally, the "Board" decide note - I was assuming you meant the "Forum". Did you mean just the group of the 8 of us instead?
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 13, 2007 14:28:48 GMT -5
*snipped due to lots of agreement and inarguably good points. * Finally, the "Board" decide note - I was assuming you meant the "Forum". Did you mean just the group of the 8 of us instead? Absolutely. Had I meant that the board... oh, I see. Yeah, my bad. I should have used "Committee." Yeah, it seems we're in near-total agreement here. Regardless of your claim, it does look like your experiences are leaning you to one side, but that may just be my interpretation, and it's not like you aren't allowed to give your opinion to the Committee.
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Nov 22, 2007 19:45:51 GMT -5
Just a quick note about the "Can I have a Mega in my backups?" question is that Megas, as they have just the Mega class and no faction, cannot even be brought into play for the player in whose backups it is with any figure we currently have. However, they could be brought into play if your opponent's Mystique is white, but then it would be for the wrong team. And as for Megas in tournament play at all, my main issue is that people can completely legally turn the Megas around (even though it defeats the purpose of the targets and the original intent for the figures), making them practically invulnerable until the strikers cross the table.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 22, 2007 23:00:23 GMT -5
Just a quick note about the "Can I have a Mega in my backups?" question is that Megas, as they have just the Mega class and no faction, cannot even be brought into play for the player in whose backups it is with any figure we currently have. However, they could be brought into play if your opponent's Mystique is white, but then it would be for the wrong team. And as for Megas in tournament play at all, my main issue is that people can completely legally turn the Megas around (even though it defeats the purpose of the targets and the original intent for the figures), making them practically invulnerable until the strikers cross the table.Practically? I'd like to see the Attacktix missile that can knock over a Mega at 15 tix. Heck, I can barely get most targets to go down at that range. I outlawed turning Megas around in my house rules as soon as I became aware it was a possibility. That tactic falls less under "fun" and more under "jerk".
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Nov 23, 2007 1:30:59 GMT -5
Whizkid, I've killed Megas with Clone Troopers on the first turn. Like...regularly. It's not hard.
The 'turning around' manoeuver is garbage, and should be considered very unsportsmanlike, but it's really not that tough to overcome. You do indeed need to take out their forces to get a striker over, but with 70 points taken over in a 200 point game it's really a disadvantage to do it, and the Mega's weapons are really not that powerful. Even the 4 shooters suck pretty bad.
Another point is that of all the Megas I've played with, really only the gunship has a really bad case of turning and remaining effective. The Boga is tough, too, but the fact that it is so unstable makes it less problematic. A Grievous bullet can kill an ATRT, both Omegas, and Spideypoleboy in one shot by hitting points on the enemy other than the targets. Most of these figures are just plain poorly designed to withstand hits from large bullets from moderate ranges. YB killed an ATRT by tagging the head of the driver and it fell right down...on some of my other guys...
I think there should be a 90 degree rule regarding the Megas, and TVC's note about backups is dead on - what's the point to put it there since nothing at this point can call it into play.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Nov 30, 2007 0:24:45 GMT -5
Whizkid, I've killed Megas with Clone Troopers on the first turn. Like...regularly. It's not hard. Apparently my Megas are better-constructed than yours. I've had point blank shots and the "power strikers" fail to knock over the targets on a few of my Megas. Sandman is capable of firing over the shoulder. So is Ghost Rider, although it's debatable if turning around is actually advantageous to him. Omega Sentinel has that handy bicep swivel. Spider-Man can attack 360 degrees no matter where his base points. Effectiveness is debatable on all of these, but it's that way with most Megas to begin with. The point is that killing them is that much harder when the designated targets are facing away from your figures, and their weapons are. So your solution is to put Grievous on every team? Sarcasm aside, when I play with my friends, we don't always plan for Megas, but they happen anyway. Having the other person turn the Mega around after seeing your striker/small missile team is just lame. Dropping most Megas without hitting the targets generally requires a level of skill and knowledge of "weak spots" that exceeds the normal "hit it and it drops" strategy. My entire point is that the game is, above all other considerations, supposed to be fun. Turning the Mega isn't. The way to restore fun would then be to play the Mega facing your opponent, as it was intended. To be honest, I also have an issue with dropping Megas through means other than the designated targets, as some (I'm looking at you, Omega Sentinel and Ghost Rider) actually have trouble standing in the first place, and the instructions for every Mega I have suggest that hitting the targets is the only way they are intended to be felled... but that's something else entirely, a POV I already know to be unpopular, and currently affects nothing but my own house rules, so I'll push that another time.
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Nov 30, 2007 18:16:29 GMT -5
Why would it be limited during an attackback? I've always interpreted it as:
"When Wolverine defeats a Leader, Wolvernine may immediately move up to 6 tix and then make an additional free attack."
I think this is the gist of what most of the committee has expressed as well. Wolvie has to kill the leader, and once he does, he immediately gets his free move and attack for that particular instance. He then would have to defeat another leader on another turn to benefit from the free move and attack again. And the "one of any particular effect" rule would prevent him from going on a leader killing streak.
|
|