|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Dec 5, 2007 17:18:29 GMT -5
The way I see it is that those figures who have a "modified attack" effect may use those during an attackback simply because they're considered attacks. Mystique's effect states, "As an attack...." Thus, it's basically an attack and may be used during an attackback. R2's effect is not considered an attack; it's just an action you make at the start of your turn. So I would say that the "modified attack" effects may be enacted during attackbacks simply by virtue of being considered attacks, while other "non-attack" effects may not.
I don't see any reason to keep Wolvie from using his effect during any attackback. He doesn't use his effect as a normal attack anyway; it's just activated whenever he defeats a leader.
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Jan 15, 2008 16:48:47 GMT -5
I have a quick note to make about the committee's ruling that Possess figures, like the Emperor and Mystique may only use their machined joints to use their Possess attacks (page 30). If one decides to play that you may bend your figures for a Possess in his/her own house rules, then it's possible that the figure will slowly start to lean on it's own, with repeated stretches. To clarify, suppose I have a Mystique on my team and bend her all the way forward and bend the figure forward multiple times in multiple games. Over time, as she springs back up to her normal position, that "normal" position could start to lean a bit more forward than her original normal position. Sure, it could unbalance her a bit more, but you can still get an extra tix of Possess range. What if someone then decided that he/she wanted to use her in a tournament?
Also, I just did several trials with one of my Mystiques and a "possessee," S2 Striker General Grievous. Only using her machined joints (no bending at all, gun loaded) I achieved a maximum Possess radius of approximately 1.75 tix from the edge of her base. Then, I carefully tixed the General slowly away, one tix at a time, and the maximum distance that I could possess him with a 100% bent and stretched out Mystique was a tiny bit under 4 tix, about 3.9 tix or so. That was with her bending all the way to the ground and then pulling on her gun to try and make the touch. So really, bending doesn't add 4 tix to Mystique's Possess radius, it adds about 2.15 tix, which is not nearly as significant as the original 4 tix that was claimed she would gain if bending were legalized. According to my trials, the distance is just over half that claimed amount.
Additionally, if a figure can bend to attack and shoot (so long as the base stays flat on the ground), why can't Possess figures do the same for their attacks? Possess is used as an attack, so the rules that apply to attacks, unless contradicted by the effect itself, should apply to the Possess attack as well. I know that this point was brought up in the Committee discussion as well, but I feel that it is a considerable reason so I bring it up again.
In conclusion, Possess figures, such as Mystique and the Emperor, should be allowed to bend to enact their Possess attacks because the extra distance covered by bending is actually considerably less than what was originally thought, and Possess is an attack, so unless contradicted by the effect itself, Possess should adhere to the rules of attacks, which currently allow for bending. I can understand how 4 extra tix could call for a ruling to keep her from being overpowered. However, her small bullet, poor defense, slow speed more than balance her out and keep her from being too powerful, even with an extra 2.15 tix of possess range, in my opinion.
Besides, Possession occurs so rarely as it is. From the 200 Point Champion Team Thread:
An extra 2 tix could help make her more usable; from what I've read about on the boards, she isn't used very often and certainly not in less than a 200 point game. Also, at 20 points, there's no guarantee that a possess one makes will be beneficial point-wise. In the example above, Mystique was replaced by a 10 point figure, so that team lost 10 points while also using up an attack. In addition, there's no guarantee that a figure one possesses will even work well on your team as far as team synergy goes.
I'm not a member of the committee and I know I can't necessarily persuade the members of the committee to my points, but I personally feel that this issue should be readdressed, given the new information on her extra bending distance (and if you don't believe me, try it for yourself with one of your Mystiques).
That's my 2 cents, and thanks for letting me have a place to post it. I look forward to Yodabreaker's rebuttal pointing out all the logical fallacies I made and missed ;D.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jan 15, 2008 19:49:32 GMT -5
Let's not forget his repeated use of the word 'licit'.
;D
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jan 22, 2008 22:52:45 GMT -5
I have a quick note to make about the committee's ruling that Possess figures, like the Emperor and Mystique may only use their machined joints to use their Possess attacks (page 30). If one decides to play that you may bend your figures for a Possess in his/her own house rules, then it's possible that the figure will slowly start to lean on it's own, with repeated stretches. Actually, it's possible that Mystique will pop off her pegs. I say possible because I have one to whom this has happened after trying the bend-a-Stique "Possess" around 5 times. I'd hope that player has some fast-acting super glue - or a backup Mystique I suppose this is one case in which the truth depends greatly on our own points of view. If by "uncorrected numerical advantage", then the 4 Tix advantage is tenable. However, if by "baseline-corrected numerical advantage", (with the gun loaded, machined joints only radius as the baseline) then the 4 Tix advantage is greatly reduced. Thus, the quote below: and your own assertion: can be considered correct. However, because I always insist on baseline correction of the peak values I collect to take away the confound of baseline activity from peak measurement, I'd side with the "baseline corrected" value. My own tests (the ones that popped Mystique's right foot off the peg) showed that with a tape measure's edge placed at the forward part of Mystique's base, her loaded gun extends 2.5" from the front of the base. When I bend her forward, I can achieve a distance of 4.25" additional length from the front of the base, yielding a 1.75" advantage from bending. True - if one wants to bend or break one's own figures, we've previously allowed the bending that might bring it about. And my own figures suggest that the advantage is even less than 2 Tix. This reasoning makes sense to me. True, that. All things being equal, I'd prefer to have more figures be usable in competitive games, rather than less. Possession is about the only thing that makes Mystique uniquely dangerous. Even though Cona Chris's example resulted in a net sacrifice of 10 points, the Jedi Knight's attack is much more powerful than Mystique's, so I'd consider it at least a net wash. Nevertheless, it doesn't sounds like the Jedi Knight would fit thematically with the Turks, making his special power useless. Aside from using a discrete quantitative variable (i.e., Tix) to approximate a continuous quantitative variable (i.e., inches or similar distance measurement), I didn't detect any significant logic errors; the fragility of Mystique's hold on her base is a design flaw, not a logic error Your additional data is compelling, and I'm ashamed to say that I didn't verify the claims made for Mystique's stretchy distance. Her base 6 speed also makes her a pokey lass, which even more severely affects her ability to enact this effect. The "4 Tix reach" was what biased my vote, according to my posts' reasoning on this topic, even though I proposed the Option 3 that ended up passing. I second the call to revisit this ruling, in light of newly compiled data suggesting that there's only a net 2 Tix advantage posed by bending, especially in light of the fact that we allow every other figure to bend. However, I suspect we'd have to vote whether the definition I proffered about the definitions of "turn" and "round" can get a fourth vote to become the law of the land And yes, superfly, I specifically avoided my signature word, just to be contrarian ;D
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Feb 15, 2008 19:31:21 GMT -5
Much love, dog! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on May 2, 2008 9:23:05 GMT -5
As regards the current issue of what bullets you can use if a unique bullet is lost, I have have a list of the masses of a number of kinds of bullets on my attacktix bullet energy thread. By the way, I'm sorry bout not getting that thread updated; I pretty much got swamped with school and I'll collect some more data come summer.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 2, 2008 10:10:43 GMT -5
I'd never read that post before! That's ultra-cool!
I wonder this - do you think that, MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING, it would be fair to assume that bullets of equal mass (regardless of geometric shape, volume, or density) should be considered to be equivalent for purposes of replacing a lost bullet?
If so, what is the easiest way to field test this? A dope (excuse me...postage) scale that weighs into the grams?
|
|
haldu2
30 Point Captain
????#??? ??????? ?
Posts: 226
|
Post by haldu2 on May 2, 2008 10:28:13 GMT -5
weight isn't the only factor though, look at the grievous grapple its obviously in the shape of the missile too, or the pumpkin bomb. everything about a missile counts, but if were talking tournament play most people could probably just borrow the unique missile from someone else there.
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on May 2, 2008 17:18:49 GMT -5
Well, of course the air friction will be different from missile to missile, but I personally don't think that air resistance is particularly significant. Whatever the impact of resistance, it'll be less significant the closer the target is to the shooter, since it will have traveled through less air that could slow it down. I can't quite compute it though, since I haven't taken physics yet, and from what I've read, the calculations will require multivariable calculus and partial derivatives, which I don't know how to do yet.
Oh and by the way, for my calculations in the energy thread, I ignored any air resistance or other forces than gravity for simplicity's sake.
As for how I weighed the bullets, I just used one of the scales at school before a chem lab.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 14, 2008 10:13:56 GMT -5
Well, of course the air friction will be different from missile to missile, but I personally don't think that air resistance is particularly significant. Whatever the impact of resistance, it'll be less significant the closer the target is to the shooter, since it will have traveled through less air that could slow it down. I can't quite compute it though, since I haven't taken physics yet, and from what I've read, the calculations will require multivariable calculus and partial derivatives, which I don't know how to do yet. Oh and by the way, for my calculations in the energy thread, I ignored any air resistance or other forces than gravity for simplicity's sake. As for how I weighed the bullets, I just used one of the scales at school before a chem lab. Well, it's been a LONG while, but I did indeed take physics. The proper way to look at the shape issue in relation to knockdown power for purposes of determining equity between missiles, in my opinon, would indeed be the kinetic energy stored by the missile: Energy (in Joules)= Mass(in Kilograms)*Velocity(in Meters per second) 2 / 2 This is only part of the equation, though, IMO. The above would indeed give you a baseline to determine equity between projectiles, but it does not really answer the efficiency of transfer question. A projectile with a small pinpoint will transfer energy far more efficiently than that of one with a larger surface area on an uneven target like an Attacktix Figure, and much of the energy will not be driven into the target but will be lost to rotational relief or other mechanisms. A small bullet, though, may not have as much mass but will hit it's target more cleanly and evenly, producing a better delivery of it's energy. That's a tough calculation though - better just stick to the Joules and use that as a baseline.
|
|
|
Post by TheBig HairyTruth IsOutThere on May 14, 2008 23:52:01 GMT -5
I agree that if stretching a figure to prod, shoot or strike is legal, then stretching for possession should be too! Are you really revoting on this? Superfly, ya'll are working hard to form the rules. Thanks for talking to us lowly non-commitee members. Someone's got to do it eh. Is there an easy way to see all of these rules?
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 15, 2008 7:30:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the props.
Go to the Rules Committee thread, and then where it says "Jump To Page" at the bottom of the page just enter 1 and then click on "GO". All of the rules are on the first page, second post. The rules for voting are on the 1st post.
I do not know if we will revote - the rules state that a member has to raise it and it has to be seconded by 3 other people to be brought back up.
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on May 15, 2008 9:20:47 GMT -5
Well, I think Yodabreaker called for it earlier in this thread, before he had to resign from the committee.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on May 15, 2008 9:25:57 GMT -5
...but there needs to be three others, else there is no point as that constitutes the 4 votes needed to pass something.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on May 15, 2008 12:20:11 GMT -5
Posted by TheBigHairyTruthIsOutThere on Today at 12:52am I agree that if stretching a figure to prod, shoot or strike is legal, then stretching for possession should be too! Are you really revoting on this? |
The feeling on this is that most figures can't attack with much more efficiency by bending or altering themselves to reach another figure. Wolverine is the only figure that really comes to mind that has the possibility to gain an advantage by bending him forward. With Mystique the feeling is that if you take her gun, stick it our in front of her and then push her forward with as much effort as you can, you could possibly gain around 5 extra Tix of space. This sets up the opponent to get frustrated and almost makes it indefensible. She is able to shoot as well, so it's the committees decision that she really doesn't need anymore help.
|
|