AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 11, 2007 11:43:00 GMT -5
I think the Spiderman uppercut attack it completely legal. It's a bit of an out-of-the-box approach, but I see nothing legally wrong with it. It's comparable to using a striker to launch one of your own figures into the enemy (striker turned to launcher!). Hasbro probably never intended strikers to launch anything, let alone another figure, so why can't Spidey use his web ball attack like a striker? If the reverse position of the attack makes you uncomfortable, then you'd have to rule out backhanding and all the different "click" variations of uppercutters and hammer fists. And who is going to say which "click" position is the authoritatively legal position?
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Sept 12, 2007 9:50:27 GMT -5
Hhhmmm, interesting dilemna. I'm of the opinion that many above me have posted (that as long as the ball was in place, then if Spidey's web happens to hit someone on the way, then it counts).
I also noticed that Spidey doesn't "click" and I agree that figures should be this way. It's hard enough to use Hulk, Chirpa, and Thor - usually I'm trying to get enough power in my attack that I accidentally push to far right before I release and it leads to the wimpiest of attacks because it clicks back first (so there's no attack action hardly).
I've noticed that the Thing from the MV2 Starter seems to hold his arm in place (and not click) better than the one from Series 1 that I have, but that's probably just the randomness of manufactoring.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 12, 2007 11:40:38 GMT -5
So... what about taking a launcher and sticking the missile in the face of a figure before firing? If the missile doesn't clear the launcher, you have now used the figure as a prodder/striker. I see nothing that makes either illegal. Frankly, taking advantage of the design of the figure to do something out of the box is something I can completely respect. The important thing is to utilize the action feature, and (unorthodox as it was) that was done. It was a good strategy, used in a strategy game. It's not like it's going to come into play every time from here on out. If it does... well, that's when your opponent stops leaving Spidey for last.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2007 7:59:23 GMT -5
I cracked open one of my many Marvel S2 starters the other night, and gave Spiderman a try. I wasn't able to get under anyone enough to do an uppercut without whacking them with the web-holder. Perhaps I wasn't uppercutting figures that were tall enough. Either way, seeing how easy it is to smack an opponent's figure with the holder rather than the ball, I'm starting to rethink my support of this particular method of attack. If you could guarantee that the ball would KO the figure, and not the holder, then I'd fully support it, but seeing it in person has shown me how..... "shady" such an attack can be. I would not be very happy losing to someone who struck me down with the holder.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 13, 2007 8:24:20 GMT -5
Even if the holder is actually striking your enemy figure, I'd still say it's a legal attack. Who said that the striking surface of a launcher necessarily had to be the missile? Again, if you use the same logic, then strikers would not be able to launcher figures into other figures, since the actual striking surface (hand/claw/saber) of the striker is not even touching the enemy figures that are being knocked down. So long as the launcher is using only the momentum of its attack (by its own spring design), what difference does it make if the holder or the web hits the figure?
Along the same lines, if I'm attacking with launcher Hulk, but in the process of tossing the barrel, Hulk's arm inadvertently strikes down against an enemy figure next to him, that enemy figure is considered defeated, is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2007 9:03:05 GMT -5
Even if the holder is actually striking your enemy figure, I'd still say it's a legal attack. Who said that the striking surface of a launcher necessarily had to be the missile? Again, if you use the same logic, then strikers would not be able to launcher figures into other figures, since the actual striking surface (hand/claw/saber) of the striker is not even touching the enemy figures that are being knocked down. So long as the launcher is using only the momentum of its attack (by its own spring design), what difference does it make if the holder or the web hits the figure? Sending a figure flying from a striker's attack would be considered collateral damage. I wouldn't compare it to smacking an opponent's figure with Hulk's hands or Chirpa's sticks. Sure, you're using the momentum from the attack, but not the intended weapon.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 13, 2007 9:14:33 GMT -5
I'll admit, it's a fine line. But that's where I'm gonna say it's all a matter of house rules I think I'm gonna keep such attacks legal (maybe frowned upon, but legal).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2007 9:16:33 GMT -5
I'll admit, it's a fine line. But that's where I'm gonna say it's all a matter of house rules I think I'm gonna keep such attacks legal (maybe frowned upon, but legal). That's the beautiful thing about house rules... anything goes!
|
|
InvaderJes
30 Point Warrior
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 536
|
Post by InvaderJes on Sept 15, 2007 0:29:01 GMT -5
I think that striking with Spidey's arms- while clever - is a little too far outside of the box for it to be really a legal move. Now reverse smashing with Thor or Thing is a little closer to the boundaries. I'm all for that. If a figure can travel in reverse (necessary with some of my more resistant tix wheels), it should be fine to them to attack in reverse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 19:44:22 GMT -5
If a figure can travel in reverse (necessary with some of my more resistant tix wheels), it should be fine to them to attack in reverse. I've got some resistant Tixers also. I just started playing with the Marvel figures (to help pass the hiatus time a bit faster ) and my prodder Wolverine has to move backwards. Midnight Majick's SW-S4 #21 Boba Fett is a moon-walker too.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 16, 2007 22:27:47 GMT -5
I think that striking with Spidey's arms- while clever - is a little too far outside of the box for it to be really a legal move. So is unloading a missile in someone's face too far outside the box? If the missile never leaves the launcher, the figure has been used as a prodder. I see very little difference between using a launcher as a prodder and a thrower as a reverse-uppercutter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2007 22:41:05 GMT -5
I think that striking with Spidey's arms- while clever - is a little too far outside of the box for it to be really a legal move. So is unloading a missile in someone's face too far outside the box? If the missile never leaves the launcher, the figure has been used as a prodder. I see very little difference between using a launcher as a prodder and a thrower as a reverse-uppercutter. You're not prodding with the intention to prod though. You're simply shooting at a figure close range. Whether the missile completely leaves the barrel or not doesn't change the fact that the figure is a launcher, using it's launching attack.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Sept 17, 2007 2:52:35 GMT -5
So is unloading a missile in someone's face too far outside the box? If the missile never leaves the launcher, the figure has been used as a prodder. I see very little difference between using a launcher as a prodder and a thrower as a reverse-uppercutter. You're not prodding with the intention to prod though. Say wha? If you know the missile isn't going to clear the launcher, you know they will, by default, prod. Anyone who has played two or more games can eye the setup and know if the launcher will launch or prod. Following through when you know that will happen is taking advantage in much the same way as Malform did. And Spider-Man is using his throwing attack; he's just not facing the target he actually knocks down. The fact that the mechanism is in play isn't in question. The question is if the way it was used goes against the way it was designed. "Prodding" a missile directly into someone's face does, in just the same manner as using any striker and/or Spidey to pull off reverse uppercuts. The only thing left to do in this case is to look at precedence and see if it holds up... and since it would be allowable for Thing to hit Wolverine with his back turned and Han to prod Greedo in the face, it holds up very well. The fact is this: Had the setup been that Venom was conveniently knocked down in this same manner while Spidey was targeting Mystique, no one would question it- we'd be too busy patting him on the back for the lucky kill. The only difference I see here is that it was done on purpose, and that shouldn't even be a factor.
|
|
AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Sept 17, 2007 8:24:14 GMT -5
You're not prodding with the intention to prod though. You're simply shooting at a figure close range. Whether the missile completely leaves the barrel or not doesn't change the fact that the figure is a launcher, using it's launching attack. The problem with this logic is you'd have to ban strikers from intentionally launching other figures into one another. The multiple kills are not really collateral damage because you intentionally launched a projectile with the sole purpose of knocking down your targets. That's using a striker as a launcher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2007 8:49:38 GMT -5
You're not prodding with the intention to prod though. Say wha? If you know the missile isn't going to clear the launcher, you know they will, by default, prod. Anyone who has played two or more games can eye the setup and know if the launcher will launch or prod. Following through when you know that will happen is taking advantage in much the same way as Malform did. And Spider-Man is using his throwing attack; he's just not facing the target he actually knocks down. The fact that the mechanism is in play isn't in question. The question is if the way it was used goes against the way it was designed. "Prodding" a missile directly into someone's face does, in just the same manner as using any striker and/or Spidey to pull off reverse uppercuts. The only thing left to do in this case is to look at precedence and see if it holds up... and since it would be allowable for Thing to hit Wolverine with his back turned and Han to prod Greedo in the face, it holds up very well. The fact is this: Had the setup been that Venom was conveniently knocked down in this same manner while Spidey was targeting Mystique, no one would question it- we'd be too busy patting him on the back for the lucky kill. The only difference I see here is that it was done on purpose, and that shouldn't even be a factor. So, if you're trying to snipe someone from across the table, but the missile gets stuck and won't leave the barrel, you're launcher has just magically "transformed" into a prodder? I never said I'm against using reverse strikers, I actually like the idea. I'm only against using MV-S2 Spiderman's webholder as a weapon, rather than the web itself. Same as slapping someone with Hulk's throwing hands, instead of his barrel, and Chirpa's sticks instead of his rock. That is intentional misuse of a figures attack, in my opinion. I don't quite see how shooting a figure in the face can even be compared to what I just mentioned. When shooting a figure, whether at a distance or at close range, you're still using a bullet. If someone came up to you in the street (for some reason) and threw a sword at you, would you tell your friends that some jerk shot at you today? If I were shot with a gun at close range, and survived, I certainly wouldn't tell people that I was stabbed.
|
|