logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:07 pm 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:43 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Atlanta, Ga
From what I read IIRC they can still be attacked with Sweep. I could be wrong but i think i read that somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:42 pm 
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:18 pm
Posts: 175
They can also be killed by stuff like force grip, because its a los attack. They only thing diplomat does is make it so they can't be targeted.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:42 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 3886
Grip requires targetting.

_________________
Bloomilk Ambassador


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:11 pm 
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:18 pm
Posts: 175
Oops, bad example :) But the new lightsaber sweep of Vaders is LOS--which is the kind of thing I meant to illustrate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:46 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Sweep definitely works and Vader's new Lightsaber THROW might work. I suspect that Vader's LT5 still uses targetting rules, just ignores cover. So in that situation, the only way to hit a Noble would be to target an enemy that is adjacent to the Noble.

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:20 am 
Black Sun Thug
Black Sun Thug
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:35 pm
Posts: 64
Location: Lexington KY
Has anyone thought of adding 1 or 2 to B&B in place of stormy's, or just run them with grans instead? Are they subject to AOO's?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:37 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
I believe they are subject to AoOs becuase those do not Target.

Running them with a B&B army could possibly work, but really only if your opponent doesn't have Accurate Shooters. Then having a Noble and a Gran would prevent them from attacking anything. They won't be nearly as resilient as the Stormtroopers are though.

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:25 am 
Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 326
Roulex wrote:
Answer to Mezmaron: No, since the Noble's no longer a valid target, the attacker does NOT have to move to attack someone else.


I'm pretty sure that although an adjacent noble would not be a valid target or the nearest enemy, it still counts as an adjacent enemy and thus prevents the attacker from targeting someone else without moving. Nickname has not issued an official ruling but his comments suggest this is his understanding too.

I'll be putting 4 nobles in my Lobot Reinforcements box, I think they will be useful for tying up enemy shooters with double, careful, deadeye, Princess Leia's CE, etc. - but this use will be a bit situational, hence they are perfect reinforcements.

And of course, they can shoot and do damage with the right CE: Captain Antilles, Durge, Stormtrooper Commander, Han RH, and Lord Vader can all issue weapons to the diplomatic corps. The can also do damage if an ally with Spotter combines fire with an attacking Noble, so I see uses in a Rebel Leader squad too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:34 am 
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 401
Location: South Jersey
Is a character with SS a "legal target?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:21 am 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:02 pm
Posts: 43
Hey has anyone though of ce ???? :?:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:36 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Menoth's Fire wrote:
Is a character with SS a "legal target?"


Not really sure what you're asking. Do you mean if a character with SS is directly behind a Noble, would they still benefit from SS? As I understand it, yes. If a character with SS is behind a Noble (and not behind any cover) it would still get the benefits of SS. In that situation though, since you do have LOS to both the Noble and the SS unit, you wouldn't be able to attack either unless you were adjacent to the SS unit. At least, that's the way I see it so far.

jet_trooper wrote:
Hey has anyone though of ce ???? :?:


No clue what you're asking here.

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:43 am 
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 401
Location: South Jersey
I mean the definition of "Legal Target:"
"legal target: An enemy must be a legal target for an attack, special ability, or Force power. The acting character must have line of sight to it. An enemy with cover is not a legal target unless it is the nearest. If one or more enemies are adjacent to the character, only those enemies are legal targets."
By strictest interpretation, if Nom were behind the CN, he wouldn't be "the closest" and hence not a "Legal Target."

Then again by this def, Accurate shooters attack non- "legal targets" all the time. since AS doesn't change the def of Legal Target. And the Noble would be targetable whenever he is the only target that doesn't have cover or if he's the closest in cover.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:18 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Special Abilities (including Force powers and CEs) are allowed to overrule the general rules all the time. So Accurate Shot gets to do what it says when the only reason it couldn't is from the standard rules.

However, in the case of Special Ability vs Special Ability you have to follow all the rules for all the Special Abilities. (An SA that modifies another SA will explicitly say so.)

(Not sure if this is answering the question, as I don't quite understand the question. Hopefully the general case can be applied as necesary to Diplomat.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:32 pm 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
If the situation is just like I laid out, Caamsi Noble with Nom Anor standing right behind him, then nobody would be able to shoot either character, unless they get adjacent to Nom (or can make a clear LOS on him), or they can get a LOS on the Noble without having any LOS to Nom at all.

The Noble does not count as a target, but the definition of Diplomat doesn't say that he doesn't still provide cover. Think of it this way. If the Diplomat is in the way, and there's somebody hiding REALLY well behind him (stealth or SS), then you can't take the chance of shooting at the other guy, because you might hit the Noble instead. For once, logic actually can apply here. :P

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 pm 
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 401
Location: South Jersey
The problem is that the term "Legal Target" has a set definition. However, SA & CE that change this definition in regards to a specific situation do not use the term "Legal Target" in their description. For instance, AS should read something like: "This character ignores cover for purposes of determining Legal Targets. Cover still provides a bonus to Defense against this character." Nom's CE should read something like: "Allies with Stealth are not Legal Targets for non-adjacent characters."

Why define the term just to pick and choose when it will be used?! There would be many fewer rules clarifications if they just used the pre-established definitions! For instance, this thread wouldn't exist. In Lobo's example, by definition Nom wouldn't be a legal target, so (barring any other legal targets) the Noble could be targeted as per the Diplomat SA.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:01 pm 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 3886
So you want the cards to be printed in really small print?

_________________
Bloomilk Ambassador


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:50 pm 
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 401
Location: South Jersey
Sithborg wrote:
So you want the cards to be printed in really small print?

that's what the rule books and inserts are for. Whatever it takes to make the rules consistent and playable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:35 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Quote:
In Lobo's example, by definition Nom wouldn't be a legal target, so (barring any other legal targets) the Noble could be targeted as per the Diplomat SA.


Wha?

Legal Target is used completely normally in this case. The fact that Nom is in LOS to the attacker makes the Noble a NOT Legal Target. Nom is a NOT Legal Target as well because the attacker not adjacent and Nom has cover granted by the Noble.

I think there's some disconnect between the Noble not being a legal target and the line of sight to a non-Diplomat that creates that misunderstanding perhaps? (The line of sight part is also using the completely standard definition.)

In practice, it seems pretty straightforward...

Character decides to attack:
Is there LOS to enemy non-Diplomat?
A) YES.
Diplomat is not legal target.
Diplomat does not count as nearest enemy.
Diplomat still grants cover (since there is no mention).
Diplomat still counts as adjacent (since there is no mention).
B) NO.
Diplomat may be attacked normally.


Last edited by NickName on Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:40 pm 
Unnamed Wookiee
Unnamed Wookiee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:02 pm
Posts: 43
I mean useing a ce on it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:04 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Menoth's Fire wrote:
The problem is that the term "Legal Target" has a set definition. However, SA & CE that change this definition in regards to a specific situation do not use the term "Legal Target" in their description. For instance, AS should read something like: "This character ignores cover for purposes of determining Legal Targets. Cover still provides a bonus to Defense against this character." Nom's CE should read something like: "Allies with Stealth are not Legal Targets for non-adjacent characters."

Why define the term just to pick and choose when it will be used?! There would be many fewer rules clarifications if they just used the pre-established definitions! For instance, this thread wouldn't exist. In Lobo's example, by definition Nom wouldn't be a legal target, so (barring any other legal targets) the Noble could be targeted as per the Diplomat SA.


Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Yeah, I'd like for all the cards to be better worded too sometimes, but in this case, I think it's OK. Any time a card says "target" it means "Legal Target". You can't have a "Non-Legal Target".

But NickName pointed out the difference anyway. It has nothing to do with Nom not being a target because of SS. Doesn't matter if he's a target or not, he is in the enemy's LOS, and THAT is specifically what Diplomat requires: LOS, not targetting.

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield