SWMGAMERS.com Forums
http://swmgamers.com/forums/

Anakin and Padme on Reek Question
http://swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=10214
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Luke_Starkiller [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

LoboStele wrote:
OK then, well it seems that it's just an argument on semantics, and not really conducive to the thread, since you agree with the core of the issue, lol.

And yes, Ambush on non-Melee was a weird one, but you're likely to see it a lot more due to a particular new OR
CE. ;)


It's sort of relevent, as per trying to fix stuff in the future.

For example. It seems that Lord Ball is pointing out that it is nice to use abilities that are already part of the game, instead of trying to make a whole bunch of new abilities that may or may not end up working in the way that you intend them.

If Lord Ball would excuse the assumption of what he is trying to say, I believe he is saying something like this:

"If you had used Furious Assault (+20) instead of making a new ability, there would be much less confusion for the interaction with attacks of opportunities and whether pushing happens on an attack. You could then create a new special ability called "Forceful" or whatever to create the pushing effect afterwards if you still deemed it necessary."

I agree with the statement as I wrote it. I feel the same way about the Yammosk, also. I don't think it is necessary to create a new "Super Emplacement" ability that does exactly what two other abilities do (Emplacement and Unique).

If you are not interested in improving for the next V-set, or in any input whatsoever, that is your perogative, though.

Just remember, we also don't have to play with your V-sets, and can create our own tournaments and virtual sets if it comes to the point where it is obvious that you don't have the best intentions of the game at heart.

Author:  jedispyder [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Luke_Starkiller wrote:
If you are not interested in improving for the next V-set, or in any input whatsoever, that is your perogative, though.

Just remember, we also don't have to play with your V-sets, and can create our own tournaments and virtual sets if it comes to the point where it is obvious that you don't have the best intentions of the game at heart.

I don't know where this hostility is coming from. No clue why you think we "don't have the best intentions of the game at heart" because if we didn't then we wouldn't try to make the V-Set. We're not just joshing around here, we're doing serious business here.

This whole fight is over the fact that Battering Charge doesn't have the word "adjacent" in it, which is ridiculous. Take a look at Lightsaber Assault, the card definition doesn't say it has to be against adjacent yet the Glossary Text does. No one has seen the Glossary Text yet so how do you know it's not fleshed out there? Likely it's described better there. In my opinion, I LOVE the new ability because it makes perfect sense on the mini.

And for your information, there is no such thing as "Super Emplacement" because that was put on the card basically as a quick reminder, it was never intended to be an actual ability and shouldn't have even been shown to the public.

Author:  swinefeld [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

In regards to Furious Assault on a melee piece - it seems everyone is forgetting the broken combo of the Weequay Mercenary teamed with the Merc. Commander.

Just injecting a little levity, moving on now... :P

Author:  Raylinthegreat [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

My other slight confusion over this ability is that when I first read it, I thought that it meant that all characters it came in contact with were pushed back 2 squares(I can just see droids getting knocked around as this thing is running around all wild lol) It took me a couple of times reading through the ability totally get encompass the ability as a whole. I can see some players having similar issues with this and some debates getting started.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Luke_Starkiller wrote:
LoboStele wrote:
OK then, well it seems that it's just an argument on semantics, and not really conducive to the thread, since you agree with the core of the issue, lol.

And yes, Ambush on non-Melee was a weird one, but you're likely to see it a lot more due to a particular new OR
CE. ;)


It's sort of relevent, as per trying to fix stuff in the future.

For example. It seems that Lord Ball is pointing out that it is nice to use abilities that are already part of the game, instead of trying to make a whole bunch of new abilities that may or may not end up working in the way that you intend them.

If Lord Ball would excuse the assumption of what he is trying to say, I believe he is saying something like this:

"If you had used Furious Assault (+20) instead of making a new ability, there would be much less confusion for the interaction with attacks of opportunities and whether pushing happens on an attack. You could then create a new special ability called "Forceful" or whatever to create the pushing effect afterwards if you still deemed it necessary."

I agree with the statement as I wrote it. I feel the same way about the Yammosk, also. I don't think it is necessary to create a new "Super Emplacement" ability that does exactly what two other abilities do (Emplacement and Unique).

If you are not interested in improving for the next V-set, or in any input whatsoever, that is your perogative, though.

Just remember, we also don't have to play with your V-sets, and can create our own tournaments and virtual sets if it comes to the point where it is obvious that you don't have the best intentions of the game at heart.


Ignoring the threat for the moment, giving the Yammosk unique would have caused just as much angst and confusion as choosing "super emplacement."

Author:  Raylinthegreat [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

While I agree that the game pieces will not completely satisfy 100% of the people out there, I think that we should give the appreciation to the people that worked on this project that they are due. It took alot of hard work for them to get this set out. From creating all the new stats/figs, to the tremendous cards themselves(which by the way greatly surpass anything wizards ever produced).

I am not going to try to get involved in the debate here, I am just going to take the opportunity to give a HUGE shout out of thanks for the wonderful job and all the hard work and effort that everyone has put into the project :)

Author:  Sithborg [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

1. It is a learning process for all involved. In every aspect of the process. I didn't think of the obvious question, because they had done a pretty good job with wording. So when I saw this, it threw me off a bit, since either could be right.
2. Pretty certain Lord Ball wasn't critiquing the ability, rather Boris's quick thought on the design process (how it came into being).

As for the design issues of "legal vs adjacent", it is only an issue when a designer wants it to be. It takes a little trust, though.

Author:  Echo [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Luke_Starkiller wrote:
For example. It seems that Lord Ball is pointing out that it is nice to use abilities that are already part of the game, instead of trying to make a whole bunch of new abilities that may or may not end up working in the way that you intend them.


Except that it DOES work exactly in the way it's intended, and that has been proven due to extensive playtesting of the entire set. There is no way for Battering Charge to have been done exactly as it is with existing abilities.

Quote:
If Lord Ball would excuse the assumption of what he is trying to say, I believe he is saying something like this:

"If you had used Furious Assault (+20) instead of making a new ability, there would be much less confusion for the interaction with attacks of opportunities and whether pushing happens on an attack. You could then create a new special ability called "Forceful" or whatever to create the pushing effect afterwards if you still deemed it necessary."


There would actually be exactly the same amount of confusion, except it would be addressing "Forceful" instead of Battering Charge. In fact it would be more confusing because there would be 2 abilities on the card in place of the one on it now, and one would still be a new ability worded the same way with the same question being asked about it.

Quote:
I agree with the statement as I wrote it. I feel the same way about the Yammosk, also. I don't think it is necessary to create a new "Super Emplacement" ability that does exactly what two other abilities do (Emplacement and Unique).


Except that if the Yammosk was given Emplacement and Unique it would have other problems, like Bounty Hunter giving a bonus against it, which is not what the designers wanted (for good reason). So, since Unique would not have worked, it WAS necessary to have the limiting part in a new ability.

Quote:
If you are not interested in improving for the next V-set, or in any input whatsoever, that is your perogative, though.


Everyone involved is trying to make V-set 2 even better than DotF, and they are accepting input. Negative, uninformed input, however, won't really be taken into account, and the next set will certainly be better off without it. You can keep complaining about DotF though; that's your prerogative. If your suggestion isn't taken, maybe it isn't that the designers are as stubborn and proud as you're making them out to be; maybe it's just because the suggestion is a poor one.

Quote:
Just remember, we also don't have to play with your V-sets, and can create our own tournaments and virtual sets


You're right, you don't. It's a real shame if you don't, though, because that means you will be behind the times when it comes to Regionals and GenCon, and you won't be able to keep up with most of the discussion on the boards because they will involve pieces you don't even play with, and you'll have a smaller set of stats to play with. You'll also be in a very small minority, considering the huge amount of demand and excitement that DotF has generated. But if you don't want to join in on our fun because we aren't having it the way you want us to have it, that's also your prerogative.

Quote:
if it comes to the point where it is obvious that you don't have the best intentions of the game at heart.


:lol: :roll: :lol:

Author:  jedispyder [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Ok, if you guys want to discuss that anymore either start a new thread or take it to PMs. Any more posts here should be about the ability, not the reason behind the ability or anything in design.

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Sithborg wrote:
2. Pretty certain Lord Ball wasn't critiquing the ability, rather Boris's quick thought on the design process (how it came into being).


This is my final calrification as to what I meant that has been twisted and molested into something far removed from my intention.

One could infer from Boris' statement that Furious Assault is not intended to work with melee attack (the need for "a melee version"), I was merely pointing out to anyone that would arrive at this conclusion that that is incorrect.

In regards to Battering Charge itself, while it does have a Furious Assault vibe, the intention of the ability seems to have more in common with Charging Assault, but it's different enough from both of those that a comparison to either isn't really valid.

Edit:
jedispyder wrote:
This whole fight is over the fact that Battering Charge doesn't have the word "adjacent" in it, which is ridiculous.


Just FYI, raising an issue so that it can/is more likely to be addressed in the glossary (in the event that it possibly isn't) before it's release should not be called ridiculous (the fight that broke out was ridiculous, but the subject matter isn't).

Author:  LoboStele [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

I agree 100% with Echo's statements. Also, his use of semicolons in that post was superb. Well done. People should use semicolons more often. :P


Seriously though, Lord_Ball makes a good point, that Battering Charge really does seem more like Charging Assault, just with the addition that you can attack multiple targets, and it pushes them back a bit.

Trust me guys....these abilities went through plenty of playtesting, AND through many different iterations in terms of how to build the ability, and whether to use something like Furious Assault + a new ability, or to roll it all into one. Heck, I think part of the reasoning behind rolling it all into one ability was simply to make sure there was enough space on the card! :P

Author:  NickName [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Luke_Starkiller wrote:
I feel the same way about the Yammosk, also. I don't think it is necessary to create a new "Super Emplacement" ability that does exactly what two other abilities do (Emplacement and Unique).


How can you feel the same about Yammosk when it doesn't have any sort of "super emplacement"? It has regular old Emplacement.

Author:  Ruhk [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

he's probably refering to the first spoiled card image of the yammosk that had an ability that combined unique and emplacement.

Then it was determined that it was silly to do that, and was split into two simpler abilities.

Author:  Disturbed1 [ Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Lord_Ball wrote:
Just FYI, raising an issue so that it can/is more likely to be addressed in the glossary (in the event that it possibly isn't) before it's release should not be called ridiculous (the fight that broke out was ridiculous, but the subject matter isn't).


Pretty sure thats what he was meaning...

LoboStele wrote:
I agree 100% with Echo's statements. Also, his use of semicolons in that post was superb. Well done. People should use semicolons more often. :P


Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr., A Man Without a Country

;)

Author:  LoboStele [ Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Disturbed1 wrote:
LoboStele wrote:
I agree 100% with Echo's statements. Also, his use of semicolons in that post was superb. Well done. People should use semicolons more often. :P


Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr., A Man Without a Country

;)


Hahahaha, that's awesome. And so true :P

Author:  Echo [ Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

LoboStele wrote:
Disturbed1 wrote:
LoboStele wrote:
I agree 100% with Echo's statements. Also, his use of semicolons in that post was superb. Well done. People should use semicolons more often. :P


Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr., A Man Without a Country

;)


Hahahaha, that's awesome. And so true :P


Hey, I love semicolons! And I've known how to use them well since high school, thank you very much.

Author:  komix [ Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

If I can add something.

I think, that this discussion does have a point. People talk about this new abilties not because they want to be mean to the creators of the V-set; (note that I used semicolon :D ) it's 'cause they care so they ask. I guess that all will be answered when the glossary or some sort of FAQ comes out ( I've read somewhere that you guys are supposed to release it, or am I mistaken ?)

Peace! :royalg:

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/