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

Anakin and Padme on Reek Question
http://swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=10214
Page 1 of 2

Author:  drkjedi35 [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Battering Charge +20 [Replaces turn: This character can move up to double speed, then attack every legal target once at +20 Damage. Push Back Huge or smaller characters to 2 squares from this character. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.]

At first I pictured the Reek in the Geonosian Arena bowling through battle droids on his way towards Jango. But after rereading it, I realized that's not what happens with Battering Charge. It's more like a bowling alley where only the legal targets at the end of the movement are attacked. But I still have 2 questions.

1) The description does not specify, but does the push only happen if the character is hit by the attack, or does it happen regardless of the hit?

2) Does the statement "This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.", refer to the movement of the reek, the movement of the enemy character being pushed, or both?

Thanks,
Roy

Author:  BillyDooku [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

2) As in previous abilities worded that way, I believe it only applies to the character being pushed.

Author:  drkjedi35 [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

BillyDooku wrote:
2) As in previous abilities worded that way, I believe it only applies to the character being pushed.


I would agree with you, however, with those previous abilities the acting character was not also moving. This is the first ability which forces the acting character AND the target to move.

I agree that only the target character SHOULD ignore ATOs, but I think it needs to be clarified to make sure that there is no question. Differing opinions in tournament situations are never fun, and we all know people who will argue the point if there is no clarification.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

I can tell you the intent, but you will want official rulings from Nickname or Sithborg or one of those guys.

The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.

Hope that clears that up. Good question! :)

Author:  Raylinthegreat [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

i was actually going to ask something on this as well so thank you both for the question and the clairifing answer guys.

Author:  drkjedi35 [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
I can tell you the intent, but you will want official rulings from Nickname or Sithborg or one of those guys.

The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.

Hope that clears that up. Good question! :)


Thanks Boris! That's exactly what I thought. A ruling from Nickname or Sithborg would be nice.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

drkjedi35 wrote:
At first I pictured the Reek in the Geonosian Arena bowling through battle droids on his way towards Jango. But after rereading it, I realized that's not what happens with Battering Charge. It's more like a bowling alley where only the legal targets at the end of the movement are attacked.


Actually, this is the flavor. In movie terms think of it as rolling initiative, the Reek running toward the Droids, then when the new round begins, the Reek continues on toward Jango. :)

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.


There is no reason Furious Assault couldn't be the melee version of Furious Assault. Battering Charge is quite different than just a "melee version" though so I'm not going to dispute any of that, just pointing out that Furious Assault in itself has no need of a "melee version" as it works just fine as one for a character with Melee Attack anyway.

Author:  jedispyder [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Lord_Ball wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.


There is no reason Furious Assault couldn't be the melee version of Furious Assault. Battering Charge is quite different than just a "melee version" though so I'm not going to dispute any of that, just pointing out that Furious Assault in itself has no need of a "melee version" as it works just fine as one for a character with Melee Attack anyway.

Originally the piece WAS going to have Furious Assault and another ability that pushed back the minis hit, the designers simplified that by just combining the two abilities.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Lord_Ball wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.


There is no reason Furious Assault couldn't be the melee version of Furious Assault. Battering Charge is quite different than just a "melee version" though so I'm not going to dispute any of that, just pointing out that Furious Assault in itself has no need of a "melee version" as it works just fine as one for a character with Melee Attack anyway.


Not to be an ass, but learn your articles - a, an, and the. I said a version of Furious Assault, not the version of Furious Assault. What you said here is absolutely correct but not at all in contradiction to my statement. :)

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Not to be an ass, but learn your articles - a, an, and the. I said a version of Furious Assault, not the version of Furious Assault. What you said here is absolutely correct but not at all in contradiction to my statement. :)


My comment was not meant as a contradiction to your statement. I was merely addressing the notion that Furious Assault "needed" a melee version. Battering Charge vs Furious assualt are very much different abilities, so even claiming Battering Charge as "a" melee version of Furious Assault (which since, at least on the card, it doesn't specify only adjacent enemies) isn't really a valid statement. That's all I was trying to point out.

Author:  LoboStele [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Lord_Ball wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Not to be an ass, but learn your articles - a, an, and the. I said a version of Furious Assault, not the version of Furious Assault. What you said here is absolutely correct but not at all in contradiction to my statement. :)


My comment was not meant as a contradiction to your statement. I was merely addressing the notion that Furious Assault "needed" a melee version. Battering Charge vs Furious assualt are very much different abilities, so even claiming Battering Charge as "a" melee version of Furious Assault (which since, at least on the card, it doesn't specify only adjacent enemies) isn't really a valid statement. That's all I was trying to point out.


What doesn't specify only adjacent enemies? Battering Charge? It doesn't really need to as the piece has Melee Attack, so only enemies within it's melee range would be 'legal targets' anyways.

Furious Assault could have been used, but it does make more sense to me to combine it into a new ability altogether. Plus, then you didn't have the weirdness of Furious Assault on a melee piece, which hadn't been done before.

Author:  jedispyder [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

LoboStele wrote:
Furious Assault could have been used, but it does make more sense to me to combine it into a new ability altogether. Plus, then you didn't have the weirdness of Furious Assault on a melee piece, which hadn't been done before.

Eventually there may be a piece like that. Kind of reminds me of when we first saw the L7 (or whatever that flashlight mini's name is, lol) has Ambush. It had always only been on Melee pieces it was weird seeing it on a non-Melee piece but it works perfectly fine.

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

LoboStele wrote:
What doesn't specify only adjacent enemies? Battering Charge? It doesn't really need to as the piece has Melee Attack, so only enemies within it's melee range would be 'legal targets' anyways.

Furious Assault could have been used, but it does make more sense to me to combine it into a new ability altogether. Plus, then you didn't have the weirdness of Furious Assault on a melee piece, which hadn't been done before.


OK, here's my point - IF the figure did not have melee attack Battering Charge could be used against enemies several squares away, therefore it does not translate well to being called a melee version of Furious Assault.

I do think that a new ability was the best way to handle the intended effect, as trying to do so with Furious Assault, could likely become a rules nightmare.

I like the idea of furious assault on a melee piece.

Author:  LoboStele [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

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. ;)

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:33 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.

Yeah, I wasn't even trying to make an argument of any kind, just tried to clarify that Furious Assault is not melee/non-melee restrictive, as was sort of implied.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

What Aaron said. You made a very radical interpretation of the post I wrote. I said this is a melee version of Furious Assault, meaning a twist or a variant on the idea. At no time did I say or mean to suggest that Furious Assault can't or won't appear on a character with Melee Attack.

Moving on...

Author:  Lord_Ball [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

There is nothing melee about battering charge (as written on the card), other than the fact that it convienently shows up on a character that happens to have Melee Attack...

Hardly a radical interpretation... If fact my posts initially had 0 interpretation in them, and was intended as clarification NOT interpretation.

Author:  Grand Moff Boris [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Lord_Ball wrote:
There is nothing melee about battering charge (as written on the card), other than the fact that it convienently shows up on a character that happens to have Melee Attack...


It's not "conveniently" on the card. It was a conscious decision. I'd be surprised if there were ever any pieces that had Battering Charge without also having Melee Attack. :)

Author:  Sithborg [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Anakin and Padme on Reek Question

Grand Moff Boris wrote:
Lord_Ball wrote:
Grand Moff Boris wrote:
The intent is that this is a melee version of Furious Assault. The Reek runs to its end move position, and then attacks every adjacent enemy. The enemies that are hit are pushed back 2 squares. The movement of said enemies doesn't provoke AoOs.


There is no reason Furious Assault couldn't be the melee version of Furious Assault. Battering Charge is quite different than just a "melee version" though so I'm not going to dispute any of that, just pointing out that Furious Assault in itself has no need of a "melee version" as it works just fine as one for a character with Melee Attack anyway.


Not to be an ass, but learn your articles - a, an, and the. I said a version of Furious Assault, not the version of Furious Assault. What you said here is absolutely correct but not at all in contradiction to my statement. :)


Ahh, SWCCG flashbacks.

Anyways, Boris is correct.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/