| SWMGAMERS.com Forums https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/ |
|
| 3 Quick Rules Questions https://www.swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=7884 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | CaptainTrips [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 3 Quick Rules Questions |
Im having some confusion after my game night last night and want to know who was right: Question 1 My opponent has a bodyguard droid next to a Destroyer Droid, He rolls Shields then says the bodyguard is taking the damage. Does bodyguard have to be rolled before or after shields? Question 2 My Darth Sion (fun game btw) gets defeated by a Asajj Ventress, SA but makes his save, does she rolling cleave? I was saying she didnt because he is never actually defeated. Question 3 Last question and probably dumb, does Roger Roger stack with the Commando Droid's Squad Firepower? Also doe General Loathsome's Twin stack with Grevious's Extra Attack. |
|
| Author: | Kotagg [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
My takes: 1. Don't know, sorry. 2. Actually I'm pretty sure he is "defeated" before he makes the save, so I think she does get Rolling Cleave. 3. It definitely stacks, they are two different abilities. |
|
| Author: | LoboStele [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
CaptainTrips wrote: Question 1 My opponent has a bodyguard droid next to a Destroyer Droid, He rolls Shields then says the bodyguard is taking the damage. Does bodyguard have to be rolled before or after shields? The answer to this one is in the wording of each ability, and is specifically addressed in the 'Resolving Effects' section of the FAQ. Shields says, "When this character takes damage...", and Bodyguard states "If an adjacent ally would take damage...". The trick here being that you have to actually declare who is taking the damage before using the Shields ability. The FAQ specifically states that you must resolve any Bodyguard decisions BEFORE you do any damage reducing abilities. If your opponent is someone who has played the game for a long time, they may not realize that this ruling changed a while back. There was a time, around when Universe came out, I believe, where you could do damage reducing things like Shields or Dark Armor, and THEN do Bodyguard. It hasn't worked like that for some time though. CaptainTrips wrote: Question 2 My Darth Sion (fun game btw) gets defeated by a Asajj Ventress, SA but makes his save, does she rolling cleave? I was saying she didnt because he is never actually defeated. You answered your own question here. Is Darth Sion defeated? No. You only get Rolling Cleave when you defeat somebody. So, since Sion was not defeated = no rolling cleave. CaptainTrips wrote: Question 3 Last question and probably dumb, does Roger Roger stack with the Commando Droid's Squad Firepower? Also doe General Loathsome's Twin stack with Grevious's Extra Attack. Yep, Twin Attack is different from Extra Attack. In fact, if a Droid is granted Extra from Greivous and Twin from Whorm, then they would get a Twin Attack on that Extra Attack. Extra Attack is basically just like Double or Triple except that it stack on top of whatever # of attacks the character had to start with. Twin Attack doubles the number of attacks you take against each target, and is totally independent of Extra/Double/Triple. |
|
| Author: | LoboStele [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
Kotagg wrote: 2. Actually I'm pretty sure he is "defeated" before he makes the save, so I think she does get Rolling Cleave. If you don't know the answers, better to not respond. Or take the time to go look up the right answer. A quick review of Sion's card shows that it includes the wording "instead of being defeated" which quite obviously is opposite of your above answer. |
|
| Author: | Kotagg [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
Well, I was convinced that I *did* know the answer, and thus I responded to that one. As stated in my post, I did *not* respond to the first one because I felt I did not know the answer. Alas, it is possible for others to be wrong at some point in their lives. Stop being such a d***. EDIT BT ADMIN - DNEMILLER PLEASE REFER TO MY POST BELOW!!! |
|
| Author: | dnemiller [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
Whooh there Kotagg. Lobo is one of the rules guy for this forum and a admin at this site. He was not chatising you he was giving you some friendly help. Make sure it you answer something about a rule it is right or tell them you are not sure. As the head judge at Gencon I promise you that what you tell people can have a huge effect. By the way even with that being said. If you disagree with Lobo that is fine. What that disagreement doesn't give you the right to do is violate the Code of Conduct here for: 1. Calling names in a inflammatory manner 2. Using profanity Please refrain from doing this and remember this is about a game. So lets keep it friendly. We dont have to agree but we dont have to resort to name calling either. |
|
| Author: | Kotagg [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
This sentence: Quote: A quick review of Sion's card shows that it includes the wording "instead of being defeated" which quite obviously is opposite of your above answer. Is entirely condescending, and if you say otherwise it's only to perpetuate the oligarchy that exists on messageboards of this type. I'll likely not be posting here in the future, as I foresee a serious problem with any continued stay. |
|
| Author: | LoboStele [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 Quick Rules Questions |
Kotagg wrote: This sentence: Quote: A quick review of Sion's card shows that it includes the wording "instead of being defeated" which quite obviously is opposite of your above answer. Is entirely condescending, and if you say otherwise it's only to perpetuate the oligarchy that exists on messageboards of this type. I'll likely not be posting here in the future, as I foresee a serious problem with any continued stay. Good lord man...cool off. Telling you to be more careful when you answer rules questions is not a blow to your ego, or a slam on your abilities as a SWM player, or anything else like that. It is simply a statement to be more careful in the future. The only condescension in my initial words is what you are reading into it. It wasn't intended to be condescending. Sure, I probably could've worded it a bit better. On the other hand, the simple fact of the matter is that you were wrong, and as the Rules Section of these forums is one of my areas of responsibility, I felt the need to point out that it's better to not say anything at all if you don't know the answer for sure. If you're just guessing, or you don't bother to check the cards first, then you could just confuse people further. There's no oligarchy. There's simply the moderator(s) in charge of the Rules Sections tossing out some advice. Quote: Well, I was convinced that I *did* know the answer, and thus I responded to that one. As stated in my post, I did *not* respond to the first one because I felt I did not know the answer. I understand what you're saying here, and I think this is why you're so upset at us. My point was not to harp on the fact that you were wrong, but to reinforce the idea that you should ALWAYS check the rules and the cards before answering someone's question in the rules areas. It took me all of 30 seconds to check the stats in MiniManager and see the text on Sion's Eternal Hatred ability to properly answer the question. None of this is a knock on you, it's just a friendly reminder to be more careful when answering questions. And this goes for anybody answering rules questions, for that matter. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|