Jump to content



Photo

Wedge Antilles


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Majeh_XIII

Majeh_XIII

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:12 PM

This might be self explanitory but if i play wedge as an attachment does it still count as being unique?



#2 TGO

TGO

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:14 PM

Majeh_XIII said:

This might be self explanitory but if i play wedge as an attachment does it still count as being unique?

 

Yes



#3 Majeh_XIII

Majeh_XIII

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:22 PM

Thought so, always worth checking though thanks.



#4 The Gas

The Gas

    Member

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

Does he still count as a character when attached to a vehicle?  My opponent tried to choke him, I said I'm pretty sure you can't do that since he now counts as an enhancement.



#5 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,410 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 11:28 PM

The Gas said:

Does he still count as a character when attached to a vehicle?  My opponent tried to choke him, I said I'm pretty sure you can't do that since he now counts as an enhancement.

I agree with you: when played as an enhancement treat as an enhancement and not a unit.  No Force Choke, but also no committing to the Force, etc.



#6 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:59 AM

Just use Tear this Ship Apart to get rid of him.

Wedge AntillesTear This Ship Apart


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#7 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:28 AM

Rogue 4 said:

Just use Tear this Ship Apart to get rid of him.

Wedge AntillesTear This Ship Apart

 

 

im thinking that since he is unique he would be a limited enhancement so i dont think that would work. anyone else?



#8 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:35 AM

Limted and Unique are two different things.

The only thing that says "Limited" on them are the limited enhancements. The non-limited ones say nothing.


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#9 TGO

TGO

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:11 AM

Yeah, Limited is not the same as unique so you can Tear this Ship Apart to kill Wedge. 



#10 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

Rogue 4 said:

Limted and Unique are two different things.

The only thing that says "Limited" on them are the limited enhancements. The non-limited ones say nothing.

Rogue 4 said:

Limted and Unique are two different things.

The only thing that says "Limited" on them are the limited enhancements. The non-limited ones say nothing.

then in that same vain of thought: wedge doesnt say he is a limited or a non-limited card so he cant be targeted by TTSA.



#11 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,410 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:40 AM

Rogue 3 said:

then in that same vain of thought: wedge doesnt say he is a limited or a non-limited card so he cant be targeted by TTSA.

That doesn't make any sense at all.  Wedge is not limited because he does not say Limited.  Limited is a keyword, fully defined on pg 25.  Your argument is roughly equivalent to "Yoda doesn't say that he doesn't have targeted strike, so he does!"



#12 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:06 AM

dbmeboy said:

Rogue 3 said:

 

then in that same vain of thought: wedge doesnt say he is a limited or a non-limited card so he cant be targeted by TTSA.

 

 

That doesn't make any sense at all.  Wedge is not limited because he does not say Limited.  Limited is a keyword, fully defined on pg 25.  Your argument is roughly equivalent to "Yoda doesn't say that he doesn't have targeted strike, so he does!"

 

yes your right it might of not made any sense but does it make sense to say he is a non-limited card? there is no such term in the rules that i could find saying he is or even telling me what a non limited card is. couldnt find a keyword explaination for the term "non-limited" . i could make less sense and say wedge is not a "non-limited" enhancement due to the fact that he doest say "non-limited". 

 

 

 

 

 



#13 just Logan

just Logan

    Member

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

pg 25 Keywords… Limited

Non-limited is a way to use English to say a card without the specific keyword limited but shorter 

compare to the word unlimited which would have to be a keyword itself 

I admit it is not the best phrasing, maybe not limited is more exact but it just sound worse 

 



#14 MasterDinadan

MasterDinadan

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:32 AM

Edit - I fail at quote tags… -_-

 

Are we to conclude that Tear This Ship Apart cannot be used on any cards since none of the enhancements say non-limited?

And I guess we can also conclude that Rancor cannot devour any units since none of the units say "non-vehicle"

Every card that is not limited is non-limited. This isn't defined because the term is self explanatory.

 

 

Anyway, regarding the original question, I would say that Wedge still functions as a Character, but he does not function as a Unit, so force choke can't target him.

 

 



#15 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

just Logan said:

pg 25 Keywords… Limited

Non-limited is a way to use English to say a card without the specific keyword limited but shorter 

compare to the word unlimited which would have to be a keyword itself 

I admit it is not the best phrasing, maybe not limited is more exact but it just sound worse 

 

limited is a card ability/keyword

non-limited as far as i see (from rules) has no meaning in the game.

and there is part of my gripe, why have keywords and not refer to them as such.

ex

discard an enhancement that is not limited from play.

 

seems so much easier to state it this way and if we want to talk about english it is probably a more correct form of english. ( but i aint no english major so who knows)

then they give us keywords like Elite and define what that is in the rules but so far every elite cards says "Elite. (Remove 1 additional focus token from this unit when you refresh."

why even mention elite or use the keyword if your going to includ it defination on each card with elite.

either just say Elite or get rid of elite and just write  "Remove 1 additional focus token from this unit when you refresh." .

 

they seem to have no problem with some other keywords… like shielding

ex

Superlaser Engineer

Character. Engineer.
Shielding.
Reaction: After this unit enters play

 

 



#16 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:21 PM

With all due respect, and please understand I mean that, this is pretty sad.

You can not expect TTSA to read:

Action: Discard a target enhancement that does not say Limited on it from play.

which is the EXACT same thing as saying:

Action: Discard a target non-Limited enhancement from play.

 

I understand the wording might confuse some of use that are either new to games such as these (heck, I mess up from time to time), but the card does pretty much say what it intends to do. Some designers just try to simplfy cards so they are not full of text. Editors help to find ways to make cards crisp, clean and concise. Someimes its needed, and others not so much, but here in this case it is pretty much understood.

But by all means, please feel free to e-mail FFG and ask, but I do believe he has already answered this above.

 


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#17 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,327 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:03 AM

This argument is just sad. There is zero basis in facts to support your claim Rogue3. It's plain English that if it does not say limited them it is non limited obviously.  



#18 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:57 AM

Rogue 4 said:

With all due respect, and please understand I mean that, this is pretty sad.

You can not expect TTSA to read:

Action: Discard a target enhancement that does not say Limited on it from play.

which is the EXACT same thing as saying:

Action: Discard a target non-Limited enhancement from play.

 

I understand the wording might confuse some of use that are either new to games such as these (heck, I mess up from time to time), but the card does pretty much say what it intends to do. Some designers just try to simplfy cards so they are not full of text. Editors help to find ways to make cards crisp, clean and concise. Someimes its needed, and others not so much, but here in this case it is pretty much understood.

But by all means, please feel free to e-mail FFG and ask, but I do believe he has already answered this above.

 

Rogue 4 said:

With all due respect, and please understand I mean that, this is pretty sad.

You can not expect TTSA to read:

Action: Discard a target enhancement that does not say Limited on it from play.

which is the EXACT same thing as saying:

Action: Discard a target non-Limited enhancement from play.

 

I understand the wording might confuse some of use that are either new to games such as these (heck, I mess up from time to time), but the card does pretty much say what it intends to do. Some designers just try to simplfy cards so they are not full of text. Editors help to find ways to make cards crisp, clean and concise. Someimes its needed, and others not so much, but here in this case it is pretty much understood.

But by all means, please feel free to e-mail FFG and ask, but I do believe he has already answered this above.

 

 

see you should read all of what i say and not just pick a part of my arguement to pick on.

Non-limited is not a card ability/trait as listed in the rules of the game. there for it is not the same thing as there is no rule defining its meaning. the word limited on this card is writen in same font and style as the rest of the sentence thus there is no acknowledgement of a card ability/keyword/trait as in my opinion there should be. Why create this words and rules if they arent going to use them



#19 Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:48 AM

Toqtamish said:

This argument is just sad. There is zero basis in facts to support your claim Rogue3. It's plain English that if it does not say limited them it is non limited obviously.  

 

Okay yes it is sad to argue what the card means and what they mean by non-limited, BUT i'm really not trying to argue that the card should be played any different or mean something else. I'm trying to point out that FFG needs to start being more consistent with their text and usage of terms they make rules for.

 

why in TTSA did they choose to write"..non-limited" (no bold in limited) while with a cards like Rancor they wrote "..non-Vehicle" (vehicle in bold) or  Redemption "..Character unit" (wow look character is in bold) etc etc.  Keep in mind that this is a text based card game and as such the text and the wording of such text becomes and is very important to game play. (check current Faq to see how important it is for text to follow the game rules otherwise they either dont work or work in unintended fashion).

There were many people (still are some) who believed that trench run can be targeted by rebel assault ( its an objective thats NOT an objective.. great wording FFG). So you see how important text can become.

 

 

 



#20 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,327 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:25 AM

Rogue 3 said:

Toqtamish said:

 

This argument is just sad. There is zero basis in facts to support your claim Rogue3. It's plain English that if it does not say limited them it is non limited obviously.  

 

 

 

Okay yes it is sad to argue what the card means and what they mean by non-limited, BUT i'm really not trying to argue that the card should be played any different or mean something else. I'm trying to point out that FFG needs to start being more consistent with their text and usage of terms they make rules for.

 

why in TTSA did they choose to write"..non-limited" (no bold in limited) while with a cards like Rancor they wrote "..non-Vehicle" (vehicle in bold) or  Redemption "..Character unit" (wow look character is in bold) etc etc.  Keep in mind that this is a text based card game and as such the text and the wording of such text becomes and is very important to game play. (check current Faq to see how important it is for text to follow the game rules otherwise they either dont work or work in unintended fashion).

There were many people (still are some) who believed that trench run can be targeted by rebel assault ( its an objective thats NOT an objective.. great wording FFG). So you see how important text can become.

 

 

The Trench Run argument was also sad, the card said IT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE. People over thought it and made it confusing for themselves and were so convinced they were right I stopped arguing as I do not talk to walls in real life so why would I online. And it turned out I and a few others were right.

 

This argument is stupid and does not require extra FAQ or wording etc as it is pretty easy to know what a NON LIMITED card is, any card that DOES NOT SAY LIMITED on it. We all know what NON means. The fact that is not bolded has zero bearing or helps your argument at all.

 

The wording on these cards are fine, people's interpretation is the problem.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS