Jump to content

tjstyles

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tjstyles

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Queen Creek, Arizona, United States
  1. Looking at the list more closely, it would have to go on the Y, but that is where I would likely put it anyway since the B already has Barrel Roll. Also, I have your B-Wing at 33 points, not 35. If my math is wrong, you could also drop the Upgrade for Deadeye and Advanced Sensors on Nera. That would allow you to take a focus instead of Target Lock and then be able to shoot at anyone on the board. More options since she shoots last.
  2. I would consider turning the Shield Upgrade into an Engine Upgrade on either the B or the Y. For a name, you could go with "It's just a Flechette wound".
  3. I am looking to build a table for X-Wing and I am wondering what people think is the best play surface. I am thinking I will probably just glue the thing right onto the table, since I plan to build it in such a way that I just put the table on top of my current card table(s), so it doesn't have to be one of the pre-fabricated playmats. I am looking for something where the figures don't slide around too much, but where I can actually get the templates out of the way.
  4. I don't know what the heck happened to my formatting in my post there. I actually do use the enter key when typing.
  5. Wingman could be really good on a group of B-Wings with advanced sensors. Use your action, then use a red maneuver. At the start of the combat phase, lose the stress so you can AS next turn and use another red maneuver. Take this squad: Ten Numb + AS + Wingman (36) Keyan Farlander + AS + Wingman (34) Nera Dantels + AS + VI (30) That is 8/7/7 for Pilot Skill. You can take an action, then a red maneuver (like Barrel Roll then K-Turn) with each ship, then at the start of the combat phase, Keyan removes Numb's stress, Numb removes Nera's stress, and then later Keyan removes his own stress with his ability. Next turn, action then K-Turn again. With Wingman arranged this way, the whole maneuver dial essentially becomes white. Decoy is not one of my favorite cards, but it can be useful on a guy like Corran or a ship with high PS and low maneuverability. I tend to prefer Swarm Tactics, but Decoy can be helpful if your ship is slow and doesn't turn well. With Corran, if you shot twice the round before, there is no reason not to swap his PS with someone else in the combat phase. Or, if your ship is getting flanked and you can't get a shot on anyone anyway, go ahead and give up your higher skill. Typically I don't end up in situations where I want to shoot last, so it is very limited in my opinion. But there are some situations where it can be useful.
  6. ktom said: For those playing along at home, this trick only works if the Naval character is removed from the challenge. Just standing it doesn't remove it, and a currently attacking character cannot be declared as an attacker a second time. You could kneel it to declare it as a Naval attacker, but the declaration as an attacker would be considered unsuccessful - just like an attempt to kneel a character that is already kneeling would be considered unsuccessful. Are you sure? The FAQ reads: Any time after an attack is declared, the attacking or defending player can kneel a non-participating character with a [Naval] enhancement on the matching challenge icon and declare it as a [Naval] attacker or defender in that challenge. This reads to me that you cannot even kneel it to begin with.
  7. tjstyles said: ktom said: You are misunderstanding Deathbound. Deathbound is a replacement effect that says when you play the card, it goes into the moribund:dead pile state instead of the moribund:discard pile state. The ability has to be active to make that happen. That's why canceling a Deathbound event sends it to the moribund:discard pile state. So, Deathbound says to put the card into to moribund:dead pile state instead of the moribund:discard pile state when you play the event. Well, the Pyre says to put it into the moribund:bottom of deck state instead of the moribund:discard pile state when you play the event. So which is it? When you play the event, you have one effect saying dead pile and another saying bottom of the deck at the same time. Whenever you have two effects trying to do mutually exclusive things at the same time, the First Player decides which works. Anyway, the thing you seem to be missing is that Deathbound is a card effect that kicks in when the event is played - just like the Pyre. So, if my opponent plays the it with the Pyre out and I am the First Player, can I choose to have the event go to their dead pile instead? Nevermind, I missed that you answered this earlier in the thread. Actually, I completely misread that part, which would have answered my other question too. I thought you said "what you would need to have". That whole post makes a whole lot more sense now that I read it again, cause I couldn't figure out how your "new example" was in any way related to the question he was posing. I even read it 3 or 4 times trying to figure out why you were making that example. Yay for reading comprehension.
  8. ktom said: You are misunderstanding Deathbound. Deathbound is a replacement effect that says when you play the card, it goes into the moribund:dead pile state instead of the moribund:discard pile state. The ability has to be active to make that happen. That's why canceling a Deathbound event sends it to the moribund:discard pile state. So, Deathbound says to put the card into to moribund:dead pile state instead of the moribund:discard pile state when you play the event. Well, the Pyre says to put it into the moribund:bottom of deck state instead of the moribund:discard pile state when you play the event. So which is it? When you play the event, you have one effect saying dead pile and another saying bottom of the deck at the same time. Whenever you have two effects trying to do mutually exclusive things at the same time, the First Player decides which works. Anyway, the thing you seem to be missing is that Deathbound is a card effect that kicks in when the event is played - just like the Pyre. So, if my opponent plays the it with the Pyre out and I am the First Player, can I choose to have the event go to their dead pile instead?
  9. ktom said: Boerta said: By the way, Battle of Ruby Ford is Deathbound, which I take to mean it'll go to the dead pile and won't be affected by Pyre, correct? No, it would still be affected by the Pyre. Nothing about Deathbound blocks, prevents or preempts the Pyre. What you would have would be two separate replacement effects (Deathbound and the Pyre) trying to act on the card at the same time (after the vent card is played from hand). So the First Player would decide the order of these conflicting effects - essentially choosing whether Ruby Ford ends up in the "moribund:dead" or "moribund:deck(bottom)" state. It's pretty much the same as when a "discard at 0" and a "kill at 0" effect are both active when a character's STR reaches 0; the First Player decides. I am confused about this ruling. The Pyre states specifically, "instead of being discarded". A Deathbound event is never going to be discarded, so how can a player choose to replace Moribund:Discard with Moribund: Deck(bottom)? If Moribund: Discard is a valid option (which I think it would have to be to allow you to replace it with Moribund: Deck(bottom)), then why could I not just chose to put it in the discard pile over the dead pile any given time I played the event?
  10. mdc273 said: Khudzlin said: I'd like to see such a site. Also a site with the rarity as a search criterion. About how close text has to be, as a judge, I'd go for functional sameness (do the cards work the same). So your examples would be OK. Frozen Solid would not be OK because the CCG one is not House Stark only and can be attached to limited locations and attachments. Narrow Escape would be refused as well, because the ACoS one lacks the "minimum 1 card" requirement to cancel it (even though it is othewise worded as the post-erratum modern one). I'll second this. If the card as written would function identically to the LCG card, our meta would let it fly. Hell we'd probably just pretend it was a proxy for the real one if we knew what it was (but this part wouldn't fly in a tourney). Yeah, I was thinking that if I ever needed extra Arriane Martells or Red Vipers, I would take the old school ones and draw a noble crest in the corner, just as a proxy. 8)
  11. That is how I was thinking it should work as well. I had pulled out the See who is Stronger, but left the Flea Bottoms. I didn't realize that Frozen Solid had changed (I guess I better put those back into my CCG pile), and I brought the Narrow Escapes to the LCG. While Narrow Escape has been reworded to state at "a hand of at least 1 card", the ruling was always that you had to have at least 1 card to be able to "discard your hand", so as far as I was concerned, the effects were the same. To me, I think the best thing would be if the current site out there that I use (http://www.cardgamedb.com) would just add a "Reprint" option to their cards. It could show that it was reprinted when you pull up the new card, or you could check "Reprint" in the search criteria and it would just show cards that have been reprinted. That would, in my opinion, be the easiest way to do this. You could search using faction, traits, card type, cost, etc. The one thing it wouldn't have is the rarity thing for you. Maybe if he added a filter like "Reprint Rarity" as well.
  12. My buddies and I have been playing AGOT since the beginning, and we have a ton of old CCG cards. We all pretty much quick when it went to LCG, but we are getting back into it now. Some of us are going through our old cards to get some extra copies of stuff like the Fiefdoms and Crossroads, but we have some questions about other reprinted cards. The FAQ states this: This ruling does not apply to CCG cards that have been modified and printed in the LCG. CCG copies of cards with text that is in any way different than their LCG counterparts are not legal in LCG events. How should this be interpretted? How strict should we be? For example, the old-school See who is Stronger says "…choose a Knight or Army character…" while the new version says "…choose 1 Knight or 1 Army character…". Is that difference enough to make it not legal? If so, most of the older cards did not have a capital letter after the bolded Action Phase: gametext, but all of the new LCG cards start with capital letters? That isn't considered to be different than the CCG text, is it? It would wipe out nearly every reprint they have made. Only cards like Crossroads and the straight gold locations would survive. Also, does anyone happen to know of a list of the old CCG cards that have been reprinted? So far, I have gone over Plots and Stark using the AGOT Deck Builder site, and it is quite tedious. I have more than a 5000 count box of the old cards that I have to sort alphabetically, then go through 1 card at a time to see if the text is "close enough". If someone knows of a site that already has this stuff listed out, I would really appreciate a link.
  13. I use the Berserkers in my Stalwart deck with Icy Catapult and Gates of Winterfell. I drop the Berserkers, kill a Stalwart character (preferably with Icy Catapult to kill another opposing character), then kneel Gates of Winterfell to put my Stalwart character back into play. But, this guy is solid any time that your worst character is worse than your opponents worst character (and it is incredibly good in multiplayer).
  14. Sorry, I read the phrase "reprint from the CCG days" a bit differently than you meant it. It seemed to me that you were saying 1) that the CCG did not have any concept of dupes being anything other than other copies of unique cards (meaning there would be no reason for a change of verbiage when they printed core); and 2) that errata for Rhaegal would be a bad thing because it was a reprint from a previous set. That is why I posted my response. I was trying to point out that there were duplicates that were not copies of unique cards when Rhaegal was reprinted, and that he is not a straight reprint, so errata would not affect the earlier version (I thought you were against errata, and suggesting that errataing the current version would affect the previous version). But, really, I am just glad that I got my point across. I don't really think that is how it should work. I am not going to go into a tournament and argue that I can take control of a Riders played by Maege when I play Direct Assault. I am just pointing out that when the rules are not 100% clear, they create loopholes that can be exploited, and while this particular incident (and the one I mentioned with Trench Run) seem quite obvious to be "malicious", that is not always the case. There is also a debate that we are having in our local meta about the effects of Heroic Sacrifice with X-Wing Escort. My buddy argues that when you play Heroic Sacrifice you must choose the target that would be destroyed, and then your opponent can simply sacrifice that unit to X-Wing Escort's ability. My arguement is that the rules do not state anywhere that the target must be selected before the resolution of an effect (simply that there must be an eligible target to play a card), so there is nothing ot suggest that targets are selected prior to X-Wing Escort's effect resolving. Because many other TCGs make targets be selected before the ability, my buddy assumes that Star Wars will be the same, and he could very well be right when everything is said and done. But, I think AGOT has shown that FFG doesn't necessarily cater to what everyone else does. Here, I think it is easy to argue either way for the intent of the developers. (Note, I have not read Star Wars' new FAQ yet, so this could already be resolved, but that is an example of rules "holes" that create confusion without malicious intent.) I should also mention that we don't get into 4 hour debates where we just sit there and argue over a rule. We typically "resolve" the issue in a few minutes and continue with the game, continuing to discuss the situation and make points for hours or days later. Not a constant back and forth, but it does come up over and over and over again until someone finds a ruling in a FAQ or on a message board. Yeah, I get what you are saying about being able to get to the right conclusion without any errata. I just think that FFG's goal should be to be able to get to the right ruling without having to talk to a judge. To get to this ruling, you have to combine so many elements from different documents. A lot of times, this stuff can come up in the middle of a timed match in a tournament. If you are having to break out all of the documentation to try and figure out what the resolution is, that can be quite a problem for the event. And, while we have hashed this out a lot here online, not every Night's Watch is going to read this particular thread, and could be faced with the same question in a tournament. I get when people want to reduce the numbers of entries in the FAQ, but I am one of the people who would rather have a 400 page FAQ (with searching capabilities, mind you), and easy to read/understand rulings and errata, than having to hope that every Night's Watch representitive are going to read and interpret a complicated ruling the same across the country. There is nothing quite as demoralizing as playtesting your favorite deck for months, showing up to a major tournament and finding out that your deck doesn't actually work the way you thought it did because your judge made the wrong ruling. My buddy has had to break it to someone in a Lord of the Rings tournament that the 15 otherwise worthless allies in his "Unbound Hobbit" deck, weren't actually considered "Unbound Hobbits" in a regional tournament. His deck went from top-tier level deck to the level of a randomized starter with one misinterpreted ruling. That is someone that liked the game enough to pay some $200+ to travel to an event in Vegas or San Diego (can't remember which of those events it was), who may never play the game again after an experience like that. If one entry in the FAQ can prevent someone else from going through that some day, that seems like a very small price to pay.
  15. Shadowcatx said: 1) The last thing the majority of people want is to add to the ever growing ranks of errata. 2) The current wording makes perfect sense to the majority of people. 3) Abandoned Forge only allows weapon attachments. I suspect searching for a riders is perfectly legal with it. And I do believe that it would attach. However, once you attach riders to it, the search effect being over and resolved, the riders are not a weapon attachment and that creates an illegal game state. (Show me anywhere in the game that says attachments attached to a location don't have text. Or anywhere that says the weapons attached to the abandoned forge loose their game text.) That is why riders fall off. That is not the case with duplicates however. 1) Rhaegal and Riders already have a ruling in the FAQ. Errata would be much clearer than their hokey explaination that they have in there and it would take up less space. It would also be easier to find, because the first place I look for ruling on a particular card is under the errata/clarifications section where it lists the cards. 2) The current ruling makes perfect sense for Rhaegal and the Riders; its the other cards that it messes up for. I don't know how to state this any clearer than that. 3) Can Abandoned Forge grab a Burning Sword? How about a Lightbringer? What happens to those attachments after Abandoned Forge searches them out? Do they stay on the Abandoned Forge until you use the Forge's ability to return them to your hand? Or do they get discarded as the effect ends because Abandoned Forge is not a valid target for either attachement? Burning Sword says "Unique Character Only" and Abandoned Forge is certainly not a unique character. Lightbringer says "[baratheon] Character Only" and Abandoned Forge is certainly not a Baratheon character. So, they either drop off immediately because their game text is active and Abandoned Forge is not a valid card for them to attach to, or their game text does not apply, and they are attached to Abandoned Forge because of Abandoned Forge's ability; not because they are attachments. Even the other two Baratheon weapon attachments, Hunting Spear and Warhammer, which don't explicitly say that they must be attached to a character refer to the "attached character" in their game text. Would anyone here just ignore me playing a Hunting Spear on my King Robert's Hammer at Worlds? Or would someone go, "that can only be attached to a character". And, assuming that the cards do actually stay put on the Forge and that the Forge actually has game text that can have an effect in the game, then if we assume that the game text is active on these attachments, then I can kneel Burning Sword to make Abandoned Forge Immune to card effects, right? We have already established that the "give attached character" does not really apply in the same way "put that location into play" does not apply on Maege. Once it is a legal target, it no longer matters that the effect refers to a particular card type, as we have established earlier in this thread. Now, let's pretend that Abandoned Forge sought out Kingdom Locations instead of Weapon Attachments; would those locations' game text be active when they were attached to the Forge? Would they fall off because they aren't "really attachments"?
×
×
  • Create New...