Jump to content

sWhiteboy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sWhiteboy

  1. Posted

    I just read this thread for the first time, and some of the conclusions make no sense. Specifically, the ones that include Nazgul attacking a player when they are not the active player.  The rules say, "The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy."

    After Nazgul switches from Player A to Player B; Nazgul's attack is now resolving against Player B.  As a result, Nazgul's attack doesn't resolve until Player B's turn, where Player B treats him like any other bad guy (meaning that Player B goes through all 4 steps, regardless of where Nazgul was in his attack cycle when he switched players).  So, your example would work like this:

     

    **If SA+SoA is played here, then Nazgul will not attack Player A.  Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

    1) Nazgul is chosen to attack Player A.

    **If played here, then Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A.  Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

    2) Defenders are chosen.

    **If played here, after Player A declared a defender against Nazgul, then the declared defender will stay exhausted, but Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A.  Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

    3) Shadow effects are resolved.

    **If played here, player A will be affected by the shadow card and Nazgul's effect.  If Player A declared a defender, then it will stay exhausted, but Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A.  Nazgul will resolve his attack against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

    4) Damage is resolved.

    **If played here, Nazgul has resolved all the steps of his attack against Player A.  Nazgul will resolve his attack against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

     

    There is no rule that says an enemy can only attack once per turn.  That is why he will attack both Player A and Player B if Player B uses SA+SoA after the attack has completely resolved against Player A.

    If Player B (the one who plays SA+SoA) has already had their turn as the Active player during the Combat Phase, then Nazgul will not resolve his attack against Player B.

  4. Posted

    Cancel/Save effects are the fastest type of abilities in the other LCGs.  So, it should go like this:

    Muck Adder attacks.

    Frodo blocks, or lets the attack go unopposed, then takes the damage.

    Frodo's ability cancels the damage.

    Muck Adder's ability doesn't resolve because no damage was done to a character.

     

    IF Muck Adder's ability were to resolve first, then Frodo would be discarded from play.  Frodo's cancel responds to the damage and not to the Adder's ability.  So, once the Adder's ability starts, then it would have to resolve unless you had another way to cancel it (which I'm not sure exists in this game yet).  So, if FFG decides that Forced effects are faster than Cancel/Save effects, then Frodo is dead.

  5. Posted

    Syd said:

    What does that look like though? 2v2? That format has its own major issues. Random pairing 2v2? Is there some way to just cop to the existence of meta groups in melee working together, and somehow embrace it? Split the country into regions and have players play for their region...people that show up solo could join the Brotherhood without Banners region!

     

    Why would you do random pairing?

    It would go, you sign-in, with your partner, as a team.  IF you do not have a partner, then you can be given a partner IF there is someone else who signed in solo.  First-come first-serve.

  6. Posted

    Saturnine said:

    How about this analogy: It's like going to a restaurant and then complaining about food because it didn't taste good.

     

    It's more like you go to a restaurant that you know to occasionally serve bad food, then you happen to get bad food and you complain about it.  Is the complaining justified?  Not really, as you knew the risk.  Can the complaining change things.  Possibly, it depends on if the people in charge consider your complaints.

  7. Posted

    LaughingTree said:

    The Noobkiller always plays to win and would relate to everything that sirloin dude says. However the Noobkiller has some other traits. He likes to kill and beat easy targets. He doesn't necessarily want to play the best and beat the best, he just wants to win. In MMO this can manifest as someone who corpse camps lower levels instead of seeking evenly matched PvP. In FPS this can be someone who chooses weaker matches and goes after new players to pad his stats. And in collectible games this can manifest as an older dude playing top competitive meta builds against 10 yr olds at casual gaming nights. The Noobkiller justifies all his actions as simply "playing to win". Since the Noobkiller always plays to win, and playing to win is always justified then there is nothing ever wrong with the Noobkiller's actions. In one sense he is right. But another sense the Noobkiller is a noob himself who is missing part of the point of competition and competitive events.

    That actually goes against Siriln's ideas.  Sirlin, like any other fighting game player, will tell you that playing people who are better than you is the best way to get better.  The issue fighting games have (and what spawned these articles) is people who complain about something rather than trying to beat it.  In this case, it's the "scrubs" that want to play people worse than them, and not the other way around.

  8. Posted

    LaughingTree said:

    That article is mediocre at best and pretty poor from an academic point of view. All his examples come from old school arcade game coding. Those have idiosyncrasies that cannot really be mapped to other types of competition for analogies. He never even gives any concrete examples but just vague anecdotes about "the scrub". His reliance on a condescending term takes away from any sort of empirical point he is trying to make. He has no point that hasn't already been made more succinctly. For example the whole article doesn't say anything that Vince Lombardi hasn't already said more concisely. Then he throws out some chart on ATP as if that misguided analogy somehow proves his point?

     

     

     

    That article was written in the 90's.  So, when it was written the "old school" arcade game was still current.

    While the article might not be academic, it makes a good point.  If you're going to take part in something, then do everything you can to do your best (unless it is cheating).  Sure people have said this before him, and more will say it after, but this article spoke to a generation of upcoming gamers.

  9. Posted

    Kennon said:

     

    Hmmm... that was an interesting article until he started doing what scrubs do as defense for his article against scrub-dom. There's a logical loop that he (or she, I didn't see anything that particularly identified) seems to have fallen into and can't escape. In defense of all the possible moves of the game (in particular throws and CCs) he repeatedly asserts that if it's there and part of the game, it should be used if it can help you win. As well, he asserts that small bugs in gameplay coding like the Iceman example are also legitimate ways to help you win. He then goes on to declare the unlockable Akuma off-limits for being broken, and does so repeatedly in the comments section as well. He attempts to draw a completely illogical line that utliziing an included character in the game (yes, I admit, Akuma is not easily accessed, but the way to do so was programmed into the game) is somehow illegitimate and "broken." How this is in any quantifiable way different from his original premise of the subjective rules generated by the mindset of scrubs completely eludes me. How can the Iceman hack be defended as legitimate? It simply equates to a different move accessed by careful timing and the application of a certain order of button presses and movements- entering a code to unlock the different move just as one would enter the code to unlock Akuma.

    *shrug*

    He's also pretty locked up on telling people that are more accurately following the logical thread that they just don't understand.

     

     

    Kennon said:

    Sooo..... at what point is it ok to patch or errata? Do the scrubs who find something unfair have the opportunity to call for it (in this case, looking at a tweak to tournament rules) like the players who patched the game themselves by banning Akuma? While I understand that the example is out of date due to the current ability to actually update the code on arcade machines, I just can't find the line that the author is using to generate a distinction.

     

    David Sirlin is the author.  So, that's a man.

    Sirlin is not the one who decided SSF2T Akuma is broken.  That was decided after a period of play where Akuma was allowed, but then dominated any and all play.  The issue is that once Akuma hits the opponent (even if it is blocked), the opponent cannot win.  So, if there ever was a reason to ban something, then that was it.

    I'm not Sirlin, so I can't speak for him, but the fighting game community generally accepts any tactic as long as it doesn't mean an instant loss and you can fight against it.

    He actually expanded those articles into a full book.  You can read the entire thing for free off of his website:  www.sirlin.net

    On a side note:  Everyone should check out the card games he has created.  Yomi and Puzzle Strike are amazing.

  11. Posted

    HoyaLawya said:

    widowmaker93 said:

     

    Only 1 Gold producing location. Sounds like this was a major reason for you going 4-2 and not 5-1.

     

     

    Add a gold link to the killer of the wounded combo, and you have an insane gold producing machine. The question remains, what card do you take out for the gold link?

    Gold Link and Lead Link both require you to kneel the character.  So, it would only work if you have two Killer of the Wounded out.  One with Gold Link and the other with Lead Link.

  12. Posted

    WolfgangSenff said:

    widowmaker93 said:

     

    Looks like the link isn't working or something is wrong with the CardgameDB website because it's not bringing up the decklist

     

     

     

    Hm, brought it up fine for me - scroll down a bit.

    It's not working for me either.  I get a page that says the article can't be found.

  14. Posted

    Yeah, I'll be back out there next week.  BTW, I'm sorry if you felt like it was cheating when I was helping my wife out that last game.  I just feel that the best way to help her learn card games is to tell her when she makes a mistake and why it was a mistake (it really annoys her, but she has been picking up things).  Either way, she has told me that I am not to help her in any way the next time.

  19. Posted

    Here's the Sci-Fi Genre website, with their schedule on the front page.

    http://www.scifigenre.com/store/

    I haven't been up there on a boardgame night before, but I was planning on going tomorrow to see if there were any other AGoT players.  I know there has been at least one other person buying the new packs/expansions.

    I prefer to be competitive, but casual is fine too.  That way you can use stupid decks that don't make sense, but are fun to play.

  21. Posted

    ikatowi said:

    I know this is a bit of threadomancy, and for that I apologize, but since I saw that a few people posting on the thread were in central NC, I wanted to note that I'm in Raleigh and have recently started playing the game (pulling in a friend to play here and there) and I'd love to have the chance to play more with people who are enthusiastic about playing.

    So if any of you want to get together in the triangle, let me know, because I'm totally down for it!

    I'm the guy in the Triangle area.  I'm up for getting together sometime.  My wife and I can sort-of play the game, but we've never had anyone else to play against...so we're not that great.

  23. Posted

    I feel that collusion in a Joust tourney and "collusion" in a Melee tourney are different.

    The Melee format is supposed to be about making alliances/playing shady.  I would argue that Corey and Erick were playing the game exactly how it was meant to be played.  It's not like they decided beforehand which person at the table would win.  Instead, they decided that once one of the two people in the alliance got ahead, then the other boosted them to a win.

×
×
  • Create New...