Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mege

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Iowa City, IA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've been really thinking about limiting the "bonus" influence (ie: anything that is +(thumb) on the card) to once. That is: if you have 2 Freedom agenda cards, you still get the 1 for each, but only score the difference of the factions once.
  2. Well, it is sold out across most channels after a few months. It was successful enough.
  3. Thanks! I only come to the official forums in spurts, so I am not aware of all the going's on. (maybe put the spreadsheet link in your new post each week?)
  4. Where are the results you're gathering being presented?
  5. I had written a campaign system about 2 years ago that incorporated IA, X-Wing and Armada into one massive campaign (I think we had 20 people?). Quite frankly: it was awesome. I did not require players to have one constant fleet that they played (it was far more team-focused than individual-focused), but rather had minor battles that helped setup major battles where one side had more/less points than another. It also allowed people to play multiple different games and have them all count for something. We ran this during the summer when the individual leagues are all usually a little sparser on players. Core document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oEi2RdXrUhwJssxqtIYyuvJyOP46NpCBMR2ia6L9V6A Planet list (as the game ended, I had graphics too): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VYUJmXquYgGk2ciDUqAArbhaDFc9aNAmzS9C6BAeiLg Example weekly newsletter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wt7sEoiwYJ-jGfAgpVfel5Ra03aBOM9BOA0lmi4Yg1k Final match tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tdwoODpIXnWGfoHg9O3TUeMfKvdrg5upvIb9eSlx5-w
  6. You've double backed on yourself a bit and failed to answer the critical example which isn't covered consistently by your explanation. In the Dooku/PS + FI example, 1 damage (to be) taken blocked with FI, then gain a shield with PS/Dooku. Does the shield have to block damage? (1 damage taken was already "primed" in your terms, blocked by FI before the shield was gained) The event waiting (1 damage taken, now blocked by FI) now needs to be rechecked against shields? This is where that reasoning fails to give an outcome. If you're locking in the initial conditions of the triggering event (to be modified by before triggers), then you can break other rules (must use shields) when finally resolving that event. If that's what you're saying, fine, but that's not explicit in how damage is handled .
  7. But then if you're waiting to check for the before taken trigger - you're interrupting the single damage bundle, effectively stepping through the damage dealing process (basically as I outlined as a possible "fix"). Else, if it's both taken/dealt at the same time, like you said, there's nothing stopping the taken triggers from occurring even if no damage would be taken in the end (see the Personal Shield/Dooku + AP/FI interaction). While I like the idea of a single damage bundle - what justification is there for this in the rules? Damage taken is defined as the act of placing damage tokens on a card (and then only after shields removed), so it would appear to interrupt the damage dealing process and check then. (this, again, is the crux of the problem) Shields aren't clearly defined in this context. Are they also a trigger on damage taken that must occur first? Or are they just a static replacement effect for damage? This again, requires telling the future for the before damage taken triggers or interrupting the damage dealing process. This may seem metaphysical in a sense ("what are shields?") but that's a big part of this problem - are they replacing damage taken or are they triggers on damage taken that then reduces damage taken? This matters for how they interact with other abilities, especially when present only part way through the process. The before triggers in games like X-Wing work because they're generally unambiguous and don't overlap much (except for when they started to overlap too much, the attack flow chart was invented...). There were some issues, which you're well aware of, with multiple before dial reveal triggers, but the idea was they could sort themselves out if they replaced the triggering effect or not. You basically kept going back to the same spot and rechecking after resolving the before triggers one at a time (which is I think what you're thinking about with the possible paradoxes of multiple before triggers). Damage dealing in Destiny only works this way if you're actually partially resolving damage along the way (in a way: try to make character take one damage, what happens? move to the next one damage, what happens?), which doesn't fit the single bundle idea that you're talking about. While I think it's best to try and do it as one bundle with a bunch of waiting replacement effects (and/or treat shields as special snowflakes as I did in my resolution suggestion), right now it really does seem we keep resolving as much damage as possible while checking for triggers. Saying damage taken can't happen when shields > damage means this must be true or you really have a paradox since you're always forcing shield blocking, but that's not checked until after the damage is applied. Going back and forth here is still supposition and not really justified in the rules, it's total extrapolation to try and make the rules work (rules for this being: must use shields to block damage, and the definitions of taken/dealt). The solution is degenerate, though, as I've poised alternative interpretations that give different results and still fall into that scheme. (and if the response is then: well, Lukas said it works this way - it clearly isn't defined well enough in the rules and the admonishment from the first few replies is unnecessary)
  8. So, using that logic at the end: 3 damage, 2 shields + Force Illusion would mean having to discard 3 cards but still can only prevent 1 since shields must be used first? Can you trigger Force Illusion if you have 2 shields and 2 incoming damage (to self mill forwhatever reason, still spending the shields)? The game doesn't know the end result at this point, so following: FI tries to block all of the damage, but shields still are spent first. At the time of the before trigger, the game doesn't know how much damage is to be taken (see the Dooku/PShield + AP/FI example for why this can be ambiguous). This is really the crux of the problem: damage taken is defined as (basically) unblocked damage, but nothing is actually blocked until you resolve that bundle of damage. Blocking is then a replacement effect for damage (good...), which means that before damage taken triggers can always be done with shields (regardless of amount of incoming damage). I'm fine with that interpretation, but it's far from being as crystal clear - especially when asking the question: "How many cards do I need to mill when using Force Illusion when I have shields to partially block the damage". I feel this will still cause disagreement. Additionally: can I use before taken triggers when damage count < shield count (again - damage taken gets replaced by shields when that damage bundle hits...).
  9. Sunny is mischaracterizing the real problem that others at the store had and the ruling which was "lets look this up more later, but play it like this now". We're all in agreement that shields must be used before the card effects (before this thread, even), except there's still gaps in the timing. This issue isn't as clear cut as people make it seem for all cases of before dealt/taken triggers. If something doesn't have shields, what dictates that before damage dealt triggers resolve before before damage taken triggers? With shields on a character one can artificially expand the damage sequence out to separate the timing for before damage dealt and before damage taken by having the before damage taken triggers occurring only after you've removed shields and are literally about to place a damage token on. This, however, is unsubstantiated in the rules since it seems like damage should be dealt all at once and shields are merely a replacement for damage taken (though, of course, still dealt). So, then the trick is: do the before damage dealt/taken triggers actually happen at the same time or are they separated by the physical removal/addition of tokens? If they're the same time then you're basically guessing the future game state to resolve flexible before damage taken triggers (eg: Force Illusion). If they're separate - then damage isn't being dealt all at once any more and is being conflated through an invented extra-legal process (that just happens to fit all of the other rules). Another example to see this ambiguity is with Personal Shield (or Dooku) + Armor Plating (or Force Illusion). Personal shield (or Count Dooku) is a before damage dealt trigger and Armor Plating/FI are before damage taken triggers. The idea of damage taken and dealt is well understood, however, before the damage is the key issue. In particular, when a character has no shields, what separates taken/dealt triggers timing wise? Use this example: resolving a 3 ranged damage die on a character with Force Illusion and Personal Shield. I use Force Illusion first and remove the top 3 cards from my deck to block the damage. Then I use Personal Shield to gain a shield. I've already blocked the 3 damage using Force Illusion, what happens to the shield? (there are corner situations where this ordering would matter and the choice to use Personal Shield may be ambiguous - especially with only a handful of cards left in the deck and they could be deduced/known - very rare cases, but still) The rules say that I must use the shield to block damage, if able, but if I am already blocking 3 damage - is it still necessary? (discussion on this next paragraph) There is no more damage being taken, it's already been blocked. Additionally, can I even do this? Let's say I want to mill 3 cards - even if FI would only block 2 damage in the end - is that the case since I had 3 potential damage when I resolved FI? The wording in the Rules Reference is: "It is not optional to use a shield. Shields must be used to block damage, if possible." Is that must be used to block damage dealt or damage taken, if possible? It must mean it blocks damage taken since "damage dealt" isn't really what's ever blocked/reduced. Damage taken is what gets blocked (replaced by removing a shield token - so it's not really damage taken any more, but damage dealt - this is clear). So, then, this throws a wrench into the original understanding. If damage taken is blocked by another effect, must a shield token really be used since there is no damage being taken anymore? The intention of this phrase on shields is clearly to prevent people from just taking damage and saving their shields - the interaction with other blocking abilities, especially in the case of gaining a shield after blocking damage, is less clear. However, even if you think that shields always must, absolutely, be used first compared to card abilities - this is only a secondary issue to this argument overall; the timing issues and guessing future-damage taken still stand. (I do favor that the shield must be spent using current rules since I basically treat all blocks as just replacement effects checked when damage is done (and FI just blocks 2 even though 3 cards discarded), though I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is actually clarified to be different. FI+Shields already on is still a bit unsettling, since you have to basically "guess" the damage taken based on current conditions to resolve the before taken triggers - though I see the end result being the same.) There are two key ambiguities here: when does blocking actually reduce the damage? Is it immediately reducing the "pending" damage? (in which case, can I even activate Personal Shield after? damage is still being dealt, just blocked already... so yes) or is it a floating effect that waits until after all before effects resolve then the blocks are treated as replacement effects for the damage? (in which case, am I still forced to use the shield even though I wouldn't actually be taking damage?) Either way - the path forward is not crystal clear, and requires some rules gymnastics. If an effect reduces the pending damage, can I still resolve additional before taken triggers (not even counting shields interaction...)? If it is a blocking effect that only occurs as damage is dealt, can I still use before taken triggers to overload the blocking damage? (eg: I want Armor Plating and FI in the discard, though I am only being dealt 2 damage, no shields - can I use FI then AP?) These different cases all affect the outcome of the PS/Dooku+FI/AP interaction and muddy how the "must use shields" clause is really interpreted. All that said: I do think it's easy to talk about the case with shields, at least as far as outcomes go. The exact resolution order if you take the sum of parts is irrelevant since from what I see the outcome should be the same (you just then have to guess at damage taken after all pending effects/shields). However, the only way to then look at the case without shields - you have to look at the case with shields from the start to even begin to gain an understanding of the interactions of the types of before damage triggers. This seems a backwards way of understanding the interactions because you're trying to explain the simpler process by using the more complex situation and then that muddies the understanding of the first without further clarification since you're skipping part of the resolution. The solution, IMO, is to actually step through the damage dealing process, by defining what has to happen in what order. A damage sequence could be something like: before dealt triggers, remove shields to reduce damage, before taken triggers (if remaining damage), place damage tokens, after dealt and taken triggers (simultaneously). I think this is what most already have in their mind, but it's not clear in the rules that this is what is happening - especially in the case without shields (and then gaining shields after a card-blocking effect). Couple this with how blocking actually works (is it a damage taken replacement, or does it reduce the amount of damage to be taken - they're two different things) and there's ambiguity. Using the sole statement about "shields must be used" as a hedge in this case, still means that before damage taken triggers must guess at the damage taken, which can create paradoxes when shields are gained afterwards. (PS: and totally an aside to the above, further complexity is added on an attack sequence by incoming unblockable damage. Can I use Force Illusion to just mill 2 cards against a lightsaber special (knowing that it will not prevent the damage). Can I do it if I have 2 shields since I will be taking 2 damage? Can I do it (without shields) just to discard Force Illusion and mill 0 cards (the trigger condition of taking damage is satisfied...)? At what point is "unblockable" checked against effects that try to block it? Can block effects fizzle (in the case of unblockable) or be overloaded (use FI first for the full amount, then gain shields/use AP)?) TL/DR: go back and read the whole thing anyhow...
  10. OP: I think you don't understand what collectible means. The product shortage sucks, sure, but it's still a collectible game. In the world of a shortage, who decides where the product goes?
  11. If this were magic, it would actually have been worded right in the first place to indicate the requirement to actually do one of the abilities if that were the case. Let the Wookie Win is situational card. Treat it as such. If it always worked, it should cost more due to the flexibility.
  12. Launch bay is always its owner's handsize. There is no need to dereference the X from that regardless of who's having an effect on the die.
  13. Specifically, it's a loss condition if you run out of cards in your hand and deck. You do not recycle your discard pile into your deck.
  14. I gave up on playing X-Wing earlier (more of a long-term break) this year to focus on Warmachine and Armada. I also stopped playing Netrunner due to having noone to play with. I expect to pay ~$1000-1500/yr on tabletop games and try to keep what games I play balanced to that. I have 2.5 boxes of destiny already, with another box coming in a week - it looks like we'll have a semi-healthy group of 6-8 dedicated players and again as many on the edge here playing it that is mostly players from other FFG games (X-Wing, GOT, etc). I think we'll come close to hitting the critical mass for collectability and having a semi-healthy secondary market (for at least trading). Unfortunately: I think Destiny will not be well balanced using a collectible model beyond a year or two unless they go away from the rare-only dice distribution and find a way to have non-rare dice cards.
  15. If anything I think the Kylo starter is a little stronger and easier to play. Managing the modified dice on Rey requires a little more thinking and can just be a straight negative sometimes.
  • Create New...