Jump to content

Sekac

Members
  • Content Count

    2,622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Sekac

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,688 profile views
  1. That was pretty much the extent of my knowledge of those stories, so with our powers combined...that's one full knowledge.
  2. Manaroo was actually Attanni, not Twilek. I only know that because of X-wing and the infamous Attanni Mindlink of 1.0
  3. *edit* nevermind. Not worth it.
  4. My "newt with a raygun" post struck you as combative? I was saying it in jest...yeesh. I had no idea you had beef with me, but you've made it very clear you do. That's okay, just know that I don't have any problem with you. I don't take this stuff personally. Would you like to talk about the rules now, or are there more personal grievances you'd like to air publically and further derail your thread?
  5. The purpose of my comment was to point out that it's unclear and that it's a consistent problem. You know, discussing the leaked rules, the topic of the thread? The purpose of that comment was to be derisive towards me. Does being the author entitle one to do that? A snide comment, by the way, because I have now had a complaint with the rules for the second time. The first being a month ago. Probably time to let it go.
  6. That wasn't stated anywhere. This is the first mention that the words in that "leak" were possibly not the exact text. "Not sure if that is the whole story though" does not in any way imply that it's merely a summary. The quotes around the text imply the exact opposite. I guess I shouldn't have assumed the rules leaked on a rules leak thread were, in fact, leaked rules.
  7. Just here for a drive by? Very mature.
  8. The third sentence, as stated above. I don't understand if you're supposed to trigger one, or all that you end up within range 1 of. I don't understand the part that actually matters. The rest of it is just laughably bad.
  9. Eww. Terrible grammar on the first sentence, the second sentence isn't even a sentence, and the third implies that a mini could activate more than 1 in a turn. Not sure if that's intentional, but it doesn't use the "one or more" verbiage or tell you what happens if you come into range of 2 of them. Oh FFG, your grasp of the English language remains minimal and your rules remain vague. Don't ever change.
  10. Looks more like a newt with a raygun.
  11. Dude, it was right there.
  12. I still don't understand how that line made it into that movie. The prequels are filled with bad dialogue, but "only a Sith deals in absolutes" has got to be one of the worst lines in movie history. 1) Because "ONLY" is an absolute term. If that line is true then Obi-wan became a Sith the moment he said it. 2) Because it doesn't make any sense. What about using absolute terms makes you evil? When a Jedi says "The Force connects all living things", are we to understand that is an evil thing to say? Long story short, everyone in Star Wars is a Sith because they've probably all accidentally spoken in absolutes at least once.
  13. I mean, maybe. The problem is there is no consistency to how it operates. Sometimes you can smash a capital ship to pieces, sometimes you can teleport through solid objects. So I'd say, no, they'd have been fine. Because lightspeed/hyperspace clearly just works exactly as you need it to overcome any situation. That's the beauty of having no internal consistency. You're not bound by rules if you just re-write the rules as often as you need to!
  14. Irreconcilable creative differences? Check. I'm listening...
  15. No, but I've heard bad things. Is it 3 (or more) movies that hate eachother stuffed into a burlap sack and packaged as a trilogy? Because, if so, I'm on board!
×
×
  • Create New...