Jump to content

silversurfr77

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About silversurfr77

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. PeoplesChampion ...... Holocrons ...... that was what I was looking for. Thank you.
  2. Just curious if someone can provide a link to current Balance of the Force point costs for characters??? The current rules reference version 1.7 seems to have abandoned it, and even google cant point me to a current version. Rules ref 1.5 has it, but 1.6 never comes up, and 1.7, which is currently the only rules ref provided on this site, has no mention of Balance of the Force, nor is there any section that discusses point changes for characters. Any help would be appreciated.
  3. kingbobb .... you're doing exactly what i just pointed out. i don't know how you get to "It means the dice that are connected to the card by means of the character's points cost" based on reading the ability. you are inferring intent, instead of reading the rules, which, by the way, say nothing of the sort. read the section again on self referential language. As i just pointed out ... its the difference between defining CHARACTER and CHARACTER DICE. 2 separate and different things. that's why they're both defined separately and differently. Whingewood's post helped me to see that. as far as favoring the rules you don't want to see .... why is everyone defining CHARACTER instead of CHARACTER DICE? the subject of his ability are the CHARACTER DICE, which are not the same thing as CHARACTER. see the definitions. they're quite different.
  4. Been away for a few days, but saw this was back to the top so i thought i'd re-read through and saw Whingewoods response. This sort of got me. This is problematic, and it shows where this bit of confusion comes from. Whingewood .... you're using the rules definition of CHARACTER to get an understanding of what CHARACTER DICE are. This is backwards and we don't need this, because the rules guide defines CHARACTER DICE separately. in my very first post i quoted it from the rules guide. CHARACTER DIE p. 20 A character die is a die that matches a character. This is different than what you get defining what a CHARACTER is. They are both separate and different. a CHARACTER has 1 or 2 character dice. but CHARACTER DICE are ...... see above ..... a die that matches a character. Greedos ability does NOT reference THIS CHARACTERS (self-referential language) character dice. It references his CHARACTER DICE. ANY NUMBER of them in fact. This is an amazingly nuanced thing to pick up on ... but it DOES make a difference. using "his" instead of "GREEDO's" character dice is just semantics as its the difference between using a NOUN and a PRONOUN. However, per the rules, SELF-REFERENCING "SELF-REFERENTIAL EFFECTS p. 19 When a card’s ability text refers to its own card type, such as “this upgrade” or “this character,” it refers to itself only, and not to other copies (by title) of the card." Greedos ability does not refer to a CARD TYPE ...... it refers to his CHARACTER DICE. And HIS is not self referential, because HIS does not refer to CHARACTER CARD. Again, it refers to his CHARACTER DICE. and as long as those DICE match him, him being Greedo, then any number can be rolled. as i said previously, for it to be self-referential, it would have to say "THIS CHARACTERS character dice, because per the rules guide, that is how self referential language works in this game. even if it DID say that, which it does NOT use the established language .... the next point would still remain. In this case however, the subject of the line is his CHARACTER DICE .... not THIS CHARACTER. this post got way longer than it was supposed to be ...... :S
  5. That's an interesting point. The only thing I would say is that nowhere on Greedos card does it say "this character," which if you read the definition under self-referential effects, is quoted. Greedos ability doesn't say to roll "this characters character dice." It says to roll his CHARACTER DICE. The dice are not self referencing. It should be errata'd.
  6. Jerrus, this is just semantics. Whether it says "Greedo character dice" or "his (regarding Greedo) character dice" ...... it would be saying the same thing. Greedo is a noun and his is a pronoun, but as stated, they mean the same thing. In this instance they're interchangeable. Using "their" dice was me trying to explain the difference between player vs. opponent. There's only so many examples i can give before things start getting tongue tied.
  7. Another great response by Stu35. Nothing but incredulity with ZERO rules reference. Whenever i have a rules issue, I usually start with incredulity, and then go onto name calling. I often win arguments that way. As i said above, if krennec said "roll any number of Death Trooper dice into your pool," would we be having this discussion? Im guessing no.
  8. better yet, what if Krennec said: roll any number of Death Trooper dice into your pool ...... would we even be discussing what "any number" means, or where they come from?? absolutely not. there would be a clarification and an errata issued posthaste.
  9. The problem is it says to roll "any number" of his character dice. "Any number" is a variable. It is undefined, and as i've pointed out, nothing in the rules defines "any number." it is simply an undefined variable. It might as well say "X" without defining what X is. If you notice on Seventh Sister, it defines the X value of the die. But just becasue Greedo uses language instead of math variables, doesnt change what it actually is. "Any number," as is written, is just an undefined variable, becasue it can be ANY NUMBER ...... it can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 75. The only thing it cant be is pi, because THAT would be irrational.
  10. If that is true, then Krennec and Seventh Sister shouldnt be able to work, because THOSE character cards are not part of the deck either. That was why i initially used Krennec as a reference. If that is true, then where does the Death Trooper or Droid die come from? The answer is the set aside zone. Krennec and Seventh Sister establish a precedent. And in this instance, we would refer back to the golden rule. THE GOLDEN RULE If the text of a card directly contradicts the rules of the game, the text of the card takes precedence. If you can follow both the rules of the game and the text of the card, do so.
  11. Jerrus, you're right. it DOES denote ownership. That's why it doesn't affect opponents dice. But when we're discussing what a character die is, its a die that matches a character card ...... nothing more, nothing less. Greedo says HIS character dice. Feint says IT'S, in regards to upgrades and what not. An opponents upgrade dice on another character, regardless of whether they are matching or not, are not IT'S upgrade dice. in that case, they would be THEIR upgrade dice. But the way the previous user was trying to use HIS as a gotcha was being disingenuous. And that was why i said what i did. Greedo's character dice, in this instance, refer to Dice that match HIS character card. (Also, not an opponents Greedo, or THEIR.) Whether they are in the set aside zone or on his card does not factor into whether or not they are still HIS, because no matter where they are, if they are part of your force, they are HIS. They match.
  12. i agree it needs to be FAQ'd, but not only that, it needs errata. This is what i have been saying. But my biggest point is this ... if rules guys cant see the problem here WITHIN the rules, then that bodes a larger problem for the game. its not rules "lawyery" to have a sound understanding of the rules as a whole. its called being a responsible player. "lawyery" would be picking pieces in and of themselves to support something that does NOT work, but being deceptive into making it appear as if they do. picking apart "activation" rules, that have nothing to do with the triggered effects is "lawyering." trying to re-interpret "set-aside zone" to mean "use common sense" isn't lawyering per se, but its just as bad. Having been a clix player for years, there is no such thing as "common" sense when it comes to gamers. This needs to be fixed. Not FAQ'd, but errata'd. I'd even go so far as to say leave it alone and let it do what it says ...... just ban it from tournament play, and learn from this going forward. If you want to have fun with crazy Greedo dice, have at it .... just not in a tournament setting. Because let's face it, ban lists are a fact of life for card games like this.
  13. Whingewood, Greedos power has NOTHING to do with Activation. So everything you said about it is invalid. It is a triggered effect that happens BEFORE hes defeated. So discussing activation at any length is moot. having 50 Greedo dice in his set aside zone does not interfere with the rules of activation, starting character dice, or the price point paid for them. It only comes into play "before he is defeated." Further supporting this is the section on "OUT-OF-PLAY" OUT-OF-PLAY Cards in a player’s hand, deck, discard pile, and set-aside zone are out of play and their abilities cannot be used until they are played or return to play, or a card says otherwise. as this discusses CARDs, and not Dice, i think its safe to say that what we know about Dice being in the set aside zone, they fall into the "out-of-play" category.
  14. What rule supports this? Is HIS a keyword in the rules text? Or does it refer to CHARACTER DIEA character die is a die that matches a character. I understand what you're saying about mirror matches, but the same rule for Krennec and Seventh Sister that doesn't allow you to roll an opponents Death Trooper or Droid would be the same rule that wouldn't allow Greedo to do it. this doesn't help. And i never said it was a loophole. It's how the rules work in regards to set aside zone and the golden rule.
  15. Mep ...... I thought i saw in another thread that your are a rules arb of some sorts? Is that true? Or a liaison between the rules guys or something like that?
×
×
  • Create New...