Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vineheart01

JarJar is a thing! also yellow reveal article

Recommended Posts

Homing Missiles in X Wing needed an FAQ mention not because of what it said because of what it did not say, spend a target lock. FAQ is aptly named. Questions that get asked frequently go in there so they don't have to keep answering the same question. I agree a large FAQ to cover every card is a bit much, but a data base with all the cards and explanations for any cards that can cause confusion is actually kind of standard these days. These games are played internationally and to think absolutely everyone is going to understand what the intent of the card is from a single sentence is just silly. Part of effectively communicating is rephrasing. What I don't want is a bunch of rephrasing on the cards themselves. That is far worse than a bulky FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if I use an action to force my opponent to activate his Jar Jar, and then exhaust my copy of Running Interference?  What are they barred from doing?

I'm not convinced the action to force one's opponent to activate Jar Jar falls under any of the basic action types.  It isn't "Use a Card Action" because the RRG is explicit that this is for actions with the "Action:" header, which Jar Jar lacks.  I don't think it's "Activate a Character or Support" because I'm not actually doing that; I'm just forcing my opponent to.  It certainly isn't any of the others: "Play a Card from Hand", "Resolve Dice", "Discard a Card to Roll Dice", and "Claim the Battlefield" are all obviously wrong.

Would Running Interference do anything?  Maybe just stop my opponent from responding by forcing me to activate my own Jar Jar (in a very sad Jar Jar Mirror Match game)?

Edited by Dr Lucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mep said:

That page 13 rule about additional actions was also clearly written and you didn't understand it.

Yes.  It was so clearly written that Lukas said the rule didn't reflect the intent, then they revised it in the next rules update, created an undefined timing issue surrounding it, revised it AGAIN in the following rules update, and eventually added an example that's twice as long as the original rule was.  Perfectly clear - they just completely rewrote it multiple times because they felt like it.  You're the stopped clock that will never forget that glorious moment at 11:32.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Lucky said:

What happens if I use an action to force my opponent to activate his Jar Jar, and then exhaust my copy of Running Interference?  What are they barred from doing?

I'm not convinced the action to force one's opponent to activate Jar Jar falls under any of the basic action types.  It isn't "Use a Card Action" because the RRG is explicit that this is for actions with the "Action:" header, which Jar Jar lacks.  I don't think it's "Activate a Character or Support" because I'm not actually doing that; I'm just forcing my opponent to.  It certainly isn't any of the others: "Play a Card from Hand", "Resolve Dice", "Discard a Card to Roll Dice", and "Claim the Battlefield" are all obviously wrong.

Would Running Interference do anything?  Maybe just stop my opponent from responding by forcing me from activating my own Jar Jar (in a very sad Jar Jar Mirror Match game)?

That sounds right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Yes.  It was so clearly written that Lukas said the rule didn't reflect the intent, then they revised it in the next rules update, created an undefined timing issue surrounding it, revised it AGAIN in the following rules update, and eventually added an example that's twice as long as the original rule was.  Perfectly clear - they just completely rewrote it multiple times because they felt like it.  You're the stopped clock that will never forget that glorious moment at 11:32.

 

It was clearly written as was the card text about ambush and they contradicted each other. So yes, in ordered to over come that they had to rephrase and rephrase again to make it clear to everyone, not just a few people who figured it out on the first go. Rephrasing and clarifying is part of communicating. You screwed that up, Lukas screwed that up, everyone screws up from time to time. So there is no need for that second grade reading comprehension bs. Also, I only bring it up when people get a little full of themselves that really really shouldn't. There are many cards that cause people to reread and have to think about them to get what the card is doing. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion and FFG clearly doesn't communicate as well as they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joelist said:

 In fact, Fast Hands on Jar Jar is interesting.

More so because it creates and interesting timing issue that allows you to resolve the fast hands before the re-rolls or after. Which gives the Jar Jar player some interesting choices that allows him to get more re-rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

jarjar with fast hands....

That just sounds so out of place. If he had fast hands he wouldnt have dropped the wrench leading to his head getting numbed for this picture....

Sure he would - he just did it really, really quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mep said:

It was clearly written as was the card text about ambush and they contradicted each other. So yes, in ordered to over come that they had to rephrase and rephrase again to make it clear to everyone, not just a few people who figured it out on the first go. Rephrasing and clarifying is part of communicating. You screwed that up, Lukas screwed that up, everyone screws up from time to time. So there is no need for that second grade reading comprehension bs.

Yes, everyone screws up some times.  Even me, although I'd argue that I do it less than most.

That does not mean that every misunderstanding is on FFG, as you seem to like to think.  There is and should be a minimal level of commitment to understanding on the part of the players who are interpreting those rules.  Two hundred invocations of "This card lets you resolve a die.  You can only resolve one die, not any others even if the symbols match.  You can only resolve your own dice.  You can only resolve dice in your pool.  You cannot resolve a modifier die with this effect.  If the die is showing a resource cost, you must still pay it." benefits nobody - not even the poor second-graders you're so intent on sheltering.

A great many people play this game without even a passing understanding of the underlying rules.  There's not much we can do to stop that, but that doesn't mean we have to pander to it and make FAQs a swamp of idiot-proofed clarifications that anyone who actually bothered to understand the rules wouldn't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention if you faq'd every "conflict" even if its more of a misread rather than a slipup on the writers, the faq would be twice as big as it is purely for obvious stuff.

They DO faq things that shouldnt need faq'ing though and i dunno what drives some of them. The homing missile example on xwing is a good one, every ordnance says to discard the targetlock except that one prior to it. Card doesnt say discard it, im not discarding it.
Destiny did it in the last FAQ too: Ahsoka comment saying you must pay for the upgrades too...no duh her card SAYS that.

Point remains if they faq'd it all the document would be so bloated it would be impossible to find real useful comments rather than simply "Read the card dummy" type faqs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions from everyone, not just you. Jar Jar is going to get FAQ at least for the fast hands thing and how the after effects get ordered on the non-owners turn. Some times things do indeed need to be spelled out so each of FFG's customers from all over the world understand the product they bought. It is so sad some people don't understand that yet some how bash those that don't understand a card in a game. Yeah, some "stupid questions" get asked but asking those questions is part of the learning process. Other times cards are just worded a bit funny. There isn't a lack of commitment on their part. They aren't high school kids ignoring the teacher. They put in the effort to read the card multiple times, try to understand it and then finally post about it.

This is a great example of the type of db this game needs from netrunner. The card text is straight forward but some people have a little problem with the math or understanding it. So it gets well clarified.

https://netrunnerdb.com/en/card/06103

Sadly SWdestingydb doesn't have the same, umm, commitment towards it. BTW, you don't try to put all that info in a document. This game has too many cards to be suited for that kind of information delivery. It really needs a card database.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mep said:

The point of the FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions from everyone, not just you. Jar Jar is going to get FAQ at least for the fast hands thing and how the after effects get ordered on the non-owners turn. Some times things do indeed need to be spelled out so each of FFG's customers from all over the world understand the product they bought. It is so sad some people don't understand that

No, we do understand that.  Perfectly well.

The point that we are making is exactly what Vineheart said above - if you fill out a FAQ with stupidly obvious stuff that's perfectly clear in the rules, you create a cluttered mess of a system that is less useful to everybody.  Hiding precedent-setting clarifications and rulings among individual card pages doesn't do anyone any good either.  I shouldn't have to search 600 individual card pages looking for one that mentions the timing interaction between "after activation" and "after rolling".  It also promotes a lack of understanding of broad rules.  "Well, sure, I can't resolve a modifier with C-3PO, but I should check the DB to see if Go For the Kill lets me resolve a modifier.  Nope, it doesn't either.  What about Rebel War Room?"

Yes, that means that lazy people who can't be bothered to understand the rules will struggle.  It means our discussion groups will continue to be spammed by stupid questions like "Can I resolve a modifier with C-3PO?".  We'll continue to fully answer questions with nothing but a copy/paste of two lines from the rule book.  But the alternative is a system which panders to those people at the expense of everyone - INCLUDING them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to lay it on FFG completely - I saw the word "action" and my hindbrain acted like it was the keyword. That said it is worded strangely in that it uses both the action and activate keywords but it itself is not an "action" in the sense that the keyword is not bolded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Joelist said:

I'm not going to lay it on FFG completely - I saw the word "action" and my hindbrain acted like it was the keyword. That said it is worded strangely in that it uses both the action and activate keywords but it itself is not an "action" in the sense that the keyword is not bolded.

It is definitely a new concept.  I don't think we've had anything before that lets you spend actions for other effects.  But the wording differences from something like Coercion makes it pretty clear how it works, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buhallin said:

No, we do understand that.  Perfectly well.

The point that we are making is exactly what Vineheart said above - if you fill out a FAQ with stupidly obvious stuff that's perfectly clear in the rules, you create a cluttered mess of a system that is less useful to everybody.  Hiding precedent-setting clarifications and rulings among individual card pages doesn't do anyone any good either.  I shouldn't have to search 600 individual card pages looking for one that mentions the timing interaction between "after activation" and "after rolling".  It also promotes a lack of understanding of broad rules.  "Well, sure, I can't resolve a modifier with C-3PO, but I should check the DB to see if Go For the Kill lets me resolve a modifier.  Nope, it doesn't either.  What about Rebel War Room?"

Yes, that means that lazy people who can't be bothered to understand the rules will struggle.  It means our discussion groups will continue to be spammed by stupid questions like "Can I resolve a modifier with C-3PO?".  We'll continue to fully answer questions with nothing but a copy/paste of two lines from the rule book.  But the alternative is a system which panders to those people at the expense of everyone - INCLUDING them.

Yeah, you are still just being a jerk without realizing the FAQ is for everyone, not just you. It is a big game, with many cards played by people all over the world. I do agree that FFG's current style of presenting the FAQ will get too big to use efficiently simply due to the shear number of cards they put out which is why it will need to go to a db format eventually. Clearly communicating and making sure everyone understand the cards is only a good thing. So no, making sure everyone is on the same page and understand how to play the game is not a bad thing or makes people lazy. And yes. when you look up a card with a similar ruling/explanation like 3PO or Go for the Kill that is exactly the type of information you want to see in the db. Seriously, that is how these things are done. How it is not done is treating people like they are stupid idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jorgyn Ryss said:

Personally I think Hondo is the best 15pt character printed yet. 

I wouldn't say best personally, but I really do like him.  Potentially 2, 3 damage sides is good business.  And neutral, as a good business man just trying to make his way in the galaxy is open to both sides if there is a profit in it.  Yes I'm referring to him being neutral :)

Edited by Ywingscum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably worded the way it is because its not your action so it doesnt have the Action: prefix it normally would.

Cad Bane has an action that activates him but its got the prefix because thats actually your action. Jarjar isnt your action.

Whether or not it'll be the only instance of a card giving an action to the opponent is another question. Im guessing not

Also am i horrible for also hoping for a generic Gungan Warrior character? hehe

Edited by Vineheart01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cantina Brawl did get a FAQ as predicted. Jar Jar did not. They also clarified the difference between dice that remove dice and cards effects that remove dice. Not the same thing so you'll have to be careful how you play Resilient and Maul. I think there is a new character upgrade that acts much the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...