Author Topic: Acceptable Loss & Lock It Down - Rulings from WK  (Read 13793 times)

Offline CaptAntilles

  • Jedi Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
  • Force: 58
  • "This is a consular ship..."
    • The Jedi Temple (Help For New Members!)
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2007, 03:31:40 PM »
Lets look at what they mean by destroy. If any of your ships are "destroyed" the dont leave the game. They go to your reserves and then are available to be used again. So maybe what the card means in this situation is that it doesnt go to your reserves it automatically comes out into your home zone. Maybe?
It definitely says "it is not destroyed instead"   :(

Offline Porpman

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Force: 179
  • "Got +Force?"
    • Porpoise Pond
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2007, 04:05:37 PM »
Heh. On the subject of wording, I had sent this as a response to Deadcat in a PM regarding the "not optional" ruling:

---
I do have a question regarding the ruling on effects not being optional regarding the wording on the cards themselves, just for clarification. If this is worth putting in the rules sticky, feel free.

Acceptable Loss, Reasonable Risk, Balanced Calculation (and possibly others) use the word "to", making it appear that these are optional. "To" is typically used as an instruction on how, not a directive. ("To make a withdrawl, enter your pin number"... you don't HAVE to make the withdrawl, but if you want to, that's what you gotta do.) Here's what I'm getting at:

"Destroy another friendly <trooper> unit in this unit's zone to give your unit +4 Attack." The word "to" implys that if you want the +4 Attack, destroy a unit. If you don't, don't destroy a unit.

To make it more clear how that functions, rewording as below makes it more obvious (and is identical in meaning and function):

"To give your unit +4 Attack, destroy another friendly <trooper> unit in your unit's zone".

My belief is that if that wording was meant to be required, it would be worded like:

"Destroy another friendly <trooper> unit in this unit's zone. Give your unit +4 Attack."
-or-
"Destroy another friendly <trooper> unit in this unit's zone and give your unit +4 Attack."

The above two examples both direct the player to first destroy a unit, then add the +4 Attack, neither of which are optional. The language is directive (an order), not how-to instructional.
---

I really really really wish they had a stronger technical writer when they were designing the rules and card wordings (not to mention the FAQ, etc). Deadcat does an awesome job with what he's got, but his life (and ours in playing and understanding) is so much more difficult because of simple miswordings that any competant technical writer should have been able to remedy before final printing.


For Help and Links go to the Jedi Temple

Offline Porpman

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Force: 179
  • "Got +Force?"
    • Porpoise Pond
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2007, 04:09:54 PM »
(seperate post due to responding to a quote)
Lets look at what they mean by destroy. If any of your ships are "destroyed" the dont leave the game. They go to your reserves and then are available to be used again. So maybe what the card means in this situation is that it doesnt go to your reserves it automatically comes out into your home zone. Maybe?
It definitely says "it is not destroyed instead"   :(

Exactly. Case and point for above. I agree with _J_ whole heartedly that "sacrifice" would have been a much better word to use. As it is, this combination leaves lots of room for interpretation.

However, WK DID say that when multiple effects go off at once, the card player chooses the order. In this case, it would be destroy with acceptable loss to deal the damage, then resolve Jedi. There is a mechanic there, but the overall wording is poor.


For Help and Links go to the Jedi Temple

Offline Artie Deco

  • Padawan
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Force: 6
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2007, 04:13:44 PM »
Well the problem is with the word "destroyed". No ship is actually destroyed.
Sure it is.  The rule sheet from the booster says, "When the number
of damage counters on one of your units equals or exceeds its shields value, it is
destroyed and moved into your reserve zone...."

Offline Artie Deco

  • Padawan
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Force: 6
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2007, 04:19:45 PM »
Exactly. Case and point for above. I agree with _J_ whole heartedly that "sacrifice" would have been a much better word to use. As it is, this combination leaves lots of room for interpretation.

However, WK DID say that when multiple effects go off at once, the card player chooses the order. In this case, it would be destroy with acceptable loss to deal the damage, then resolve Jedi. There is a mechanic there, but the overall wording is poor.
"Sacrifice" would have been a better term for those who have played Magic.  That's going to be the minority of people who play this game.  I don't think using a different term would help.

I don't think this is a case of multiple effects being triggered simultaneously.  Acceptable Loss's effect doesn't kick in until after the ship is destroyed.  Jedi Temple kicks in before the ship is destroyed. 

Offline Sanchopanza

  • Jedi
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Force: 22
  • Your tongue can't repel a flavor of this magnitude
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2007, 04:20:17 PM »
You know, I think I need to retract my arguement.

It's the way JT is worded. Since the "would" in the text takes a time precedence over any text, or action, that would destroy one of your units you would, in essence have to roll the die, poorly, in order to allow JT to let your unit get destroyed so that the effect of AL triggers.

So it plays out like this

-Devastator plays AL on itself.
-Devastator's JT says, "Wait, you will be destroying a Unit for AL to work, right?"
-Devastator says, "Yes."
-JT says "Hold it, since your unit would be destroyed if I weren't in play, but I am, you need to roll any thing other than a 6 to Destroy your own ship, as you would need to roll a 6 in order to keep from it being destroyed at any other time.
-Devastator says, "Are you kidding me?"
-JT says "No."

This is an interesting turn of events.


« Last Edit: August 08, 2007, 04:25:08 PM by Sanchopanza »

Offline Artie Deco

  • Padawan
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Force: 6
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2007, 04:25:45 PM »
Sancho, I'm not following you at all.  How can Devastator play Acceptable Loss on itself?  And since Devastator is a *****, Jedi Temple can not target it either.

Offline Sanchopanza

  • Jedi
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Force: 22
  • Your tongue can't repel a flavor of this magnitude
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2007, 04:29:28 PM »
And, good call to Porp. "To" equals "in order to" which leaves what ever is behind it up to the whimsy of the do'er as to whether or not it will be done.

I love words. The mathemology of words is the greatest science of all. It gets me pumped. To the max.


Offline Porpman

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Force: 179
  • "Got +Force?"
    • Porpoise Pond
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2007, 04:30:26 PM »
You know, I think I need to retract my arguement.

It's the way JT is worded. Since the "would" in the text takes a time precedence over any text, or action, that would destroy one of your units you would, in essence have to roll the die, poorly, in order to allow JT to let your unit get destroyed so that the effect of AL triggers.

So it plays out like this

-Devastator plays AL on itself.
-Devastator's JT says, "Wait, you will be destroying a Unit for AL to work, right?"
-Devastator says, "Yes."
-JT says "Hold it, since your unit would be destroyed if I weren't in play, but I am, you need to roll any thing other than a 6 to Destroy your own ship, as you would need to roll a 6 in order to keep from it being destroyed at any other time.
-Devastator says, "Are you kidding me?"
-JT says "No."

This is an interesting turn of events.




I won't agree. Nope. I won't do it. I refuse. I won't change my mind. It won't happen. Nope! Nope! NOPE!

Ok. Maybe it will... that's a persuasive argument.

I'm not liking that I'm finding objectives that can wind up doing you more harm than good, when you yourself played them (Det Block and Tat excluded - those are obviously intended that way).


For Help and Links go to the Jedi Temple

Offline Sanchopanza

  • Jedi
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Force: 22
  • Your tongue can't repel a flavor of this magnitude
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2007, 04:31:43 PM »
You have a Deva in front of you, it's a Leader icon. You play AL on it and a hapless TIE, /w a Storm icon in the same area gets the can. Capiche? I personified the Devasator in my scenario for humor. Must have failed.

Time to brave traffic.

Offline Sanchopanza

  • Jedi
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Force: 22
  • Your tongue can't repel a flavor of this magnitude
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2007, 04:32:59 PM »
HOLY YODA!!!

Porp... bent... to one... of my... theories!!!

I'm so pumped I'm going to go home and headbutt my cat.

Offline _J_

  • Jedi Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Force: 67
  • Piskew! Piskew!
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2007, 04:35:33 PM »
I really really really wish they had a stronger technical writer when they were designing the rules and card wordings (not to mention the FAQ, etc). Deadcat does an awesome job with what he's got, but his life (and ours in playing and understanding) is so much more difficult because of simple miswordings that any competant technical writer should have been able to remedy before final printing.

Yeah.  The wording on these cards is terrible and the fact that there was no FAQ released for some of these interractions makes me question their playtesting methods.

Are other Wizkids games this bad with regard to techinical writing?


For help and links go to the Jedi Temple

Offline _J_

  • Jedi Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Force: 67
  • Piskew! Piskew!
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2007, 04:36:01 PM »
I'm so pumped I'm going to go home and headbutt my cat.

Kitty probably will not appreciate that.


For help and links go to the Jedi Temple

Offline Artie Deco

  • Padawan
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Force: 6
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2007, 04:40:25 PM »
I'm not liking that I'm finding objectives that can wind up doing you more harm than good, when you yourself played them (Det Block and Tat excluded - those are obviously intended that way).

Ummm... then don't play them.  This is exactly like Detention Block and Tatooine.  If your strategy depends on Acceptable Losses, then don't play Jedi Temple.


Offline Porpman

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Force: 179
  • "Got +Force?"
    • Porpoise Pond
Re: Jedi Temple + Acceptable Loss
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2007, 04:43:56 PM »
I really really really wish they had a stronger technical writer when they were designing the rules and card wordings (not to mention the FAQ, etc). Deadcat does an awesome job with what he's got, but his life (and ours in playing and understanding) is so much more difficult because of simple miswordings that any competant technical writer should have been able to remedy before final printing.

Yeah.  The wording on these cards is terrible and the fact that there was no FAQ released for some of these interractions makes me question their playtesting methods.

Are other Wizkids games this bad with regard to techinical writing?

Well, I'd wager one of three things...

Either they're not as bad off as we have found SWPM to be in this regard
-or-
The other games were simple enough not to need better wording
-or-
We are just alot more anal about things than the crowds for other games. We are Star Warsies after all.

I think it's probably the 3rd one.


For Help and Links go to the Jedi Temple