|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
fingersandteeth wrote:The path of force pull is directly back toward the character (inverse of push). There isn't a choice unless there are 2 or more closest routs to the adjacent spot.
You can't move anyone if there is no adjacent spot.
The movement ignores other characters.
The movement triggers mines.
So how many options do you have when it comes to moving said character adjacent? Is it any adjacent? The 3 closest to the piece you are pullings starting point?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/2/2008
Posts: 522
Location: Chicago
|
any adjacent
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/27/2008
Posts: 1,192
Location: Los Angeles, California
|
fingersandteeth wrote:The path of force pull is directly back toward the character (inverse of push). There isn't a choice unless there are 2 or more closest routs to the adjacent spot.
You can't move anyone if there is no adjacent spot.
The movement ignores other characters.
The movement triggers mines.
Is this an official ruling? If so, to eliminate any confusion and problems with "rules lawyers", shouldn't there should be something put officially into some type of errata or inserted into the glossary for "Force Pull"?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/2/2008
Posts: 522
Location: Chicago
|
yes, what i listed was how the ability was supposed to work.
It just requires what i wrote being put into the glossary, i don't have that control though.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/6/2013
Posts: 81
|
So that's the intent, but for now, its still not the actual ruled implementation of the ability?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2012
Posts: 746
|
Minijedi wrote:So that's the intent, but for now, its still not the actual ruled implementation of the ability? Pretty much, until Sithborg makes a new ruling or an errata is issued. DarthMaim wrote:With all the Jedi hate in our game today, Force Immunity, Ysalamiri, cloak, self destruct, Jedi Hatred, 5 pts minis with speed 8 that have twin for potentially 60 dmg (opportunist and deceptive) and that can do the same after dying, and 5 pt minis that have charging and can possibly do 40 dmg and twin (Czerka) in a Force immune bubble, I'm not so sure who the real dicks are nowadays? Don't forget about the 5 pts minis who give their allies a free shot when defeated within 6 squares of an enemy character (such as a Jedi). 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
That's an official ruling. How much more official do you want other than a game designer telling you how the ability works? Nothing is really higher than that, considering nothing has been made in print for years now.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 1,288
|
SignerJ wrote:Minijedi wrote:So that's the intent, but for now, its still not the actual ruled implementation of the ability? Pretty much, until Sithborg makes a new ruling or an errata is issued. Designers have generally deferred to Sithborg for rulings, but that's not necessary. Remember, he's just another member of the design team. For a situation as obvious as this one, just take "No, that interaction with Mines does not work like that" as the official ruling. The exact wording might be straightened up, but this is such an open-and-shut ruling that no judge worth their salt would rule contrary to it just because Sithborg himself didn't say it or because swinefeld hasn't edited the Glossary yet.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
Echo24 wrote:SignerJ wrote:Minijedi wrote:So that's the intent, but for now, its still not the actual ruled implementation of the ability? Pretty much, until Sithborg makes a new ruling or an errata is issued. Designers have generally deferred to Sithborg for rulings, but that's not necessary. Remember, he's just another member of the design team. For a situation as obvious as this one, just take "No, that interaction with Mines does not work like that" as the official ruling. The exact wording might be straightened up, but this is such an open-and-shut ruling that no judge worth their salt would rule contrary to it just because Sithborg himself didn't say it or because swinefeld hasn't edited the Glossary yet. I agree. And...updated glossary text for Pull is being worked on.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
I have replaced the glossary entries for Force Pull 2/3 here on Bloo with this new definition. Quote:Force Pull [#]
(Variable Force Points) This group of Force Powers moves a target enemy character to a space adjacent to this character and allows this character to make attacks against that enemy. This movement ignores terrain (except walls) and other characters, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The enemy must end the move in any legal landing spot adjacent to this character and takes the shortest possible route to that space. If multiple routes are tied for shortest, pick one. Force Pull itself is not an attack and does not require an attack roll, although it does allow attacks. This will be the final wording unless some issue comes up that it somehow doesn't address adequately for purposes of intent.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
swinefeld wrote:I have replaced the glossary entries for Force Pull 2/3 here on Bloo with this new definition. Quote:Force Pull [#]
(Variable Force Points) This group of Force Powers moves a target enemy character to a space adjacent to this character and allows this character to make attacks against that enemy. This movement ignores terrain (except walls) and other characters, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The enemy must end the move in any legal landing spot adjacent to this character and takes the shortest possible route to that space. If multiple routes are tied for shortest, pick one. Force Pull itself is not an attack and does not require an attack roll, although it does allow attacks. This will be the final wording unless some issue comes up that it somehow doesn't address adequately for purposes of intent. Looks good. And that double locks the door on this BS shenanigan that luckily nobody ever attempted (that I know of). I do still agree with Daniels sentiment above. I'm sure there are other crazy situations out there that haven't been brought up, and when it comes down to it all that matters is what the judge rules. Even before Swinefeld updated Bloo with the new glossary entry for pull, I for one would have ruled it as it now stands. In general, if you have a sneaky loophole tactic (or fear of someone else using it) - it's best to bring it to the rules forum to have it discussed. Maybe it will end up perfectly legal, and if so, you have a better chance of the judge making the correct ruling.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
The tactic was perfectly legal based on the original rulings. I'm glad it's been fixed.
(And note that you can still pull someone across mines and make them roll saves. But now you have to get the Mines character in between the Force Puller and the target.)
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
TimmerB123 wrote:
In general, if you have a sneaky loophole tactic (or fear of someone else using it) - it's best to bring it to the rules forum to have it discussed. Maybe it will end up perfectly legal, and if so, you have a better chance of the judge making the correct ruling.
+1
|
|
|
Guest |