The only issue is that it isn't on the actual card, just like a few other things. Blaster works pretty fine. I'm fine with new abilities like Poisoned Blade or Blaster, they just need to be a bit more specific on the card. I'm just glad I don't have to answer the questions about Luke, JM or Vader, JH being able to move and Triple....

I haven't ever asked those questions, but now that you mention it I should probably make sure I understand it correctly...


I would have thought Geno gained Twin Attack from Czerka since he doesn't have Melee Attack, but now that I read the wording of the Czerka it doesn't say "does not have Melee Attack." It says "with nonmelee attacks," which I think is poorly worded because it's a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, it could mean that it only applies to non-melee attacks. But looking at exactly what it says, I'd say it applies to anyone who has nonmelee attacks regardless of what sort of attack they're using at the time, so I'd say he still gets it. But I could easily be wrong on that.

Geno does not have Melee Attack special ability, so the Ithorian's CE does not apply to him.

Crit doubles on the base damage, so +10 damage on a crit.

If he's adjacent, he's using Poisoned Blade so it's a melee attack that could be blocked/parried. If he's not adjacent, he's using a non-melee attack that could be evaded/deflected.

Now having posted my guesses, I'll go hunt down some old threads to see how I did.

Thanks, Sithborg. Geno certainly is more confusing than Mara.

I can understand the Geno not getting Twin, but the Czerka's SA could have been phrased better. "Allies without Melee Attack" or "Allies when making nonmelee attacks" would have been clearer than "with nonmelee attacks".

But other than the FAQ or other rules forum threads, how would one know that Poisoned Blade changes the base damage when virtually nothing else does? The possibility that it would change the base damage never even entered my mind. Seems like it should be in the errata section rather than the FAQ because it seems to change a rule that applies everywhere else: bonuses don't affect base damage. Unless I missed something.

I think he is referin more to the cards wording orriginally. THe Card states " Poisoned Blade(+10 damage to 1 adjacent target: this counts as a melee attack. THis attack deals an extra +20 damage to a living enemy, save 11)

So if you didnt read the faq it wouldnt seem as though it doesn't change the base damage. i am not argueing that it doesnt but just by the card it doesnt seem that way. I think that is all Arrow was trying to say.

Well, thanks guys. I feel very informed and ready to run Mara Jade Jedi now and even know a lot more about Cyclops, Genoharadan Assassin:P

I shall now know how to use her correctly.

Also I did appreciate Country Dude's house rule and will try and use them if anyone else busts her out against me (but obviously not the other way around ;)).

Cheers all.

Nah, I don't think the Ithorian would work in that instance though. She wouldn't have the Melee Attack SA on her card, so wouldn't satisfy the Ithorian's requirements. Or, if she was considered to have the Melee SA, then she'd also be considered to have 20 base damage, and still wouldn't work with the Ithorian.

There are other complications. I'm on the fence about it at the moment, and I can understand why people want it both ways.

To some degree, just like we are re-learning how to play Gambit with 5 point characters vs. 3-4 point characters, we could re-learn how to play Lightsaber attacks too.

i agree it shouldnt be a universal change, just a house rule. It doesnt get abused with our league too much but we dont always play competitively.

Incorrect (the word "different" is incorrect). This only occurs when there is direct contradiction between card and glossary. SWMs has no such examples of it as far as I can think of. The glossary contains the "full rule" of each ability, whereas card space is often limited. So something omitted from a card wording (assuming no direct contradictions), does not mean that you can ignore the glossary in SWMs.

Classic example. Universe Luke JM and Vader JH both have the ability "triple attack" on their cards, but no explanation as to what that means. You have to go to the glossary to understand that this means replacing your move action in order to gain extra attacks. For quite a while, many people tried to argue that since the card didn't say you had to give up your move, they could ignore the glossary.

It must be a direct contraction. An example would be a card stating that an ability is +20dmg and the glossary saying it's +10dmg. Omitting the explanation (like needing to be adjacent to use LS Assault - which was another one that people tried to pull with Mara Jedi), does not qualify.

If you already knew that, just recognize I'm explaining it to anyone else who might not understand it.

Rules issues should not be up for community vote. There is no rules from WOTC that need to be changed at this time.

really? the community shouldn't have any say in rules. nice.

and I don't give a rat's crap about WOTC since they no longer support the SWM line.