6 hours ago, Amanal said:

See how much fun he is when your opponent takes a flame to the card, I may leave the dice well alone, who knows what you may inhale burning one of those puppies. Though for fun I do have access to a laser cutting machine, Jar Jar will make a very good test subject.

I really like Saw, the idea of just loading up on cards that cost horrible amounts and randomly draw them out of your own hand just seems like a very un-hero type of thing to do. I think he may have to take a trip to the balance of the force section of the rules though. A strange version of Poe/Maz where you rid yourself of 2-3 cards then apply those specials.

The second I saw Saw (hehe) I thought he would need adjusted. He seems like the most consistent and value costed card to date imho. With the right builds and pairings this guy will be an absolute wrecking ball.

Yeah but his damage is reigned in by the fact its all indirect.

He will be hitting harder than Vader but Vader tends to slam someone to near-death in one go, while Saw will be spread out. The more targets there are the harder it'll be for him to kill anyone.

He'll definitely be powerful and commonly used but i dont think he'll be OP or anything.

Yeah, Saw seemed pretty oddly costed to me when I first saw him. I'm interested to see how much support/mitigation is featured for indirect damage in Legacies.

1 hour ago, Vineheart01 said:

Yeah but his damage is reigned in by the fact its all indirect.

He will be hitting harder than Vader but Vader tends to slam someone to near-death in one go, while Saw will be spread out. The more targets there are the harder it'll be for him to kill anyone.

He'll definitely be powerful and commonly used but i dont think he'll be OP or anything.

You realize you can discard to reroll till you get down to your 4-5 cost cards and use your special to do 10+ damage with his specials right? Like i said, the right build will make this guy feel broken.

Didnt even notice he doesnt specify opponent.

Not sure if i'd want to build a deck with expensive cards for his ability though. You'd have to have like half the deck as throwaway cards for it to be reliable.

21 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Didnt even notice he doesnt specify opponent.

Not sure if i'd want to build a deck with expensive cards for his ability though. You'd have to have like half the deck as throwaway cards for it to be reliable.

You can still pack in a great deal of mitigation. Just use it before you resolve the specials and discard the extra. If your doing 8+ dmg for free from him alone much less his partner, the game won't last long anyhow.

4 hours ago, DarthBlade said:

The second I saw Saw (hehe) I thought he would need adjusted. He seems like the most consistent and value costed card to date imho. With the right builds and pairings this guy will be an absolute wrecking ball.

eSaw/eHera

Pack in a bunch of expensive vehicles, add C3PO to get your specials? Emperors Throne Room battlefield

16 minutes ago, wurms said:

eSaw/eHera

Pack in a bunch of expensive vehicles, add C3PO to get your specials? Emperors Throne Room battlefield

I like it. For added fun, if your opponent puts a little too much damage on one character 3PO can resolve Saw’s damage as Ranged or Melee.

2 hours ago, wurms said:

eSaw/eHera

Pack in a bunch of expensive vehicles, add C3PO to get your specials? Emperors Throne Room battlefield

Add cunning too, never hurts to have more chances to roll a special, put the cunning on your small character. R2-P2, Emo's and many other decks play with hard hitting specials so even after Saw dies the problem remains for your opponent.

Funny thought, you can have the Millenium Falcon in the deck as 4 cards, the 5 cost in Destiny and the 4 cost in Legends.

7 minutes ago, Amanal said:

Add cunning too, never hurts to have more chances to roll a special, put the cunning on your small character. R2-P2, Emo's and many other decks play with hard hitting specials so even after Saw dies the problem remains for your opponent.

Funny thought, you can have the Millenium Falcon in the deck as 4 cards, the 5 cost in Destiny and the 4 cost in Legends.

Cunning is yellow character only so his partner will need to be yellow (which is fine, just saying)

Unfortunately you cannot have 4 Falcons in the same deck. Even though it's a different card, since it holds the same Title you can only include 2 in your deck. I was corrected on this once the 2nd Falcon was spoiled.

Jar-Jar is actually pretty simple to resolve:

Player A action - says Player B must activate Jar Jar

Player B rolls out Jar Jar. After that both players must reroll any dice not matching a symbol on Jar Jar's dice.

Back to Player A for next action

Jar Jar is going to troll the daylights out of aggro decks.

Just now, Joelist said:

Jar-Jar is actually pretty simple to resolve:

Player A action - says Player B must activate Jar Jar

Player B rolls out Jar Jar. After that both players must reroll any dice not matching a symbol on Jar Jar's dice.

Back to Player A for next action

Jar Jar is going to troll the daylights out of aggro decks.

I could be wrong, but doesn't your opponent activating your Jar jar count as your opponents action only and not yours? Thus you could activate another one of your characters right after.

2 minutes ago, DarthBlade said:

I could be wrong, but doesn't your opponent activating your Jar jar count as your opponents action only and not yours? Thus you could activate another one of your characters right after.

Thats what it sounds like to me, JarJar wastes your opponent's action, not yours.

Jar Jar with chance cube? Have your opponent activate jar jar, reroll the inevitable blank from chance cube, get resources on your turn. Thank your opponent for getting you free resources while you deploy the Falcon

That is what I described does - your action is "you must activate Jar Jar". His card specifically states the player may use an action to force Jar Jar activation. He then activates Jar Jar (his action that you forced) and the reroll effect resolves. Then it is back to you for an action (like activating your own character).

30 minutes ago, Joelist said:

That is what I described does - your action is "you must activate Jar Jar". His card specifically states the player may use an action to force Jar Jar activation. He then activates Jar Jar (his action that you forced) and the reroll effect resolves. Then it is back to you for an action (like activating your own character).

No.

Lets say your opponent has jar jar:

Your action is to force your opponent to activate jarjar.

All jarjars reroll nonsense happens.

Then it is your opponents turn.

No, you are resolving an ongoing ability as per p17 so you open a queue and all that stuff also found on p17.

So like when you play doubt you opponent than has the next action.

FFG once again makes a confusing card. This will need to be FAQ since people get confused by this card but it sounds like Player A would use their action to force the activation. That is one whole action. So if player A force speed, then forced player B to activate Jar Jar, player A still has one more action to respond to the results. He is basically a free reroll for someone once a turn.

Ffs this doesnt need an FAQ... Or shouldn't anyway. Peoples reading comprehension skills are just poor.

it doesnt need a faq....

Its worded literally the same as EVERY OTHER FORCED ACTION except Coercion, which does waste the player's next action because it actually SAYS that.

Confidence, Doubt, and Anticipate for example force the opponent to resolve dice, but it is NOT their action for their turn.

Always amusing seeing someone opine on the simplicity and obviousness of a card and then get it wrong. But that still doesn't mean it needs an FAQ.

- Player A takes an action to force Player B to activate JarJar. Player B rolls in JarJar. Both players reroll per the triggered ability.
- Player A's turn is now done, and it is Player B's turn.
- Extra actions fit in just as they normally would for any other action.

It is FFG's job to clearly communicate to everyone what their intent is. It is not a matter of reading comprehension rather clearly communicating the intent of the card to a large audience with diverse backgrounds and often English as a second language. Granted that is a difficult task at times but there is no need to get after people for not understanding what FFG's intent is when they clearly read the card several times and still couldn't figure it out. That isn't a problem when cards are not well written. Keep in mind, just because something is clear to you doesn't mean it should be clear to everyone else and you might actually be wrong.

At some point FFG will need to do a database of their cards and have mini explanations of their cards so it is clear to the intent of the card. This is done for many different games like this. I do agree a large FAQ isn't desirable but with so many cards being published each year, it will happen.

58 minutes ago, Mep said:

That isn't a problem when cards are not well written.

Yes, it is still a problem. Communication issues can and do originate with the reader as well as the author. There will always be SOMEONE who misreads. Your standard would literally require explanatory text for every single card, because questions like "It says I can resolve one die, can it be a modifier?" and "Can I resolve another die than the one I turned with Force Strike?" still get asked. Despite the naming, "frequent" is not primary consideration for whether or not a question deserves to be in the FAQ.

I'm not the biggest fan of FFG's lack of attention to templating, but this isn't a problem case. The card is perfectly clear. The intent is perfectly clear. Creating a massive, cluttered document in an attempt to make sure we pander to a second-grade reading level does nothing good for the game.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Yes, it is still a problem. Communication issues can and do originate with the reader as well as the author. There will always be SOMEONE who misreads. Your standard would literally require explanatory text for every single card, because questions like "It says I can resolve one die, can it be a modifier?" and "Can I resolve another die than the one I turned with Force Strike?" still get asked. Despite the naming, "frequent" is not primary consideration for whether or not a question deserves to be in the FAQ.

I'm not the biggest fan of FFG's lack of attention to templating, but this isn't a problem case. The card is perfectly clear. The intent is perfectly clear. Creating a massive, cluttered document in an attempt to make sure we pander to a second-grade reading level does nothing good for the game.

That page 13 rule about additional actions was also clearly written and you didn't understand it. Yeah, sometimes people are clueless or maybe they just need things to be said a different way to get the point across, i,e. how one effectively communicates. Jar Jar is clear to me, but if people don't get it, probably because it is a bit awkwardly worded, which it is.

Netrunnerdb,com, while unofficial, is actually an really good database and the cards listed there get both official FAQ comments and unofficial comments about them by the developers. Wizard of the Cost also has their own official card database for magic cards which contains official clarifications for each of their cards which received one. That is the kind of tool this game needs, so when you don't get something, or I don't get something or when everyone you know and everyone here that doesn't always get something they can look the card up. SWDestinydb just doesn't do this.

This is FFG, they don't always write stuff well, so yeah, I am always willing to give someone the benefit that what they are reading just wasn't communicated clearly. Here you have one person taking an action which causing the other to activate a character, which is also on the lists of actions. Not to hard to figure out where that confusion comes from just like when people "immediately" took an additional action rather than finishing their current action, even if the rule book clearly stated they needed to do that.

This game, not so well written or communicated. No one should be bashed for not understanding what the **** FFG is trying to get across.

9 hours ago, DarthBlade said:

Cunning is yellow character only so his partner will need to be yellow (which is fine, just saying)

Unfortunately you cannot have 4 Falcons in the same deck. Even though it's a different card, since it holds the same Title you can only include 2 in your deck. I was corrected on this once the 2nd Falcon was spoiled.

My deepest appreciation, thanks for kindly correcting the errors. ?

4 hours ago, Mep said:

At some point FFG will need to do a database of their cards and have mini explanations of their cards so it is clear to the intent of the card. This is done for many different games like this. I do agree a large FAQ isn't desirable but with so many cards being published each year, it will happen.

What a FAQ should address is those cards that create enough confusion as to actually be a problem where players and TO's can not properly address the text on the card and the game rules and act in a manner that would be a problem. I am more than happy to get questions, and I'll try my best to answer them as I have, for me this is how I learn the ins and outs of the rules and get better in my understanding of the rules. I also understand that a lot of people have learned to play with their opponent teaching them and they may not even understand there is a rulebook out there.

But, let's not try to make the FAQ about the lack of knowledge, you should be looking at the rules and what there is of the FAQ to see if there is a similar problem that is addressed that would get you the understanding you want. Does Cantina Brawl open the possibility for looping from player to player? Where does a dice go that is removed? There are many potential questions, but their existence alone doesn't mean that the community on the whole can't answer them.

We may have complaints about the template and some of the rules, but so far I have been corrected where needed and really haven't had an issue at any of the events, home games or weekly tournaments I have played in.

I think that if you build a verbose FAQ all you do is increase the miscommunication because you are making more of something that is explained and making sense to a majority of players.

Thanks. I went back and read the RRG on Ongoing Abilities. The part that threw me off was where it says "may take an action". And then of course activation is an action too - just as Mep said. Add in it saying "force you to activate this character" and the confusion source is apparent.

I "think" I get why they stipulated that the owning player is doing the activation as with cards like Fast Hands dice could also be immediately resolved here. In fact, Fast Hands on Jar Jar is interesting. If I am understanding things right (and being on meds right now I'm not sure) the Fast Hands would resolve after JarJar's card ability.