5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:I need to fidget with the build a little bit to get time to go as a scar talent, it with enhance force leap as a maneuver lets characters dodge big explosions.
Not really, but why let the rules stand in the way of munchkinism now.
Just now, HappyDaze said:Not really, but why let the rules stand in the way of munchkinism now.
We have a different interpretation of the rules and back at you munchkin, Munchkinism has a lot to do with ruleslawyering and little to do with power gaming.
2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:We have a different interpretation of the rules and back at you munchkin, Munchkinism has a lot to do with ruleslawyering and little to do with power gaming.
I interpret "a Move maneuver to mean exactly what it says. You interpret it to mean any maneuver that allows movement. The rules make it clear that you are wrong. Note the specific capitalization of "Move" in the text for the talent, just as when the rules differentiate a Melee attack from a melee attack.
17 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:I interpret "a Move maneuver to mean exactly what it says. You interpret it to mean any maneuver that allows movement. The rules make it clear that you are wrong. Note the specific capitalization of "Move" in the text for the talent, just as when the rules differentiate a Melee attack from a melee attack.
Easily explained as a typo but even then Rules as intended always trumps rules as written and I have a hard time imagining the game designers intended to exclude using force leap and time to go to get clear of an explosion. I submitted a question to the devs about this a while back but haven't gotten an answer back yet. In the meantime, this level of rules lawyering strongly suggests that you are a munchkin.
3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:Easily explained as a typo but even then Rules as intended always trumps rules as written and I have a hard time imagining the game designers intended to exclude using force leap and time to go to get clear of an explosion. I submitted a question to the devs about this a while back but haven't gotten an answer back yet. In the meantime, this level of rules lawyering strongly suggests that you are a munchkin.
I accept your surrender.
11 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:I accept your surrender.
So you admit to being delusional? Glad we're clear on that.
I on the other hand have found the official rules to make a great deal of sense (the rules aren't always good, e.g. sensors and crafting) but then again I haven't been trying to rules lawyer. Just saying.
Edited by EliasWindrider28 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:No, you attack me rather than look at the actual wording of the rules, and you then agree that my interpretation is correct, but then try to argue that it must not be intended that way or is a typo...
You conceded twice with that one post. You might want to accept your failure with some dignity
I guess someone lacking common sense could come to ridiculous conclusions such as those. Unfortunately for you this game isn't kind to rules lawyers.
Would or would I not be correct to infer from this post
that a lot of things in this game don't work the way you think they should?
Edited by EliasWindrider46 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:I guess someone lacking common sense could come to ridiculous conclusions such as those. Unfortunately for you this game isn't kind to rules lawyers.
Would or would I not be correct to infer from this post
that a lot of things in this game don't work the way you think they should?
Your confusing my dislike of some parts of the game with my understanding of the rules.
14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:Your confusing my dislike of some parts of the game with my understanding of the rules.
Well you don't have a good track record of being on the side of eventual dev rulings. I find it ironic that you still think that a rules lawyer dissection of the text on the page has high odds of resulting in the official interpretation of the rules, especially given the overwhelming historical precedent of devs coming down on the side of common sense.
I'd argue you could use Force Leap or Free Running/Improved Free Running.. So you could run up the side of the building to avoid the explosion.
Its purely a rule of cool thing. Then again I was the guy who threw himself off a cliff and punched an acid blooded lizard thing all the way down only to use the corpse for my impossible fall landing
49 minutes ago, Decorus said:I'd argue you could use Force Leap or Free Running/Improved Free Running.. So you could run up the side of the building to avoid the explosion.
Its purely a rule of cool thing. Then again I was the guy who threw himself off a cliff and punched an acid blooded lizard thing all the way down only to use the corpse for my impossible fall landing
I love that sentry talent I've been debating about switching out jedi padawan for sentry... but I don't have the xp to make it out.... sentry would be the 7th spec for the steelhand adept/martial artist, padawan, padawan survivor, knight, niman disciple build I posted if I could go up to 2500 xp... I would like 1 more dedications to get brawn up to 4.
3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:Well you don't have a good track record of being on the side of eventual dev rulings. I find it ironic that you still think that a rules lawyer dissection of the text on the page has high odds of resulting in the official interpretation of the rules, especially given the overwhelming historical precedent of devs coming down on the side of common sense.
I can't help it that the developers can't/won't follow the rules that they put in their books. I think that their "sure, do whatever" approach sucks; it's way too loose and shows that they really don't care how the game is being played, only that they sell more product. Still, I haven't seen any errata (and I don't care about their inconsistent email answers anymore) that makes me think this should work any different from the way its written.
Edited by HappyDaze55 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:I can't help it that the developers can't/won't follow the rules that they pt in their books. I think that their "sure, do whatever" approach sucks and is way too loose and shows that they really doubt care how the game is played, only that the sell product. Still, I haven't seen any errata (and I don't care about their inconsistent email answers anymore) that makes me think this should work any different from the way its written.
If you use a little common sense, then the rules are a whole lot more consistent than you're making them out to be. It's almost if the rules weren't written by rules layers but by people who were more concerned about the stories the rules should help you tell.
The choice in front of you is that after recognizing that dev rulings aren't "consistent" with your rules lawyer dissection of written text whether you continue to gripe and moan about the devs not being consistent WITH YOUR METHOD OF INTERPRETATION or whether you accept that the rules are intended to codify generally consistent narrative elements and themes and thereby get to benefit from/enjoy the consistency of those narrative elements and themes.
In other words the system is intended to follow a generally consistent set of principles that the text in the book is suboptimal at expressing. Despite that suboptimal expression and because of the good core principles, this is, in my opinion, the best edition of the star wars rpg to date.
Edited by EliasWindrider5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:If you use a little common sense, then the rules are a whole lot more consistent than you're making them out to be. It's almost if the rules weren't written by rules layers but by people who were more concerned about the stories the rules should help you tell.
The choice in front of you is that after recognizing that dev rulings aren't "consistent" with your rules lawyer dissection of written text whether you continue to gripe and moan about the devs not being consistent WITH YOUR METHOD OF INTERPRETATION or whether you accept that the rules are intended to codify generally consistent narrative elements and themes and thereby get to benefit from/enjoy the consistency of those narrative elements and themes.
In other words the system is intended to follow a generally consistent set of principles that the text in the book is suboptimal at expressing. Despite that suboptimal expression and because of the good core principles, this is, in my opinion, the best edition of the star wars rpg to date.
You really do try every possible way to redirect away from the fact that the rules as written do not support your interpretation.
As for the rest of your attacks on my lack of common sense and inability to accept the views of an FFG apologist...
4 hours ago, HappyDaze said:You really do try every possible way to redirect away from the fact that the rules as written do not support your interpretation.
As for the rest of your attacks on my lack of common sense and inability to accept the views of an FFG apologist...
You probably aren't the absolute last person to get to claim the title of being a FFG apologist, but you are pretty close to the end of the list.
You need to get more meta, the official interpretation of ffg consistently comes down as rules as intended not a rules as written. If you try to rules lawyer dissect "rules as written" to exploit or sidestep rules as intended, then you're approaching ffg star wars "wrong" (where "wrong" = frequently contrary to official interpretation). It's really hard to be right when you're playing the wrong game (take that as a meta statement)
On 4/28/2019 at 4:02 AM, HappyDaze said:
That applies just as much to you as well Happy.
3 hours ago, Decorus said:That applies just as much to you as well Happy.
Reading comprehension is now opinion?
54 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:Reading comprehension is now opinion?
In your case, yes
Reading Comprehension is always an opinion.
For instance Time to Go lets you as an Incidental take a move maneuver only to get out of the blast radius or take cover.
Using Force Leap has zero game balance issues with that. As a matter of fact you might just screw yourself into staying or taking conflict from a bad roll.
I'm not seeing how this affects the game in anyway shape or form. There is nothing to be gained from using Time to Go with Force Leap other then to look cooler escaping the explosion.
So basically your argument is another guy's opinion is wrong, because your opinion is the correct one.
Only if your opinion was the correct one then Elias wouldn't have stated a differing opinion.
4 minutes ago, Decorus said:Reading Comprehension is always an opinion.
For instance Time to Go lets you as an Incidental take a move maneuver only to get out of the blast radius or take cover.
Using Force Leap has zero game balance issues with that. As a matter of fact you might just screw yourself into staying or taking conflict from a bad roll.
I'm not seeing how this affects the game in anyway shape or form. There is nothing to be gained from using Time to Go with Force Leap other then to look cooler escaping the explosion.
So basically your argument is another guy's opinion is wrong, because your opinion is the correct one.
Only if your opinion was the correct one then Elias wouldn't have stated a differing opinion.
No, a correct reading of the talent says it allows a Move maneuver, not any maneuver to move. There is a difference.
Funny thing that Force Leap is a Move Maneuver so is Free Running.
Free Running is very clear its a Move Maneuver.
Now please explain how using either breaks the game or in anyway alters what the end effect is.
The answer nothing changes.
You are quibbling about wording that in no way changes what happens with time to go.
Edited by Decorus1 minute ago, Decorus said:Funny thing that Force Leap is a Move Maneuver so is Free Running.
Free Running is very clear its a Move Maneuver.
Freerunning is an incidental used "before performing a Move maneuver" so it would ordinarily be fine, but it is not an Out of Turn incidental so it cannot be used with Time to Go unless you are reacting to an explosive you are setting off on your own turn (which can come up when using grenades as your close combat weapon).
The "force leap" is a use of a Force power (Enhance) that normally takes an action. With the upgrade, it can be done as a maneuver, but it is still a use of a Force power, not the Move maneuver. It moves the user by its own rules rather than via a Move maneuver.
What its a Move Maneuver. Its a distinction without a difference. And Once again thats like your opinion man and completely invalid.
4 minutes ago, Decorus said:What its a Move Maneuver. Its a distinction without a difference. And Once again thats like your opinion man and completely invalid.
It's not an opinion at all. The Move maneuver is clearly defined on page 208 of the Force and Destiny Core Rulebook. There are other ways of moving besides using a Move maneuver, but these other ways are not what Time to Go allows.
Please name one way to move that is not a move maneuver. Oh wait all the ways to move are move maneuvers. Your just plain wrong.
Please continue to prove yourself completely wrong.