|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 20, 2007 16:06:02 GMT -5
See, it wouldn't bother me at a convention. Someone would say "I cut off his head with a leg sweep." I'd say "no you didn't." If necessary, I'd laugh and say it again, toss them a printout of the handbook, and say "start reading."
|
|
|
Post by boneheadiii on Feb 20, 2007 16:42:58 GMT -5
By the wording on the card, you could play this card with ANY attack that can be made a Power Blow, regardless of it covering an upper square. The wording doesn't say anything about Power Blow or the need for the attack to be a Power Blow either, you're reading that into it. And at the same time arguing that other well known restrictions don't apply just because it doesn't state them specifically either. Forgive me if somebody else mentioned this and I'm reiterating... But the card doesn't specifically state that it has to be a non-special attack either, and common sense AND general rules tell you it can't be a special attack. So why would the general rule that the attack must be an upper attack be overridden just because the card failed to state it? Rule book says a special attack can't be a power blow unless the card itself makes it possible (Kurgan MHS). Are you arguing that you can play MHS on ANY attack? I think you're just trying to bend the rules if so. I think it's pretty clear to most of us without a company ruling. The card's omission of pertenant details and poor wording doesn't necessarily "override" existing well established rules. Like Thorr said, it would have to specifically state which general rules it was overriding to override them.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 20, 2007 16:54:20 GMT -5
Yes, it's been mentioned and you're reiterating.
|
|
|
Post by gonzoron on Feb 20, 2007 16:59:37 GMT -5
Just figured I'd quote my post from the yahoogroups list verbatim here, since the question originated here:
think the rule is pretty clear, and agree with James based on his arguments on the forum. I'm not Steve Crow and my ruling is not official in any way, but I was on the 1e rules comittee and I worked on the Addendum, if that gives me any credentials. A Head Shot can only be an Upper Attack. MHS would have to specifically override that rule to let you do otherwise. The only denial it overrides specifically is being prevented from playing a Special Card. If it was supposed to let you make a non-Upper Attack a Head Shot it would say so. Among the other rules it does NOT let you break are: making an attack that can't be a power blow into a HS playing it in conjunction with an Exertion to find an attack and then pulling a Special Attack from that exertion. Making a HS that is your second power blow when you've already made one PB. Making a HS with the SAEC Holy Ground Location in play preventing you from making Head Shots playing a non-hidden attack with Pedestrian-Hidden in play playing an attack when you have lost all your attacks due to Dodge, etc. playing a non-ranged attack when you backed away playing an attack when your opponent prevented you from attacking via Pedestrian (no attacks) Playing an attack during your defense phase playing an attack after you exerted already in your attack phase ** Playing an attack during your opponent's turn ** Playing an attack during your may do / must do / sweep / abilty adjustment or draw/discard phase. ** ** These last three open up a whole new kettle of fish as to whether or not you can play an event at those times if the event says 'You may play this card even if you cannot play a Special Card.' The common sense answer is of course no, but I'm sure it could be argued, especially since the wording doesn't say 'You may play this card even if you are prevented from playing a Special Card.' Thankfully, as far as I know, there aren't any other cards with that wording that don't also require something like an attack in conjunction, as MHS does.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Feb 20, 2007 21:15:56 GMT -5
You know what, you are missing the f**king point!!!!!!!!!!! I don't give a nuts about your opinion number one so quit talking to me like an idiot!!!!!!!!!!! This whole line of questioning was to have the COMPANY answer since they ARE running the tournament. So you can take your bullnuts slamming session and shove it!!!!!!!!! I can definately see why MLE is not sanctioned since it is not very impressive and obviously more broken than 1ed ever thought of being. Example: Politics. And since this is nothing more than MLE members patting each other on the ass and slamming anyone who does'nt think like you ass clowns. As for the moderator, you are a dumbass and have a lot of balls asking us to cool it down but not telling your little buddies to quell the bullnuts!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was about getting the new company to see if they will support the f**king game, and it is pretty apparant to any idiot that they have no desire to do so otherwise they would have spoken up, unless of course they obviously DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT MLE SAID OR SAYS!!!!! Headswillroll
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Feb 20, 2007 21:18:24 GMT -5
Obviously "nuts" means " S H I T "
|
|
|
Post by rplantau on Feb 20, 2007 21:41:37 GMT -5
Ok some more 2c worth:
As far as I am concerned the various opionions of past designers/1ed/MLE whoever else has some sort of cred in Highlander circles (seems to be almost a competition about this) mean zero in terms of official 2ed rules.
Published design team rulings and official written 2ed rules are what count for me. Anything else is just opinion, quite possibly the right opinion, but not official or to be relied upon no matter the relative Highlander cred or otherwise of the poster.
I'm sure our playing group - once we start - will work with whatever we think is sensible to fill the gaps and we are fortunately unlikely to have the problem of design team members or their friends showing up to play with a new rule intepretation. I can understand how this would be annoying, it's sort of like insider trading.
Now if a design team person would show up (*sound of wind whistling*), they could give answers to shut down a couple of these threads, which seem to be becoming more about egos rather than issues.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 20, 2007 21:42:56 GMT -5
I think this thread has seen enough.
In the future folks, please remember that the profanity filter is not turned on so that people can show how smart they are in getting around it.
If an official answer from anyone on the current design team can be given, that'd be great. Please post it in a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by mcrow on Feb 21, 2007 10:27:24 GMT -5
Also, Lang, you can consider yourself formally warned. We do not accept presonal and directed attacks on these boards.Headwillroll, keep your language respectable.
|
|