Rules changes that we will not be adopting

[PhoenixGamesUs]

In an effort to restore a semblance of game balance and simplicity, we will be ignoring the following rules changes in our Saturday tournaments:
1. Stealth only being usable half of the time even though you paid full points for it.
2. Wild Card Team Abilities only being changeable every other turn, even though you paid full points for it. (This was supposed to simplify things? Instead of 'Usable before and after an action is resolved', now it's 'Usable as a free action, which means you can't use it on an opponent's turn because free actions can't be used on opponent's turns...[Edit: Prob Control is not a free action, though it once was]. Oh, and you can switch teams any number of times on your turn, even though you really can't use any other free action more than once in a turn'. *sigh smh* )
3. This convoluted Theme Team bracket system thing. (Man, this streamlining thing went out the window fast...) Both requirements and Prob usage totals will remain as they were.
4. The allowance of characters on different elevations to close combat each other as long as they're on ladders. (Again, simpler, really? What's easier than 'close combat attacks can't be made on different elevations'?)

And we won't even legitimize the notion that anywhere in the rules lurks a hidden approval of TK-attacking a character in Stealth.
Per the Powers and Abilities Card: "If A is an object and B (the destination square) is occupied by an opposing character, this character may make a ranged combat attack against B (the destination square?!), dealing object damage....."
P. 22 of the 2011 rulebook: "ATTACK: Part of an action that includes an attack roll to determine whether one character hits another."
First, you can't attack a square. Second, you can't damage a square. Third, ALL ranged attacks against a character require line of sight, barring a Special Power, Trait, or Team Ability that specifically supersedes that rule.

This is NOT a flame. This post is strictly for the information of our players, with the hope that other event judges - and players - find the resolve to protect the integrity of the game and work to prevent its erosion. This was a great game, and enough is enough. It seems as if nearly every change made to the game since last summer has been meant to reshape everything that it was up to that point. We had seen a drop in participation already and we're not even a month into the new rules. Now, we are obligated to do whatever is needed to keep players enthusiastic about the game. We hope others do the same.

[Uberman]

Wouldn't your decision to house-rule away new rules in favour of older versions in the name of simplicity have the net result of causing more complications?

I mean, hey, your game, your rules, go nuts with the house rules. I just think most of your complaints about the non-simplification stems more from your clinging to the old rules rather than dumping them and re-learning the new ones. Because, yes, the new ones are simpler. [And the 'paying for stuff' argument is sorta null because it could easily be argued in a lot of ways that the stuff they changed was undercosted prior to these changes, and/or the change doesn't really impact the overall value of the power.]

[Sensualninja]

Based on you're descriptions of the rule changes I would say you don't have a very serious grasp on the rules in general anyway.

[krusticlese]

So... did your players vote on this, or did you decide to institute these because you simply don't like the new rules?

I ask because ignoring new rules puts your players at a *huge* disatvantage when going to play at other venues. Personally, I want my boys to be the best damn players in the country, not just at one venue.

[Sensualninja]

Wouldn't your decision to house-rule away new rules in favour of older versions in the name of simplicity have the net result of causing more complications?

I mean, hey, your game, your rules, go nuts with the house rules. I just think most of your complaints about the non-simplification stems more from your clinging to the old rules rather than dumping them and re-learning the new ones. Because, yes, the new ones are simpler. [And the 'paying for stuff' argument is sorta null because it could easily be argued in a lot of ways that the stuff they changed was undercosted prior to these changes, and/or the change doesn't really impact the overall value of the power.]

exactly, like the Stealth change actually makes Stealth better for the player using it. They no longer need to remember to "Shut it Off" before they attack so they can prob a roll made by Red Hood for example.


Also, Prob isn't an action.

[Harpua]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Purple"]In an effort to restore a semblance of game balance and simplicity, we will be ignoring the following rules changes in our Saturday tournaments:
1. Stealth only being usable half of the time even though you paid full points for it.
That depends on what you consider to be full points and whether or not you consider whatever was paid to have been too little in the first place.
2. Wild Card Team Abilities only being changeable every other turn, even though you paid full points for it. (This was supposed to simplify things? Instead of 'Usable before and after an action is resolved'
Instead of?
That isn't even how it worked in the old rulebook. You could only ever change in response to a declared action.
, now it's 'Usable as a free action, which means you can't use it on an opponent's turn because free actions can't be used on opponent's turns...well, except Prob Control, that's a free action that you can use on their turn.
Probability Control is not an action.
Oh, and you can switch teams any number of times on your turn, even though you really can't use any other free action more than once in a turn'. *sigh smh* )
Would you prefer that the general rule for free actions be fully applied here? That would make it so that you pick your TA once on your turn and keep that untl your next turn.

4. The allowance of characters on different elevations to close combat each other as long as they're on stairs. (Again, simpler, really? What's easier than 'close combat attacks can't be made on different elevations'?)
There's no change here actually. You could do that under the 2010 rulebook and all the back to at least the Universe rulebook. The only change is that ladders now work similarly.

And I'm not even legitimizing the insane notion that anywhere in the rules lurks a hidden approval of TK-attacking a character in Stealth. Per the Powers and Abilities Card: "If A is an object and B (the destination square) is occupied by an opposing character, this character may make a ranged combat attack against B (the destination square), dealing object damage....."
P. 22 of the 2011 rulebook: "ATTACK: Part of an action that includes an attack roll to determine whether one character hits another."
First, you can't attack a square. Second, you can't damage a square. Third, ALL ranged attacks against a character require line of sight, barring a Special Power, Trait, or Team Ability that specifically supersedes that rule.
Did you see the PG entry on this? You draw a line of fire to the square (so Stealth never comes into play), but you make the attack roll against the figure in the square.

[Battletank900]

Because, yes, the new ones are simpler. And the 'paying for stuff' argument is sorta null because it could easily be argued in a lot of ways that the stuff they changed was undercosted prior to these changes, and/or the change doesn't really impact the overall value of the power.

He's right. I think you are over-complicating matters and should reconsider. Let your players do what they want within the rules or they will be play somewhere else.

[Uberman]

To be fair, I agree with the Stealth V. TK thing. That's a silly interpretation of a badly worded power.

[Jarimy123]

I think we all can come to some general conclusions from your post about why your attendance is dropping. It's definitely not because of rules changes that were made by Wizkids.

[DucksFlying81]

I don't think you're wrong to be frustrated--I know I am frustrated by many of the new rules. But it will only make things worse if you try to hold on to the old rules, especially if you're only holding on to some of them. It is what it is, and your players will learn and adjust to the new rules if you give them a chance.

[PhoenixGamesUs]

We had initially decided to not respond to any of these replies, so as to avoid the inevitable degradation into a flame war. Plus, most replies were just individual opinions, which people are granted. But after consideration, this one warranted some corrections, as it makes the attempt to sound authoritative.That depends on what you consider to be full points and whether or not you consider whatever was paid to have been too little in the first place.
This isn't a relevant point. Whether you or I deem a power adequately priced is simply a topic of philosophy. What's at issue is the value of a figure as a function of utility to economy. In other words, a figure performing at proportionate levels to other figures whose effects did not change. I'm speaking of absolute values in this case.Instead of? That isn't even how it worked in the old rulebook. You could only ever change in response to a declared action.Forgive me. My presumptive wording was confusing. I was conjecturing an alternative, simpler change to the rule, not referring to a past one.
Probability Control is not an action.
That is correct. But it most definitely once was, yet another in a perpetual cycle of rules changes that requires unending reeducation.Would you prefer that the general rule for free actions be fully applied here? That would make it so that you pick your TA once on your turn and keep that untl your next turn. *sigh* No, sir. What I would prefer is that it NOT be, inexplicably, a free action at all, thereby reducing the clutter of free actions that NECA insists on littering the field with.
There's no change here actually. You could do that under the 2010 rulebook and all the back to at least the Universe rulebook. The only change is that ladders now work similarly.
I did mistype here. I intended to say " ladders" where I said "stairs". Did you see the PG entry on this? You draw a line of fire to the square (so Stealth never comes into play), but you make the attack roll against the figure in the square.*ahem* Yes, I did see that. Reread what you just wrote. Do you not see the indefensible dichotomy of drawing a line of sight to a square, but unfairly attacking the character that occupies it? Your reply here doesn't acknowledge what I wrote at all, which was to perforate the nonsensical PG ruling using NECA's own rules as they're worded.