Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Marvel Dice Masters: Avengers vs. X-Men» Forums » Rules

Subject: Wiz Kidz needs help writing comp rules ... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Keebler Powell
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mb
This is a quote from the newly posted comp rules:



1.2.2
Games in Matches: The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack. The player who loses a game within a match
may decide to go first or second in the next game of the match instead of randomizing which player goes first. Players should
randomize who goes first after a tie.


This means that the player that goes first can not attack. EVER!

I believe the intent is that the player who goes first can not attack first turn.But that is surely NOT the way it was written.

I know Wiz Kidz has a lot on their plate; but we have been waiting for comp rules for a while now, and I can't get through half the first page with out face palming my face through the back of my head.

I just stopped reading the document there.

If there is anything I should actually take from the rest of it, someone please post it below this.

I am to let down to read any further.


I am half tempted to write a comp rules myself. (But it would really kill me to know I was doing something someone else was getting paid to not do).


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice catch. I'll be sure to build my deck around direct damage. This will give me a huge advantage in the tournament.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Szpyra
United States
CHICAGO
IL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meh. I see what you mean but don't know that it's enough to raise the blood pressure.

You know very well what the intent is and besides, no one ever accused Wizkids of being capable rules writers....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keebler Powell
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mb
loki_tbc wrote:
Meh. I see what you mean but don't know that it's enough to raise the blood pressure.

You know very well what the intent is and besides, no one ever accused Wizkids of being capable rules writers....


The point of comp rules is to remove the need to figure out intent.. Lol


This game is going to be wiz Kidz first "step up or go back to your mom'a basement" game. This game will do amazing things for them with the right support (which they have NOT started off with).



With good comp rules and an organized competitive play system I could see this game having the same tournament structure as Magic or vs, which would really make me extremely happy.

Ie local qualifiers feeding into bigger events with valuable prizes.


Again, a solid comp rules base would be required here. That's something they just don't have.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Keeblerpowell wrote:
This game is going to be wiz Kidz first "step up or go back to your mom'a basement" game.


You overestimate this game's importance and underestimate WizKids own popularity. This is a relatively minor game for them. Their flagship is, and probably always will be, HeroClix. That makes way more for them than most things in the board game market, but even in that market they have some very popular titles including Star Trek Attack Wing, Quarriors, and Mage Knight.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keebler Powell
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mb
lordrahvin wrote:
Keeblerpowell wrote:
This game is going to be wiz Kidz first "step up or go back to your mom'a basement" game.


You overestimate this game's importance and underestimate WizKids own popularity. This is a relatively minor game for them. Their flagship is, and probably always will be, HeroClix. That makes way more for them than most things in the board game market, but even in that market they have some very popular titles including Star Trek Attack Wing, Quarriors, and Mage Knight.



I hope you are right. If they don't expect to much from it and it does just a bit better than they hoped... I will have a fun game to play for a while! Lol
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave M
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Keeblerpowell wrote:
This is a quote from the newly posted comp rules:



1.2.2
Games in Matches: The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack. The player who loses a game within a match
may decide to go first or second in the next game of the match instead of randomizing which player goes first. Players should
randomize who goes first after a tie.


This means that the player that goes first can not attack. EVER!

I believe the intent is that the player who goes first can not attack first turn.But that is surely NOT the way it was written.

I know Wiz Kidz has a lot on their plate; but we have been waiting for comp rules for a while now, and I can't get through half the first page with out face palming my face through the back of my head.

I just stopped reading the document there.

If there is anything I should actually take from the rest of it, someone please post it below this.

I am to let down to read any further.


I am half tempted to write a comp rules myself. (But it would really kill me to know I was doing something someone else was getting paid to not do).



Honestly, I don't think it's a huge deal... I certainly didn't read it that way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Waspinator
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We can guess what they mean by that sentence, but the literal meaning is that the player goes first can never attack. This is a poorly written document.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duncan Idaho
United States
River Vale
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
walterskinnerFBI wrote:

Honestly, I don't think it's a huge deal... I certainly didn't read it that way.


Then you read it wrong. What the OP stated is the literal meaning of what they wrote. And while the intent here might be clear, it's suggestive of there being a larger issue - rules writers who aren't up to the task. How can we be sure that they captured the actual intent of the designers with their other rules, when they obviously flubbed this one?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave M
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Idaho11 wrote:
walterskinnerFBI wrote:

Honestly, I don't think it's a huge deal... I certainly didn't read it that way.


Then you read it wrong. What the OP stated is the literal meaning of what they wrote. And while the intent here might be clear, it's suggestive of there being a larger issue - rules writers who aren't up to the task. How can we be sure that they captured the actual intent of the designers with their other rules, when they obviously flubbed this one?


Because considering it to mean anything else wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

Now, if you want to talk about "poorly written," read 1.2.3. I can't determine in what situation the second item would be used. No game but the third one can end in a tie AND result in players having the same amount of wins and losses unless they're somehow still on the first game when time is called. I don't understand the second bullet at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave M
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Keeblerpowell wrote:
lordrahvin wrote:
Keeblerpowell wrote:
This game is going to be wiz Kidz first "step up or go back to your mom'a basement" game.


You overestimate this game's importance and underestimate WizKids own popularity. This is a relatively minor game for them. Their flagship is, and probably always will be, HeroClix. That makes way more for them than most things in the board game market, but even in that market they have some very popular titles including Star Trek Attack Wing, Quarriors, and Mage Knight.



I hope you are right. If they don't expect to much from it and it does just a bit better than they hoped... I will have a fun game to play for a while! Lol


I tend to agree with you, Keebler... WizKids is a pretty young company, and they're not that big a company, and demand for this first printing far outstripped their usual demand for a Clix set. If WizKids wants to be bigger than using Clix for everything and licensing FlightPath from FFG, then they need to get this right. Otherwise they're going to diminish and that's all that they'll be. I'm rooting for them, mostly because I like this game, but time will tell.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Rabinowitz
United States
Columbia
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This reminds me of a card I once saw which said "Opponent loses next turn" and someone tried to argue this meant "loses the game" rather than "loses a turn".

Rules lawyers can sure be funny. laugh

Anyone who wants to argue that "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack" means "may not attack the whole game" rather than "may not attack on their first turn" is not welcome at my groups. That sort of behavior is ridiculous.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duncan Idaho
United States
River Vale
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kc2dpt wrote:
This reminds me of a card I once saw which said "Opponent loses next turn" and someone tried to argue this meant "loses the game" rather than "loses a turn".

Rules lawyers can sure be funny. laugh

Anyone who wants to argue that "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack" means "may not attack the whole game" rather than "may not attack on their first turn" is not welcome at my groups. That sort of behavior is ridiculous.


That was an early Magic card (Time Walk), which Richard Garfield reworded because it was ambiguous and could mean that the other player lost the game.

And we're not talking gaming groups here - we're talking tournament rules. I agree the behavior is ridiculous, but you can't "de-friend" someone you play against at a tournament.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keebler Powell
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mb
kc2dpt wrote:
This reminds me of a card I once saw which said "Opponent loses next turn" and someone tried to argue this meant "loses the game" rather than "loses a turn".

Rules lawyers can sure be funny. laugh

Anyone who wants to argue that "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack" means "may not attack the whole game" rather than "may not attack on their first turn" is not welcome at my groups. That sort of behavior is ridiculous.



Totally agree with you.

Just keep in mind. At a tournament I would NEVER try something like that. NEVER!

But as written, if my opponent sighted this rule and said I couldn't attack because I went first; I would have no documentation to say otherwise.

I would call him a goober but then I would die and never get to attack.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Marema
United States
Ellisville
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well the good news is that the Tournament Rules have been updated and they now read:

1.2.2
Games in Matches: The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack on their first turn. The player who loses a game within a match may decide to go first or second in the next game of the match instead of randomizing which player goes first. Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


So that's ONE less thing for the rules lawyers to chew on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Galietta III
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just FYI, for everyone who'd rather scream armageddon instead of let the proper person know and wait, they've already fixed it. it now reads "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack on their first turn."

So there you go. This is not the signal of the end of days.

Shoot, ninja'd
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
I design custom dividers, playmats, and cards for various BGG users.
badge
Check my profile page for links to all my posted projects!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wish they would be as quick to update the FAQ whistle
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ICE 0ne
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Valenso wrote:

Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


Aren't ties suppose to be impossible according to the rules? The only time you could tie is if time is called, in which case why would anyone need to randomize after that...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keebler Powell
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mb
Stryyder wrote:
Just FYI, for everyone who'd rather scream armageddon instead of let the proper person know and wait, they've already fixed it. it now reads "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack on their first turn."

So there you go. This is not the signal of the end of days.

Shoot, ninja'd




Who should I have let know? I have sent emails to wiz kids and all I ever get back is "please keep an eye on our site for changes to come" not word for word.


But I am thankful it was corrected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Galietta III
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ICE 0ne wrote:
Valenso wrote:

Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


Aren't ties suppose to be impossible according to the rules? The only time you could tie is if time is called, in which case why would anyone need to randomize after that...


This is comp rules foreshadowing, IMO. With such limited outcomes, cover all your bases, even if they aren't possible with the current setup. There's always a possibility that a card will come out in the future that says "Deal 2 damage to both players" and make ties possible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Szpyra
United States
CHICAGO
IL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Keeblerpowell wrote:
kc2dpt wrote:
This reminds me of a card I once saw which said "Opponent loses next turn" and someone tried to argue this meant "loses the game" rather than "loses a turn".

Rules lawyers can sure be funny. :laugh:

Anyone who wants to argue that "The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack" means "may not attack the whole game" rather than "may not attack on their first turn" is not welcome at my groups. That sort of behavior is ridiculous.



Totally agree with you.

Just keep in mind. At a tournament I would NEVER try something like that. NEVER!

But as written, if my opponent sighted this rule and said I couldn't attack because I went first; I would have no documentation to say otherwise.

I would call him a goober but then I would die and never get to attack.



If your opponent cited that rule, you don't need documentation. You just need to reach across the table and and slap that person for being a douche.

Seriously, if this is even a thing I may put my old fencing glove in my dice masters kit just in case.......
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Wood
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
ICE 0ne wrote:
Valenso wrote:

Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


Aren't ties suppose to be impossible according to the rules? The only time you could tie is if time is called, in which case why would anyone need to randomize after that...

Which rule are you referring to that says ties are supposedly impossible? Easiest example I can think of is both players are at 1 life and the active player rolls a double burst side on Force Beam and does 1 damage to both players. That would result in a tie.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gobeil
msg tools
The Tournament Rules document has been updated by Wizkids it seems.

1.2.2
Games in Matches: The player who goes first in a tournament game may not attack on their first turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ICE 0ne
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Pocolius wrote:
ICE 0ne wrote:
Valenso wrote:

Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


Aren't ties suppose to be impossible according to the rules? The only time you could tie is if time is called, in which case why would anyone need to randomize after that...

Which rule are you referring to that says ties are supposedly impossible? Easiest example I can think of is both players are at 1 life and the active player rolls a double burst side on Force Beam and does 1 damage to both players. That would result in a tie.


I thought there was something in the resolution of effects that said it would prevent ties, but maybe I'm misremembering.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Douglas W
United States
Arroyo Grande
Ca
flag msg tools
mbmb
ICE 0ne wrote:
Pocolius wrote:
ICE 0ne wrote:
Valenso wrote:

Players should randomize who goes first after a tie.


Aren't ties suppose to be impossible according to the rules? The only time you could tie is if time is called, in which case why would anyone need to randomize after that...

Which rule are you referring to that says ties are supposedly impossible? Easiest example I can think of is both players are at 1 life and the active player rolls a double burst side on Force Beam and does 1 damage to both players. That would result in a tie.


I thought there was something in the resolution of effects that said it would prevent ties, but maybe I'm misremembering.

You are correct. The attacking player would simply assign the damage to the opponent first. End of game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.