Blue Stars
- Thread starter CrookedWookie
- Start date
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
scorpioni said:nice and quick
Quick, yes. But it did not address some of the issues we discussed here. Oh well, local choice I guess.
Regards,
Locutus9956
Mongoose
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Oh for the love of Pete!!!
Yes it did! Matt is saying that as LBH suggests the bluestars jump engine is only an exception to the rule on pg. 27 that you cant use engines to leave again after jumping in. Its NOT AN EXCEPTION TO JUMPING OUT = DISENGAGED.
Come on! The rule is pretty clear anyway!
Oh for the love of Pete!!!
Yes it did! Matt is saying that as LBH suggests the bluestars jump engine is only an exception to the rule on pg. 27 that you cant use engines to leave again after jumping in. Its NOT AN EXCEPTION TO JUMPING OUT = DISENGAGED.
Come on! The rule is pretty clear anyway!
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
Locutus9956 said:
Of course... let me see, I have some extra chill pills here...
Regards,
'Hey guess what! I just found out something REALLY cool. A Dilgar ship that deals a Vital systems critical with Pulsars or Bolters automatically destroys the enemy ship!'
'What?'
'Yeah it's not stated in the Masters of Destruction rule that it doesn't HENCE it MUST be so'
'ZOINK'
(sry for being sarcastic but this example is just as logical as this fricking blue star thingy)
'What?'
'Yeah it's not stated in the Masters of Destruction rule that it doesn't HENCE it MUST be so'
'ZOINK'
(sry for being sarcastic but this example is just as logical as this fricking blue star thingy)
Locutus9956
Mongoose
David:
The rule is pretty clear in the first place and yet you ask for a ruling on it. Ok fair enough I can see how it could be misinterpreted if your digging for a dirty little loophole in the rules to exploit (which annoys me at the best of times frankly when people do that...)
Then we get a farnkly pretty clear ruling and your response is 'oh thats a ruling that contradicts the way I want it to work so I shall ignore it and use my own interpretation anyway'. If you want to make up house rules, by all means but claiming its still vauge after a frankly pretty clear ruling is just silly.
and please PLEASE stop signing every post 'regards' its one thing to sign it 'regards, David' after a long post but to post a one short sentence answer (or better yet after a one WORD answer!) and then put 'regards' after it is just irritating. And yes I'm in foul mood but that's besides the point.....
HULK SMASH!!!!!
Edit: Again I know (or at least hope!) your not deliberately trying to wind people up and that I'm overeacting a bit, but you get my point I hope![/quote]
The rule is pretty clear in the first place and yet you ask for a ruling on it. Ok fair enough I can see how it could be misinterpreted if your digging for a dirty little loophole in the rules to exploit (which annoys me at the best of times frankly when people do that...)
Then we get a farnkly pretty clear ruling and your response is 'oh thats a ruling that contradicts the way I want it to work so I shall ignore it and use my own interpretation anyway'. If you want to make up house rules, by all means but claiming its still vauge after a frankly pretty clear ruling is just silly.
and please PLEASE stop signing every post 'regards' its one thing to sign it 'regards, David' after a long post but to post a one short sentence answer (or better yet after a one WORD answer!) and then put 'regards' after it is just irritating. And yes I'm in foul mood but that's besides the point.....
HULK SMASH!!!!!
Edit: Again I know (or at least hope!) your not deliberately trying to wind people up and that I'm overeacting a bit, but you get my point I hope![/quote]
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
Burger said:I wonder if we can drag this out to 4 pages, with the same question being answered repeatedly in different wording?
Is that question rhetorical? No, too easy to get personal with this stuff. Its just a game. As I said earlier, I will be running tourneys and demos. This question has already surfaced within my local group and the Blue Star has yet to hit the table. I like giving definitive answers with rationales when possible. I don't like to assume. It just leads to confusion and more. This is the land of rules lawyers so having precise definition allows me to shoot them down (figuratively of course) without having to use the "because I'm the dad" explanation. Hasn't worked with my Kate since she was five and doesn't work at all with this mob here.
All I was asking for was completeness, not a new addition to the Bible.
Regards,
Locutus9956
Mongoose
David said:Burger said:I wonder if we can drag this out to 4 pages, with the same question being answered repeatedly in different wording?
Is that question rhetorical? No, too easy to get personal with this stuff. Its just a game. As I said earlier, I will be running tourneys and demos. This question has already surfaced within my local group and the Blue Star has yet to hit the table. I like giving definitive answers with rationales when possible. I don't like to assume. It just leads to confusion and more. This is the land of rules lawyers so having precise definition allows me to shoot them down (figuratively of course) without having to use the "because I'm the dad" explanation. Hasn't worked with my Kate since she was five and doesn't work at all with this mob here.
All I was asking for was completeness, not a new addition to the Bible.
Regards,
Fair enough, really am not trying to get personal (its just been one of those weeks.....) so appolgies for snapping! It's best to think of Matt somewhat like Sinclair in many ways though (as regards straight answers) so take the relatively clear ones where you can
Yours sincerly,
Cheers,
Regards,
Thanks,
(looks silly doesnt it
)No, its not rhetorical, it is sarcastic however. The rules as written are clear and comprehensive in this regard, and have been explained many times on this thread, yet still you seem to not understand and want more!David said:Burger said:I wonder if we can drag this out to 4 pages, with the same question being answered repeatedly in different wording?
Is that question rhetorical?
Burger said:No, its not rhetorical, it is sarcastic however. The rules as written are clear and comprehensive in this regard, and have been explained many times on this thread, yet still you seem to not understand and want more!David said:Burger said:I wonder if we can drag this out to 4 pages, with the same question being answered repeatedly in different wording?
Is that question rhetorical?
what rule are we discussing?
lastbesthope
Mongoose
David said:scorpioni said:nice and quick
Quick, yes. But it did not address some of the issues we discussed here. Oh well, local choice I guess.
Regards,
To be fair to David Matt is not the best at giving straight answers, unless you corner him with a dead on yes or no question. Unfortunately this has happened here.
However, David, I would not say it's a alocal choice, as has been said and explained many times, while the Blue Star can create 2 jump points in the same game, this does not give it the ability to withdraw into hyperspace and then return to the battle (unless we get into the special case I mentioned above, and I suspect that Matthew, when cornered sufficiently would rule this out completely as well)
Matt's mantra is "Play the rules as written" (which is what gives the one special case I mention above) and nowhere in the rules, even the Blue Star special rules, does it say that Blue Stars are exempt from the strategic withdrawal rule.
If you play it the way you seem to be interpreting it David, then in my opinion and interpretation of the rules, you're playing it wrong, and it would seem a great many of the sould on here agree with me.
I've emailed Matt again with the following 3 easy yes or no questions that should clarify it. (Please note the important differences in each case about Victory Conditions)
1) In a game where withdrawal to hyperspace IS NOT a Victory Condition, can a Blue Star be deployed on the table at the start of the game, exit to hyperspace during the game, and then reenter the battle from hyperspace?
2) In a game where withdrawal to hyperspace IS Victory Condition, can a Blue Star be deployed on the table at the start of the game, exit to hyperspace during the game, and then reenter the battle from hyperspace?
3) Is the purpose of the special Blue Star dual jump point rule intended to allow it to enter from hyperspace into a battle and then leave the same battle into hyperspace, all under the power of it's own jump engines? (A feat which no other ship can do under the standard rules)
LBH
(Situations like this are why I rules lawyer for the forces of good)
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Just for the record my answers would be:
1) No
2) Technically, by the letter of the rules, yes, but I suspect Matt might say no
3) Yes
LBH
1) No
2) Technically, by the letter of the rules, yes, but I suspect Matt might say no
3) Yes
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Matt has emailed me back with his answers:
LBH
LBH
