next »

[Waddledoo812]

Ragewind, you don't realize that many new Abilities have no comparable precedents in the rules and as such must be interpreted logically. You tried to fend off attempts to label Prometheum as a "Chain of Attacks", but again, there was no comparable precedent, and you were forced to accept Prometheum as a Chain of Attacks due to an official answer.

Here, you say Characters cannot take an action for free. You use the rules as an example and as support, as you did before. Two problems:

1) The Action is not free. The Al-Djinn paid for it.

2) The rules do not allow Characters to take actions for free. Do the rules allow for more than one copy of a Character to be on the board at a single time? Do the rules allow for Characters to stay in the game long after they have been killed? Do the rules allow for Characters to move without actually paying for Movement? No. But that's what new Abilities have done: break the rules. The Al-Djinn broke the Unique Character rule. Samiel and Iosara have broken the 2nd rule. Luzbell, Arkeid, and Dinah have broken the 3rd rule. In the face of newer Abilities, you must learn to let go of such a strict interpretation of the rules, because what you are telling me now is that...

The Al-Djinn is useless. You are telling me that only Innate Abilities of the Al-Djinn work, an example being Divine Presence. You say that an Al-Djinn using Champagne would result in nothing happening. You say that an Al-Djinn using Mark of Jedah would result in nothing happening. The only reason nothing is happening is because of your faulty line of logic: that the Al-Djinn does not reference itself as another Characters.

Obviously you believe the Al-Djinn is still the Al-Djinn, and inherently there is nothing with believing that, but for some odd reason you don't believe that the Al-Djinn can use another Character's Special Abilities directly from itself. So why create the Al-Djinn? According to your logic, if nothing happens when an Al-Djinn uses Champagne or Mark of Jedah, the Al-Djinn should not have been created in the first place. Your logic does not support its Abilities. Apparently the rules do not support its Abilities. So there should be no reason to create this Character. But it was created, and it was meant to break the Unique Character rule. Therefore, you need to change your line of thought, because this Character was made to revolutionize and reject the rules you so clutch onto.

[Ragewind]

Ragewind, you don't realize that many new Abilities have no comparable precedents in the rules and as such must be interpreted logically. You tried to fend off attempts to label Prometheum as a "Chain of Attacks", but again, there was no comparable precedent, and you were forced to accept Prometheum as a Chain of Attacks due to an official answer.

I belive the Offcial answer is still wrong, a Chain of Attacks will only attack the same person, if it does not hit the same person then it cannot be a chain of attacks. Although the ruling conflicts with what the rulebook tells us this is nothing new and nothing to worry about.

1) The Action is not free. The Al-Djinn paid for it

That is a interperation on your end, you cannot pay for another characters abilities with your own. This would only be possible if the ability specifically allowed it.

Do the rules allow for more than one copy of a Character to be on the board at a single time?

Yes, its in the rules for Summons

Do the rules allow for Characters to stay in the game long after they have been killed?

Yes, it advises you that a character may stick around

Do the rules allow for Characters to move without actually paying for Movement?

Yes and No, See Arbiters Orders, Organic Psychokinesis, World of Wires, Free Movment, etc

The Al-Djinn broke the Unique Character rule.

No he didn't because he is a Summon and because he doesn't actually become the character. The way his rules are written is printed on his card and do not deviate.

The Al-Djinn is useless

Incorrect, he still may use any ability that does not specifically reference a Character, such as..http://atoracle.wikidot.com/en-dark-chesire
I hope you understand I am not saying I like the holes in this particular rule, and I am not telling you to play by them. Understand however that anything else is wrong as per RAW, and that's okay, simply come to a conclusion with whoever you play.

he only reason nothing is happening is because of your faulty line of logic: that the Al-Djinn does not reference itself as another Characters.

Its not Faulty, its Fact. If you are somehow reading a different set abilities than I am, then obviously I am incorrect.

but for some odd reason you don't believe that the Al-Djinn can use another Character's Special Abilities directly from itself

Again because the card says so, by not including anything that would allow for it. As I have stated before it only copies Stats and Abilities, nothing else.

But it was created, and it was meant to break the Unique Character rule

Obviously we can see what it was meant to do, this is one of those situations where the rules writer failed.

[Zeru]

I belive the Offcial answer is still wrong

That is un-possible.

Everything is now a lie, we can trust no one.

[Ragewind]

I belive the Offcial answer is still wrong

That is un-possible.

Everything is now a lie, we can trust no one.

 

[Usagi]

Relevant science:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full

Granted this applies to most arguments that involve one or more person plugging their ears and yelling whenever anyone other then them says something.

[Waddledoo812]

Believe what you want; it's the Official Answer. This is an excellent example of an ability that, with no comparable precedent, defies wording in the rules. Can you not make the parallel to Al-Djinn's Absolute Change?

I meant can more than one non-Summon, non-Agent Character be on the board at the same time? Obviously not. And then there's Al-Djinn.

No; under the Saga I & II Rulebook, the section "Damage and Death" says nothing of the sort. In fact, the last sentence is: "Regardless, when a Character's Life points are reduced to zero they are retired from the game." Do Samiel and Iosara follow this rule? No. They break it. Again, drawing parallels is a glorious skill.

With the exception of Free Movement, all of those Abilities you posted broke the rules. I can not overemphasize: Old rules are again and again broken by newer Abilities, with the majority of new Abilities having no comparable precedents.

If Arbiter Orders and Organic Psychokinesis and World of Wires broke the "No Free Movement Unless An Actual Free Movement" rule, and Samiel and Iosara broke the "Retire Character at 0 LP" rule, why can't Al-Djinn break the Unique Character Rule? (For non-Summons and non-Agents)

You could be right: the Al-Djinn could only be able to use non-referential Abilities. But the holes in the rules are just too large to clutch onto RaW so tightly; many teams and just the general balance of the game suffer in your scenario. You could not clutch onto RaW in the face of the Prometheum ruling. Why clutch so much now?

[Cannerus_The_Unbearable]

I love you John.  You've done far more than I ever could here.

[planeswalker]

Checkmate.

On another note, I'd like to point out that the rulebook (IIRC) doesn't say that there can't be two copies of the same character on one team, but that you can't field a party with multiple copies of a character. The nuance is important because the latter doesn't say anything of what may happen during the game.

[Ragewind]

Believe what you want; it's the Official Answer. This is an excellent example of an ability that, with no comparable precedent, defies wording in the rules. Can you not make the parallel to Al-Djinn's Absolute Change?

Did i not say it was nothing new and nothing to worry about? Can't do anything about a official ruling after all.

"Regardless, when a Character's Life points are reduced to zero they are retired from the game.

Even if the base rules are changed, we have a ability that specifically allows for it and gives you rules to govern its use.

With the exception of Free Movement, all of those Abilities you posted broke the rules

See above

why can't Al-Djinn break the Unique Character Rule?

Technically there isn't a unqiue character rule, but the reason we can't have nice things is because Al-Djinn's card does not let you.

You could be right: the Al-Djinn could only be able to use non-referential Abilities. But the holes in the rules are just too large to clutch onto RaW so tightly; many teams and just the general balance of the game suffer in your scenario. You could not clutch onto RaW in the face of the Prometheum ruling. Why clutch so much now?

As for Clover, their ruling goes against raw, and as mentioned its fine.
The holes are not too large, you seem to be intent on adding rules that don't exist or extrapolating outcomes that are not covered. Any of the above is fine however if you and your opponent agree on doing it.

[Usagi]

It's been shown that, even in the face of official rulings, Ragewind will refute rulings still...so...what's the point of this? It's one versus "everyone" and the one has given precedent that there is absolutely no way they will alter their perception. Even in the face of irrefutable evidence. So, why don't we just end here...as this thread really had nothing much to do with this originally anyways.

[Ragewind]

Usagi your reply is indicative as to the mindset I seek to liberate, while I don't recall ever giving cause to believe I refuse to go along with a Official Ruling, consistently pointing out that it is fine and acceptable (if you don't recall seeing this please feel free to peruse my previous postings and give it a thorough once over) you must realize it is you who are obstinately clinging to a incorrect outlook. As mentioned (multiple times) I believe the proposed house-rule is the correct way and would welcome a ruling stating the fact, until it comes  however you are not playing by whats printed on the card and thus, playing incorrectly.

[planeswalker]

I insist that we are indeed playing by the card. A copy is a copy and behaves in all like the original, with the only exceptions being current LP and current AP. Any other interpretation only lends itself to endless convolution, and this one WORKS, without bending any rules, for heaven's sake.

On another note, could someone please direct me to this Prometheum ruling I'm not aware of?

[Waddledoo812]

The ruling was in Clover's thread, in the Neutral section.

To see the abridged version, see this thread: http://cipher-studios.com/AnimaBB/index.php?topic=4583.15

Zeru references Kagami's ruling in quotes, about Prometheum being a Chain of Hits.

P.S. As a final statement, I will agree with Usagi and Planeswalker. Despite fervent deliberation on the issue, this argument is literally going nowhere. We can house-rules the problem until the Official Answer comes out, (I think somebody needs to PM or cue AnimaStudios or Kagami in some way for an official Answer), but I am 90% sure the ruling will mirror what we have tried to explain again and again. Especially because Absolute Change specifically states that the Al-Djinn "becomes a copy of any other Level 60 or lower Unit in play..."  

[Humorous_Conclusion]

I insist that we are indeed playing by the card. A copy is a copy and behaves in all like the original, with the only exceptions being current LP and current AP. Any other interpretation only lends itself to endless convolution, and this one WORKS, without bending any rules, for heaven's sake.

Just a small point, but presumably Al-Djinn keeps its bind points, shock value and stability when copying another character, otherwise as long as its coopying it effectively ceases to be a summon and can remain in play indefinitely,

[Waddledoo812]

Still, in certain scenarios Shock Value is ignored. An example is if Al-Djinn copies Samiel: Eternal Damnation, if the Al-Djinn killed one or more Characters, should cancel the Shock when the Al-Djinn reaches 0 Life Points.

I won't argue against the notion that the Al-Djinn is still treated as a Summon. But I won't agree that the notion conflicts with my argument, if that was what you were implying.