|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
In a weird quirk - On the card Suppressive Fire (post errata) is more restrictive than the glossary. Quote:Card Text
On this character's turn, enemy characters attacked by this character cannot use special abilities or Force powers that respond to this character's attacks for the rest of the turn
Glossary Text
Enemies attacked by this character cannot use Force powers and special abilities for the rest of the turn.
Not using ANY Force powers and special abilities for the rest of the turn vs not using special abilities or Force powers that respond to this character's attacks for the rest of the turn is a big difference. Usually the glossary goes into further explanation (not worried about card space). But in this case it's the opposite. The old rule of thumb (if I remember correctly) is that when card and glossary don't coincide, you go with whichever is more restrictive. If that is the case, then this makes the glossary for Suppressive Fire simply wrong. (which supports with the ruling that a character can still use avoid defeat on the turn it has been attacked by Supressive Fire, which would not be possible if the glossary were correct) So - can we change the glossary and make it correct? In fact, going a step further - could we have some more specifics in the glossary. such as examples of abilities it works against vs ones it doesn't?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/19/2009
Posts: 286
|
I agree if we could have some examples of interactions in the glossary section
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,038
|
TimmerB123 wrote:
If that is the case, then this makes the glossary for Suppressive Fire simply wrong.
Yep, and it has been for years.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
urbanjedi wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:
If that is the case, then this makes the glossary for Suppressive Fire simply wrong.
Yep, and it has been for years. But since we now can fix it . . . Why don’t we?
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 871
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
|
"We" will fix it. This was brought up in the Stifling thread already and I addressed it there.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
gandalfthegreatestwizard wrote:"We" will fix it. This was brought up in the Stifling thread already and I addressed it there. I meant we as a community. I know a lot falls directly on your shoulders and I definitely appreciate all you do. I’m sorry if it came across impatient or unappreciative. I guess I misinterpreted that there was a reluctance (from some, not all) to change the glossary at all. Like it was some sacred document. If the plan is to fix it then that’s great and thank you for your service.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 4/30/2017
Posts: 871
Location: Lower Hutt, New Zealand
|
Sorry, my comment sounded very sarcastic and abrasive, but I didn't mean it in that way, nor do I actually feel that way. Just meant to answer your question, with a touch of badly executed humour about who has power to fix stuff and the slightest touch of exasperation that you didn't see that I mentioned this in the other thread. Even that was unfair of me- easy to miss a throwaway sentence amid all these questions and posts.
I appreciate you too Tim, and I really don't work all that hard on maintaining bloomilk.
I have updated the glossary entry for Suppressive Fire, and added a similar one for Stifling Attack.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
gandalfthegreatestwizard wrote:Sorry, my comment sounded very sarcastic and abrasive, but I didn't mean it in that way, nor do I actually feel that way. Just meant to answer your question, with a touch of badly executed humour about who has power to fix stuff and the slightest touch of exasperation that you didn't see that I mentioned this in the other thread. Even that was unfair of me- easy to miss a throwaway sentence amid all these questions and posts.
I appreciate you too Tim, and I really don't work all that hard on maintaining bloomilk.
I have updated the glossary entry for Suppressive Fire, and added a similar one for Stifling Attack. Awesome! Thank you!
|
|
|
Guest |