Project Emotions and Defense flips

[Cunning]

This came up the other day at a tournament. What constitutes a defense flip?

With project emotions you can make models take a negative flip on all WP, attack or defense flips.

WP is obviously self explanatory and attacks are clearly defined in the RM but I don't think defense is. I assumed to was anything that 'defended' against an attack buy one of my opponents thought it was only for combat flips.

Which is it? Or is it something else entirely? Cheers.

[Cunning]

OK

during a Strike,

the attacker makes a Attack Flip

the defender makes a Defense Flip

during a Spell,

the attacker makes a Casting Flip

the defender makes a Resist Flip

When you are using your Willpower Wp stat in a flip it's a Wp Flip

When you are using your Defense Df stat in a flip it's a Df Flip

But we're talking about Defense duels and Attack duels. Not Attack flips and Defense flips.

The problem comes in that an Attack and an Attack flip are two completely different things in the RM so Attack duel (and therefore defense duel) could fall under either of these categories.

[magicpockets]

I always thought it was one option for all attacking stuff, one option for all defending stuff and one option for all WP stuff (which could be either attacking or defending). That was simple and made sense - now its getting WAY complicated

[NBmaster]

It is that simple, these guys from across the pond have decided to use very specific words to try and complicate things. These are the same type of people who would post something like: special forces: doll isn't effected by any of collodi's spells or actions because they say doll, not special forces: doll (sounds really dumb I know but I have seen that very statement posted on this board by one of these guys). Semantics is being used to prey upon very select instances that arise, to poke holes in the game just because the wording on a card is slightly different from the RM even though the entent of the card is plainly obvious for all to see. This is really what is holding this gaming community back. Sorry I know this is just a rules post but I feel the question was and is tantimount to troll baiting, I.e. looking for a fight. Quit intentionaly asking dumb questions just to upset others, getting people all mixed up with how the model actually & obviously works. It just makes you have to reteach a lot of newbie players who get on and read some of this drivel and they take it as gosple.

[Cunning]

It is that simple, these guys from across the pond have decided to use very specific words to try and complicate things. These are the same type of people who would post something like: special forces: doll isn't effected by any of collodi's spells or actions because they say doll, not special forces: doll (sounds really dumb I know but I have seen that very statement posted on this board by one of these guys). Semantics is being used to prey upon very select instances that arise, to poke holes in the game just because the wording on a card is slightly different from the RM even though the entent of the card is plainly obvious for all to see. This is really what is holding this gaming community back. Sorry I know this is just a rules post but I feel the question was and is tantimount to troll baiting, I.e. looking for a fight. Quit intentionaly asking dumb questions just to upset others, getting people all mixed up with how the model actually & obviously works. It just makes you have to reteach a lot of newbie players who get on and read some of this drivel and they take it as gosple.

Wuh? I interpret a rule one way, my opponet interpretted it differently. I'm asking which is correct. That's all. That's what the rules discussion forum is for.

[Mike3838]

NBMaster,

If this particular rule was so obvious and clear, could you explain how one of the Rules Marshalls managed to make an incorrect ruling in this very thread that was later retracted? There's definite ambiguity and as the OP proves, people can interpret it two ways.

Mike

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

NBMaster,

If this particular rule was so obvious and clear, could you explain how one of the Rules Marshalls managed to make an incorrect ruling in this very thread that was later retracted? There's definite ambiguity and as the OP proves, people can interpret it two ways.

Mike

Pobody's cuddleect.

[Cunning]

Just to confirm. So a defense flip and a defense duel are the same thing? And same for Attack flip and duel?

[Calmdown]

Guys, you're overcomplicating your replies to NBMaster:

It is that simple, these guys from across the pond have decided to use very specific words to try and complicate things. These are the same type of people who would post something like: special forces: doll isn't effected by any of collodi's spells or actions because they say doll, not special forces: doll (sounds really dumb I know but I have seen that very statement posted on this board by one of these guys). Semantics is being used to prey upon very select instances that arise, to poke holes in the game just because the wording on a card is slightly different from the RM even though the entent of the card is plainly obvious for all to see. This is really what is holding this gaming community back. Sorry I know this is just a rules post but I feel the question was and is tantimount to troll baiting, I.e. looking for a fight. Quit intentionaly asking dumb questions just to upset others, getting people all mixed up with how the model actually & obviously works. It just makes you have to reteach a lot of newbie players who get on and read some of this drivel and they take it as gosple.

You are an idiot.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Done.