Paploo on Speeder Bike (Fringe)

...

The 'attack' roll in this instance is representing the attempt to disrupt the opponent, then they make their saves. Both are there to prevent it from being uber-powerful.

That is all. I fail to see how it is 'stupid', and also think putting SSB on a melee piece is just fine if it is needed to keep the piece from being over the top (though, in that regard, an ability to prevent Twin on MELEE pieces is admittedly LONG overdue, honestly... I just tend to try and avoid making up new abilities when there are already serviceable ones available). Would you rather the piece be balanced with a mechanic that doesn't explicitly make sense to you, or have it your way and it be broken, not function as intended or need to be entirely reworked for no reason?

The gripe with Yaddle may be justified in the sense that it may distinctly feel entirely different from what a character is known to be like/have capabilities that that character shouldn't have. This is an entirely different circumstance, this is utilizing basic/generic mechanics to reach the desired effect in a reasonable manner. There are things in this game from our version, WotC, v-sets whatever that don't make sense as rules/mechanics, sometimes you have to deal with them and sometimes you really have to question why such a thing exists (such as the famous example of the Mouse Droid 'covering' the Rancor), but I'm not comprehending your issues here. Splitting hairs and trying to needlessly complicate or over(under?) think things is a waste of time (yours and mine).

I'll replace Diversion then, simple fix. I still see no valid reason to change it.

On another note; rolling a save when someone shoots you (or, even better: hits you with a lightsaber, flamethrower, missile, blows up in your face... Anything!), and upon a success, automatically sic the damage on another piece of your choice within 6 squares... Make sense? No. (quote, jen'ari): "Absolute Devotion is an abstraction, but you can see it happening. It is a good translation into the game mechanics that we are allowed to use."

What's the difference? Any to be found would simply be splitting hairs, as what I'm doing is the same basic principle. You like that use of game mechanics, which is perfectly fine, and I think this one is interesting. I also think it makes more than enough sense to justify being used rather than creating new ways to do the exact same thing just because rolling a dice at a time usually reserved for 'an attack phase' on most pieces created for attacking doesn't make enough sense for your tastes... Besides, it's a GAME.

EDIT: Plus, a big reason I don't want to re work the attack to distract mechanic, besides that it's kewl, is that that would require needlessly changing the entire direction, design and functionality of the piece, or else losing other mechanics like 'Inexperienced', or the option to leave 'Scrub Hunter' on there. Plus probably leave us with a bunch of useless new abilities that will never be used again, which I hate doing lol, ESPECIALLY when there is zero reason to do so in the first place.

Also, using SSB on a melee piece is just fine. The ability has 'blaster' in the name, oh no! Now we can't have it on a melee piece to use it's function which is literally JUST to keep the piece from benefitting from Twin Attack... See the problems and complications that can come from a single, simple decision such as in that example, because we're afraid to let a GAME'S mechanics be used to make the GAME be played properly or a piece to behave properly within that GAME, because to some having a line on the card with the word 'blaster' on it when it's a melee piece (with that fact having LITERALLY ZEEEERROOOOOOOOO effect on the whether the piece functions as a melee or non-melee piece, or whether the piece feels like the character it's representing) is too distracting or bothersome or I don't know what?

It's a case where COMMON SENSE must be exercised. Everyone using such a piece already knows it doesn't have a blaster, but they also know why SSB is necessary and thus why it is there. Nobody (well, I'd have thought...) cares if the word 'blaster' appears in the name of an ability on such a card. Its presence there has literally NO change in the way it makes the character function, which is to keep the piece from using Twin, and it has no change in a player's perception of the character or piece.

Yes, giving a character Makashi when they only practiced, say, Niman, it is arguably something that shouldn't happen (unless, even if they didn't use Makashi, maybe there's a specific trait they have that you want to represent that they had a fighting style that got around some of the other styles like Makashi does and you would want to represent that? Perhaps then it would fit, but would require some consideration... Is it worth having the name of a style they don't use on the card if the whole ability fits them as a character in terms of game function, or just make something different since Makashi is a very specific ability representing a certain fighting style?), give it parry or something if you want melee defense. I totally get that, I understand not wanting to ruin the flavor of a piece just to suit certain needs in abilities when you could just as easily use something else that is available. But in this case, trying to do that is going to have the opposite effect, I'm afraid, not to mention we're not dealing with specific abilities like Makashi, just non-exclusive generic game mechanics and abilities, to make the piece as a whole function in the way I want it to based on how I envision the game mechanics working with the scene, in a way that doesn't make the piece too powerful.

There are other things like Nico 'smuggling' a piece by using a mechanic previously established as 'towing' to drag an adjacent character 12 squares as he walks/runs/moves and then cloaking it at the end, which really don't make sense in reality, but that example makes a fine and interesting representation of Nico being a smuggler who would hide people on his ship and transport them, while still being a useful and sensible function within the game itself and using/combining/evolving mechanics and functions already within the game to create the desired effect, not to mention it's FUN (I had actually used a similar ability on a past custom of Han Solo as a Zann Consortium hired smuggler)! In other words, it works fine as a game function. Everybody knows what is being represented and is comfortable using that mechanic even though it doesn't really make much sense from a literal point of view.

I'm confused, is your problem with Scrub Hunter? If so, I have little attachment to it, it was suggested as a way to give the piece dual-purpose as another way to clear out swarms of little pieces, like a lot of things in the Legends format. I don't care if it's there or not and honestly it may be more balanced without it.

So, say we removed Scrub Hunter... Then it doesn't deal any damage, and it's attack phase becomes solely for the purpose I had intended. Would that be more acceptable to you?

Also, there is precedent with pieces such as the Tsik-Vai or whatever that Vong huge is who have 0 damage but can circumstantially deal damage (like Darth Wyyrlock, in that regard, or R2 Astro or a number of other pieces, though those are slightly different circumstances), and whose main function in using the attack phase is that it's trying to use it's 'Clamp' ability on you.

paploo has not gone anywhere so I am changing him.

this is what I propose.

or we can make something else and put paploo on hold

Flight makes all the sense in the world as it is a speeder bike lol. I think the version you posted will work, I like the Scrub Hunter mechanic though on him. Piece to smack some uggie and mice around.