Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SkullNBones

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/19/1971

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hubbard, Ohio, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. With, Bossk having been destroyed and the pup flying but not the last ship. Say a Nym was still flying around at full health. The question is whether or not the opponent gets full points for destroying Bossk since the pup was alive and well. The ruling was yes. As I see it, there are a couple ways this could go: 1) The pup is a 6pt upgrade and until it is destroyed, bossk is still flying around and thus not completely destroyed and the opponent would receive half points for Bossk (having reduced the YV-666 below half). 2) The pup counts (again) as part of the YV-666 and if alive gives the same 1pt it does if it is the only ship alive to the surviving winning side, technically reducing Bossks victory points by 1. 3) The pup is a special case and even if it survives with friends the opponent still receives full victory points for the destroyed YV-666. Where I kinda of like option 1 (6 pts for 2 more hull and shield that can move and shoot would be unheard of). I suspect 3 is how the majority of people play it (and how we have).
  2. Just be careful if you put it on Jostero, to not get baited by a snap shot that will then turn off his ability during the rest of the activation phase.
  3. The closest analogous situation here (in my opinion) would be the interaction of Maul (and his stress removal) and TLT. So (via OP's option 3) I would look at each attack from the TLT to see if VH's trigger was met, if either of the attacks from TLT caused the ability to trigger, then after the TLT has finished the attacker would receive one stress.
  4. I can see both side @Jimbawa and @emeraldbeacon The reason that the ACSW can clear the Blinded Pilot while Weapons Disabled is due to the OS-1 title (in this particular scenario). That title makes the provision for the ship to be able to attack (have the opportunity to fire with Weapons Disabled) provided it has a Target Lock active (on another ship), it also states (in the same clause) that you can only fire ordinance (Torp or Missile) secondary weapons. Since the ACSW is using its Title to be able to clear the blinded pilot while possessing a Weapons Disabled token via "If a ship gets an opportunity to attack from a card effect (such as Dengar or Corran Horn), that ship can resolve one of those abilities and flips Blinded Pilot facedown." It would stand to reason that it needs to meet the full requirements of that card. That being said, I suppose you could argue the zero dice approach. The ship has the opportunity to attack via the target lock, but without being reloaded it can not roll any dice, yet still clear the BP because of the opportunity was provided. Would a HWK-290 with only a primary weapon and *weapons failure*, be able to clear a Blinded Pilot crit without first clearing the WF? If so, then I do not see an issue with the ACSW clearing its BP with its ordinance turned down, but if it cannot, then similarly I think the ACSW would have to have at least one M/T card face up.
  5. Because our language has a literal meaning and a figurative one. If you state that something can only be measured within range one (which the RAW do), it literally declares nothing about the object one uses extending beyond range 1. ONLY that what you measure must be within range 1. The language banning extending the physical object beyond range 1 is missing from the statement and therefore can be legally argued for; implication is not application.
  6. My point is that there was no discussion of the hypothetical, only a dismissal. I wasn't trying to compare the two states so much as explore the possibility for redefinition. But again, moot at this point. Again the "devil's advocate" stance was more for simile than analogy and the position is semantic.
  7. Read the entire post on the OS-1 Arsenal load out, as I finished, agreeing with option B of the OP. And to clarify as I did there, to have the opportunity to attack (since the ACSW in the example has a weapons disabled token) it needs to have a Target Lock on a ship (in arc or not). Otherwise it would fall under the rule (that I quoted in the post) for ships with a weapons disabled token stated in the FAQ.
  8. Actually, I didn't ask for examples, I stated for your statement to be valid, you would have to provide a referenced and vetted account of every statement I have made and it's (according to your claim) corresponding contradictory valid statement. But, since you did bring up a selection, what about the discussion of the Alpha Class Starwing with Arsenal title and the implications of Blinded Pilot....we just agreed on it, so unless you are claiming that you are wrong as well, then that already invalidates your accusation.
  9. A categorically incorrect statement (unless you have accumulated every statement I have made, and can provide a cross-referenced validated source that contradicts those statements). If you can render your statement valid, please do...I'll wait. Until then, it simply an attempt to illicit an antagonistic response with the intention to cause defamation to my character within this social media. And given that this media is technically a "print" media, it could prove cause for a case of liable (granted I would have to prove that the defamation caused personal injury (in some form), but the case can still be made regardless if it carried through or not.
  10. Something similar happened recently at a Regional Championship (the stream vid can be watched here: ) *I am not in any way affiliated with Athena Games, just happened to have recently watched the vid. If you listen to the beginning of the match, this was supposed to be a semi final match and ended up being a final because two players did not want to play any further (and dropped). So @emeraldbeacon has it on the nose. If its a casual event, then let it be what it is and as long as the TO is okay with it, and all players (for me I would include those ranked behind the two finalist) are okay with a roll off or final salvo, then fine. At a Store Champ, Regional or higher level play. Then either play or drop. I played at a store champions ship where the final two were allowed to roll off by the TO to determine winner and was not the only person not pleased with that decision. Technically players choosing to decide a game in anyway but fair play falls under unsporting like conduct: "Unsporting Conduct Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. The organizer, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct." (p3, Tournament Regulations) just rolling off, or intentionally flying ships off the board by setting up backward, etc. is all manipulation of the scoring. So the TO should have simply asked them to play or drop, if they did not want to play, promote the next two to that rank (again if the tourney was anything more than a FLGS casual level).
  11. FAQ, p9 "Blinded Pilot A ship that has a weapons disabled token or is overlapping an asteroid does not get an opportunity to attack during the Combat phase and therefore cannot turn Blinded Pilot facedown. If a ship gets an opportunity to attack from a card effect (such as Dengar or Corran Horn), that ship can resolve one of those abilities and flips Blinded Pilot facedown. A ship with this card cannot trigger Advanced Cloaking Device, Darth Vader (?), Gunner, Feedback Array, etc., as the ship cannot perform attacks." It seems this would point to option C above. Since the only way a Alpha (with weapons disabled and titled) has an opportunity to fire is if it has a target lock on a target in arc. Though given that a ship without a weapons disabled token is able to clear a blinded pilot without a valid target in arc, I can see an argument for option B. Because the ship has met its firing requirements (i.e. having a target lock on the target) and given the second clause of the BP crit "...After your next opportunity to attack (even if there was no target for an attack), flip this card facedown.". I would rule for Option B, as long as the Alpha as a target lock on a ship, the ship does not have to be in Arc (as with any other ship). But without that target lock, the alpha does not meets it ability to fire (the Target Lock permitting the fire would fall under the second part of the FAQ "...if a ship gets an opportunity to attack from a card effect...").
  12. @muribundi, you continue to use the same phrase from the tournament regulations that I already quoted "...Players place their ships in ascending order of pilot skill as per standard X-Wing rules. Players cannot measure distance and spacing with physical objects during setup except when using range rulers and maneuver templates within Range 1 of that player’s edge..."P5, Game Setup, Step 6. As the definitive ruling, however, that only states one may not "measure distance and spacing", it says nothing about said objects used to measure within range 1 of the players edge extending beyond it. The key issue is that the wording points to measurement as the defining parameter and it is insufficient. and AGAIN, I fully grasp and understand and AGREE WITH the RAI, but it does not match the RAW. A simple fix would be to amend the end of the step a long the lines of "and when doing so, the object(s) used can not extend beyond range 1 of the players edge". Done, that would provide the RAW to match RAI. However until that is done, someone can (as I am doing so now) make a case that they are within their rights (according to the rules) to allow an object to extend beyond range 1 as long as they only measure with that object within range 1. This may be sketchy as all get out and a dodgy way to play, but it is legal by RAW.
  13. Yeah, I know the episode. I am just amused that rather than engage in a furthered discussion of the OP, albeit a hypothetical one. A large portion would simply prefer to jump on the "you're wrong" band wagon without actually thinking about what I was proposing. Mayhap the initial post assumed too much and was negligent in explaining its intent, but as this is a rules discussion forum and no other forum exists (currently) for mechanics questions, and it was related to the original post, I had hoped that most would infer the state of the "devil's argument" (which is the closest colloquialism I could think to label it). All of that said, it is clear that that aspiration sailed long ago. As to @Parravon's attempt at a slight to my knowledge and comprehension of the rules, you're entitled to your opinion, C'est la vie. But it is a sad state when one stoops to the point of sending insults via a forum that provides anonymity.
  14. Jake with Intensity can be an action tramp: 1. Focus (action) -> 2. Roll (PA) -> 3. Focus (Intensity) -> 4. Boost (PA) -> 5. Target Lock (PTL) and only comes out with 1 stress after 5 actions *)
  • Create New...