Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DaveNYC

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , New York, United States
  1. Nice work. I love the magnetized bases idea. My only suggestion would be to paint the sides of the magnets to either match the peg or the bust.
  2. The only limit to stacking is that you can only use one weapon and one armor. There are no limits to the other types of assets.
  3. Can anyone clarify this rule? There are threat cards and wargear cards that call for you to roll "1 additional die during this battle." The relevant rulebook information is on page 20. Do you add the dice together or do you choose the highest die and discard the lower die? I think it's the former (add dice together), but would like some clarification from veteran players. Thanks.
  4. The advice above is spot on. I followed this forum's advice from similar, older threads and bought Dunwich Horror as my first expansion. I was not disappointed.
  5. DaveNYC

    Next expansions

    Parakitor said: I agree that the Imperial Shuttle is a nice choice, but it would have to be more competitive than that awful rendition in the Starship Battles game. Granted, they aren't combat craft, but they're big enough that they ought to be able to hold their own against a couple starfighters. The other concern is game balance. Budgernaut and I have racked our brains but we could not come up with an appropriate counterpart to the Imperial Shuttle on the Rebel side. Unless, perhaps, it came with a Rebel card entitled "Stolen Imperial Shuttle Tydirium." …Has this already been mentioned here on the forums? Oh well. Great point, but I see the shuttle almost as a game objective: either destroy it or protect it.
  6. DaveNYC

    Next expansions

    Of immediate interest, I'd like to see: TIE Interceptor TIE Bomber TIE Defender Z95 Headhunter A wing B wing Imperial Shuttle
  7. DaveNYC

    Question of Scale

    It just struck me that they look similar in size to the old Micro Machines toys from the 90s.
  8. DaveNYC

    Question of Scale

    The fighters are a lot smaller than I thought they would be (judging by the bbg pix where the guy is measuring with a ruler and you can compare his hand to a fighter). Still neat. For some reason I thought they were going to be the same size as the die casts already out there.
  9. Still no word? Online and brick/mortar stores that I normally go to are all out.
  10. Yeah, I house rule that as a redraw too.
  11. One more thing: Lessons in Violence: each matchup where your opponent has more downed players than you do. If you do not have a player at a matchup, you don't get to say, "I have 0 downed players here, you have 1, so I get fans." You don't have 0. You have the empty set. You're not engaged at this matchup on any level. Laying the Smackdown: for each downed opponent at every matchup where at least 1 of your players is standing... This is clarifying that you must have at least 1 non-downed player at the matchup to trigger the effect. It assumes that you only check matchups in which you are participating (of course, even if it didn't, the trigger condition wouldn't trigger unless you had a player there, but you get my point). In terms of consistent wording, Lessons in Violence ought to have read, " For each matchup where the opposing manager has more downed players..."
  12. BrandonCarpenter said: I'm not a rule-mongering tournament player who uses open interpretation as part of my arsenal for winning, but I like to cull it when I see it. Brandon, Absolutely. And I understood from your previous post that you were simply trying to protect against rules lawyers. As I mentioned in my point 3 above, you can't have an opponent at a matchup unless you have a player placed at the matchup. You compete at matchups. This is your 'local' opponent. Your 'global' opponent is only for total fans tallied by the end of the four or five rounds. I see what you're saying about the slight imprecision in the use of 'opponent', but I think the overall intent of the rules is quite clear. You are competing for highlights. At a non-tournament highlight, there are only ever two teams maximum. Forgive me for saying, but it seems that you're getting hung up on the word 'opponent' while forgetting the context entirely. The context is the highlight matchups, and the rules are explicitly clear about who can or cannot play at these matchups. Any given ruleset is a set of semantics and syntax; language not physics. Generally speaking, they are written for "what a reasonable person would understand the terms to be." Or something along those lines. We may argue at the edges what a reasonable person is or isn't, or what the terms may mean or not, but ultimately I think we have to see each individual tree in terms of the entire forest. Maybe I'm mangling the metaphor, but does that make sense at all? In other words, I agree with you that Laying the Smackdown is the better and more precisely worded of the two cards, but they have the same effect given the context of the game at large.
  13. DaveNYC

    Alternitive Rules

    BGG is pretty popular and often the default place to go for such things.
  • Create New...