Jump to content

Ariano

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ariano

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Zuidholland, Netherlands
  1. Yes. The brand new FAQ A lot is going to change with it, by the way; no more double tactician with twin laser turret...
  2. Yes. The brand new FAQ A lot is going to change with it, by the way; no more double tactician with twin laser turret...
  3. Coming back to your original question. FAQ v. 4.1.2 If you search the pdf for firing you find following statements: page 6, backstabber ability refers to printed firing arcS (plural) and not to printed firing arc. page 14, outmaneuver: The auxiliary firing arc of the Firespray-31 is a firing arc. page 16, left column, question concerning 360-degree firing arc, answer refers again to printed firing arcS (plural) Hope it helps I recall the sentence you were referring to, but I am afraid that it got lost somewhere...
  4. Concerning Actions: Rules Reference, page 24, when defining Game Round says (emphasis added): 2. Activation Phase: In ascending order of pilot skill, each ship reveals its dial, executes its maneuvers, and may perform one action. Rules Reference, page 3, when defining Actions, says (emphasis added): The active ship can perform one standard action during the “Perform Action” step of the Activation phase. (Related Topics: Acquire a Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Boost, Cloak) In this section concerning Actions nothing is said about repeating/changing an action after it is discovered to be illegal. However every single standard action states clearly and unambiguously that you can change to a different action if the one you are performing does not work. See, please, Rules Reference: Acquire a target lock, page 3, bullet point 3: If a player declares an acquire a target lock action for his ship and the enemy ship he wants to lock is not at range, he may choose a different ship to lock or a different action entirely. Barrel roll, page 6, bullet point 4: If a player declares a barrel roll action for his ship and cannot complete the action in the desired direction, he may choose a different direction or a different action entirely. Boost, page 7, bullet point 4, same wording as barrel roll Cloak, page 8, bullet point 6, same wording as barrel roll Similar wording and explanations for Boost and Barrel Roll can be found on page 5 of the *** v.4.1.2 under Performing a Barrel Roll / Boost and for Acquiring a Target Lock on page 4. So, for actions, it seems that this change of action when the chosen one was not possible is intended to be part of the core rules of the game. In more general terms, page 17 of the FAQ v.4.1.2 says under movement: Q: A ship executes a maneuver in which its template or final position overlaps an obstacle or mine token. Due to avoiding collisions with other ships, it ends up stopping before reaching the obstacle or mine token. Does it still suffer the effects of moving through or overlapping that obstacle or mine token? A: No. Here you can see that even if your ship "conceptually" overlapped the obstacle or the mine but as that "intermediate" position is illegal, only the real final position counts and the obstacle or mine are ignored. Similar will be the case of a Barrel Roll or Boost taking you out of the battlefield. So, even if the point is not worded the way digitalbusker put it; I think that FFG thinking and ruling goes along that line. But it is not a choice that happens after you measure as Rapture has written. You declare one thing first and try it first and only if that thing is not possible, only in that case, you can change to another one. It is not that you take a look first and decide after; you commit to something first and only if this something does not work, can you change your decision.
  5. @digitalbusker: Decloak, actually it is on the page 8 of the rules reference, under cloak. it says that if a ship cannot decloak in the desired direction, it can choose another one or choose not to decloak and further than if the ship cannot decloak in any direction, then it cannot decloak. I think all those rulings were, more or less, given in email and here, in the forum, an then incorporated in the rules reference of the new core set instead of in the FAQ. So, the analogy here seems for me to be strong enough to be confident that similar thing will apply to tractor beam token when they clarify all the issues with it; maybe in the Core Set 3.0 ??? Thanks guys and sorry if I bothered you.
  6. Thanks a lot ! The analogy with actions should work well because you are entitled to one action during your action step like you are entitled to one effect for the tractor beam token, but still an official clarification seems to be missing.
  7. That is precisely the key of the question. The current rules as written of both barrel roll and boost allow you to repeat/change the action (note the emphasis) as those rules, as written presuppose that the player doing the action is the player controlling the ship. However, tractor beam token does not causes an action but an effect which is stated clearly not to be an action (nor a maneuver, but that part is irrelevant for the discussion). My question goes a bit deeper, basically, the rule for actions (if the action that you declared does not work / is illegal, you just declare another one until you declare one that is legal) applies to effects ? My gut feeling is YES, but as fas as I can see there nothing in the rules as written to support this. Sorry, I do not intend to offend or bother you, but things like this or even some with a more obvious solution have made its way in the FAQ. This game is everything about wording sometimes... Hope you see my conundrum now.
  8. @Goseki1: Sorry, but which is your basis in the rules for that conclusion ?
  9. Reference Tractor beam token card says: The first time a small ship receives a tractor beam token each round, the opposing player may choose one of the following effects: - Perform a barrel roll using the [1 straight] maneuver template. The opposing player selects the direction of the barrel roll and the final position of the ship. -Perform a boost using the [1 straight] maneuver template. This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships). The ship suffers the effect of any obstacle it overlaps. Barrel roll A ship cannot barrel roll if it would overlap another ship or an obstacle token, or if the maneuver template would overlap an obstacle token. A ship cannot barrel roll if this would cause the ship to flee the battlefield. When a player declares a barrel roll action for his ship, he must also declare whether the ship is barrel rolling to the left or the right before placing the maneuver template on the play area. If a player declares a barrel roll action for his ship and cannot complete the action in the desired direction, he may choose a different direction or a different action entirely. Performing a barrel roll does not count as executing a maneuver. Boost A ship cannot boost if it would overlap another ship or an obstacle token, or if the maneuver template would overlap an obstacle token. A ship cannot boost if this would cause the ship to flee the battlefield. When a player declares a boost action for his ship, he must also declare which direction he is boosting before determining if he can complete the boost into that direction. If a player declares a boost action for his ship and cannot complete the action using the desired direction, he may choose a different direction or a different action entirely. Performing a boost does not count as executing a maneuver. Question The player controlling the tractor beam manages to put the first tractor beam token on a small base ship, then chooses one effect. According to the interaction between tractor beam token and barrel roll/boost, it is without any doubt clear than the affected ship cannot overlap other ship nor escape the battlefield by the effect caused by the tractor beam token. The player chooses as effect barrel roll to one side, let's say, the right. After declaring it, it is observed that unfortunately the ship cannot perform the desired barrel roll to the right (due to overlap with other ship or escaping the battlefield). Point 4 on barrel roll says "if a player declares a barrel roll action for his ship and cannot complete the action in the desired direction, he may choose a different direction or a different action entirely." Therefore I will say that: 1.- the player controlling the tractor beam can choose to force a barrel roll to the other side, here the left as the rules of barrel roll clearly allow it (caveat here, the barrel roll rules refer to barrel roll action on point 4 also for changing the side of the barrel roll), however 2.- the player controlling the tractor beam cannot choose to force a boost since: 2.1.- barrel roll rules allow for a different action, but the effect from the tractor beam token is not an action 2.2.- tractor beam token allows for one effect, here the player controlling it took the decision of this one effect to be a barrel roll, therefore the player cannot choose a second, different effect. 3.- the same will apply if the effect chosen was boost to start with and after declaration it turned out to be illegal. A change to barrel roll should not be possible due to points 2.1 and 2.2 above changing barrel roll rules by boost rules which are worded the same. What do you think? Possible to change the side (left versus right) of the barrel roll but impossible to change from barrel roll to boost or vice-versa ??? Thanks
  10. Don't misunderstand me. I used to fly interceptors with autothrusters, I like them a lot; but they didn't feel right in my list, maybe I am wrong and I should try them anyway This was only the third time I flew rebels
  11. Hi, just came back from the game. About autothrusters: I (dis)agree. If you are confronted with turrets, then YES; they are great but if you are not confronted with turrets then they will only be of use at range 3 which is good but if you are going to try to block and close into range 1 maybe shield is better. In this respect I agree with the initial post og Green Squadron Leader, his Green Arrow list uses Hull upgrade and I assume this is only due to a lack of points for the shield upgrade which technically better than hull upgrade. The game: I lost, of course but was a very nice game. My opponent was flying Scum, namely Bossk with predator, gunner, recon specialist, mangler cannon and engine upgrade and a mandalorian mercenary with heavy laser cannon, recon specialist and calculation. I deployed on the right on the 4 fingers formation illustrated on the 1st page of this post, he deployed on the opposite corner, bossk angled 45° in my direction and the firespray looking forwards towards the play area. On the first round I went easy, two forward, to see his movements. He started turning towards the center. On the second round I bank with all the guys 2 to the left except the back one which was an error as he was not really in formation any more after the hard turn I make him do. Anyway I managed to fly more or less in formation towards Bossk, avoid some of the incoming fire and land some hits on it. I spend a lot of time running away and trying to regroup, actually my opponent was very frustrated because there were several occasions when he was not able to fire to anyone of my ships, not that i was able to fire to his but that is a different issue. The point is, the A-wings were able to outrun his ships basically all the time. This was great. Of course, eventually he cacht up with me, destroyed two of my ships and I managed to fly one off the board, but the game was very nice. I am a confessed imperial player and used to fly Interceptors with push the limits but the A-wings are faster because the 5 forward is green whereas on the interceptor is white. So far I think I like those little annoying green arrows Out of Topic: concerning lack of stress in a formation, I am considering to fly this list: Don't Panic 99 points “Epsilon Leader” (19) Black Squadron Pilot (20) x 4 TIE Fighter (14), Push the Limit (3), Hull Upgrade (3) the idea being to pull two actions per round and get rid off stress in a similar way to the original Green Arrow list posted here. I will love to see a game between this Don't Panic and the Green Arrows
  12. Hi, I posted a topic called Wired A-wings just before seeing this other thread. I like it ! I am still reading all the entries (guys, you write a lot ;D ) but I am really in the mood of playing A-wings even if I am a convinced Empire player My main motivation to try the A-wings was the possibility of combining Push the Limit with Wired, something which has been already discussed here, in this thread (I am reading page 4 or 5 at the moment where you started talking about it). Probably someone already posted something similar to this but this is the list I have the intention to try today: Wired Arrow 100 points Green Squadron Pilot (25) x 4 A-Wing (19), A-Wing Test Pilot (0), Chardaan Refit (-2), Push the Limit (3), Shield Upgrade (4), Wired (1) Using Wired instead of the original Wingman does not allows you to get stress free but gives you re-rolls, the option to break formation without loosing of individual performance and one extra point to have shield upgrade instead of hull upgrade. Will let you know how the game goes.
  13. I am wondering about the combination of Wired with Push the Limits in A-wings upgraded with the test pilot title. This is my first approach to the topic. I only tried it once without to much success. What do you think ? Any ideas ? ============ Crazy Rebels ============ 100 points Pilots —— Green Squadron Pilot (23) x 2 A-Wing (19), A-Wing Test Pilot (0), Chardaan Refit (-2), Push the Limit (3), Autothrusters (2), Wired (1) Garven Dreis (26) Jake Farrell (28) A-Wing (24), A-Wing Test Pilot (0), Chardaan Refit (-2), Wired (1), Autothrusters (2), Push the Limit (3) —— View: HTTP://XWING-BUILDER.CO.UK/VIEW/327710/CRAZY-REBELS
  14. I'm hoping they update the Ion rules to make this more clear, but from Frank's answer, this is correct. I did. It didn't say this round, so clearly it should apply the next time the 'Perform Action' step occurred, which would sometimes be next round. It's not wrong the way Frank ruled it, it's just odd. Actually the Conner net says: "[...] skips its "Perform Action" step." Which I agree, could be interpreted as the one on this round (if not performed yet) or the next available (if the ship already activated this round). But, official ruling is official ruling
×
×
  • Create New...