Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About azavander

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Eugene, Oregon, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. azavander

    Veers and Leia not releasing together?

    That quite the Necro, but I agree, cause you quoted me lol... Im just saying you heard it hear first if it did happen. But I would love to field Darth Maul as an Operative maybe for the CIS, Battle Droid Swarm, VS Gungans would be a great time! All the one liners, issuing orders, "roger roger" "Oh no is that a Jedi, were gonna die" or you know something from battlefront, "Good Luck Turret" “Not us. We’re independent thinkers.” To which all of the nearby B1 droids respond with a chorus of, “Roger, roger.”
  2. azavander

    Sorry FFG, you dropped the ball...

    I have a hard time thinking that FFG dropped the ball in this case. We don't even have all the force chart units filled out for all sides yet. All it takes is one unit with a great ability or command card and be like d a m n me need some snow speeders or at-st. Then everyone will be i need me some ION oh man they are so great. I mean really who knows. I think until this game is a bit more flushed out it is a little early to start knocking the ball out of FFGs hands ourseleves. Now the app that would be cool, but there are only some many development cycles, they went with an established game as an introduction. Actually makes alot of sense.
  3. azavander

    Reckless diversion and additional attack pools

    I think as noted earlier it also contains the clause if able, so even if you were to split attacks it has to attack a unit with a faceup token if able. They only time i could see a case where a unit couldn't/Shouldn't attack Han is where it doesn't have LOS, such as being around a corner. In that case its not able so it could shoot something else. But otherwise the unit or collection of figures must target the faceup unit if they can. If someone tried to tell me that their unit was, but this one figure was targeting something else even though it had line of site, my response would likely be a little glib 'no you unit is not 5/6th of your unit is and 5/6th does not a whole make, its a fraction of a unit.'
  4. azavander

    Finished My AT-AT Terrain.

    this looks amazing, wish i had this skill! Very nice job Sword.
  5. azavander

    Reckless diversion and additional attack pools

    Except statements are very useful. When we look at the qualifiers: Enemy: (statement from the RRG) Any units controlled by a player’s opponent are enemy units for that player Unit: (statement from the RRG) A unit is a miniature or collection of minis that functions as a single fighting group Attack: (statement from the RRG) Units can perform attacks to attempt to defeat enemy units Order Tokens: (statement from the RRG) A token with its rank side showing is faceup. If Able: (statement from Webster dictionary) having the freedom or opportunity to do something The Enemy Unit, which is a collection of minis that fight as a group by your opponent, must make an attack to attempt to defeat the units with a faceup order token, if they have the opportunity or ability to do so. IF a miniature that is part of the Unit does not attack a trooper unit with a faceup, then it is not fulfilling the clause if able while being part of that unit.
  6. azavander

    Reckless diversion and additional attack pools

    RRG Pg 43 under Unit: A unit is a miniature or collection of minis that functions as a single fighting group. That unit is a collection of minis must as target a trooper unit with a face up token, It doesn't say they have to shoot Han but a unit with a face-up order token. If there are more than 1 trooper units. which han is, with a faceup token you can shoot any of them or split fire between them following standard rules. But if Han was the only face up trooper unit that is eligible to be attacked because all other units in range had not yet been issued orders than you could only shoot at Han to satisfy the Unit qualifier.
  7. azavander

    Miniatures with multiple weapons and multiple attackpools

    This is kinda entertaining, because i can argue that to, even though i don't believe it to be correct either, but its clearly written in a way that allows for that interpretation and actually leans that way. You are forming one attack pool at a time as part of the same "attack" which is made up of multiple steps. Step 3 has you redo step 1 and 2 and the only thing that makes them eligible is LoS, nothing about if the already contributed to an attack pool. In fact it actually really says exactly the opposite "If there are any weapons remaining that have not been added to the attack pool, the player may repeat steps 1–2, forming a separate attack pool with the new weapons. » An attack pool can consist of dice from different weapons, but all weapons with an identical name must contribute their dice to the same attack pool." it doesn't say if there are any minis that are remaining it specifically says weapons. In most cases it doesn't matter because the unit has melee and ranged attack so you wouldn't do both, but for units with multiple of the same weapon type i can see how this could come up. Mind Blown
  8. azavander

    Miniatures with multiple weapons and multiple attackpools

    Fair enough I was responding from my phone and didn't have the RRG in front of me, and you are right in the way it is written leaves a little vague, which is quite amazing nobody seen this before. It does say "To perform an attack, a player resolves the following steps:" and it doesn't say that step 3 declare additional defender is a separate attack and not part of the same Attack step. It actually reads as you pointed out that as part of step 3 it says redo step one and 2. That only leaves to question if the below rules apply. Is the unit doing the same action when you are rolling the dice or is as you pointed out the same attack according to the steps. During a unit’s activation, it is possible for a unit to perform more than one attack through the use of card abilities or other game effects; however, that unit can only perform one attack action during a single activation, regardless of whether it is an attack action or a free attack action A unit cannot perform the same action more than once during its activation, except the move action, which can be performed multiple times. Its also interesting to note that Arsenal is still different in that you could still use X number of weapons in a single attack pool, there would still be a reason to include that as a different keyword Arsenal X When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack, each mini in a unit that has the arsenal x keyword can choose a number of its weapons equal to the value of x. Each chosen weapon contributes its dice and keywords to the attack pool. • To use a weapon during an attack, the defender must be at or within any of the weapon’s ranges. • A mini that has the arsenal x keyword can divide its weapons between any number of units, forming a separate dice pool for each weapon or combination of weapons All that being said, I believe you to be technically correct as it is written, I don't believe that to be the intent but *shrug* I also think they could easily fix this with an update to what is an eligible mini, including something along the lines of If it hasn't already added a weapon to an attack pool
  9. azavander

    1 Black, 2 White

    Veers imperial discipline is the one I was thinking 3 pip, himself and 2 units “when a friendly unit is issued an order it may recover”
  10. azavander

    Are you playing with enough terrain?

    RRG pg 9 in the box point 2 Starting with the player whose army has the lowest total point value (if both players’ armies have the same point total, flip a coin), players take turns placing a single piece of terrain on the battlefield, beyond range 1 of all other pieces of terrain. If terrain cannot be placed beyond range 1, the player may place it anywhere on the battlefield as long as it is not touching another piece of terrain. it’s a pretty loose rule based on that emphasis mine, but you do make a good point that I had forgotten about
  11. azavander

    1 Black, 2 White

    I don’t have the cards in front of me, but don’t we have some command cards that also allows you basically refresh for free?
  12. azavander

    Battlefield Expansion Ideas

    I originally created this for the WotC game tonwork on 4 maps put together. But I think with some easy modifying it could be used in Legion. Based on Black Hawk Down ARC 170 down Setup – Republic: No Jedi, 100 Points + Chancellor Palpatine - starting point, center of maps Separatist: 1 Unique, rest none unique total 200 points – starting point, in various buildings Scenario Rules – Republic – All Republic characters get advantageous cover (+8) All Republic troopers get bodyguard. Night Fall - after round 5 visibility is limited to 8 Separatists – Round 5, 20points of non-unique reinforcements Round 10- 2 Hail Fire Droids Round 15 – 20 Points of non-unique reinforcements Victory Objectives – Republic - At least one Republic Soldier and Palpatine must make it to extraction zone by the end of round 20. Extraction ship shows up on round 20. Separatist – Wipe out all Republic characters
  13. azavander

    Miniatures with multiple weapons and multiple attackpools

    You can only add your attack dice to one pool unless you have arsenal. a pair of speeder bikes could each put a single weapon with a different name into a different pool. Example: Unit leader uses main weapon and adds attack pool to the unit in their ARC. The 2nd Unit adds its dice for its hold out blaster to a different attack. Each unit is only making one attack with one weapon. Reminder, all weapons with the same name must add their dice to the same pool.
  14. azavander

    Explain cover too me

    That is the way it was written poorly in the rule book and not what the designer had said was intended in his clarification email. I said it in the 2nd post and it’s also in the email compilation thread it’s meant to be check 50% before game. In game can I see 100%, if yes, no cover, if it it obscured any %\amount was it determined before game that this provided cover when do % check, if yes apply cover. I think ultimately the revised way end up being far more intuitive and easy during game play because there is no argument on percentages of mini seen, because it no longer matters, it’s obscured or it’s not.
  15. azavander

    Are you playing with enough terrain?

    I did, cause my friend did the same thing. So we piled it all on one side of the table and it took up little over 1/4. Because of the way I built the terrain on larger bases. (Not knowing the rules) the bigger of the pieces have custom terrain rules so that parts of them don’t block line of sight down the middle just the sides like a valley as if it was 2 separate pieces.