Jump to content

mandroid71

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mandroid71

  1. This is an intelligent response Unlike Stu.. who is just a troll evidently. Go away. Thanks Mep, and also to Joshstix.
  2. As expected, here is the first of the "some will argue" that I predicted. But actually yes, an official ruling is needed because it is not clear, and the rules only specifically address cards that are structured differently and for a different purpose than this one. Also, by definition, since if I have read all the relevant rules guides, and it is not specifically addressed, and I think it is still unclear, than yes I do need an official ruling. Maybe you don't, but I do (as will those who play with me and use this card ... which agreed seems to be rare that people even play this card... and will be rarer if doesn't work with indirect). If there is an official ruling out there already on this specific card, would be glad to see it. The general guidelines do not adequately address it though.
  3. Quick official clarification needed for Collateral damage. Collateral damage is one of those old cards that existed before indirect damage existed. It does not follow the format of other damage cards and does not use the plain "showing damage" text that a lot of other cards do. However, it also allows you to resolve more than one die at once, which is why it originally seems to have segmented what kinds of damage you can resolve with its either/or choice. (So for example you could resolve 3 ranged damage dice or 2 melee damage dice... but not both). There seems to be no reason this card should not work with indirect damage as well (and arguably for flavor reasons even more so) but it does not neatly fit into the rules guide, nor the previous examples saying just ignore the reminder text... because well.. this isn't reminder text because this card forced you to choose a damage type for different reasons. Logically, there doesn't seem a reason to single out an extra gimping of this card relative to other old cards that get to add indirect into the mix for themselves, but I am sure some will argue "no, no... this card says choose just ranged or melee, can't choose indirect" even though it would have been impossible for it to say that at the time because indirect did not exist (just as the other cards don't have it either for similar reasons). Can we get an official ruling or a point to an official ruling on whether this card works with indirect damage as well? Thanks!
  4. Again, for your particular style of deck Duke. For the deck I was running (and others too apparently) it was easier to let Gollum get away at first. Thanks for the unsolicited advice about what kind of decks other people should be playing though, and how they should play them, in a post about how to deal with a rules oddity not directly addressed by the quest card.
  5. Well good for you Duke, the point of this post actually is to point out the oddities that happen when getting to stage 2 without Gollum in play. If you never have that problem then feel free to ignore the topic. Some of us also don't play min-maxed decks that specifically are geared for only winning the scenario that you have looked ahead on to determine what to put in to specifically counter it. Some of us actually play more general decks that can handle a variety of circumstances instead of being narrowly geared to do one thing only. In any case, I have won this quest both times I have played it, so wasn't complaining about it's difficulty.​ Again, this post is mainly about addressing the original topic... oddities in reaching stage 2 with no Gollum, which clearly isn't applicable to your style of play. ​
  6. Well, I had this same problem today, and couldn't find any ruling. I feel like the most sensible thing to do though which sort of follows the cards is: 1) If no gollum when on stage 2, and you complete it calling for the capture check.. it auto fails (because you can't capture him since he's not there) and you go back to stage 1B. I played it that way today and it worked out and cause 0 oddities. It also caused me to have to do quest 1B about 3 times before I finally found Gollum again, and was able to capture him... I agree that when playing it solo, it's almost easier to just let gollum go the first time, and try to find him again later to capture after you have built up some board strength to have people to commit to quest and capture attempts... doing both at start is almost impossible if playing solo.
  7. Our family is playing through this as well, and I'm heavily coaching everyone to try to keep the rebels as close to perfect on strategy as possible. (I also feel like its sort of lame that I need to do that, but otherwise it feels like we have 0 chance of winning). Like a lot of the posters here, I have years and years of experience playing tactical board games, much more than my son who is playing Imperials and whom I beat 90% of the time in every other game we play if I don't give him a handicap (which I do). So far, Imperials lost the first match, and Rebels have lost every match since and we are about halfway through the campaign, doing every sidequest. Frankly the Rebels are getting disheartened as many of the missions so far have seemed nearly impossible to complete within the time. (We've done Target of Opp, and Jynns sidequests so far) The even more frustrating thing is we felt like maybe we went a little to slow on the first one, and spent too much time getting crates, so the next mission we left the crates alone and that ended up costing us the game because mid game a new objective popped up in a crate near the entrance that we didn't have time to reach. That was just soulcrushing to the group to finally be close to a win and then feel like the game tricked us with what we "learned" about having to move fast in the last mission. It also seems like if you have a turn of bad die rolls as Rebels when trying to achieve an objective in a time limit.... forget it ... you are done. If this keeps up I'm afraid we won't finish the campaign because people are starting to not have fun anymore, which is too bad, because I think the game has great mechanics but the balance seems off. (Yes I know, someone will come on here saying it's too easy for rebels as others have said... sorry .. just not seeing that.)
  8. I actually don't necessarily agree with this. Reading the definition of Play on page 13 and the definition of put into play on page 13 and 27 and Wedge's card, I don't see anything that clearly marks it as not being playable that way (as an enhancement). Both play and put into play are tranferring a card into the play area, the only difference that is really noted is the 'without paying it's resource cost'. Wedge's text seems to be referring to 'where' he may be 'played' when the card is transferred into play, which both 'Play' and' Put into Play' do. When else would you be putting him onto anything else as an enhancment? Certainly not BEFORE he is transferred into the play area. Also, what does the page 27 statement ' and ignoring any play limitattions' mean? What is a play limitation? Is Wedge's text a 'play' limitation? Does ignoring it mean you get to ignore that you can only do it when you 'play' it? That would seem to be an argument as well for it working, although the meaning of what exactly a 'play limitation is' is muddy to me at least. I understand the point of view that "Play" and "Put into Play" are not the same wording, but Wedge's wording doesn't say anything about some condition you have to meet prior to 'playing' him, as a matter of fact it is only referring to what to do with him as he is transferring into the play area, which both effects MUST do (transfer to the play area that is). So currently I do not see it as clearly prohibiting it one way or the other. Is there anything official on this yet anywhere or is this all just our respective conjectures at this point? From a game balance perspective, I personally think Bulk Transport at least for this point in the game (until more cards come out), will have practically no purpose if Wedge is not able to be used that way with it, and it is certainly not broken if he IS allowed to be played that way. My two cents.
  9. Anyone in the Valencia, CA area interested in forming a casual Star Wars LCG group? Mainly interested in finding a group that is more interested in having some fun with the game (but still trying to win of course!) but isn't looking at each session as a regionals prep game. I'm sure we could use a couple of the local venues to meet (Paper Heroes, Brave New World, etc….) If that sounds like you too, let's try to get some games going! Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
  10. Ok, so I had an interesting situation come to mind during a game today, it didn't end up mattering because my opponent had the focus to pay for it but it could matter in the future and need to know how to resolve when it comes up. Opponent uses Yavin 4 to reduce cost of Home one by 2. Opponent discards 2 cards to pay the cost of the reduce and get the Yavin 4 interrupt. I play it's worse cancelling his Yavin 4 cost reduction. He doesn't get his cards back He still tries to play Home One (and as above in this case he had the focus to pay it still) But… what if he didn't? Say he only had 3 focus, and not enough to pay for Home One…. what happens? Does Home One go back into his hand? If it went back into his hand does he still pay the 3 he could before it goes back into his hand? Does it get discarded because he played it but didn't actually have enough to pay for it? Do I get to sue my opponent after he punches me in the face? These are serious questions people.. any rulings on this yet? I have my opinions but would like word or inference from something official at least (I searched forums already as best as my meager brain could allow for.) Thanks!
  11. At the local game store in my area, there is a Star Wars league that plays every wednesday that I just found out about last week. I showed up to play in my 5th game I've ever played with just 1 basic core set to build my decks from. Almost everyone else there had 2 core sets I noticed. I got to play in about 4 games and I won 3 of them out of the 4. The conventional wisdom is that you need 2 core sets to make good decks… but from what I found if you make a nice quick deck from just 1 core set, you can blow them out before they get their meta-game deck rolling. Basically they all had gotten used to playing each other and were not prepared for the kind of decks I brought which were outside the 'meta' they had developed where everyone was playing the same basic kind of decks. Bottom line, you don't need 2 core decks now to play, and with the Hoth set out, it's even less of an issue only have 1 core set. I think as time goes on, you'll soon be at a point where anyone that bought 2 core decks is going to be looking at the second box and going… man, that other set of cards is sort of a waste now. Unless of course they like to have like 3 or 4 decks built at once for light and darkside.
×
×
  • Create New...