Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CrookedWookie

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/23/1976

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have the money and a huge game room. That is not my point.,.this is not about me, but the less fortunate they prey upon who get into the game and find they can't keep up. I am not rich mind you but have at least a 20k collections of games--I am old and have had more time than some of you. I genuinely feel bad for the poor college students who get sucked into this game and become bitter after all the work they put in. It is a shame....a crooked one. I wish you best luck on your finding a job. My point is that poor people can't afford this kind of shenanigans. You might not be port, just down on your luck. Let me attempt to change that. If you post your resume to a Google doc and PM me a login I get you a job in 8 weeks making what you had before within 40 mins with the same benefits or better if you live in a city over 250k people. If not, I'll buy you any fantasy flight item for free under $200. You're out 30 mins for a job or $200. Up to you good sir. Cheers You ever think the "poor people" neither need nor want you as their self-appointed champion?
  2. He hardly needs you or anyone else to tell him how to better spend his time.
  3. Yea, I was noticing that, that turrets seem better than the ship mounted weapons, you'd think turrets would be on par/worse because of the 360 advantage. Just an observation was all. You're also confusing the fact that for ships like the Falcon there is no distinction between "turret," and "ship-mounted weapon" since the visible turrets ARE its primary weapon for game purposes, able to shoot outside of its primary fire arc. We've been through the 'count the number of barrels' argument since the TIE Interceptor showed up. The game is an abstraction. It tries to capture the feel of Star Wars while attempting to balance things mechanically. It never works well when you start trying to analyze things too closely. The TLT is designed to put out reliable damage, particularly against lower AGI targets, at ranges 2-3, out of fire arc, which is a concept the game previously lacked. It fills a specific niche in terms of game mechanics; nothing more and nothing less. Technically ships like the B-wing should mount ALL of the weapons listed in their upgrade bar, simultaneously - not pick and choose by spending points. But for game balance purposes having a ship you could fly a squadron of, with blasters, a heavy laser cannon, ion cannon, autoblaster, AND torpedoes would be completely broken. So you get the 'naked' ship and pay to outfit it. Same with the obvious turret on the Y-wing, the rear gun (which I think AntiPursuit Lasers was meant to represent) on the Lambda, and so on. Don't overthink it. The designers realized there was no turret that functioned well out at range 3, and saw an opportunity to develop one with an interesting mechanical game design. That's all.
  4. On a side note, did anyone bother to check and see that the whole "if you don't have enough dice available" thing is actually covered in the rules reference? • If players would roll more dice than the maximum number that they have available, keep track of the rolled results and reroll the dice necessary to equal the total number of dice the player would have rolled all at once. Note that these dice are not considered rerolled for the purposes of modifying dice.
  5. I dunno, I tend to feel like if you want to play, play. If you're not sure, don't - save your money or invest it in another hobby you know you want to do. If you have to come on the forum and poll people as to whether you should come back or not, you're either desperate for attention or your heart isn't really in it and you're hoping to be persuaded to do it anyway.
  6. Ok - the way he worded it made it sound like you could choose to roll fewer than required, which would open up all kinds of abuse.
  7. The rules also expressly permit rolling dice in groups smaller than the total amount that you are entitled to. As long as the missing dice are noticed before moving on to the next step, there is no reason not to roll them. Where in the rules does it say you can choose to roll fewer dice than required?
  8. If the die is not laying flat and I (the TO) am called to get involved I ALWAYS call that it should be re-rolled. I agree with this: I think the first step is consulting with your opponent to see if they will allow the result to stand; if they believe it is cocked enough to be questionable or is basically flat. But if there is a disagreement and the TO is called over and there is any question of it being even mildly cocked, I think they're going to err on the side of rerolling it.
  9. I just find it fascinating, because it creates a double standard. Now - I've seen some very concise arguments for why it is a logical, or perhaps even justified double standard, don't get me wrong. But it does handle one distinct situation: "I rolled the incorrect number of dice" in two unique ways, depending on whether that number was too many, or too few. I guess perhaps I'm simply finding it interesting that more people aren't in favor of one blanket rule for that situation: If you rolled an incorrect number of dice, discard the result and reroll the proper number.
  10. OK thanks, I don't know if I agree (with the idea of not just having a blanket "roll the wrong number of dice, do this:" rule - but it is at least a logical argument I can understand.
  11. Of course rolling an extra can make a dramatic difference - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. And it still does nothing to explain why you shouldn't handle any misrolled number of dice in a consistent manner.
  12. But why? I'm asking seriously - I'm curious why it isn't more balanced to simply reroll the correct amount in both instances. You don't get to keep the results you like if you rolled too many. Why should you get to if you rolled too few but like the ones you did roll?
  13. This should have died like 15 pages back, but if it's really devolved to people trading insults and curses, it really needs to go.
  14. Yeah, it's usually pretty obvious when you were shaking your dice and one comes loose and goes bouncing onto the table. I'd actually be more concerned about it landing on a hit or a crit and the player who 'rolled' it trying to claim it was legitimately rolled and should stay. Or claiming I was stuck with one if it shook loose and landed on a blank, all "ha! You rolled it!" I'm interested in the point gamblertuba raised above: I think generally speaking when dice are rolled and you discover it's too few, people I've played with have generally agreed to just roll the overlooked dice and add them to the result. I suppose, technically speaking, it would be more fair to have them pick up those dice, and roll the correct amount. I'm trying to think of a good reason why we've never DONE it that way.
  • Create New...