Jump to content

lordvorkon

Members
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lordvorkon

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

462 profile views
  1. Maybe so, but that's not what they said.
  2. Right. For the record, I think that's what the rule syntax actually says, but having said that, I did play a couple games this afternoon and we decided that it was assinine to play it that way. My opponent argued that 'is treated as having executed' meant that wingmates should be treated as actually executing (including checking difficulty and applying any effects that modify said difficulty) the maneuver in question and the wing formation just ends up putting them in a non-standard end location. I'd even agree that would be a sane way for the rule to be written, and that's what we ended up using on the basis that it made the game less frustrating and therefore more enjoyable. (We were playing the Atmospheric Entry mission, so stress was actually a pretty big deal.)
  3. I don't think this is true, either. Before and after it moves, the wingmate is treated as having the same revealed dial as the wingleader, but WHILE it moves, it does not have a dial at all and does not actually execute a maneuver; it is moved and placed. Not only is there no 'Execute Maneuver' step for the R4 to apply to, there is also no 'Check Difficulty' step to add (or remove) stress. It is, however, treated as having fully executed a maneuver (note the past tense) even though it did not actually do so. Therefore, abilities that say 'after you fully execute' or 'after a ship fully executes' might still trigger off of a wingmate's movement. To summarize, a wingmate should neither gain nor lose stress based off of the maneuver that its wing leader executes, but watch out for splitting as that could make everything come apart in a hurry.
  4. I didn't say it was fair that the player who dealt the damage doesn't get rewarded. Rather the opposite, in fact; I think they should get credit for the kill. What I'm trying to say is that the penalty for fleeing ought to be reserved for situations where the fleeing player had an option to not flee and didn't take it. Also, maybe don't be patronizing. I'm trying to offer suggestions on how to help make said house rules better. I guess I don't feel that it's so difficult for a player to keep track of the last player to do damage to their ship, so that someone gets credit for the kill.
  5. You assume that the player will always have an opportunity to fix a crit before it kills them? Stress will prevent actions. Console Fire could destroy your ship in the same Engagement Phase it was dealt, if you're left with one hull and have not yet engaged. Etc.
  6. This doesn't seem particularly fair to me. What is the reasoning for treating this as fleeing?
  7. So let's change the situation a little bit. Say we have a Seperatist C-ROC with Corsair Refit and Discord Missiles equipped. Choose to use the bonus attack header from Corsair Refit to perform a missile attack. Look for an equipped missile card to perform an attack with. We don't find one, because Discord Missiles don't have an Attack: header, nor any other attributes of an attack. Ergo, no attack can be made. (We could instead use Corsair Refit to make a cannon or turret attack, if one were equipped.) Now, let's replace the Discord Missiles with Concussion Missiles, for example. Concussion Missile obviously does have an Attack: header as well as all the other attributes associated with a special weapon. Choose to use the Bonus attack: header from Corsair Refit to perform a missile attack. Look for an equipped missile card to perform an attack with. The only one equipped is Concussion Missile, so that's the one we'll use. In order to determine what to do with it, we have to read the text that follows the Attack: header, otherwise it'd just be a 3-die ordnance attack with no charges or special text. Since that seems rather ludicrous, it stands to reason that we are now 'using' that attack header for the purposes of the once-per-round restriction. Even if we also had an Ordnance Tubes equipped, no other Concussion Missile attack should be possible, because it's already been used this round. If we somehow also had a Homing Missile, for example, equipped, we could totally use Ordnance Tubes to fire that, though. Coming back to the original question, we equip our C-ROC with Corsair Refit and Cluster Missiles. The attack procedure begins as previously stated; as before, we are obligated to reference the Attack: header on the Cluster Missiles card to know what to do with the attack. It tells us that after this attack, we may perform this attack again with some extra targetting restrictions, etc. On one hand (argument for only one attack with Cluster Missiles), in order to know what to do with this attack (the second one), we have to again look at the Attack: header... which we have already used. RAW, we don't get to make that second attack because we've already used that Attack: header this round. On the other hand (argument for up to four attacks with Cluster Missiles), we've referenced the Attack: header and determined all the attributes for the attack, which carry over into the bonus attack granted by the text. We perform this attack and then we perform this attack again as a bonus attack... and now because unlike Standard Ships, Huge Ships don't have a limit to the total number of bonus attacks per round, we have performed this attack (for the second time), which instructs us that we may perform this attack as a bonus attack. As long as we can continue paying the costs (like spending charges) and selecting valid targets, we can continue making bonus attacks. On the gripping hand (argument for up to two attacks), we read the Attack: header and all of its subsequent text, which goes into the ability queue and resolves one time, generating two attacks as it does so. Both attacks (per the Rules Reference section on Bonus Attacks on p.6) have all the same restrictions and costs except as noted in the text. The kicker is that the text telling us that we're allowed to make a bonus attack afterwards is a seperate sentence from 'Attack: spend 1 charge', so that's why that part isn't carried over into the bonus attack. In conclusion, I think I've convinced myself that 'two attacks' is the correct answer, and if you've read all of the above without blowing steam out your ears, you probably owe yourself a cookie.
  8. So this raises a question re: Cluster Missiles. Assuming that all other conditions are fully met, does a huge ship equipped with cluster missiles get 1, 2, or 4 attacks? I know which of these I want to be the case (and also which of these I think is most reasonable, which may or may not be the same thing ), but I figured I'd see what the community thinks. Arguments in favor of each option: 1) After using the Attack header once to make an attack, you cannot use it again to make a bonus attack. 2) The card is creating a virtual 'bonus attack' header which is used for the second attack, which is then expended for the round. The bonus attack only has the basic attributes (range, dice, ordinance) of the attack, and NOT the text which follows the Attack header. One could also argue for 'specific exception to general rule', but if so why not keep going? (On the other hand, this argument seems to do a lot of things that the card does not say to do.) 4) Continuing the 'specific exception' argument, the second and subsequent attacks follow all the same rules as the first attack, which each generate their own bonus attack until you run out of charges.
  9. Grappling struts says "After you reveal your dial." When you are ionised, there is no dial to reveal. Therefore, you will execute a 1-straight ion maneuver, and then flip your struts to the closed side (because you have executed a maneuver).
  10. That's cute, but how're you getting Advanced Sensors and a Collision Detector on the same ship?
  11. I disagree. I mean, I guess it's possible that you could argue that "After item #3 in a three-item list" is not in fact the same thing as "After the list", but I don't interpret it that way. I read it as: You finished step three of a three-step process, so you've finished the process; therefore both triggers are simultanous.
  12. Yeah I wouldn't bother with calculate, either. The thing I don't like is that it's pretty hard to handle not-90-degree rotations and still keep the center of the ship in the same place. I guess you could put a template across the middle of the base and use that as a reference point, but that feels really awkward to me.
×
×
  • Create New...