Jump to content

Rodent Mastermind

Members
  • Content Count

    2,359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rodent Mastermind

  1. You could have a lot of fun with that slot though, making Scum unique... recommissioned Buzz Droids. A commander who has put bombs in his own fleets ships that he can set off as an action.. All kind of dirty scummy tricks that would only really work in Epic games.
  2. Nope Illicit slots are quite broken on big ships, there would have to be a list of ones you couldn't take... I would prefer a unique Scum Cargo slot.... Black Market Goods or some other name which could be designed to work better on a large ship. A lot of the Illicits that are discarded are powerful, things like Glitterstim for example. The EMP one would be quite funny. But the Black Market Goods upgrade could be quite expensive, 6-10 points to make up for the Illicit being used 2 or 3 times in a game.
  3. Did the standard C-Roc Gozanti ever dock fighters? Didn't it just ship cargo? I would like a 'Black Market Goods' slot, so we could have some interesting scummy upgrades... Something like This ship may purchase an Illicit upgrade, attach it to this card. At the start of the Activation phase choose a friendly ship within range 1-3 to equip this Illicit upgrade, if the ship would discard the Illicit upgrade or during the End Phase return the Illicit upgrade to this card.
  4. Yeah it means you can't re-roll a dice Zuckuss re-rolled.. it can be a pain for characters with Lone Wolf.
  5. No it doesn't... at all... It just sets how those actions that stop rule breaking should be dealt with... IE you deal with the TO, not directly with the players who are trying to concentrate on the game.
  6. Saying that I have no issue flying someone that has been dead 19 years with Fenn Rau.
  7. Er.. yep... I can't bring myself to cross the streams. But it is fine I'm playing Scum, and I for some reason don't feel as bad flying a Quadjumper with other ships for some reason.
  8. ER.. nope we are not.. We are saying quite explicitly that you should not IN ANY WAY interfere with a game being played. informing a player of rules is interfering. If you believe someone is cheating talk to a Marshal or TO
  9. Yes, he can but he can't stop arguments going back or forth if the interjection had knock on effects, eg an argument that meant the game didn't end and one player won on MOV, or it changed what one player would do by making him see something he wouldn't otherwise. etc...
  10. Sure. But not from the point of view of people who would quite happily take advantage of the bad rule. So now you are saying anyone who disagrees with you is a cheater? Nope... I have worked in the industry for 15 odd years. I have run plenty of tournaments, and I know just how much of a mess a concerned spectator can make if you just allow them to intercede whenever they want. I've seen fallout that has lasted weeks with incrimination flying back and forth... It much safer and causes far less issues if the tournament organiser deals with it. I know exactly why they have ruled it the way they have, and I totally agree with it. FFG have how many games and run how many big tournaments for them each year, yes they make mistakes but in general they know what they are doing.
  11. There is also the case that the Tournament Organiser should know what is going on in his own tournament, if you as a spectator are stepping in about rules violation he has no knowledge that it has happened, which makes it harder for him to act on further infractions. It's not allowing people to actively cheat, it's allowing TO who are meant to be in charge of the thing make the call rather than you as an independent spectator stepping in. It's the difference between someone being a vigilante and someone reporting a crime to the police.
  12. It's not your job to assume you know the rules better than the two people playing, it's up to the TO or marshals to deal with anything they believe is breaking the rules, if you believe someone is actively cheating talk to the TO.
  13. And you have not surprisingly ignored everything anyone else has said and think you have the right force your opinion on everyone else. But thank you for proving my point, that you think it's acceptable for you to cheat in order to stop someone else from doing something you think is cheating. That's my reading of his posts.. Even though I'm not playing or a TO, because I think I know the rules better than everyone else, I will interject and potentially make someone throw the game because I feel it more important to show my rules superiority than be sportsmanlike. Also because of this I question his ability to just walk away and not argue till the cows come home if people disagree with his take on the rules.
  14. Because it is oh so easy to tell which is the front on the ship, especially since the ship is piloted and once was built exclusively for a droid. Droids don't necessarily need windows. yeah but primary thrusters don't usually point forward. You never know, Hound's Tooth has primary thrusters pointing upwards I hate that design too. Seriously, isn't it obvious that the big bar engines behind the cab are where it's propulsion come from, the big chimneys are obviously exhausts from it's generator. I just wanna say that the engines FFG slapped on are new. In a later episode of the Clone Wars you see the bar engines (1 big, 2 little) lit up bright red. The rest of the stuff doesn't radiate visibly. It's way cool to see in flight, though. I wish they'd feature it more. Just looked up the episode, Yep definitely the top wide one and the 2 under are engines.. It's really hard to get a screenshot as the engines are leaking smoke.
  15. Is anyone saying otherwise? Because if they are I think they're wrong. A judge can and should intervene when they see something that is breaking the rules. Which of course is different from optimal play. But if you are not a judge, then no you don't have any place pointing out what you think are rules violations to the players. DecisionFire and Amraam01 are both suggesting that a judge must not intervene unless asked to by a player. I think that's wrong. My philosophy is, "If you see something, say something," with the caveat that if you are a spectator, you can only say it to the judge and not directly to the players. My points are illustrating the potential bias if you are actively engaged so you really have to be careful when interrupting games because you cant be everywhere at once. So calling on one players error while missing others is problematic. I have seen it firsthand too where a judge viewing and officiating on a screen in the next room has stopped action several times to questions bumps and triggers, has lead to several minutes discussions as both players had to explain the situation and the judge ended up misunderstanding the situation. As a judge you of course have some interpretation of how to perform but following FFG guidance seems like the best way for a reason since there is only 1 judge typically. "An event may have any number of judges, including none. A judge is well versed in the game’s rules and regulations. A judge’s responsibilities include assisting players to resolve disputes and answering questions regarding the game’s rules. When a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly." This it! I think watching the world tourney (Previous too) closely is a good example how a judge should perform. You also have to realize that is not an exhaustive list of duties that a judge may have throughout a tournament right? Of course! The judge could announce, please hand your damage deck to you opponent and count the cards for instance. If a player is not placing tokens on the board the judge could point it out etc. I just saying be conservative on how you act but really if it in your judgment to say something, say it! Just be careful and try to avoid if you can. I would say it comes down to disturbance, if the amount of disturbance you cause is more than the impact of the mistake, I would be quiet about it. Especially if I had only just got to the table. However if a player continually makes mistakes in his favour or it's obvious that something is iffy, ofc get involved. I have got to the end of a game before and went to the TO and suggested he keeps an eye on an opponents next game.
  16. Who is that? Well, I don't want to spoil too much for folks that are fans of the character: so I will use the tag below. @ Wraithdt: Good call on the A-Wing and Sensor Jammer! \Moff Jerjerrod can throw Vader, the Emperor, or Mara Jade out an airlock. TBH, the game is taking ships and pilots from 2 separate universes now, so I think it doesn't matter too much. Is there a version of events where he/she could be around at the time of the civil war, I think so. Anyway I like having him/her in the game, so I'm not going to complain.
  17. I thought the answer was change the shape of the TIE panels, or add a couple of extra bomb pods...
  18. We used to do this with Blast Markers for Epic (using skittles).... Until we realised that passing observers where unstressing our formations.
  19. In a casual game which is not timed... I totally agree.. In a timed tournament environment things are a bit different as games can run all the way to time so easily. Having someone butt in and then having to either discuss what they think the rule should be, or have to explain to them the actual state of the game can distract the players, make them forget to do things, etc.
  20. I think that is a problem with the fact they use washes to weather, it works great with greebling but less well with large panels. It's obvious they made an attempt at weathering, with the breakup / chipping on the coloured areas etc. but without the wash going into the recesses it didn't work as well as with the smaller ships. Something like an army painter dip would probably fix a lot of the issue.
  21. I believe it's also the reason why Voyager's nacelles have to tilt pre-warp. Also, I could see the triple sets working if you push the middle nacelle back behind the main pair's line. Yep totally... at sub light speed they are in line with the hull, but they drop under the hull when they go to warp speed.
  22. Why do people say this... It's obviously not a Star Trek ship. Due to the way warp fields are generated all ships in Star Trek have an empty area between the nacelles where the warp field is generated. This ship the warp field would be generated right in the middle of it tearing the ship apart.... So obviously not a Star Trek ship... The warp fields are shown encompassing the whole ship. There were rules laid down on Nacelle placement by Gene Roddenberry 1) They must be in pairs 2) They must be a clear line to them from the front. 3) There must be clear line of sight between the pairs of nacelles as the area between them is where the warp field is primarily generated. Some of the later ships break the rules a bit, there are some odd numbered nacelles, the Defiant has a very tight clearance on Line of Sight between the Nacelles. But in general the rules are kept to across the board in Star Trek. You can see it really clearly on almost all federation ships, and the Warbird is a prime example of the principles.
  23. Here are some a mate of mine Rasta Maice did.. I really love them. They make the ship look great too.
×
×
  • Create New...