Jump to content

Mace Windu

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mace Windu

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

1,445 profile views
  1. I would also add to that the Quadjumper dial is actually very good, notably better than the dial for the V-19 to be honest. So similar stats to the Quad, but that amazing built in ability and better dial means that the V-19's really need to be coming in at 25-26 points maximum to be viable, anything closer to 30 points and they will be horribly overcosted, which would be a shame as I really want to play republic but im not sure squads exclusively made of Sprites and ARC's will be viable
  2. Listing on the pairing sheet does seem like the most elegant solution I have been able to think of, though by extension there also probably needs to be some way of ensuring your opponent hasn't changed decks between rounds as well, perhaps the pairings sheet will list the player name, deck name and chains.
  3. Here is the link to the article: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/1/22/power-up/?fbclid=IwAR15NgZO5Ju2OBib8rXACZlTNxDm2G-Qb49ID6-e-w0qjHvTi9q-1VHFVzo My main question is how do you confirm how many chains your opponents deck has before you start a match? will you be able to scan your opponents deck with the app and it will tell you? or are you expected to assume your opponent will just tell you honestly what the chain number is on their deck and for you to believe them? Also be keen to know if there will be a remote way of cashing in digital aember and keys for those of us living in country's where it wont be easy to get to an event with prize walls.
  4. Mace Windu

    What do you want to see in the next Rulebook?

    Knowing and playing several other competitive FFG games I would imagine that there will be a tournament rules PDF released at some point as well. there may be some more overarching rules in there that may cover off some procedural questions I would think. the question I have that I have not seen asked elsewhere is if you gain amber on your opponents turn that would then allow you to make a key at the start of your turn are you obliged to say Check at that point? if you DON'T say Check at the end of your turn if you have enough Aember to make a key, and your opponent plays their turn not thinking you can make a key, are you denied the chance to make a key if you realise when your turn starts after they are done? particularly as your opponent might have played differently the previous turn if they had known you could make a key?
  5. Mace Windu

    Initiative/Ps should have been 1-5

    I would agree mostly with what you say, particularly that I3 & I4 are virtually indistinguishable and could be a single Initiative, but I do see value in separating I1 & I2 in the context where you want blockers etc.
  6. Mace Windu

    Restringuntus and Collar of Subordination

    it still means that the opponent remains the same regardless of who the controller is, so no the new controller does not get to pick a new house for Retro
  7. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    Ive bolded the part where you are inferring what you believe the card is intended to do. and to this point we agree that is what the card is MEANT to do. but that's not how it is worded, AT ALL, and that's the basis of my point. the cards need better formatting so that inferring is not a required part of understanding what a card does.
  8. Mace Windu

    Restringuntus and Collar of Subordination

    Cards never changer Owner, only control, the person who's deck the card started in Is always the owner, regardless of who controls the card
  9. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    Firstly, determining someone is "wrong" in a debate is not overly helpful. secondly the rules text on Shadow Self is flat out poor. I reiterate, for you to answer, Does a creature dealt damage immediately have damage markers put on it? if you answer anything but yes, well this discussion is pointless. Page 7 from the rules: "When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature" So assuming you said yes, is a creature with the same or more damage markers on it as it power immediately destroyed? Yes, again the rules are quite clear on this. Page 7, straight after the sentence posted above: "If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile" so because Shadow Self actually requires damage to be dealt to the neighboring creature to actually trigger its ability, it somehow magically heals that creature and is then dealt the damage itself. Also somehow preventing a creature from being destroyed in the process even though it may have had lethal damage on it. Poor templating at its finest, but at least now we can at least extrapolate from Brads email that damage is dealt in this order: 1) Shields absorb x damage where x is the remaining shield value. then 2) damage redirection effects redirect any remaining or specified amounts of damage to a new creature. then 3) any remaining damage not absorbed or redirected is assigned to the targeted creature.
  10. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    Agreed, the rules can be changed to clarify intent, and I hope they are because as they are currently worded there is far to much ambiguity
  11. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    when a creature is dealt damage you put damage markers on it straight away....right? Yes so if a creature is dealt lethal damage, even with Shadow Self next to it, well then it must die before Shadow Self magically heals it and then takes the damage.... right? No. creatures next to Shadow Self arent dealt damage at all, and this is the point I'm trying to make, its poorly worded (even admitted by Brad himself as posted above) and if this sort of text templating continues to be used on cards it will only get worse. Also as an aside the word Suffer does not appear in the rules text at all, so using it is really speculating on what "suffering damage" actually might mean.
  12. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    Please tell me you see the blatant contradiction here though right? the rules text say that damage MUST be dealt for the armor to work: "if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor" But then Brad goes on to state that: "Because Prevention must happen BEFORE something is dealt that must happen first" Then to top it off Brad actually states that the rules are vague!!!!!!! throw poison into the mix (which again has been RIA'ed) and it becomes a disaster. for all the talk people have about the game not wanting a magic like rules framework it could really do with one.
  13. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    cant say I've seen that ruling, care to share a link? Also without trying to sound obstinate, but the way the rules are written its clear that the damage should go to the Shadow Self. no damage is ever dealt to the shielded creature and as such the shields should not work, but it is what it is I guess. FFG are far more prone to making RAI determinations like this that conflict with what the rules actually say than tightening up the rules framework and card text formatting.
  14. Mace Windu

    Are there any ACTUAL rules issues?

    its pretty clear from the Armor rules on page 9 of the rulebook that armor only takes effect when the creature is actually dealt damage: "For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn." So the armored creature never actually takes damage if it is next to a shadow Self because Shadow self redirects the damage. and im sure someone will try to argue that the way shadow self is worded: " Shadow Self deals no damage when fighting. Damage dealt to non-Specter neighbors is dealt to Shadow Self instead." That somehow damage is dealt to the target creature, then healed somehow magically, then dealt to Shadow Self. if that is the case we have a whole new issue to deal with. Edit: this particular situation could have easily been solved by saying: "If damage would be deal to a non-specter neighbor, deal that much damage to Shadow Self instead" But FFG rules templating is sloppy, ive played x-wing long enough to know that.
  15. Mace Windu

    If you had to play only one faction, what would it be?

    For now Imperials, but once the Republic is available ARC's, V-19's & Jedi starfighters are going to be my jam. Also there's plenty of speculation to say that Mace is going to be a pilot so I'm sold