Jump to content

Bipolar Potter

Members
  • Content Count

    795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bipolar Potter

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/20/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
    Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

539 profile views
  1. AhahahaHAAHAHAHAHAHahahahaAHHAHAHAHAHAHaaHAh VINDICATION! Where's hobojebus? I have a humble pie for him to eat.
  2. Almost forgot to put this up today, as i forgot that there will be MaS events today as well. So. It is upon us. The vanguard of a new wave arrives, heralded by the clash of fleets. We're here to settle the Wave 1 debate, and confirm the Edsel-Blerg Theory, and Motti Scale. Here's the deal. Any events you go to this weekend, TO's, or players who know your TO's aren't Forum-inati (or trolls, whatever), try to get the top 8 lists and the winners. I don't need to know who the 4th round winners were, but go ahead and include that too. So format wise: Location: 1st place Faction/List 2nd place Faction/List 3rd place Faction/List 4th place ... Down to 8th place at least, but get as many of the fleet lists as you want. Good luck Commanders, may the dice be ever in your favor this weekend.
  3. Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship. I think they are trying to say that not everybody will pull out the rulebook and assume they know how the rule is worded. The warlord situation was different, because their was a gray area, no "if possible" wording, and the question of intent on the rules and how they were designed. Ha, you have clearly spent no time arguing against opponents while playing any of GW's product lines. FFG's are practically ironclad simplicity-wise in comparison. At the very least FFG's rulebook has answers, and doesn't cause more questions
  4. Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship.
  5. The problem with the "Instigator argument" is that it's wording, and the wording of the second bullet point under the RRG under engagement, supports absolutely no other interpretation. This is going to be like the FAQ entries for Screed and Warlord. It'll get one, but it really didn't need one. People are just people, and therefore awful.
  6. Except due to it being a modification, it means you can NEVER make more than one attack with that ship. No Gunnery teams, no dual arcs, no Ackbar slash, no anti-squadron fire from another arc. Advanced Gunnery is now a dead objective for any ship packing that upgrade. That's a massive drawback for a point cost that's in line with other competing upgrades. Imperials won't mount it due to needing Gunnery Teams to maximize the value of their front arcs of their VSD's and ISD's. MC80's will be in serious trouble if they ever get flanked, same problem with Assault Frigates. MC30 wants to double arc if it can get it. Im really just seeing Nebulons as the only viable mount for this. This isn't like Ackbar where you can decide whether to fire from just the sides and get extra dice, you're just plain stuck at one attack at +1 red die. You really think that's worth 6 points AND losing second attacks?
  7. Slaved turrets would be worth it at 3-4 points. 6 points is making you pay over half the cost of Enhanced Armaments, and while you do get to use it on the front or rear arcs, you're still paying a MASSIVE cost in denying you a 2nd attack. Garbage card. Geez, its also a Modification, thus hamstringing the rest of your list building. So pretty much you'll only ever see this on Nebulon's, and even then there's better options to spend 6 points on. Independence is also complete rubbish. 8 points for that effect? No thank you.
  8. He'll have the same problem as Vader. Hits like a truck, but can't stay on the battle field long enough to pay his points back. Although he might have an easier time due to not having escort, so you can actually shield him with an Advanced.
  9. I don't have problems with his damage, 1 auto plus Blue/Black with bomber will mean he tears ships to shreds. My problem is the same one i've had with Vader. They just don't last. Got to have scatter or you'll simply die to massed fire.
  10. Im really impressed they managed to make Armada Imperial Boba just about as lackluster as Xwing Imperial Boba. His ability is not worth the point you pay. Maybe if it bypassed shields on ships. When a ship suffers damage and a hull zone isn’t specified, the ship’s owner chooses which hull zone suffers all of that damage. Pg. 4 RRG, under Damage. He's a souped up Vader with Bomber for 5 more points. Not worth it.
  11. Right, that's why its so horrifying to me. He's stuck in a very sh*tty place because of this store owner, along with all the other players.
  12. A valid line of thought, but I take issue with your assertion that no damage happens first round. I've put the hurt on many a small ship with a round one Rhymer ball tossed across the board by Corrupter. Still, generally speaking, you're right that most games you'll see five uses, and the points add up quick. Well, personally, if i saw you deploy Corrupter at the edge of your deployment zone and Rhymer and crew D2 into the setup area, I'd be expecting that and would place my fighter screen to counter, but I accede your point. MOST of the time you wont take damage 1st round. Semantics aside, you almost never take damage 1st round, and probably won't take much damage 2nd round.
×
×
  • Create New...