Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rebelarch86

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. Rebelarch86

    Red Dice Cap (max amount of red dice)

    I was throwing 6 dice with Han in 2013 at R1 and rerolling 4times. I am pissed by the power creep though. It was way cooler when only I was doing it.
  2. Rebelarch86

    House Rules

    The most viable strategy in my experience of RAW is have 3 people rush the objectives, take all the hits, get wounded, and it doesn't matter bc the 4th Rebel is avoiding the IP. the rebels rarely need to actually attack bc they can move through IP figures. 1 match where our IP really was disgusted and we had to all agree, he had 14 pieces on the board when we completed the objective. Our 1 player made a bad *** killing machine and found that every time his better play was to move and interact with something. truly none of us Rebels and IP were doing things we wanted bc they felt necessary to win and encouraged by the game. We all talked about the game for 2 hours after to get at how all of us were playing a game the way we didn't want to play. The IP has a lot of cool cards that he had to pay for to have, and he needs to win to get to use them, so he was being cut throat, which made the Rebels figure out the game quick and the name of the game seems to be move. Thats when we decided to approach the game differently.
  3. They completely lost me on Xwing 2.0. 6 years and you need a 2nd edition? What the **** was I playing the last few years, a broken game that needs a redo? I hope not. 2nd edition should be 2-3 years after the original run if their is demand for it.
  4. Rebelarch86

    House Rules

    Yes absolutely! the game around the tiles, like leveling, cards, gear, shop is great. The miniatures on the tile is pretty good, the mission objectives and layouts are a great asset, the structure and parameters are not at all what I wanted or thought I was buying. I was really surprised when in the middle of a game I realized the IP was trying to win. This creates unfun. Where a GM doesn't want to remove challenge, they don't remove the elements of the game that players like. A competitor actively tries to remove the opportunity for players to do what they like. It's like a GM never using undead so the cleric doesn't get to turn, or enemies who can't be critted so rogues can't sneak attack. It's spiteful. Then you get into crap over triggers, and nope you took your finger off the piece and it's your responsibility to know every trigger on the 7 cards I front of you. That's petty. Then you get bad *** villains running rather than engaging or Rebels running through storm troopers instead of fighting. You chz a lot of gamey, probably unintended non-interactions, instead of simulate what a character in a given situation would do. So, I play like a GM and facilitate things players want to do. They can lose and do, but they're not encouraged to do things they really don't want to do. An interesting development in our 1st normal RAW campaign was when the IP said he didn't like it and wasn't having fun and all us Rebel players told him we are rarely spending our activation doing what we want to do either. One player came right out and said it's a bad game, I want to attack things and constantly get told not to by the game itself. we play all the characters and deployment cards as written, all the leveling and gear, but encourage RP choosing what your character would do on the board and role play elements between missions like tracking info down and figuring things out, some puzzles on and off the board to. it's funny the miniature combat is great but the game encourages you to not engage your opponent.
  5. Rebelarch86

    House Rules

    The problem is that competive play inspires really gamey, non-story driven decisions. And the whole play good tactics mentality is a rather macho chz bag response to gameplay mechanics that don't capture what the game is trying to simulate. yes I am absolutely going to be turned off by 1 Rebel hiding in a corner double resting while the others complete a mission or bad *** characters like Bosk avoiding fighting the rebels. It's not about making it hard to win, it's about enjoying the promise of the game. Great characters pitted in combat against classic villains with objectives that will be violently opposed.
  6. Rebelarch86

    Imperial Assault Big Trade thread

    Wife ended up getting me boxes I had already. Have core open but not punched or separated, hoth, jaba, and bespin sealed.
  7. Ootl what are these posts about people being disappointed and mad over Armada? is it bc there hasn't been a new release? Man I have been enjoying the **** out of that. I hate anything more than 2 waves a year. i am completely done with Xwing bc of it. They completely flooded the market with product isn't even the main line stuff. Made it to easy to check out once all the original ships were collected. If it was 1 cool addition at a time it would be more appealing to accept new ships.
  8. Can someone clarify I understand this, the clone trooper's abilities gives a 2nd attack with one action, but applies a penalty of adding a defense die? how is that not horrible? Garkhan, Biv, and Jyn gain an additional action to attack 3 times a round without a penalty. Biv and Jyn can extend that even more with abilities.
  9. What our IP has pointed out is that the rule book says he gains threat equal to the cost on the card. And the Allied operations doesn't say reduce cost on the card. I agree with your assessment but has it ever been explicitly written or answered by ffg so we can show our IP?
  10. The card says reduces the cost of playing the ally. Which most of our players take to mean the IP gets 2 less threat when rebels play an ally. The IP has pointed out the books says gains threat on card and Allied operations does not say reduce the "card" it says reduce the cost. the question is what cost is being reduced? It does seem clear the only cost is threat cost, but this game is difficult for everyone and rules errors can cause a win or loss which we don't want to be the reason anyone is losing.
  11. I still don't see the rule answer. This sounds like a common sense / that's the way it's done answer, but raw don't often align that's just how it would make sense. the mission text isn't restricting a target. That's not what I'm reading and I wouldn't ever think the attack happens if the mission text said anything like may attack, may attack only "stated target", attack target if able (which some text says). I really need a rules only text answer for why: mission text says make an attack against stated target, should then go to step 1 of of declare a target? Mission text beats rule text, mission text has already declared an attack and target, why are we going Down to rule text to check a step mission text has already done?
  12. Where I am getting stuck and really hope I can get a ffg FAQ on it, is the mission text declaring the target. I don't think bc the attribute test gives an attack I have to take it, I think bc the mission text declares a target you skip the declare a target rule step. if the mission text read, the winner may make an attack, I would have no argument and agree los leaves the winner with none. But the mission text specifically says the winner makes an attack against a target the mission text declares. Once the mission text declares the target ai don't see why step 1 of declaring a target from the rule book has any affect. this is a story based mission. It's her arch rival. I think the mission text is deliberately written that way bc this is a story moment that is happening.
  13. Can you explain why that happens? Mission text trumps rule book text, correct? Player can't target a figure they don't have Los to. This mission effect gives an attack and declares the target. Why would Los step even happen? And there are mission text interrupts that say attack if Los, why would this mission text leave it out? how is step 1 declare target not already done by mission text, perform attack against this target?
  14. Rebelarch86

    Bespin "Freedom Fighters" Mission..

    I thînk if I am following the thread (tough bc some sarcasm maybe?) this mission is hard for rebels? My group had rebels win this Turn 4. And we aren't very good. We have lost every story mission and won every side mission. We also won by splitting up. This just seem to contradict what the other posts are saying so I wanted to share how we did it. We had 3 doors open and 3 citizens rescued after 1st activation of turn 2. And I think there might have only been 1 misstep/better play possible by the IP at this point. gideon, Jyn, fen, garkhan, ally. Gideon helped Garkhan and Fen move with master stroke. Garkhan charged, attacked, killed guy at his door. Jyn doubl moved to farthest door. Fen moved to middle door (using tactical move). Ally went up stairs. Tradoshians by ugnaught moved to intercept ally. Ugnaught moved for fen. All others went after Jyn (Jyn really frustrates my IP so this is a psychological thing). Jyn ate 3 activations of his guys bc he saw his nuisance isolated and far from home. turn 2 fen activates 1st opens door, triggers Lobo (door shuts 3/4 guys away from Jyn). Fen moves with tactics and surge to door closest to middle door and 2nd action to open it. 2/4 citizens secured. IP activation, with no chance of getting to Garkhan activates to now move to and attack fen. Garkhan activates, opens door gets 3/4 citizen moves down main hall towards all the action. Resolve some attacks go to turn 3. Jyn kills ghamorian. Strains to close others behind door. Opens farthest cell. Bosk comes out. gharkin charges bosk after his action, attacks again. Gideon activates (bc of tight corridor Bosk can only move into a space still adjacent to gharkin) gharkin is commanded to attack twice. everyone else resolves. turn 4 gharkin activates and kills bosk. initially IP activations could have been spent putting everyone at doors, but players were disrupting that and it's not a vacuum. Gharkin was definitely clearing his door. Fen could have had to waste an action to clear an enemy at his 1st door and not get to the 2nd, but you're still looking at 2/4 on start of turn 2 with Jyn isolated with just one ghamorrean. I think it still turns out very similar just with the final target up top instead of down at the bottom.
  15. We had a very interesting rule interaction in our session tonight. Jyn interacts with comm tile and summons Czark. The door opens and Czark is revealed. The IP reads Czark's intro and interrupts Jyn's turn for a trigger. The trigger reads Jyn rolls an eye test wins and makes an attack against Czark or lose and be attacked. However 2 Rebel saboteurs were standing in the doorway. The IP thought this test and attack don't happen bc LOS to which the other players agreed. I thought the attack is a mission trigger that is higher priotirty then rule book and did argue this before knowing Jyn won or lost the roll. here are the 2 ways we argued it: 1) An attack needs a LOS 2) the missions says make attribute test to gain attack 3) the attack then auto fails because there is no LOS and can't announce the figure as a target vs. 1) the mission says make attribute test then attack is made on the target given by this mission text 2) attack is made bc the target is already declared and acquired before checking for LOS 3) roll and resolve all other dice normally It was argued that why would you still need to check range if that were the case? The mission doesn't give you an auto hit so you shouldn't have to get a roll vs. the part in the sequence where an attack is declared on a target already happened so no LOS check is made since you can't target and miss bc of LOS. Blocked LOS means you can't even declare the target. To me this is just following the priority of text mission - card - rules. Especially since some missions have text that interrupts a turn to say attack if can, but Hign Moon just says make an attack against this target. Which case is it? And why with rule references? we handled this professional gamer style, but it did sour moods for a bit so good explanation would help us. Thanks.