Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dantop83

  1. The 4 named above are the best 4 "Munitions" in the game and were also the last 4 released (There may be one more in there that I am not remembering). Recent munitions have been playable, while original munitions have not been, so hopefully FFG has fixed the course on all new munitions moving forward, but the question now is do you "fix" the old ones somehow, or just make all new ones?


    There is some usefulness in the original munitions, but it mostly has to do with the over cost and the loss of a target lock (or focus with deadeye). Proton Torpedo's are actually solid, but the cost of 4 and the loss of a Target lock is why they don't see play for example


    HotShot is a great example of a useful and not too unfair munition. No loss of target lock, 360 degree attack, decent cost..


    FFG could release missile/torpedo upgrades that act as upgrades to upgrades, making munitions cost 2 less or maybe take away the target lock being spent...Something like that would be universal and not ship specific AND would make all existing munitions possibly viable.


    I am sure there's dozens of different ideas for fixing munitions on these forums by now, but I just had to throw that out there. :)


    To answer the main Hot Shot discussion, I have had great results with a HotShot on Guri and on Zs. Especially the Z that gets the extra attack dice when he is alone. It was expensive but I also had Opportunist on him so the hotshot fired for 5 dice. A lot of points for a Z, but it made my opponent fly differently which helped the game overall. (I also played Cluster Missile because I couldn't resist of course)

  2. I decided to make it white because it made it much easier to see when it is printed out and card sized. The darker ones were making me do a crazy squint! I actually printed some on grey card stock and that looked pretty good too.


    Unfortunately I don't have any fancy programs to help and I made these in Paint so I was limited to what I could find and copy paste and such..I had a much fancier and darker set of movements instead of white, but it was waaay too hard to see when fitting the ship images. I decided I liked the ship images too much to remove them at the time and then I went with white. :)


    I was thinking of going back and making more, but like I said, I don't exactly have the best tools to do this in the first place. Glad you like it!

  3. I have finally finished my new card sized maneuver cheat sheets with Scum that I created using other existing images I have found online. They should represent an upgrade to the existing reference cards used before Scum released.The BGG file is in Word and ready to print at correct size. Below is also the direct Dropbox link, but I am not sure how that one will print out. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments/feedback. Enjoy! :)


    BGG Download page:




    Direct DropBox:


  4. I have officially posted my new card sized maneuver cheat sheets with Scum that I created using other existing images I have found. They should represent a nice upgrade to the existing chat sheets posted here.The BGG file is in Word and ready to print at correct size. Below is also the direct Dropbox link, but I am not sure how that one will print out. Enjoy! :)


    BGG Download page: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/115194/x-wing-ship-maneuver-card-custom-created-including



    Direct DropBox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zocegp52u68t7nk/Custom%20Maneuver%20Card%20with%20Scum.docx?dl=0

  5. The most common “abuse” of the target lock mechanic that I have experienced is when ships are at range 2 and a target lock is used and measured, which now gave the player the idea of where range 1 would be, so the person can then boost or barrel roll into range 1 with an extra action or even with other ships.


    It’s annoying, but it is an unfortunate byproduct of how Target locks work. Lots of game rules and mechanics glean extra info and offer an edge, which isn’t even cheating, because both player can do it.


    I have had players get annoyed when I want to measure to ensure a shot is range 1 or 2 when they just assume it is. As long as everyone follows the rules and gleans the same info it doesn’t feel like it is being abused to me. I will usually watch when my opponent does a target lock so I can see the range 1 and 2 general areas so I am getting something out of that additional info as well.


    I am always trying to boost around rocks or other ships and when I don’t fit, not only do I get to take a different action, but that also sets up my next maneuver because I was able to judge the spacing better and of course know I can’t do the bank I was trying to fit. That feels like a similar level of “abuse”, albeit a bit lesser, than the Target Lock discussions and yet I haven’t seen Boost brought up at all.


    I would agree that there would be a benefit to a Target Lock rule stating if the opponent cedes it then you can’t measure. At least that would prevent one of the bigger “information leaks” that Target Locks provide, BUT in the grand scheme of things I don’t know if this will be addressed as an area that needs fixing before something like bumping gets clarified.


    I personally would much rather see the FFG guys spend their energy and time on balancing the ships and creating new stuff (and releasing an FAQ eventually) ,than having them have to create stricter rules or re-examine the mechanics of the game, which for the most part are solid.


    So to very briefly summarize, does anyone think there is there a problem or abuse as long as both players can do it? I see the range info just like my opponent does and maybe it benefits him this turn, but maybe next turn will be the opposite, so in that sense does this really need addressing from an abuse standpoint?


    There's no good way to have rules that say "you can measure but only if you reasonably think you are in range anyway." Because you start to get into debates on what is reasonable. Better to simply say yes you can or no you can not.

    Which I think is what Alex was saying. It's sorta up to the TO to decide this way if someone is abusing the rules or not.



    You shouldn't assume that there is no good rule to address the situation.


    Here's an example: If you declare a target lock attempt you only may measure for range IF the opponent challenges it and only IF. That allows you to cede any obvious locks for players who might take advantage of it that way. AND add an official tournament rule that the opponent can choose to declare the lock is clearly too far away and that a judge must come over and decide if it should be measured and if it is erroneously far the judge can issue a warning. That adds in a buffer to deter players from trying the long distance ones instead of just heaping too much pressure on a TO in the moment who has to deal with a volatile situation. Now this is just an idea, but there may be several ways that this situation can be addressed that FFG could explore and might already have in the works.


    Also it is always up to the TO to watch for and deal with anyone who is abusing the rules, not just sorta.


    And only Alex Davey can know what he is saying. You shouldn't assume and interpret anything he says, nor is it law until it is in an official FAQ or Tourney Doc, as we found with mixing dials that things they say, even directly in a ruling e-mail, can change.


    Obviously the intention of the card is to correct your accuracy by giving you two hits...

    So you're a play tester and/or developer and helped design that card? Because that's the only way you can know what the intention of the card actually is.


    Thank you for trolling me again Vandor, I feel like we are back to talking about mixing dials..


    The name of the card IS accuracy corrector and thus I was making a commentary using OBVIOUSLY to point out the name of the card and its logical intent, NOT that I am an all knowing FFG employee. Sorry again for ruffling your feathers and triggering your high horsing sensibilities that forced your hand in bashing me. (again...) You also so graciously repeated what I said in my complete message...now that you repeated what has been said it surely will stand as truth. My entire post was of course invalidated when I used the word Obviously and included smiley faces.


    You continue to be a gracious host and ambassador to these wonderful forums. At least the question for this forum topic has been answered. I look forward to posting again someday, triple checking it to make sure I pass the Vandor DM quality check. Sorry again, fly casual...

  8. How ridiculous to think you MAY Cancel all your dice then decline the second MAY to NOT add 2 hits causing you to purposely miss...What a wording mistake...until it is FAQ'ed it would have to be allowed to work that way based on precedent of similarly worded cards.


    Obviously the intention of the card is to correct your accuracy by giving you two hits...not destroy your accuracy and make you miss on purpose!! lol FFG really needs some extra eyes on these cards before they release since there are more and more of these types of bad and unclear wordings with each release. :(

  9. I think this is a solid build to maximize Vessery. I love builds like this, but you still face some vulnerability to arc dodgers, especially Whisper. Of course there isn't too much you can do about that other than getting cheaper ships as Vessery wingmates that you can try and block a Phantom with.


    I always wanted to try 4 Academies with Targeting Computer (14X4= 56 PTS) and then using a point on Determination on Vessery for a little added possible survivability and putting you at 99. The TIEs are much more vulnerable than the Interceptors, but can mitigate a Arc Dodgers dominance quite a bit.


    The other option for more elusiveness is going to 2 Alpha Interceptors with Targeting Computer and then you can fit an Academy with Targeting Computer. The extra ship might help more than the upgrade to PTL Royal guards is worth.

  10. Just to clarify: Aggromech and Blaster turret definitely work due to the precedent created by "Dark Curse" who actually prevents the use of Blaster Turret. This also just won a store champs over the weekend in AZ.



    Feedback Array unfortunately looks like it could go either way. I would argue that with no precedent and just off of wording that you CAN'T use it if you are parked on a rock OR if you don't have a shot at anything in your arc. BUTBUTBUT FFG can simply make this card do whatever their intention was with the FAQ when it drops. A TO could rule this either way and Store Championships have already been going and have had this come up and be rules two different ways, which sucks, but until there's official word it's just going to be up to the TOs out there.. :(


    (For what it's worth I bet the intention of the card is that you don't need to have a shot to use it, so that you can "electrify/ionize yourself" to zap a ship regardless if you have a shot at any ship or if you are on a rock. Otherwise the use of this card might drop to ZERO as opposed to being semi-useful.) :)

  11. Can you add Feedback Array to your list? This is a good list so far of items that need clarifying (Except for the dials which is firmly in the tournament rules as a YES and has already happened at the Store Champs this past weekend). We need an official FAQ ruling on IF Feedback array can be used:


    1. When you are on a rock.

    2. When you are touching an enemy ship and do NOT have a legal shot at anyone else.


    Thanks! :)

  12. Prockets don't actually spend the focus token...


    But aside from that yes I agree with all your answers. The question really is, WHERE is it defined that spending the token to fire a secondary weapon is considered part of an "attack"


    The full phase is called "combat" and a true "attack" is not defined anywhere I can see...I think Aggromech SHOULD trigger off Blaster Turret, BUT I want it to be clear since this can also be heavily argued that the attack doesn't start until dice are rolled and the real intention of Agrromech's ability is for the answer to part 2.


    My take on Feeback array is that answer 2 and 1 should be the same.


    For me to "USE" feedback array when I am touching a ship and have no legal shot would be the same logic as it working while parked on a rock. Being on a rock does NOT make me "skip my attack", but rather not be able to attack. The same as if I am touching your ship. Does that make sense? And thus is my argument for why YES it works while parked on a rock.

  13. Here are two cards that NEED FAQ clarification, but I was curious to see what the community at large thought about the rulings. The MAIN concern is question 1 for each card, but these could be debated either way and was hoping to vet out some opinions in the absence of facts to properly argue and get a fair ruling from a local TO.


    R4 Aggromech: “When attacking, after you spend a focus token, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.”


    1. If I am using the focus to pay for a Blaster Turret attack does that trigger the “When attacking” condition giving me a Target Lock? This question would also apply to Proton Rockets or use of the Deadeye skill correct?
    2. So I can spend my focus to change my eyes to hits, and THEN I get a target lock that I can then use to re-roll any eligible dice…right? (I assume yes is the answer since it should be the base intention of this card)



    Feedback Array:  "During the Combat phase, instead of performing any attacks, you may receive 1 ion token and suffer 1 damage to choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1. That ship suffers 1 damage."



    1. Can I use this to hurt ships if I am on a rock??
    2. Can I use this to hurt a ship I am touching? (AND does this answer change if I have no other legal shots out of my arc?)
    3. The card says “during combat phase” so do I have to wait until my ship becomes the active attacker before I can use this ability or is it ambiguous and can be at “any time” during combat?

  14. I am playing that 33 point Tycho as the wingmate to my Fat Han and it has been very good. It's very hard to kill and has been more versatle than the liability that the 3 Talas represented. Those Prockets tear through anything!


    Of course with ice cold green dice, he can go down fast...:(

  15. Until there is a Core Set with Defined Debris tokens OR Debris tokens provided by TOs, they shouldn't be tourney legal is my vote on the sublect.


    Yes I see the argument to treat them like upgrades, but if that's the case there are other issues like "Can I drop the same debris token as my opponent?" etc etc and they would defintley need to come out in more ships than just the Decimator and Outrider. (BUT all this can be done)


    You don't face the same upgardes or even types of upgrades in every game, but you would be facing debris and the additonal rules they bring every single game. Seems like too much for new players not only because of the rules, but also because they most likely won't own any debris of their own. (BUT once again, there are lots of different ships, upgrades, and manuvers for new players to learn, so why not throw in more stuff!)


    This argument can be made either way and actually could probably go either way. I say they need to be a "Core Item" and others will say treat them like "Upgrades".

  16. It works with a focus token too technically...if you can get a Focus Token in some way either with a second action or by getting it passed to you then you can guess 0 and roll one eye which gets it right with C3PO then spend the focus to change the eye to an evade.


    And of course you could always guess 1...That gives you an extra evade if you roll it..lol.. :)

  • Create New...