Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dmborque

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

607 profile views
  1. With VTG you cannot attack from the same turret weapon twice. With Bistan you can. With Bistan you may attack twice per turn with a turret primary weapon (i.e. YT1300 or YT2400), as long as you have a focus token and choose 2 different objectives. With VTG you can perform a primary attack and then a turret attack BUT only with a turret gun that has not attacked this turn. For example, an Y-Wing+Ion Turret may attack first with the primary (front) weapon and then with the turret. But VTG is useless if you only have 1 weapon. Does this justify the point difference? Maybe...
  2. dmborque

    App sucks.

    Doing a bit of self-advertising here... If you are looking for an offline app (Android) and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store)
  3. Doing a bit of self-advertising here... If you are looking for an offline app and some features that you might find missing, you may want to try this builder developed by me (find links here) for Android and web browsers (you won't find it in any app store) I really expected the official app to be a sum of the better parts of the fan-made apps, but for me it has been a great disapointment.
  4. Hi, I'm the developer of this app, which I think is up to date. The issue you are experiencing probably has to do with your Android version and permissions given to the app. I'd recommend downloading the latest version and installing it over the old one (don't uninstall, and you will not lose your squads). I'd you have further problems, you can contact me through the g+ community. Download the apk from the g+ community (link in the app) or from swx.mygamesonline.org
  5. Here you have the only game recorded (the final) https://www.twitch.tv/videos/140108307 It starts at 5:10
  6. I've played several games at 400+ points and I fail to see what it bring to the game, strategic-wise. Yes, you have more ships, more squadrons, more plastic on the board.... but in the end it is the same game. With 400 points there is room for many list archetypes, and the point limit makes you struggle on what you bring and what you leave out. And I like that the game forces me to choose. Please, leave it as it is now for tournament play. At home, go full-equipped if that is your thing
  7. What does this point mean? If it means that if all that remains of your fleet is squadrons and/or flotillas you are tabled, then I'm in for this one. I like point 2. I don't understand how increasing the maximum points of a fleet reduces playing time. I have played several games with increased point limits and I don't see that they add anything to the game (at least the strategic part)....but I guess this is another discussion. Additionally I'm quite surprised no one mentioned a rule against Commanders on flotillas (or even small ships), a practice that is quite anti-thematic (at least most of my playgroup thinks so...). Something along the line "A ship cannot be designated as the flagship for the fleet if its base cost is less than the cost of the commander" (that would be below his/her rank! ) would be fine. And I'm afraid Rieekan would still be a problem with all the new unique squadrons available since CC.
  8. I think you got something there. Maybe each systems should have a track of how firm is the control of the controlling side, and after the battle, depending on the victory margin, reduce the control on the planet or gain control over it (e.g. Corellia is +9 to the Empire, so only a 10-1 victory of the Rebellion in that system removes control of the Empire over it. A minor rebel victory 7-4 would reduce control to +6) ....something along these lines. Control could be increased over time, or through resources investment... This could be quite thematic: you need a major victory if you want to remove (imperial) control from one system. Minor victories would help undermine this control. Maybe imperial control could be tracked in this way and devise another way to track the influence of the Rebellion over the systems...
  9. Then I hope the Xwing designers get their inspiration from the fan made HotAC campaign and not from this "experiment". It is quite worrying that a free, fan-made product has a much deeper, and better gameplay than a product released by the creators of the game! I agree that this module revitalized interest in the game in our area too, but after playing it or hearing us (regular Armada players) talk about how the campaign is played, few of the would-be players show interest any more...
  10. That is a very interesting idea you got there, though I think it would take quite a lot of time to develop and playtest, as it is an almost new game altogether.
  11. I understand that the objective was never to have a complicated campaign system, but what we got is an almost non-existent game...unbalanced, non-thematic. I think it is a missed opportunity, and I wouln't like to see it as an expensive way FFG came up to sell some ace and objectives cards. Thanks for your suggestions. Combo abuse was not an issue in our campaign, and I don't think objective variety would help with the monotony, but it might be worth a try. The suggestion on how to play more games looks very nice, though. It is a bit of a handicap timewise (you need to get 4-6 people together for at least 4-5 hours, which is almost impossible for our playgroup) but I like the balancing implications.
  12. Hi all! Our play group (of 6) was very excited to start our very first C campaign some 2 months ago. After reading some of the posts in this forum we decided to add some of the house rules proposed (mainly by @Green Knight here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241727-cc-my-ideas-for-house-rules-and-tweaks/) Now we are about to finish it, and the overall feeling is disapointment. Most of us want to restart our regular league soon, and are not too eager to start a new campaign, at least not without heavy house-ruling. I think most of the bad feelings come from these 2 points: A.- Lack of strategic depth. The game mechanics are soooo shallow that they could be non-existent. Strategically there are only 2 decisions to take: 1. where to place the first bases and outpost (and there is little variation to this point. the decisions you should make are quite standard and variations difficult to defend) 2. which system to assault each turn, which turns to be a no brainer because there are no limits: if you are assaulting an enemy controlled system, you go for the most valuable one (why not!?) In our campaign the Rebels had the upper hand from the beginning and they kept assaulting Corellia until they got it on the second attempt. Then they started with the next most valuable system.... and that is all. B.- Repetitiveness. As you have to attach yourself to a fleet, and with the present fleet rebuilding rules, there is no variety from turn to turn. Attaching yourself to your fleet/team, that in other games works quite well, in this game has been a problem as we had the feeling of playing the same game once and again. With 6 players at least you have the possibility to play 3 different matches before you start replaying the same game with little variations. With just 4 players I guess it is even worse. There are also minor bugs. For example, losing by 1 point is the same as losing by 400 (except for the fact that now you have to rebuild your fleet). Thus, many matches ended by turn 4, because one of the players realized it was very unlikely he was going to win and hyperspaced (which was the right decision). Planning the whole match, schedulling the whole afternoon, take a 1 hour trip, just to play half game is very dissapointing! Some ideas we are musing over are: 1.- access to some ships is limited to control over some systems or group of systems 2.- communication lines joining the systems as secure travel routes. You can ignore them but you risk some drawback (a % of the fleet starts the match scarred...?) 3.- systems defenses are improved by nearby controlled systems, maybe as reinforces coming in from hyperspace(?) 4.- large defeats (jumping to hyperspace leads to large defeats) may lead to losing control of nearby systems 5.- garrisons (you have to leave a % of your fleet to control a system). Maybe these garrisons are the ones brought as the reinforcements of point (3) 6.- spynets and/or commandos (instead of spacers?) may be used to retain garrisons, or sabotage system resources, or ship repairs/building So, what is your experience? Have you incorporated house rules to improve the campaign?
  13. Hi all! This just came up the other day during a casual game. My opponent had Leia out of LOS of one of my Trandoshans. Han was also around with LOS to the trand (and the trand to Han). He moved Leia and activated Battlefield Leadership to attack herself and then Han. Then he tried to play "Element of surprise" on Han's attack. I've always asumed that Command cards can be played on non active figures (unless stated otherwise). So that was ok by me. He was declaring an attack, so the 1st condition of the command card was met. Now, how do we check LOS of my trandoshan to Han? The command card states "at the start of your activaction", but whose activation. The active figure is Leia. Han may have activated or not. In the end we assumed he could not play the card (and the Trandoshan died anyways). Several questions arose from this question: - Can "Element of surprise" be played on not active figures? I assume yes, there is nothing in the card indicating otherwise. I think I have played it myself on Jyn Odan when executing "Hair trigger" on a figure that had not LOS to me. - The second attack of "Battlefield Leadership" includes the "declare attack" step. I undertand yes. Otherwise you won't be able to play many command cards and abilities. - If the 2 previous answers are yes, then how do you solve "Element of Surprise". Whose activation is it? - I assume the same question could be made about other interrupt attacks (Elite Officials, Gideon...) Thanks!
  14. Mario Nuñez Jimenez is the 2 times (2015 & 2016) Spanish Champion (just in case you want to fill-in also this data).
  15. Hi! The other day two of my ships with Attanni Mindlink (without stress tokens) started the Combat phase touching an VCX piloted by "Chopper". Chopper pilot ability reads: "At the start of the Combat phase, each enemy ship you are touching receives 1 stress token." So, is stress assigned simultaneously over my 2 ships or is it sequential? I mean, there are 2 ways to assign the stress: 1. All ships receive 1 stress at the same time. When checking for the Attanni Mindlink condition, the ship that is going to receive a stress token already has one. Result: All ships end with 1 stress token. 2. One of the ships receives 1 stress token that is them "transmitted" to the other ships with Attanni Mindlink. Then, the other ship receives a second token due to Choppers ability. Result: All ships but one end up with 1 stress token, and 1 of the touching ships ends with 2 stress tokens. In this case, who decides the order in which ships receive the Chopper stress tokens? During the tournament in which this question arose the agreement was to take option 1. BTW, I understand that the same solution should be taken when a Thermal detonator affects 2 ships with Attanni Mindlink.
  • Create New...