Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Quarrel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,396 profile views
  1. It doesn't become tractored then. Only going from "not enough tokens" to "enough tokens" triggers tractor movement.
  2. The bomb rule change (from one per round to any number per round but only one per System Phase) was made so FFG wouldn't have to reverse the fiat ruling that cards that let you place a bomb break the "one per round" rule even if they don't say so, which is the opposite of how card/rules interactions usually work. It's a bad rules change because it fixes a problem the wrong way.
  3. Only with extreme pedantry. If you're super-picky, then by Rules As Written, once you begin measuring potential targets, you are forced to choose a weapon, then declare a legal target for it (if there are any), then pay any cost of firing it (if you can). I don't know anyone who insists on that, though.
  4. FFG seems to be going along the general lines of: For actions, you have to declare you're doing it first, then check if it's possible (and, if so, how), and if it turns out to be impossible, it "fails" (i.e. produces no good results and cannot be linked off, but still consumes any cost, counts as used for the round, and gives stress if it's red). For non-actions, you check whether it's possible first, then only pay costs if it's possible and you decide to do it.
  5. "While you defend or perform an attack, after you roll or reroll your dice" is equivalent to "after you roll or reroll your dice while you defend or perform an attack". Since A) the second grammar pretty clearly makes each roll & reroll a separate trigger, and B) the "while you defend or attack" grammar is also what FFG would have used if they wanted to change her ability from all rolls (1.0) to combat rolls only (2.0), I favor the "she can be used multiple times" ruling.
  6. As well as any game that neither founded a market nor is based on a major IP. (In the list of things that makes or breaks a game's sales, mechanics are far from the top.) Many dogfighting games offer aces the equivalent of better dials, so they can be less predictable, or get into position faster, or escape bad spots more easily, all without allowing them to partially avoid the game's "commit to your maneuver in advance" foundation. It's also quite common, across most of the rules I've looked at, to let a fighter see an enemy's plotted move before plotting its own if it gets on that enemy's tail. It's something any pilot can do if you use your tactical skill to fly 'em right, not something you get every round if you pay more, or never if you don't.
  7. No, I'm talking about a TIE Salad-ish forum list of five Imperial pilots: Howlrunner, Mithel, Scourge, Maarek and Duchess.
  8. Probably like in FFG's RuneWars minis game.
  9. Those are real issues -- so real that FFG has addressed them in some cases by scaling point costs with Initiative and designing compensatory cards. Thank you for supporting my argument.
  10. I played the 5I5 list against Anakin/Obi/Ric. It's a five ship list with a bullseye effect on everything. I got a proc on one attack all game. (Could have had two, but it wasn't a smart target at the time.) Over five games with at least 3 ships Crack Shot enabled, I've had it proc once. I've stopped using it so I can actually get an initiative bid sometimes.
  11. It has slowly dawned on me that bullseye arc effects exacerbate everything straightjacketing in this game about Initiative, née Pilot Skill. The overall design already has the issues where repositioning plus high Initiative grants aces not one but two ways to deny your ships a full 50% of the game's fundamental "move and shoot" experience, coupled with a surtax on all I3-4 pilots that makes them cost more but gain nothing in return vs. many ships most games. Bullseye arcs multiply that latter effect: ships that move last can leverage them, but ships that don't can't, and thus waste squad points. "But wait!" you say. "Bullseye effects can still force your opponent to reposition instead of taking a focus/TL." Well, sure. If you correctly predict your opponent's dial. And sometimes only if you also reposition instead of buffing. But most importantly, bullseye effects themselves, such as Predator, HLC and Soontir Fel, are a good countermeasure to this, since that enemy can likely flee into some position where it's not totally unmodded. So that opposing ace got more from their 2 point Predator than you did. I'm not sure what to do about this.
  12. I've played that list two or three times. It's great in casual games but I got my face wrecked last night now that the Galactic Republic meta is trending toward the same "3 I5-6 aces with a 5-10 pt. bid" lists that the Imperials could rock when 2e launched. It's little better than a TIE swarm where you remove two or three of your Academies from the board during deployment. ObTopic: Maarek can be strong, but only if you give your opponent other, higher-priority ships to shoot at first. Otherwise he just dies.
  13. Just like in 1st Edition, the rules on tractor tokens specify that they only cause the defender to roll 1 fewer green die "During the Engagement Phase". Attacks that occur in other phases, such as the one from the soon-to-be-reprinted Snap Shot, gain no benefit versus targets with tractor tokens (unless/until FFG changes this unintuitive rule via FAQ). Never mind. The rules changed.
  14. This possibly indicates that these tokens remain as it specifically states that circular tokens are removed at the end phase. That's exactly what it means. All round tokens go away in the End Phase. All other tokens (and its target locks) remain where they are. As for Moralo, because A) the rules say to adjust stress as part of executing the maneuver but fleeing is checked after executing it, and B) Moralo's card text says he goes into the reserves instead of fleeing, going off the board with a red move still gives him stress, and he still has it when he redeploys.
  • Create New...