Jump to content

Turan

Members
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Turan

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. The forums really do let you. Everyone in the forum thread compiling e-mail rulings has managed it.
  2. My point is that is not a written rule. Saying something is a "general rule" means a guideline, in a context of them saying this should be resolved as both players see is appropriate. To go from that to a forum post telling a newbie "to provide cover...it has to be at least as high as 50% of the miniature" is not true. It is also misleading to say "all rules can be changed when your opponent agrees" - we're not talking about house rules, here. The actual written rule in the RRG is "all that matters is that players agree on...rules governing that terrain."
  3. I just want to point out this is not entirely correct. The RRG says "As a general rule, terrain that blocks line of sight to half or more of a mini provides cover, while terrain that blocks less than half of a mini does not." This is only to aid in the players defining the terrain before play begins, it is not a numeric rule that something has to be 50% as high as a miniature in order to provide cover, if the players decide otherwise. Additionally, the height of a barricade is immaterial as per its rules article a barricade provides cover to troopers but explicitly not vehicles.
  4. Fixed Forward does not prevent any of the minis in the defending unit from taking damage. So long as there is a mini in the firing arc, the unit is a legal target. Nothing in the rules says the specific mini being assigned wounds has to be in that firing arc.
  5. They did this for the original core set expansions, why would you believe these will be different? They're okay. They look good at tabletop distance. When assembling and painting, they're of noticeably lesser quality (at a larger scale!) than minis for comparable games.
  6. My point is that did not seem to be your point. That should even be obvious as it was the part of your post I quoted in the first place. I mean, whatever, dude...between the two of us everything possibly germane and beyond has been delineated, I'm just saying I try to limit the information I dump to what's immediately relevant. The potential error from the earlier poster did not have to do with the center-of-base line-drawing, so I didn't mention it. You did, it's all fine.
  7. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I don't see the point of giving extraneous information when providing a clarification - if you're going to do that, you might as well just say every time you reference a topic "Go read these paragraphs on this page" because you're providing every rule anyway 😋
  8. Yes? That is a true statement, but doesn't apply to a discussion thread about Boba Fett. I posted because crx made a comment that indicated a misunderstanding of the rules as pertaining to Boba Fett.
  9. No reasonable is needed - the rules says trooper units gain heavy cover from barricades, period. The only thing in question with Fett is whether he was at some position where the only thing blocked by the barricade was his base. Per the rules as written, that doesn't count as obstruction, so he wouldn't be receiving cover from anything in that instance. That is what the e-mail in the original post is addressing.
  10. A unit does not need to be 50% covered by a piece of terrain to receive cover, it only needs any part of its model or base (except repulsor vehicles, apparently) to be not visible. You might be doing cover incorrectly in your games.
  11. That is not correct. Light or heavy cover is determined by the piece of terrain before the game starts, not by how much of the mini you can see during play.
  12. A little more specifically, from the Attack article in the RRG: "To choose a weapon, the attacker must meet all requirements indicated by that weapon’s keywords, and that weapon’s range must include the range of the attack, as determined from the attacker’s unit leader to the closest mini of the defender." So you have been doing it the wrong way 😥
  13. Because it was clearly not a trick question, but an error on the part of the OP. And that error had already been addressed in the first reply 14 hours before your post 🤨 Thus, I was confused as to why it was necessary to say again.
  14. Everything @SailorMeni said is correct, your original premise is faulty 😉 However, just to address the other part of your question - Keywords with a value (Guardian X) are additive from different sources. So just like equipping Stormtroopers with Targeting Scopes will give them Precise 2, a unit that already has Guardian X that received the effect of Esteemed Leader would add that value of Guardian for how many hits they may cancel.
×
×
  • Create New...