Jump to content

CobaltWraith

Members
  • Content Count

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CobaltWraith

  1. A good technical reading, but one that I am going to disagree with. I consider step 6 to be a repeat of step 1 when applicable. This just got mentioned in a comment while I was typing this one
  2. So it's Tuesday afternoon, I've checked the forum more times than I'm willing to admit today, and still no real word of anything except for a mysterious photo in another thread. Does anyone at least have shipping confirmation?
  3. And here in post #136, we see the internet troll in it's native habitat.
  4. That's basically what it looks like is happening with the ISD anyway. My thought on restricted movement is that there really is no such thing. If you have to move it to the first segment, then move the maneuvering tool to the other side and go from the first distance to the second, that shouldn't in any way effect where it would have ended up if the base had not obstructed moving it in one go.
  5. Anybody here read the Codex Alera? Good series that. All of the "you are wrong" going on around here lately has me thinking of the Marat, who had no comprehension of the concept of being "wrong", but certainly reacted colorfully to being "mistaken".
  6. Fancy that, and you can field 7 X-Wings in a 300 point rebel list? That seems a strange correlation based on the fact that you get 6 Tie Fighters and 4 X-Wings per core set
  7. But aren't you going to buy the rebel and imperial fighter packs anyway. So do you really need that many Fighters? Maybe we do. I would sort of like to see a game where you spent all your points on fighters. Granted they would be a huge disadvantage because fighter without ships to activate them can only move or attack not both and they have to go last. But a fighter verses big ship throw down feels very Rebellion vs Empire. Remember destroying Star Destroyers in X-wing, it was AWESOME. Before anyone jumps on this guy because you can only use a third of your list for fighters per the official rules, let's all remember that there are such things as house rules
  8. There are many absolute statements being made here. I personally believe (rather than telling you in your situation what is best ) that a second core is worth purchasing in the right situation. I plan on having one available to loan out later on, and until whenever the heck wave 1 gets here, actually having enough ships to keep things interesting. If you do the price breakdown I'm also slightly tired of hearing worst case pricing. Here's a work up I did on this in another thread a while back:
  9. Like with any other companies service departments, it all depends what rep you get. If it's important enough to you, try again. If not, that's fine too, the only option I don't recommend is to be bitter about getting the wrong rep when you contact them. Yeah, I suggested he tries again, and points out that they've matched mine and other peoples. If all else fails, I suppose I can let him have one of mine for the lower price (or to make it simpler, I'll give him ~£25 when he orders his for £70). You sir are a kind brother.
  10. Speaking of plans, FFG seems to be figuring out what they want the status page to actually be used for. Anyone notice that the "expected by" dates have been removed from everything on that page? They got my hopes up that they were going to be more accountable when those started getting specific a few weeks ago.
  11. Seems fair, but can we leave the topic alone for that long?
  12. Nope, you're on the right track. I've been using the rules reference the most, and I like how at the end of a topic it has related topics as well. If you go from Defense Tokens to Status Phase you will see that an exhausted token is readied at the end of the round. You can also check the quick reference at the end of that same manual for a quick overview of the important aspects of each round.
  13. No former experience, in this same boat with Amazon right now. Part of the problem for predicting this is going to be that I don't think retailers like MM and Amazon even have the game yet. FFG's distributors seem to have been sitting on the sets for some time now, but places like MM and Amazon are going to have to get them in, process them, then turn around and ship them as fast as is, well, a priority to them. Places as big as MM might already have the sets, but I'm not certain who's waiting for a go ahead and who's just waiting for product.
  14. Ha ha, I think you should have, just to give our poor forum a break from the topic. Scale has been disused ad nausium... Nice pictures though! If I remember correctly, check pages 3-4 of this thread for a good summary of that particular portion of the discussion. Based on your comments tou might also be interested in the Battle of Endor set discussion starting in post 97 of this thread
  15. This might actually be the simplest and most effective solution yet.
  16. Like with any other companies service departments, it all depends what rep you get. If it's important enough to you, try again. If not, that's fine too, the only option I don't recommend is to be bitter about getting the wrong rep when you contact them.
  17. How bad do you want two starter sets? There are already some calls for trades/sales once the game releases where someone wants just the cards, someone else wants just the model, so these things tend to work themselves out if you wanted two cores and the VSD expansion, but only two VSDs. Also are you planning on playing in tournaments? Not certain about my personal feelings on the matter, but it has been pointed out MANY times that it is possible to simply print extra cards, and I have even seen websites where you can purchase individual X-Wing cards, so I'm certain that will be the case for Armada also.
  18. Well caught, I would agree that Vader would still be able to use his black dice at Medium range.
  19. If I properly understand first your question and then the rules, this is a modification of the normal attack for squadrons within range 1 of Rhymer. First the text of his card that is in question: "Friendly Squadrons at distance 1 can attack enemy ships at close-medium range using all dice in their battery armament" Squadrons and ships is already fairly well defined, and I checked the rules reference to make sure "battery armament" means the dice a squadron would normally attack a ship with, which is the case. I don't think I could make a strong case for implying that Rhymer has any sort of unique attack at this point. Where I do think some clarification could be helpful is the fact that the steps for an attack say nothing about checking to make sure a squadron is engaged, and we have to go the section on engagement to get anything useful regarding it. In reading that section however, there is no point where it says "cannot" (the unbreakable description according to pg1) in regards to attacking ships thanks to a "can" ability, only that an engaged squadron "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship". I admit myself, the language could be clearer. I do feel however that it is just barely clear enough to say that the "can" statement in Rhymers ability doesn't override any of the important engagement rules as we know them. One thing this careful reading of the engagement rules has done for me is get me thinking on clever ways to break engagement. I was thinking after reading that an obstruction blocks line of site, which between squadrons is the two closest points, that I could plop a fighter between one of my fighters and one of my opponents to break line of site between them and my first fighter which got me fairly excited. After rereading line of sight however, I was disappointed to find that squadrons in no way count as an obstruction. I think however that careful use of obstacle tokens and ship corners could trip up a careless opponent who moves to range 1 and "engages" your squadron, only to have you move away because line of sight barely doesn't exist between them. May not be the right thread for this observation, but I had fun with it and discovered it while investigating your question more thoroughly.
  20. I have a friendly suggestion "I disagree" would get to the same point with significantly more tact. We are a community of players all excited about what is looking to be an excellent game, no need to offend each other unduly when a little extra effort put into the way we say things could make the discussion significantly more friendly and less argumentative. Telling someone they're wrong is not an insult, especially when they are, in fact, wrong. "Disagree" implies there is opinion involved. There isn't here. There is nothing to agree about--there isright and wrong regarding facts. He's wrong regarding Feedback Array--there's no exception there that supports his claim about Rhymer. Everything Feedback Array does is stated right on the card. It effects no rules it doesn't mention. I'm all for being civil, which I was. You don't tell someone you disagree when they say 2+2=7. You tell them they're wrong and correct them. I get that, and you are completely correct in you usage of wrong versus disagree. I just think that we can afford to go a little out of our way even to not offend anyone. I think KineticOperator has had sufficient example and feedback to understand the "correct" usage of the card in question. If I were in his shoes, I might still be arguing my case, not because I was offended by the rule, but because I didn't feel like anyone had considered my point of view, even though they may have done so. As a third party, I think due consideration was given to the question, and that sufficient explanation was even given, but that we as a community responding to an individual with a question could have been more inclusive rather than confrontational about it. Even saying "that's not correct" addresses the fact in question, not the person. To say "you are wrong" feels to the person receiving it as though a personal affront has been given, even if that is not the intent, because you are addressing them, not the fact that was actually wrong. To say "you are dumb" is different then saying "that was dumb", since we all have stupid moments, but those moments of themselves don't inherently make us stupid. That, in a more verbose way than I intended, is all I was trying to say earlier Thanks again for the question Kinetic. Hopefully you asking these sorts of questions will help others in the community understand the cards better. Anyone willing to get on the forum and even attempt to help other posters or put themselves out there by asking questions has contributed to the game in my book.
  21. I have a friendly suggestion "I disagree" would get to the same point with significantly more tact. We are a community of players all excited about what is looking to be an excellent game, no need to offend each other unduly when a little extra effort put into the way we say things could make the discussion significantly more friendly and less argumentative.
  22. Some assembly required, shield generator sold separately. Power converters not included. I figured that was a given, so what he said.
×
×
  • Create New...