Jump to content

Demethostes

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Perhaps there is a nearby station or planetary garrison that provided the extra fighters
  2. Gonna hate to agree with this one Accuracy is nice and all, but which one rolls of the tongue? Xseventeens it is
  3. I'm not making that assumption, and I'm not chucking any Hail Marys. I was not the one to originally bring up the FAQ. If memory serves, it has been used several times in this thread to dismissively put down people who feel Motti's ability does not feel right. Something in the vein of "Keep thinking that, maybe FFG will change the FAQ to make you correct" ? I'm simply raising the point that FFG is fully within their rights to do exactly that. For all we know, Most Wanted's original text MET their original intent, and only after the Core set hit did they realize that they had misjudged its effectiveness with Squadrons, and decided a change was for the best. This is not such a stretch as to be called a Hail Mary.
  4. (Im breaking the quote pyramid up a skosh.) The quoted post you're getting all lathered up about is mine, so rather than ask the other user to defend my words, I'll make another attempt at clarification. Yes, it does require additional passages, and no, it is not as simple as just saying "hey look, an upgrade card." (Seriously?) It requires one to confirm that a Fleet Commander is in fact considered an "upgrade card" (1.), followed by confirming that the benefits of upgrade cards end when the ship they are on is destroyed (2.), followed by confirming that a ship is considered "destroyed" the moment it's damage card total meets its hull value (3.), with the amusing side dish of, by the way, a ship is destroyed if it meets OR exceeds the damage total (4.) This requires cross-referencing 3-4 different lines in different sections of the rulebook to come to the conclusion that yes, Motti's excessively damaged fleet dies with him. Me personally, I needed to look up #3, as I was unsure if my previously mentioned theory of "delayed death trigger" would come into play: i.e., the ship needing one more damage card to "trigger" checking if it is, in fact, dead. (Rather than a dead ship... walking? floating?) It turns out in fact, that hull value checking is essentially immediate and does not require previously damaged ships to be damaged further. Yes, this, to me, was counter-intuitive (as the OP laid out as his/her own opinion, of which they are entitled to) and required a thorough rules-checking to confirm my inquiry. Not everyone who plays this game sleeps with the RRG or lives on these forums. Try not to get so worked up about people asking a common question. Could they stand to use the search function a little more? Yeah, probably. People have been fighting that war since 1994, let me know if anything changes. And yeah, I will mock your condescending derision, and your exessive use of italics that reads like you're just so burdened to talk down to us peasants, and any other highfalutin attempt at shouting down a healthy debate. The number of people who have been solely expressing their belief that Motti's effect persists beyond death has already been very small- most (as I am) are instead expressing dismay that RAW, Motti's effect runs contrary to what we feel is best. I'll go ahead and Tarkin this "dead horse" of a thread with this analogy: As an avid fan, I recognize that in the canon, Arvel Crynyd took out (via a sequence of events, yeah yeah) the Executor by crashing into it. As an avid fan, I also recognize that this does not pass my personal "smell test", as it does many others. I'm still allowed to enjoy Star Wars, and I'm still allowed to express this feeling. Theres no need to tirelessly belabor the point that Arvel did it, I get that. I just dont care for it. Has that not been the entire life of this thread? One group, including the OP, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Motti's ability works within the current RAW system, and another group, who tirelessly berated the former because they werent interpreting the rules the way they should be? As for facial hair, if the fedora fits... And on a last note, since we're referring to the FAQ, was Most Wanted not completely cut & dry upon the Core release? "When attacking"? Other than raised eyebrows, everyone pretty much took it (correctly so, IMO) that Most Wanted applied to Squadrons as well as ships. The FAQ completely 180'd that and arbitrarily changed the meaning of the clause. So let's not pretend that there isn't a precedent. (FWIW, I dont believe Motti will be changed, but I'll still advocate for it regardless)
  5. Thanks, the "cannot" wording helps clarify this quite a bit. My biggest hangup honestly was on the total damage amount...: "1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone." Are we talking 1 damage on other hull zones TOTAL, or 1 damage on EACH other hull zone(s)? (for 3 damage total)
  6. I've been avoiding this recurring topic, as it is has been almost uniformly negative, but at this point I feel its worth interjecting. There seems to be a disconnect between people who prefer Motti's ability to be permanent and those who prefer it to be temporary. It has been my experience that most game systems that have a function or ability that increases the maximum "health" of something, also have a specific method of resolving this addition when that specific "maximum health increasing" ability expires. This is particularly necessary for electronic games, as it falls to the game's engine, not players interpreting a rulebook, to resolve this, and thus it must be resolved in very plain, black & white code. It has also been my experience, that most of these electronic games, err on the side of "removing" the "temporary hit points" first, as opposed to retroactively "killing" the unit once it's ability expires (though there are, obviously, exceptions). A poster mentioned this earlier, wherein if Armada used a "health dial" for ships like it does squadrons, this would be clearer, almost a non-argument. But as it uses a "damage card" system, it befuddles it a little bit more. I've even seen some systems that even if it does not remove temporary health first and retroactively "damages" the unit once it expires, it will leave them with 1 health/hitpoint remaining, so that it must still be "killed" rather than randomly dropping dead somewhere to the side after the combat is over. Again, not always, but sometimes. And in almost all of these cases, the game designers specifically, and clearly, notify the players of the method used to resolve this conundrum. Armada does not have this. It requires cross-referencing 3-4 different pages of the RRG. Now before any neck-beards get all excited, I agree with you, you're right. RAW, Motti's ability appears to retroactively "kill" ships that are over their new, reduced health threshold. But this is also not easily determined, nor specifically tailored and readily made available for Motti's owner... it requires citing very broad-stroke rules that encompass literally every other small fleet card in the game. The condescending derision toward some people for struggling to come to the same conclusion so swiftly can safely be dropped. That being said, I'd like to put my vote in the "RAW, Motti's heavily damaged ships die with him" box, but with a side helping of "However, I think the text should either be cleaned up for the next FAQ, or preferably, altered so that the health increase is either permanent, including after his death, or at least that a ship that finds itself over its maximum threshold after Motti's death must still at least incur 1 more damage card before being removed from the game." Because honestly, while some of the criticisms of the "fluff" supporting a permanent Motti bonus are valid, some of the "fluff" justifying a temporary health bonus have been equally absurd. If Dodonna can be changed to allow him to convince Asteroids to attack ships in a certain way, let's allow Motti's fleet live just a wee bit longer, hey?
  7. It occured to me after posting this that polish and Polish are homonyms. My love for Eastern Europe knows no bounds, so if anyone has advice on how to polish, or Polish, my corvette list, it is appreciated.
  8. Mon Mothma 30 Nebulon B Support Refit 51 Salvation 7 X17 Turbolasers 6 CR90A 44 CR90A 44 CR90A 44 Initiative Bid 10 Objectives: Intel Sweep, Hyperspace Assault, Opening Salvo Leaves me 64 points.... Not sure where to go from here... another Corvette? Turbolasers to deck out the Corvettes? Raymus or an Intel Officer for the Salvation? Fill out on fighters? (Not big on that one, trying to keep this one fighter-lite... but I think Tycho would be good for tying down Rhymer) Strategy is fairly objective based... I'm hoping Intel Sweep and Hyperspace Assault will scare most Imperials into choosing Opening Salvo. Intel Sweep should be fairly easy with this many Corvettes, and Hyperspace Assault with Salvation could be deadly. Opening Salvo will make for a powerful first enemy attack, but I think it can weathered with Mon Mothma and an abundance of Evade tokens. Then Salvation can follow up with 3 Red, and 3 Black dice with a Concentrate Fire dial... with each Crit Icon counting for 2 hits... Each Corvette can initiate with a Concentrate Fire for at least 2 Red, and 3 Black as well. Honestly, I think it will be harder to win an Intel Sweep than it will Opening Salvo. Any thoughts on how to spend the last 64 points?
  9. X17 Turbolasers states that a defender using a Redirect token cannot suffer "more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending zone" Advanced Projectors states that "When you resolve the redirect token effect, you can choose more than one hull zone to suffer damage, which may include a nonadjacent hull zone" So could a ship with Advanced Projectors targetted by ship with X17's redirect its damage to up to 3 adjacent hull zones, at a maximum of 1 damage each, for a grand total of 3 redirected? Or does the X17 supersede this and only allow no more than "1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone." For a grand total of 1 redirected. Despite being a native speaker, I'm struggling with the subtleties of the wording. X17 seems to be written acknowledging the existence of AP's, so I'm inclined to say AP has the upper hand here, but I still wanted to get a consensus. Thanks
  10. opponents will simply build around it and the strategy it uses. Given that wave 1 just hit too. I think that begs the question, what is the ideal build type for beating multiple Frigates?
  11. Great idea for a topic! The good news, I feel, is that there aren't many obvious choices, which is a good thing in my view. That being said; my choices are, from the bottom up: Support Teams: Engine Techs. Pricey, but powerful. Goes great with Demolisher. Ion Cannon: Fairly obvious as well, Leading Shots is great, but surprisingly not as much as one would think. Since Blue Dice always deliver in one form or another, you are giving up a guranteed result for a chance at cleaning up your other results. Its a nice insurance policy against large, dismal rolls, but not much else. Turbolaser: Tough one, obviously. EA is great for anything but Nebulons. XX9s are really only best on Salvation or a truly obnoxious gunship. X17s seem great for someone expecting to fight Victories or Frigates. Defense: ECM is the best candidate here, I believe, but may be a bit overrated. Advanced Projectors has potential, but ultimately seems a little underwhelming. I think it will see more use for it in Wave 2 with the big, shield heavy gunships. Ordinance: Now this one I'm really struggling with... Expanded Launchers has my heart, but people are winning me over to Concussion Missiles. This is strictly in regards to a Demolisher gladiator, I think EL is redundant on a Victory 1.
  12. Check the faq, I believe there is an entry about spending tokens or dials to activate upgrades despite not being used for any other effect (ie speed change)
  13. Ha! Yes, a fair point. Still, its at least a 50% reduction in the number of objectives to consider, and you can still pick 2 objectives that are favorable. Given the ruling that objectives are hidden until the first/second player are declared, I doubt many players will willingly place themselves at the mercy of their opponent's objectives. But still, you raise a good point.
  14. Lately theres been alot of talk about the importance of the "initiative bid", and rightly so... Objectives can play a huge part in Armada matches. There has also been some talk of ignoring the initiative bid and simply building a fleet as a "take all comers" in regards to objectives... but this struck me as quite a challenge, as, after all, there are 12 objectives in all. This was when I realized that really, you need not build a fleet to play 12 objectives, merely 4. As a player is forced to take one of each "color" objective, a savvy fleet builder, may, in theory, build a fleet geared toward all 4 objectives of a certain color. This guarantees said savvy player that, no matter what, one of these four objectives will appear in their opponent's objective choices, thus allowing them to choose an objective they are comfortable with. Does anyone see any merit to this approach, or is it merely a pipe dream? I haven't had the time to devote alot of tinkering to this concept... it seems the blue "mobility" objectives may be easiest to gear a list toward... Intel Sweep would be easy to configure, as would Superior Positions, and possibly even Dangerous Territory... it was Minefields that frustrated me most... its hard to really build a fleet to prepare for it, although I am sure some leverage can be applied. It seems like experience is the best weapon for playing that particular objective. Any thoughts?
  15. Done & Done Gonna leave it at that for now... got to go get some playtime in now!
×
×
  • Create New...