Jump to content

flipperoverlord

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flipperoverlord

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

581 profile views
  1. Hmm... I think I could see it being fine either way balance-wise. What's your main reason for not wanting it to auto recover after a double move?
  2. I like that idea. I would push it farther and just say that at the end of a unit's activation, if it did not exhaust the card during that activation, it would unexhaust the card. (keeping the normal recover rules intact as well).
  3. I've played some games with the new standby rule, and I really like how it changes the dynamic of the game. It promotes getting into cover first, which is a nice change of pace. I don't know if it's completely balanced yet, but my first impressions are good. One change I'm making is limiting standby weapon usage to range 1-4, to keep snipers from being a bit too versatile.
  4. Question: Would you feel the exhaustable weapons would be balanced if they each had their cost reduced by 10 points? Thanks for your thoughts! ­čÖé
  5. The sentinel keyword offers a buff that I outlined. The´╗┐ ´╗┐sentinel keyword instead changes the movement part of standby to range 1-3, and the unit does not discard the standby TOKEN at the end of the round´╗┐.´╗┐ I had a typo in the original post.
  6. In case anyone is interested, I'm going to be playing some games in the next few days with these rule changes: Standby allows weapons to be fired at any range (the movement part is still 1-2). Standby tokens get discarded at the end of the round. The sentinel keyword instead changes the movement part of standby to range 1-3, and the unit does not discard the standby token at the end of the round. I am just interested in how this plays. I'll let you know how it goes, and how good/bad the experience was.
  7. Great points. Well thought out. Just a thought experiment: Standby works at all ranges. You said it would be game breaking, and I can think of some aspects of that. How do you think it would break? (This isn't a "challenge" ... Just a thought experiment)
  8. I appreciate that analysis. I think you are probably correct on most of your points. I play with a measured out 25% terrain of varrying heights, so lots of LOS blocking. I see the purpose of the standby action stretgically is to reward a player who moves into a strategically advantageous position first, and wants to be able to respond to a threat that comes in the future. The nature of standby means that it is not very valuable (barring some misdirection purposes, but I'm illusttating a point, here) if I move a unit, then standby, if there is an ennemy unit that can, as their first action, attack my unit and remove it's standby. The value of standby, is getting to position significantly ahead of your opponent, being out of range of shots, and hunkering down, so that encroaching units pay a price for being slow to get there. A range 1-2 standby fails to accomplish my perceived strategic relevance of standby oulines above, because most units shoot at range 1-3, so moving into position, then using standby is usually tactically poor, which I'm not sure that it should be. Here's another question: does the game get better or worse if standby is increased to 1-3, and why?
  9. Yes, I would need to modify the sentinel keyword to make room for this rule. That is a definite downside. How do we think engagements would play out? How else is general balance effected. More comments like ScummyRebel, here ­čÖé
  10. With respect, my question is inquiring what people's thoughts are on how this change would impact the game for the better or worse. I don't really care how you or others "think" I should play the game, but how others think this rule change would change things, and why. Thanks!
  11. This is all congruent with my thinking on standby. What are thoughts on houseruling the standby range to 1-3? Or to the range of the weapon? How would this alter gameplay. Would it improve? Get worse? How come?
  12. Is this action any good? It seems really weird to me that I can standby with a unit that has a range 1-3 gun, but if I standby o can only shoot at range 1-2. Has anyone tried extending the range of standby at all? I'm thinking of trying it to see how it plays, as range 1-2 just seems horrible honestly.
  13. Yeah I've tried the solutions presented here and I've failed to fix it. Disappointing, but I'll just use another app.
  14. Hello: Am I missing something, or is the FFG list builder missing entire ships? I clicked on the "Extended" mode (which says it encompasses everything possible in 2nd edition), and I cannot add a YT-1300, as well as some other ships to my list. Am I doing something wrong, or is the squad builder not functioning correctly? Thanks!
  15. Hello: Sorry if this has been covered already somewhere, but do the conversion kits contain all the components that the individual ships do? For example, will I need to get a TIE Striker expansion to get all of the unique pilots for the TIE Striker, even if I bought the conversation kit? Thank you much.
×
×
  • Create New...