Clear as mud. If you can't use evade tokens, why does the range 3 die get added to the defense pool?

My understanding (such as it is) comes from rabid fans of the universe, two of whom claim to have read every novel. These are the people who beat me regularly in X-wing. In particular novel readers tell me that the congruity of novels has been deliberately called out as irrelevant to the new course of the franchise. I have no quotes to give you. Take it FWIW. I tried to watch Clone Wars, but I was binge watching, and after season 1, it was the same story to me. I don't think that series lends itself too well to binge watching, but I'm old and jaded. I actually read "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" when I was like, 11... Which I'm told is an abberration to the canon.

My understanding is JJ Abrams doesn't care about canon at all, and Disney agrees with him. As far as I have heard, canon died when Disney took over. (PS: I'm fine with that, but I only watch the movies.)

This game has its broken stuff, but as yet it cannot achieve the levels of imbalance that 20-years of continuous new releases and innumerable factions that GW has enabled. The recent update to Large ship MOV can be seen as evidence that there was an imbalance in tournaments prior to this (Fat Hans, etc. scoring problems). I'm one who looks at the Twin Laser Turret and thinks that it is probably the first truly 'imbalanced' card in the game. I also see the problem of continuous new releases creating a case of "the rich get richer". If you want to keep up with the Joneses, you need to buy the Huge ships and the Large ships to have access to a variety of upgrade cards and pilots. The tournament scene is very much like the tournament scene for Games Workshop games except there is no scoring for sportsmanship or painting as GW had (those will be missed categories). But so far, yeah, not as bad as GW. All games suffer from 'codex creep' eventually.

Republish cards with corrections where important. Nothing about an HLC's capability to achieve crits on rerolls is clear on the card to anyone I have ever met in the game, no matter their level of experience (emphasis added; we all learned about this last week). Same with Farlander (not changing grievance, just providing another example). Publish a glossary of terms such that it is clear that a reroll is not a roll. How many terms do you need. 10? 'A reroll is a modification with the difference that once a die is re-rolled it cannot be re-rolled again for any reason. Any immediate effects that trigger after a roll do not trigger on any re-rolled dice.' © heliodorus04 2016 The rules currently leave a guy who wants an honest game getting yelled at for not understanding English. I stand by my vocational experience. Explain how a reroll is not a roll in the current format of the rules and FAQ (HLC obviously has a uniquely worded errata).

Okay the FA I did not find and don't know why. That obviously makes it clear but again, it required FAQ. So my point on clarity stands. Now imagine Jonny 12-year old coming in for a game in a public spac3zwith his mom watching the game, and you pull this. It looks like cheating. Because only the FAQ deals with this confusion. The FAQ, as with the FAQ for Keyan Farlander, eats the rule on the card as written. FAQ in other words prov3s my point about vague and contradictory wording on cards. This should be seen as a big problem. Now I reject FAQ. Because they are just making stuff up to suit them. How is it that the RULES in the brand new FA set are incomplete? Tell that to Jonny 12-year old and his mom. I've had tournament players tell me Wampa's pilot ability does not bypass shields. I've seen players use a Juke illegally and I see a game that's expanding too fast and making too many unclear upgrade cards. For the record I teach English grammar. I know what words mean better than the FFG rules team. That doesn't make me correct but it does make them poor writers. I'm done letting competitive players run the game as they see fit and therefore I am done with public play.

I disagree with you. And you cannot convince me. And I am going to hammer this point home to prove that the rules are unclear. When I modify dice by re-rolling them, I am rolling dice. Therefore I must cancel critical hits. There is no FAQ nor any information on the card or in the rules that indicates a re-roll does not trigger the same immediate effects as a roll. The card has the wording "immediately after you roll dice." Is a re-roll not rolling dice? The card does not say "Once per turn after you roll dice" nor does it say anything about when you roll dice in a particular phase. It just says "immediately after you roll dice." You are all doing what the card does not say. A re-roll is a roll. Nothing in the rulebook indicates otherwise. Yes, it is also a modification that happens in the modification step. But the HLC cannon does not indicate in any way that when re-rolling, you do not immediately do the same thing you did on the initial roll. I'm not trying to be difficult (though I admit that I am.) I am standing on the wording in the rulebook, on the card, and the commonly accepted meaning of words in English.

The Heavy Laser Cannon: Can it critical or not? It seems to indicate, by wording, that no, it cannot achieve critical hits. But I read here recently (which doesn't make it official) that upon spending a Target Lock, any critical hit results from re-rolled dice are retained. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. If it IS true, then the game is starting to eat itself with contradictory practices and unclear wording which cannot be definitively interpreted by even the best grammarians in the English language (and for your amusement, I posit myself as one of those). What is the difference between a re-roll and a modification? Well, to me, the word "re-roll" indicates it is a roll. Maybe a re-roll is both a roll and a modification. If this is the case, then the HLC is a card where rules eat themselves. By definition, anytime an HLC rolls attack dice, it must immediately change critical hits. Given the English, a re-roll is still a roll. Under this (which is my) interpretation, a Target Lock does not invalidate the wording on the card in any way. A re-roll is a roll, therefore the wording on the card applies as normal. Maybe Calculation or Marksmanship enable a hit to be turned back into a critical hit (I don't have any opinion at this time). But a re-roll should not enable critical hits. Now on to Juke: By rule now, any evade token or focus token is converted into a Die result during the "Modify Defense Dice" step. During the Modify Defense Dice step, a Defender who has an Evade Token can (during this step) place it in the spent tokens area and add one Evade result die to the common area. So by my rule reading and understanding of English, Juke does not allow an attacker to convert an Evade result from an evade token, and only because the attacker is required to modify defense dice before defender does. And the defender does not convert his token into an Evade die result until after the attacker has modified the dice. So Juke happens too early to affect tokens. These are a little vague, as is the notion of converting evade and focus tokens to their respective die. I'm happy that Juke is answered by the basic information in the rulebook. But my opinion regarding the current state of X-Wing rules is that they are rapidly becoming vague and weak because of the frequency of new releases, mistakes in those releases, and the way new releases are changing the nature of the game itself (i.e., TLT and Y-Wing title makes stressbot possible). I draw my line here: I'm not interested in organized play anymore nor in tournament rules. I am now a house rule person. There are too many ambiguities and exploits cited by "experienced" players that sound and play like cheating.

So in the second post, I learn that it's true: TLTs are over-powered. I wonder if anyone predicted this?

If you have any trouble with attaching any ship to a Gozanti docking clamp, try a bit of blu-tac. I have broken the attachment point of several ships and now they have no attachment point at all. I just pinch a little blu-tac onto the TIE and then pinch the tie onto the inside of the docking clamp. It comes right off (both the ship off the Gozanti and the blu-tac off the docking clamp). It's actually easier than fitting into the docking clamp attachment in the first place.

Just because I enjoy navel-gazing: Logistically all TIE Fighter models have basically the same engine, that's one of the beauties of the model, and ideal from a maintenance point of view. Strategically, it makes no sense to field this ship without any attached craft (unless you need a beautiful 'shaggin wagon'), thus the card is a bit of a rip-off in that it takes a slot. (It's also a bit over-powered in Epic games if it just flies around as a greater-Decimator.) Moreover, undocking has interesting applications. Tactically, mixed fighters would be ideal. It would be very cool to have a Title that allowed that. A bomber, an interceptor, and two standard TIE would be great for any mission. Now, tactically it's an inefficient design to only carry 4 carriers anyway! But man do I love the model, the campaign it comes with, and the new TIE pilots and Huge ship upgrade cards. It makes me scared for the future Scum & Villainy Huge ships, because while I don't like S&V particularly, I love the Huge models and they come with great cards!

The Gozanti campaign is ideal for you and your kids. It is played on the usual 3'x3' table. In the first two missions, the Rebel side has 100 points, and the Imperial side has 110 points. It plays fantastically at this scale (and with the squad build ruies required in the campaign). The other campaigns for Huge ships are also pretty darn fun. I agree that Epic level play is casual. The one caveat is that Huge ships are fielded with the expectation that other side will also field a Huge ship(s). (The campaigns are different in this regard, and the Gozanti campaign only uses the one Huge ship). 300 points of small ships will beat 300 points of Huge ship (plus whatever is left), or so I have heard. I am just now getting into Epic play and Cinematic play (i.e., scenarios and campaigns), and I like it much better than the cutthroat world of 100 points of cutting edge builds.

So Juke question: My opponent has an evade token and is rolling 1 evade die. I have Juke. The defender die result is a blank. Can I use Juke on the evade token (presumably yes based on this thread's discussion) Does the wording on Juke turn the evade token into a focus token. Because if that is the case, it would effectively change the defender's action, and later shooters would be shooting at a target that has no evade tokens.

Yeah, I'm with you. The rules aren't the end-all-be-all of technical writing. I wouldn't touch the game if the models weren't pre-painted well.... And I see this game rapidly becoming a victim of its own success. Too many releases too fast, too much change. Add in a wave of kiddos coming in after TFA and I'm liking the idea of playing in public gatherings less and less. I'll play with my mates. The E-Wing is out-dated by the T-70, as is the T-65 by and large. I have to buy ships I don't want to play to get cards I want to use (auto-thruster; accuracy corrector, etc. when I have no interest in S&V ships); although I work around this by not playing in tournaments and proxy. They are milking a cash cow in the short term, but the game itself doesn't seem to be getting any more fun at all. It's getting more confusing and more expensive and more cumbersome. I visit here less and less too. Lots of angry noise and not much in the way of support for new players and non-competitive play.

You do take damage to Huge ships when they strike Large ships and Obstruction/asteroids. And I believe they are critical, no shield protection. Still, beware of your maneuvers around the front end of Huge ships. They move last... The bright side is that I think none of them can do anything but 1 and 2-speed banks. If your ship gets hit by a Huge ship, it deserved to die.

Just as an aside: Requiring all ships to be of the same type makes this, if it were in a real Navy, tactically inefficient. It's already pushing the limit of reasonable design by only having space for 4 docked small ships. Now you can't put a real mix-and-match group of ship types and it begs the question "Why?" Now, I'm not criticizing the rule in game terms. Just in the fictional Empire sense.

I would take a Gozanti over a Decimator every time (barring the fact that the Gozanti is restricted to Epic only, and rightly so, as I shall point out here.) Gozanti turret weapon is effectively way more than range 3. It is allowed to measure range from any part of the ship. It is a secondary weapon (range bonuses do not apply.) It's primary arc is 120-degrees (limiting auto-thruster effectiveness and other out-of-arc upgrade cards). Gozanti is much less likely to lose its action. Gozanti crushes anything it hits, and it moves last. Gozanti can recover shields with an inexpensive Shield Tech card. Gozanti is extremely difficult to restrict on energy, unlike other Huge ships. It only has one gun, which is highly effective anyway, which costs 1 energy to fire. It's very difficult for a Gozanti to be unable to acquire 1 energy in movement phase. Gozanti can carry Jammer (give an enemy ship at Range 1-2 two stress up to a max 2) as your action. Take that Push the Limit cards! For 50 points, I think the Gozanti is a bargain with its cannon and a shield tech. Throw in Moff Jerjerrod and a saboteur or such (expendable crew) and it defensively AND offensively out-performs the Decimator, losing out only on the maneuver dial. But did I mention you crush enemy ships you hit during movement? Better make sure that Decimator is out of my way (which admittedly, is not difficult). Now throw on some of the new TIE fighter pilots like Wampa and Scourge (and hey, throw Backstabber off the back end) and it's a helluva 100 point, 4-ship list. Highly competitive. I love it, and I would love to play it in 100 point games. Peace.

I too am curious on these issues. I am wondering if Youngster requires an "Action-Required" EPT like Marksmanship. Does it work with Determination or Predator? / edit already answered. It's an "action required" upgrade. It does make it way more interesting to put him on the board where other friendly ship(s) have an Experimental Interface. The other ship can choose Youngster's action or one of its own (assuming you equipped one). Oh, and Push the Limit - you get his actions available

I am unclear still. Is it once in planning (say you roll over a mine or asteroid and you want to change it). AND Once in combat AND Once in End phase? Or is it once ONLY in any of those phases? I have always read it as the last option, which is why I cannot understand why anyone would want to equip it for 8 points and 2 crew slots.

I look at a card like this from a "net value" and the probabilities. I'm not arguing against anyone else's perspective on its utility - indeed I'm learning from others and I appreciate that very much. Thanks. So take my favorite EPT really: Determination There is about a 25% chance when you take a critical hit, and you are equipped with determination, that you discard the hit entirely. For one point. The more hit points your ship has, the lower the agility of that ship, then the higher the chance Determination will earn you that discarded hit. It's extremely difficult to gauge because you may never take critical hits in a game, making it meaningless. But because critical hits tend to get through to your hull (based on how evade dice are allocated to hits), again, the more hull and the less agility, it becomes worth way more than 1 point. I would easily pay 2 points for it when I run a Decimator. Maybe more. So with a Sensor Jammer, you start at 4 points and you leave its effectiveness in the hands of what you face from your opponent. I don't like expensive cards whose effectiveness is determined by my opponent. Especially with the Focus action obviating it. The sensor jammer does not work as well against high-initiative opponents. It works less well the more appealing your ship (with the SJ) is as a target (and the SJ usually goes on juicy targets). The juicier the target, the more likely your opponent is to be sure to keep the focus (and shoot at higher initiative). If you are relying on another friendly ship to remove a target's focus before it fires at your SJ-ship, then you are effectively changing the point cost of the SJ. You are paying for that other ship, possibly paying for a higher initiative than your SJ-ship. Now add in any ship with a Push the Limit card or the ability to gain a free focus or other action such that he can take a focus and get a free action from someone else (and there exist quite a number of ways this is achieved) and you are looking at an even worse chance that your opponent will not have his focus. For its cost, I find it never does enough. It is just too easy to render it useless.

By the rules as you (and I) understand them, Juke is an awesome card...

Thank you. That covers it. Very helpful.

The problem with the sensor jammer, in other words, is that it is a 4-point card, the benefit of which is obviated entirely if the attacker has a focus token. People learn very quickly how to reduce it's value to zero. And every ship can focus (except Huge ships).

So I opened this thread because I knew there would be something to learn. I don't understand why any die (primary or re-rolled) can be counted as crits where a Heavy Laser Cannon is concerned. I know how to read, and English is my first language. Indeed, I have been a professional writer. The term "immediately" is confusing where "re-roll" is concerned. "Immediately" is also a bit vague to me where Col. Vessery (TIE Defender pilot) is concerned, and how it will impact the upcoming Defender Title if he has two weapons (but I don't need to confuse msyelf with that yet). I would love it if that could be illuminated for me (the HLC resulting in crits).

Are you saying this is tournament legal? It's definitely not allowed in FFG's tournament rules. The rules which ship with the Raider and the Rebel Transport both have rules for using a "derelict" version of the hull as all 3 of a player's obstacle tokens. (I don't own any other Huge ships but I assume they also have the same rules for "derelicts". I've used it on a few occasions. It screws up people's spacial reasoning (including mine - I bricked a Firespray on it and the only reason it got free is the special rules for bumping into impossible to exit situations... I can't speak to official tournament rules, but I can see no reason why it would not be legal. It is a beautiful way to show off huge ships as marketing tools, too.