Jump to content

nitrobenz

Members
  • Content Count

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nitrobenz

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,224 profile views
  1. I wouldn't move the wings, just spin the model 180!
  2. Adding a little detail to what @emeraldbeacon said: the source of this is that rolling additional dice is not a form of dice modification as defined by RR (1.0.4) p.9-10 under Dice Modification, so the order is not optional. You must roll the extra die during the normal roll dice step then add the focus result at some point during the modify dice step. Adding more results does not run afoul of "rolls a maximum of 4" because adding a result is not rolling an additional die.
  3. The wording on the card is pretty clear in this regard, I believe only a straight or K-turn will not result in rotation. Maneuvers that have a left/right component include Banks, Turns, Segnors loops, Tallon rolls, and reverse Banks. Edit: @Hiemfire very astutely observed that the original question could be interpreted as asking if a Droid must rotate as it lands, which is a no. The rotating is what the Droid does instead of its chosen maneuver when it reveals a maneuver at r0 of an asteroid.
  4. This looks simple and solid to me, put in some reps and see how you like it.
  5. Aside from text on the card?
  6. Although I want bases with only the arc lines I am with you on missing the action list, I do a lot more walking around the table now days to just see what my opponents ships can do, but at this point I'm already asking what any card does half the time. Not a lot of swarms in you meta either? If this was going to be problem it would probably already be a problem. 5A, 4B+, and especially TIE swarms would benefit greatly from cheating in this way, it's not only aces that would benefit. Edit: it just occurred to me that if we're talking about cheating: The existing setup can be cheated just as easily by just moving the damage cards around, or assign them to the wrong ship in the first place
  7. It's true that you don't have to agree with me! But you will have to agree with somebody you actually play the game with. If nothing else you are getting practice for your argument so when a new player brings it up you're ready I think we can at least agree that there is a legitimate use of Holdo to mimic Kagi by taking a lock out of range without breaking it. I respect that you do not see that as an issue and had no interaction with the self locking rule which is an issue for you because of the word cannot. To me the precedent set by Kagi is that Aquire does not equal Gain and therefore a transfer does not run afoul of any restrictions on Aquiring a lock, including on oneself. Thank you for putting up with my persistence and expressing why my point of view bothers you. Unfortunately i dropped out of Resistance for 2e and will not get a direct benefit from a settlement of this one way or the other. I'm arguing in favor of Holdo's self lock because I believe it is more logically consistent, but also in the hope that it gets official attention because I want FFG to fix their wording (on this and other issues) so it is clear and consistent. I greatly dislike when new cards require community consensus to make an interaction work "as intended" or to restrict a logically consistent interaction that just "feels wrong". TL:DR: This is a problem because I will likely never use this card and so will be out of the loop on what "consensus" decides, and by extension I could be unaware of the precedent it sets when another similar interaction arrives in the future. More broadly this is a problem because different locales often come to different conclusions and when they interact at a major event somebody will be wrong with a list they may have put lots of practice into. Bad technical writing is also bad for X-wing
  8. Not a lot of swarms or generic mixes in your meta? For me personally the game has exceeded my ability to memorize all of the pilots, especially since I no longer fly every faction I have to ask, "what can that RZ-2 do again?" because I don't know what Greer does. It would make little difference to me if there was no identifying info at all on the base plate, I'd be happy with just arc and midpoint lines with the number chits to tie it to the cards.
  9. As a counterpoint: how would you rule if someone wanted to use Holdo to transfer a lock token belonging to a enemy ship beyond range 3? "A ship cannot aquire a lock on itself" is very specific and is not equivalent to "a ship cannot have itself locked" When a transfer occurs one ship Removes the specified token and the other Gains that token. I have so far been unable to find where Gain=Aquire in the Rules Reference or other officially published material. Aquire is a keyword that specifies assigning a lock following range restrictions to the object, but Gain is merely the assigning of a token with no inherent restrictions.
  10. When the rules are as loose as FFG often makes them we have to fill in the gaps with something. 😥
  11. That ship is being forced to apply its lock outside normal Aquire perameters by Holdo's token transfer ability. How is that different from applying her own lock to herself?
  12. So what if Holdo were to transfer an enemy Lock belonging to a ship that is beyond range 3? That ship can't Aquire a lock on Holdo any more than she can Aquire one on herself... I'm with @Bucknife in that even though this Lock-transfer sounds sketchy I'm just not convinced that the rules support Aquire=Gain so I can't rule out this combo. But as was said earlier:
  13. I believe this is a correct reading of the card. But seeing as I'm assuming you have already somehow overcome the as-written impossibility of opening the struts in the first place so that you can play the card as-intended (so it functions), it is debatable whether or not it's reasonable to enforce this given that there is not a clear sign of intent... Did this rock hoping happen in any of the streamed FFG demo games?
  14. TLDR: Another token of the same type is identical, ergo a token of a different type is any other token as identified by the token's shape, color, image, and name. Read on for more in depth: An excellent question, which also applies to Petty Officer Thanisson: When he was first shown, the community consensus quickly agreed that each token is its own type (Focus is a type, evade is a type, stress is a type, etc.) And moved on to a heated argument about what happens if you tried to give the target another Lock token. FFG eventually answered in the "Official Rulings" thread (link here) where they said that an "additional token of the same type" in the case of a lock means another Lock token with the same number. Although the Rules Reference does not define what "token type" means; it does reference different types in the sections for Reinforce, where it says what happens if a ship has more than one of the same type (RR1.0.4 p.15), and Inflict, where it says there are special weapons that specify the number and type of token the target gains (p.12). Using the above admittedly obscure info the answers to the OP questions should be clear. 1. Each token identified in the Rules Reference is a distinct token type. 2. No, also note that Fore Reinforce is a different token from Aft Reinforce (side note: even if you have both Fore and Aft Reinforce you do not get the effect against Flanking enemies on the line between front and back.) 3. Yes, including each different Lock number.
×
×
  • Create New...