Jump to content

Captain ICT

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain ICT

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

381 profile views
  1. True, ANH: It says Scariff was a disputable Rebel victory in the opening crawl C90 vs ISD (Assuming the ISD has tractor beams, the way this ends is fairly accurate in Armada) Imperial Victory TIE fighters vs Falcon (Not sure how this would go in Armada, if it's a thrown fight, as implied.) Snub Fighters vs DS1 Rebel Victory ESB: Rebels driven from base (opening crawl): Imperial Victory Hoth: Imperial Victory Asteroid belt chase: Tie(s blow up) not really a 'victory' for either. Cloud City: Escape, but Imperial Victory (ground). RotJ: Endor: SUCK IT IMPERIAL SCUM, 3x Rebel Victories. (Just for clontroper5. Ground, Lightsaber and Space.) RO: That one platform planet: Meh. Not sure who would be considered to have won that. Scariff: IMO, disputable Imperial Victory in terms of Armada. Rebel victory in terms of DS plans. (Consider with the start of ANH: aside from a very few ships which hypered out, they got pretty much tabled.) So overall: 2 undisputed on screen Imperial Victories, 2 Rebel victories. Off-screen/Disputable: 3 Rebel victories, 4 Imperial Victories. If I missed a battle (things like the cloud cars vs the falcon I'm not even going to consider.) I'm gonna be sad. (Haven't seen the new Solo movie, but I've been told it's not a Rebels vs Imperials.)
  2. Part of the problem is that Armada is so ship based. The rebellions tactics have been from the beginnings of the EU (and hasn't changed) being described as very fighter based hit and run. (Hence all Rebel fighters using hyperdrives.) The few raids were Nebs at most taking unarmed convoys or beating the small ships like the Carracks that were used (Which might as well be the Raiders). Nebs being built to deal with the tactics, then being hijacked by Rebels, so much so that they are considered basically Rebel ships. If all the Rebels had Rogue, or something like that, I could see the scenarios working. With the current mechanics, not so much. (Maybe existing rogues can either fire or move an extra time? or have a point cost reduction.) The Rebels didn't have many big ships, and were very reluctant to risk them because of it. Look at Scariff, as an example, that was, if you ignore the Death Star plans, actually a loss for the Alliance, comparing the relative numbers. Even though they knocked out two ISDs. Looking at the movies, they had 2 victories, 3 if you count Scariff: The destruction of Death Star 1, Destruction of Death Star 2. That's it.
  3. You gave us a deadline and expected things before that? Sheesh. (Also my super experimental fleet of doom is in. (Not sure if the doom is my opponent's or mine.))
  4. Oh what the ****, sign me up for the glory of North America! (I was about to write that, but I could c&p so...) ;)
  5. Rather than using something else, you can use the most common thing to get super glue to bond (and what normally bonds it): Water. put a tiny tiny amount of water (a mister is good) and it does as well or better than any accelerator I've seen, sometimes too fast.
  6. I agree with the latest range regarding snipe, as I was about to point the ranges being closest to closest. I'll toss in my view on FC and Howl FC: Doesn't work, because the Snipe specifies that AS armament to use. Like counter on a Raider, it still goes by what the keyword says, instead of any AS dice. To use an example: FC would be equivalent to adding a 3rd black (for the sake of argument) die to the Raider 1, and adding QLT to it. Which gives it counter 1. If attacked, it still only gets that counter 1, with a blue die regardless of it's normal anti-squadron armament. Howlrunner: Does work, because it's a dice modification after the fact.
  7. 4 more qualifications since I last updated! Wow! GREEN KNIGHT emfrank Matt Antilles pt106 Only 2 more left, and worlds is right around the corner. If you are on the bubble, get your games in! On the off chance that I screw up and can't update this quickly enough, if multiple players qualify before I post the update closing this event, all players that met the qualifications will get it, even if that means more than 12 get it. Only seems fair. I have no recollection of playing vs. Matt. I think this may be an erroneous entry. Maybe he played vs. someone else? Wasn't aware that ICT hadn't signed up, but I was already qualified at that point so it doesn't matter. Oh, and good work on the CAPITALS (next time, make 'em BOLD too!) Should have been, I've got a post about it in the thread. (Not that life hasn't shut me out of playing. )
  8. Looking at it, it looks like 17 ships, 2 hammerheads (1 distinctive, and 1 that just has the bottom rear portion, which appears distinctive) 2 Neb-Bs (Very distinct) 5 Corvettes (min) 7 more of a single class. that I'm not sure, I think they are transports (or maybe corvettes). 1 unknown in the upper right that looks a lot liked a winged liberty, but if it were, it would be going backwards. (I also see no engine glow.) A nifty little fleet, but not something*, you'd want to be tangling with a single ISD with, unless that's a mon cal cruiser (for which, old canon would question, as it was after the Death Star was finished that Ackbar was freed, and Mon Cal went to the rebellion.) *Armada relative values not withstanding!
  9. Defense effect is nowhere defined in the rulebook.
  10. A thought occurred to me, because I love edge cases, and debate. Foresight reads: "When you resolve the [Evade] defense effect, you can affect 1 additional die. ..." TRC reads: "While attacking, you may spend 1 [Evade] defense token to change 1 red die to a face with a critical icon or 2 hit icons." So can Foresight TRC for 2 die, as when it spends the defense token, it can affect 1 additional die?
  11. If someone wants to play in the morning, I'll be around. (So like 6 hours) Central time.
  12. "Cannot" definitely falls into the category of "unless stated otherwise." GT and Slaved Turrets both say "cannot," which is directly accounted for in the Effects Use and Timing sentence that has been quoted into oblivion in this thread. The argument for JF being optional only applies insofar as it does not "otherwise specify." Trying to compare JF to GT or ST doesn't work, because both of those cards do specify whereas JF doesn't. Seriously, an "always" or "must" would clear up the whole argument. I disagree. I think the GT - Adv Gunnery point speaks directly to the argument at hand. Because in said example, there are two seperate agencies by which you can take a second shot from the same arc. If all upgrade card effects were optional, and holy hell gunnery teams even says "may" on it, then you could just chose to use advanced gunnery as your agency. But you can't. And it kills me when people treat this example like the cannot is so absolute, because this ruling is a reversal! A reversal they made because adv gunnery was included in like a million lists, not because they were like, "oh wait guys this says cannot" I realize GK has a semi-official answer, which puts the thread to bed, but I read through the thing, and do want to address this point that has been made, wrongly, repeatedly in this thread. To quote from the RRG, page 5: "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified." This means that upgrade cards are optional unless otherwise specified, whereas non-upgrade cards are the opposite. People have also had a problem with that, and only quoted the 2nd part, which does not apply to upgrade cards. So, AG would be optional unless specified otherwise, so we go to page 1 of the RRG, under "Golden Rules": If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute. So it is otherwise specified that the cannot effect is absolute. (Note that that specific rule does not specify upgrade or non-upgrade cards.) If it's a rule reversal, I seem to recall that being like AP and XI-7s, as an email ruling. It was however, something that should have been corrected, because per the other rules, it was wrong. Clarifying that the rules as written are consistent leads to a non-ambiguous state for people, especially when new things come out.
  13. I forgot the pictures! https://imgur.com/a/3SiVw
  14. 2300 ... and I really need to upload the full table, instead of a third of it. (Granted the one with the highest concentration of ships and squads.) We ended after Turn 4 and I won by 11 points.
×
×
  • Create New...