Jump to content

Nerd Rage

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I started playing L5R on the first week of its release way back in 1995. I haven't played the game for about 20 years now, though I have checked up on it every few years since then. Finding out that L5R was sold to FFG and would be re-booted as an LCG was probably the most exciting hobby related news I have ever received. I'm trying not to build my hopes up too high but I'm very optimistic that FFG will do something great with it and I absolutely plan to jump back in.
  2. I wholeheartedly agree. Yes, exactly. Thank you. I don't think this was a direct question to me but just to clarify; if I ever found myself in this situation as the offending player, I would voluntarily remove my ship without hesitation. Good point about the maneuver tool. We use a tool with enough play in it to easily cause a ship to be placed an extra mm or two in one direction or the other, even unintentionally. The rule book has entries addressing the fact that movement and placement are not exact. MANEUVER TOOL (Rules Reference pg. 7): If the maneuver tool cannot be placed on the play area because it would overlap a ship or squadron, the player should hold the maneuver tool above the play area and estimate the final position of the moving ship. MARGIN OF ERROR (Tournament Rules pg. 5): Ships and squadrons are sometimes moved accidentally or placed inexactly during the normal course of the game. A small margin of error is allowed in the position and orientation of ships and squadrons in these situations so that the pace of the game is not unnecessarily affected. Players should not abuse this margin of error, and they must use the tools included with the game to be as accurate as possible... Here's an entry that gives some degree of discretion on rules enforcement to the players (at least when it comes to remembering to use card effects). MISSED OPPORTUNITIES (Tournament Rules pg. 5): Players are expected to play optimally, remember to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he or she cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his or her opponent... I wonder if this off the board by a mm incident happened in a tournament, and the non-offending player said their opponent could keep the ship, would that be allowed? I mean if a tournament judge was standing right there, aware of what was occurring, would he or she allow this? This is a question because of the above referenced rules entries indicating that small margins of error in movement and placement are allowed. We know that movement and placement are not exact, and there will be many times where close enough is the best a player can do, so a mm here or there can be forgiven. But does this allowed margin of error cease to exist precisely at the edge of the play area? In my solo game I did not hesitate to remove the ISD the moment I realized it was placed off the board by approximately one mm. Unencumbered with concerns about whether or not I was being unfair or a jerk, removing the ship, even though it was only one mm over the edge, seemed most natural and correct to me. I know which direction I naturally tend towards but at the same time I can see reasons why that might be considered a bit boorish. I think this basically comes down to the player's expectations, and so I was curious what the Armada community consensus would be. From the responses posted so far, it looks like for most players it would be within accepted practice to ask your opponent to remove their ship, even if only one mm off the board.
  3. Not really a rules question. I knew it was going to be close because my ISD ended its turn 5 activation with its nose nearly perpendicular and only a few inches from the edge of the play area. As the last activation of turn 6, and being stuck at speed 2, I positioned the maneuver tool into the only configuration that gave me any chance of just skirting the edge. This is the result. It looks like I might have just made it! It’s really close… If the ISD is safe, the Imperials win with a 150 MoV. But if it did fly off the board, the Rebels win with a MoV of 20. So based off this single ruling, at the very end of the game, the Imperials win 8-2 or lose 5-5. Now let’s take a closer look from a different angle. I think the Rebel player would be technically correct and therefore had the right to insist that my ISD did in fact fly off the board. It is ridiculously close but per the Rules Reference, a ship is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area. I promptly removed my ISD from the board and the game ended there. The Rebels won 5-5. Is the Rebel player a jerk for enforcing this rule so strictly? Or is it unreasonable for the Imperial player to expect the Rebel player to “bend the rules” in the Imperial’s favor? What if the Rebel player needed this victory to win a tournament or at least place high enough for a prize? Could you fault him for insisting we play exactly by the rules? What if the Rebel player had no chance to win the tournament with a 5-5 game, but by enforcing this rule, the Imperial player went from winning the whole tournament, with an 8-2 victory in the last round, to placing somewhere in the middle of the pack with the 5-5 loss? Is the Rebel player being a jerk then? Essentially he has nothing to gain by enforcing this rule so strictly other than denying the Imperial player his tournament victory. Even if letting the Imperial player keep his ship would be considered good sportsmanship, couldn’t it also be unfair to the other competitors? What about the player that gets 2nd place instead of 1st because someone on another table decided to take it easy on rules enforcement? So what do I think of the Rebel player who won 5-5? I think he’s a jerk. But that has nothing to do with him being a stickler for rules. I just know he is because I was playing a solo game against myself It’s interesting that with nothing at stake and being completely neutral, I felt most comfortable with strict rules enforcement. Conversely, there are tournament scenarios where I would feel like I should let something like that go. But shouldn’t rules be applied precisely and consistently in a competition? What would you do if you were the Rebel player in this situation?
  4. The original L5R CCG technically could be played multiplayer but some of the basic mechanics of the game were not well suited for that. I would say it was a bad multiplayer experience and no one should buy it for that purpose. This is one of the things a lot of L5R fans are hoping is fixed with the new edition coming out a little over a year from now.
  5. This thread is relevant to my interests! I was list building recently, six 200-point mini fleets, each with a different commander that only applies to ships within its own mini fleet. Not for 200 vs. 200 games, but instead for a casual 3P vs. 3P team game, with 600 points total on each side. So even though it's for a different format, I can still mine this thread for more mini fleet ideas. With my initial lists the main goals were to keep the total game length reasonable, keep the individual fleets manageable for a new player, minimal to no ship/squad overlap between each fleet where possible, and of course to have fun. This is all with the additional limitation of what I actually own at the moment. Optimization was a secondary concern and of course these lists could be better without all the restrictions. This is what I came up for the initial game: Rebel Fleet (598) RP1 (204) AF-B (72) Garm Bel Iblis (25) Boosted Comms (4) Exp. Hangar Bay (5) Wing Commander (6) Y-wing x2 (20) X-wing x2 (26) Luke Skywalker (20) Han Solo (26) RP2 (197) MC80-AC (114) General Dodonna (20) Defiance (5) Leading Shots (4) Engineering Team (5) Redundant Shields (8) Raymus Antilles (7) Advanced Projectors (6) Engineering Captain (6) A-Wing x2 (22) RP3 (197) CR90-A (44) Admiral Ackbar (38) Jaina’s Light (2) Slaved Turrets (6) ECM (7) CR90-A Slaved Turrets (6) CR90-A Slaved Turrets (6) Imperial Fleet (599) IP1 (199) VSD-II (85) Admiral Screed (26) Gunnery Team (7) GSD-1 (56) Demolisher (10) ACM (7) Engine Techs (8) IP2 (198) VSD-II (85) Admiral Motti (24) Gunnery Team (7) Exp. Hangar Bay (5) Boosted Comms (4) Wing Commander (6) Major Rhymer (16) TIE Bomber (9) TIE Advanced x2 (24) Soontir Fel (18) IP3 (202) ISD-II (120) Darth Vader (36) Captain Needa (2) Gunnery Team (7) XI7 Turbolasers (6) ECM (7) TIE Fighter x3 (24)
  6. I acknowledge that having multiple types of dice can be a good system. I'm a big fan of the dice used in Imperial Assault. But I'm concerned about increasing complexity in the basic game rules. The relatively simple rules and quick play are a huge strength of X-Wing. I prefer to keep X-Wing rules light and have Armada as an option for those seeking a more in-depth experience. Both games are great and the contrast in weight between the two is a good thing. I guess I don't really disagree that an X-Wing 2.0 designed from the ground up to use multiple dice could work very well. Yes, I would absolutely consider it to be a nuisance if that sort of design had a widespread presence in the game. But I'm just talking about a few weapon upgrades and maybe a couple of ships with that built in rules text. I would agree that if you wanted a high level of weapon accuracy/damage variability as a baked-in aspect of the combat system, multiple types of dice would be a cleaner option. And that could be a great game system too. But I'm not in favor of a major rules overhaul/re-boot.
  7. The problem of high damage being the same as high accuracy can be solved within the current rules system using card text. As a rough example, the high damage/low accuracy super cannon could be only 1 or 2 attack dice but have text stating something to the effect that whenever a ship suffers damage from this weapon's attack, it suffers an additional 3 or 4 damage. On the other end, the high accuracy/low damage weapon could roll 5-6 attack dice but whenever it scores a hit, its total damage dealt is reduced to 1 or 2. These ideas could be applied to ship cards as well. Not trying to single you out btw. You just presented that argument in the most concise way. Agreed.
  8. Great show! I’m guessing that you might want some feedback in addition to new listeners. So here’s my $0.02. The audio quality is good and your delivery was on point. The direct and concise commentary on the topics covered is appreciated and came across as very polished. I like this style of presentation. The AAAA segment was funny. I want to hear what you come up with on these in future episodes. I’m very much looking forward to your analysis of specific ships/squads/upgrades/tactics, etc. I do have one big complaint about the show. It was too short! Anyway, very promising first episode IMO. I hope you do a lot more of these.
  • Create New...