Jump to content

phaze

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About phaze

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. The Assignment Phase for missions does not involve systems at all. This phase is for putting leaders on facedown mission cards. The exception is the use of action cards that trigger in the Assignment Phase. If I remember correctly, most (all?) of their abilities are resolved in a particular system, using the specified leader. At the start of the Command Phase, each side has no knowledge of which systems the other side will be playing missions in. Each side can make educated guesses on where a facedown mission will be played based on which leaders are assigned, but it's still a guess. If the concern is that the Imperials might react to a Rebel mission by activing units for attack, or playing a capture mission: that's a risk/reward decision that the Rebels need to make. If by 'stall' in your wording, you mean "can't move Rebel units out if the Imperials place a leader at same spot as a Rebel leader": the Rebel leader (from the already attempted mission in your example) already prevents their own units from moving. From a strategic view, it's mostly the Rebels stalling the Imperials, rather than the other way around. Hope that helps.
  2. They can pass. However, once they pass, they can no longer use any more leaders that round(either for missions, or for activating systems). They can still use leaders in their pool for opposing a mission or defending in combat. No, leaders only move off of missions when they are attempted, or at end of round when leaders return to the pool. Placing a leader in the system is done either via a mission card (or some action cards that act like mission cards), or to activate that system when the leader is in the pool. After that, they don't move again. The exception is during combat, if you retreat with that leader. You CAN activate a system with a leader, and not move any units; this can be used to prep for a later mission/combat at that system. You do not have to do all missions first before doing activations; you can mix them together in a round. However, once you pass, your turns are done for that round. You can play the related cards on any combat round you want, and as many as you want, to help with that combat. Any that are not used that round, you keep in hand for the next combat round. Once the battle is done, both sides discard any tactics cards they were holding. One side's cards have no bearing on the other side's cards, so it doesn't matter who has more/less. Hope that helps!
  3. The defending player does not get to pull in units from other systems if they choose to drop in a leader with tactics values. They are not considered to be activating the system. For the retreating question, I don't have my rules references handy, but I think I'm correct: When retreating, all hyperspace-capable units (can move between systems on their own) MUST retreat with the leader. Other units (ground units, TIE fighters) can be moved with them, according to your carrying capacity. Oh, and Death Stars can't retreat, ever. So for units, there's only one retreat window available. I don't recall offhand if you can retreat extra leaders in subsequent rounds, but I suspect not.
  4. Yeah, we had that same problem the first few times we played, which resulted in us having much more prevented damage (from the old tactics cards) than we should have, and dragged out the fights quite noticeably. Also made it feel clunky, since we were passing dice back and forth constantly, trying to remember mentally how many of each we had already rolled, etc. Once we realized we were doing combat wrong, we switched to the correct way, and that sped up the combats considerably. And it makes the damage tracking much more simplified, as intended. =)
  5. Tricky to attack a system without a leader to move units. But assuming this is a hypothetical to ignore any leader-related rerolls, etc., and that the only units in the fight are the ISD and the MCC. 1st round: Empire assigns the 1 damage (from Superlaser Blast) to any Rebel unit in the battle; in this situation, assigns that damage as 1 damage to the MCC (health color doesn't matter for this particular damage). Rebel banks the 'prevent 2 black hits' until after Empire finishes their attack rolls. Empire rolls dice, gets 1x red saber, 1x red hit, 1x black direct hit. ISD has no damage assigned to it, so the red saber result is meaningless here and is ignored. Empire chooses to treat the direct hit as 1 red damage, bringing the dice total to 2 damage to the MCC. Including the tactics card, the MCC will now have 3 damage assigned. Rebel has NOT rolled yet (Empire attack phase not done). No, there are no dice showing black hits being assigned by the Empire during their "Assign Damage" step. No, the dice results must be used before passing control to the defender for their rolls. Since the ISD is currently full health, the Empire's red saber is wasted. This is the defender advantage in the RotE 'cinematic combat' rules (base game had attacker advantage due to how tactics cards worked). 2nd round: Both the ISD and the MCC have 1 damage token assigned. Empire's tactic card assigns 1 damage to the MCC (since it has red health). Rebel banks the 'prevent 2 red hits' until after Empire finishes their attack rolls, then uses the additional card to assign 1 damage to the ISD (since it has red health). Empire rolls dice, gets 1x red direct hit, 1x red saber, 1x black hit. The red saber result is used to remove 1 damage from the ISD. The black hit result is not usable against the MCC, and is ignored. Empire chooses to treat the direct hit as 1 red damage, so the dice total is 1 damage to the MCC. Combined with the tactics card, this is 2 damage being assigned to the MCC this round. Rebel has NOT rolled yet (Empire attack phase not done). No, there are no dice showing red hits, that can be removed. Yes, the Empire's red saber result can remove 1 damage already assigned (either the 1 damage from previous round, or the 1 damage from Bombing Run). 2nd round of combat, Rebel player assigns 2 more damage to the ISD, for a total of 3 damage (4 damage dealt over 2 rounds, 1 removed via red saber result in 2nd round). At the end of the 2nd round, both units will have 3 damage each.
  6. Either side can have loyalty in the system of the rebel base (assuming populous, and not remote). If the system becomes Imperial loyal though, the rebel base is immediately revealed. A system is in conflict when it is controlled by one side (loyalty, or imperial subjugation), but the other side has units there. A conflicted system does not generate units, nor can units be deployed there. from Rules Reference, under 'Build Units':
  7. You did this correctly (space and ground are totally separate, and do not depend on each other). No, you can only choose one OR the other. It is not. Correct, they may not initiate a unit movement / combat (no change from base game). A card must be played each round; it is not an optional step.
  8. It goes both ways. The Empire needs to plan for tougher contested expansion, sure. But the Rebels also have to plan on any of their attacks (for missions/objectives) to also be more difficult. Of the two, I'd think this discourages the Rebels from attacking, more than it does the Empire. If that's the case in your game, then that gives the Empire a clear path to just crush the Rebels by quick-spreading. Fewer units on defense means full-court rush for Empire, slowing only to do things that hinder Rebel unit gains.
  9. Rebels need to be flexible with their plan, so that they can score objectives. If you start with a combat-related objective (or want to plan for that direction), try to get a good board position to secure that early. If you have system-based objectives, do what you can to get (and keep) your loyalty increasing. In both cases, you'll want to not be a sitting duck for the full might of the Empire. If attacking, strike fast and then get out. Otherwise, don't leave your fleet too exposed. If you try to go toe-to-toe with the Empire on fighting, they'll win; they churn out a lot more plastic on the board than the Rebels. Sending a leader in alone, deep into imperial territory, is a risky gamble, especially if you think the Empire is sitting on a capture mission. You might be better off skipping Infiltration, if that's the only leader you're exposing. Alternatively, try to send several leaders to the same imperial system to complete multiple missions, which should in turn help with opposing the capture. And/or send Chewie along as bodyguard.
  10. For the initial round, there will be no damage assigned to the attacker's units (as the defender has not rolled dice yet). So the lightsaber results have nothing to operate on, and are useless for the attacker's first round (making them excellent candidates for rerolls granted from a leader). For subsequent rounds, the attacker may have partially-damaged units (from a previous combat round), where lightsaber results could be used.
  11. (assuming you mean the expansion's imperial Shield Bunker, not the rebel Shield Generator from the base game) Shield bunkers ignore the "only populous systems" rule, for both their deployment and for unit deployment in future rounds. EDIT: yeah, what RobertK said.
  12. I agree that simply adding more systems/regions seems unlikely. The rounds/units/leaders/balance are all designed for the existing 32-system layout. But i could certainly see an expansion that replaces some systems/regions with different ones. This could be done to modify locations (Lothal for Rebels, Jakku for the ST, etc), to change resources (swap out double triangle for triangle+circle, etc), or both. If they went that route, I think a cardboard overlay for the affected region(s) would be the most likely approach. Easy to add, and keeps it modular.
  13. Now that the rules are released (check the Rebellion main news page if you haven't seen yet), full text for the Shield Bunker abilities:
  14. Yeah, that would make Shield Bunkers extremely flexible for getting them on the board, wherever you want them. Sounds like a solid option over just another AT-ST, so I think we'll see Bunkers getting plenty of use to forward deploy. Indestructible battle station in orbit is just gravy on top.
×
×
  • Create New...