Jump to content

n00bzilla99

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About n00bzilla99

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday August 4

Recent Profile Visitors

489 profile views
  1. Touché. In my opinion though, having an MC-80 with Ordnance would lead to a lot of Ackbar + close range for 7 dice pools out two sides. Whereas the Kuat only gets 8 out of a single arc on a target (if you are somehow blessed enough to have gunnery teams and two ships in close range, then you get 2) but, I do believe that the MC-80 is superior to an ISD. My personal opinion. I just see an MC-75 as balanced the way it is with its current defensive token suite to offset its great double arcing potential (10 dice over 2 arcs with that many black dice is phenomenal). To each their own, sir!
  2. Because MC-75's are already pretty hard to pull down with their current defensive token suite. Stapling a second redirect just makes them MC-80's with Ordnance upgrades.
  3. I just had this discussion last night with my Armada club. I think we came to the consensus that he'd be way too powerful as it stands if he was allowed to slow ships down to zero. However, if he cost 32 points and could only do it to one ship and still had all the requirements he had now, I think it might be okay, but I still wasn't sure of the point cost. 32 was the minimum if he can slow to zero, but that was prefaced with "can only do it to one ship per round."
  4. What could easily 'fix' Tagge is the ability to use it twice per game, no round requirement. "Twice per game, you may exhaust this card. If you do, each of your ships may recover one of it's discarded defense token."
  5. I wanna see the fleet of the guy with 20 points and 800 MOV
  6. I'd love to share some of my ideas for Commanders, I have a few that I think would be interesting, but I don't know if I can make the time commitment to playing.
  7. Well unfortunately, we had 6 people not show to the event. With the 4 that did, we had a nice round robin of a day, with the results below. We all played imperials, (so it was some "Live Fire Training Exercises") and I have the lists as well. FIRST PLACE: Joe Wirtz Name: Kuat Avenger Faction: Imperial Commander: Admiral Motti Assault: Most Wanted Defense: Contested Outpost Navigation: Superior Positions ISD Kuat Refit (112) • Admiral Motti (24) • Strategic Adviser (4) • Boarding Troopers (3) • Electronic Countermeasures (7) • Leading Shots (4) • External Racks (3) • Avenger (5) = 162 Points Gladiator I (56) • Admiral Montferrat (5) • Ordnance Experts (4) • Engine Techs (8) • Assault Proton Torpedoes (5) • Demolisher (10) = 88 Points Gozanti Cruisers (23) • Comms Net (2) = 25 Points Gozanti Cruisers (23) • Comms Net (2) = 25 Points Squadrons: • Black Squadron (9) • Dengar (20) • Zertik Strom (15) • TIE Advanced Squadron (12) • Soontir Fel (18) • Mauler Mithel (15) = 89 Points Total Points: 389 SECOND PLACE: Chris Rome @Packerman29 Name: Kuat Interdictor Faction: Imperial Commander: Admiral Motti Assault: Most Wanted Defense: Hyperspace Assault Navigation: Solar Corona ISD Kuat Refit (112) • Admiral Motti (24) • Strategic Adviser (4) • Gunnery Team (7) • Electronic Countermeasures (7) • Leading Shots (4) • External Racks (3) • Avenger (5) = 166 Points Interdictor Suppression Refit (90) • Captain Brunson (5) • Disposable Capacitors (3) • Grav Shift Reroute (2) • Targeting Scrambler (5) • Leading Shots (4) • Interdictor (3) = 112 Points Arquitens Light Cruiser (54) • Captain Needa (2) • Turbolaser Reroute Circuits (7) • Hand of Justice (4) = 67 Points Gozanti Cruisers (23) = 23 Points Squadrons: • Ciena Ree (17) • Valen Rudor (13) = 30 Points Total Points: 398 THIRD PLACE: Theo Ceci @noobzor Name: DARTH VADER Faction: Imperial Commander: Darth Vader Assault: Opening Salvo Defense: Contested Outpost Navigation: Minefields Imperial II (120) • Darth Vader (36) • Strategic Adviser (4) • Gunnery Team (7) • Electronic Countermeasures (7) • SW-7 Ion Batteries (5) • Spinal Armament (9) • Devastator (10) = 198 Points Raider II (48) • Disposable Capacitors (3) • Heavy Ion Emplacements (9) = 60 Points Gozanti Assault Carriers (28) = 28 Points Gozanti Assault Carriers (28) = 28 Points Squadrons: • Black Squadron (9) • Ciena Ree (17) • Howlrunner (16) • Soontir Fel (18) • 2 x TIE Interceptor Squadron (22) = 82 Points Total Points: 396 FOURTH PLACE: Alex Kirchman @Derpzilla88 Name: Thrawn ISD Faction: Imperial Commander: Grand Admiral Thrawn Assault: Advanced Gunnery Defense: Planetary Ion Cannon Navigation: Solar Corona ISD Cymoon 1 Refit (112) • Grand Admiral Thrawn (32) • Strategic Adviser (4) • Intensify Firepower! (6) • Gunnery Team (7) • Spinal Armament (9) • XI7 Turbolasers (6) = 176 Points Quasar Fire II (61) • Flight Controllers (6) • Expanded Hangar Bay (5) • Pursuant (2) = 74 Points Arquitens Light Cruiser (54) • Captain Needa (2) • Turbolaser Reroute Circuits (7) = 63 Points Squadrons: • Ciena Ree (17) • Howlrunner (16) • Mauler Mithel (15) • Valen Rudor (13) • Soontir Fel (18) = 79 Points Total Points: 392
  8. What? No. That's a Rebel general, not Thrawn.
  9. But, I did go back and reread the section that you were talking about, and when I conferred with another player, we reached the same conclusion. The second that you choose to set something aside, its equipped upgrade cards can not be used to set anything else aside. So I guess that the answers to both of my questions are a solid no.
  10. Yes, but both trigger before fleets are deployed, which means, they occur simultaneously, and not as part of a deployment.
  11. I understand the first part, not on table, cannot resolve entry. But the second part of your reply makes no sense. Neither Raddus or Profundity has an in play trigger to set up. All it requires is “before deploying fleets” so nothing can be on the table. But I think that answers my original question, yes I could set them both aside, but I couldn’t bring them in.
  12. If I have Raddus and Profundity in the same fleet, and I equip Raddus to a Hammerhead Corvette, and have the Profundity off-table as my "Raddus" ship, am I allowed to set aside the Hammerhead so that it will deploy within distance one of the Profundity so that sequence of events occurs as follows: At start of Turn: MC-75 with Profundity shows up. Then Raddus is deployed at distance one of the MC-75 in his Hammerhead. I cannot seem to find the answer in the FAQ, I know there is rulings about set-aside ships and commanders not having an impact on the game until they are deployed, but my thoughts are as follows, (please correct if wrong). "Before Deploying Fleets" - Use Admiral Raddus to set aside MC-75. "Before Deploying Fleets" - Use Profundity to set aside Hammerhead with Raddus on it. Since both of these have the same timing window, I choose to use Raddus first, then Profundity. Which I believe works. My question becomes, can Raddus still be used to bring in the MC-75, since his trigger is simply "At the start of the round?" If this has been asked before, I apologize, but I could not seem to find an answer on the search Feature.
×
×
  • Create New...