Jump to content

LawstDragon

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LawstDragon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Greetings All- The C-ROC Cruiser has been added! In addition, we are still working to get Commanders and associated upgrade cards for it ready and uploaded as well, and are looking at getting those done sometime this week. We also have quite a few updates to the WIP sheet, to which we would greatly appreciate any input to the discussion. Proposed Changes (Opinions / Discussion most welcomed and encouraged) Carlist Rieekan >>Proposed Change 1: Increase Charge Limit to 4, Alter ability to use 4 charges >>Proposed Change 2: Reduce range to "0-3" or "0-2" >>Proposed Change 3: Grant recurring ability to charges. Add text that upgrade cannot gain additional charges from other sources (such as Energize action). >>Proposed Change 4: Reduce to 1 or 2 Charges, alter ability to use 1 charge. Add text that charges cannot be restored. >>>>Concern: Rieekan should NOT be every turn, ever, unless great amount of resources given. No mechanic should exist for ability to kick off every turn, should be difficult for every other turn. >>>>Note: Points Cost will be readdressed upon any change made. Automated Protocols >>Needs to be brought back to drawing board. >>>>Latest interview with Dev again points to reigning in action economy in a controlled manner. This card is essential Push the Limit for Epic ships, and has become almost too essential to every build. Sensor Specialists >>Change Text: "You may maintain a [Lock] on up to two different targets. When acquiring a target lock, you may lock onto a target at Range 0-5." Shield Technicians >>Change Text: "Action: Spend 1 [charge] to regain 1 shield." Changes In Progress CR-90 Corvette (Aft)>>Exchange Jam for Coordinate (Faction Identity)>>Reduce Charges to 3.>>Change Text: CEC Reactor: During the activation phase, if you revealed a 2-speed maneuver, gain 2 [Charge]. If you revealed a [1S] or [3S], gain 1 [Charge]. >>>>Concern: Interaction with Rieekan. CR-90 Corvette (Fore)>>Change Text: Control Center: When you perform a [Coordinate], you may select to up to 2 friendly ships in your same arc. >>Increase Charges to 2. Tantive IV (Aft) >>Change Title Ability to match Tantive IV (Fore). Liberator (Fore) >>Give Title ability 1[Charge] Cost. Liberator (Aft) >>Change Title Ability to match Liberator (Fore). Missile Defense System>>Remove Jam Requirement Range Measurement: Huge Ship Attacks>>Range from Huge ships are measured from individual sections, not the entire Ship tile. Maneuver Options (added 5 speed straight and 3 speed turns)>>Change Raider to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 4B Straight>>Change Gozanti to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight>>Change CR90 to 1(B or W?) Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 3B Bank (L/R), 4B Straight, 5B Straight>>Change GR-75 to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B, Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight>>Change C-ROC to 0W, 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B Straight, 3B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 4B Straight Under Development Scum Commanders >Azmorgian >Cikatro Vizago >Hondo Ohnaka Scum Teams >Thug Droids >Jabba the Hutt >Turret Mount (C-ROC Gozanti Freighter) >Smuggled Cargo >Damage Deck >Crippled Ship Cards Discarded Changes Raider-Class Corvette>>Alter Fore Ship Ability to require use of Bullseye Arc
  2. Here are the points! A link to the image has also been added to the main topic post. That link will be where we update (not this post). We wanted to get this out there before the weekend, just in case anyone is able to playtest and/or provide feedback. Be aware, this is still in an extremely trial stage, as some of these cards abilities are being worked out and not every combination has been tested or tried. Again, any feedback, opinions, or assistance in developing this further would be greatly appreciated. Hoping to have more on the development side of things after the weekend, as there appears to be an opening at which we can play additional games amongst all of our schedules.
  3. Hey All- Not a large update today, some added concepts to be tested and results from those of the group who were able to play / discuss over the weekend. We are working on a lot of the card fixes, cripple cards and such currently, but most of the effort that we have spent is getting the points ready for posting in hopes we can get more playtests and input from the community at large. Following items added to the WIP list: Under Development >Points List Changes In Progress >Gunnery Team name changed to Fire Control Team. >Rules Change: Huge Ships immune to Tractor Tokens Proposed Changes >Maneuver Options (with added 5 speed straight and 3 speed turns) >>>Change Raider to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 4B Straight >>>Change Gozanti to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight >>>Change CR90 to 1(B or W?) Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 3B Bank (L/R), 4B Straight, 5B Straight >>>Change GR-75 to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B, Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight >>>Change C-ROC to 0W, 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B Straight, 3B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 4B Straight >CR-90 Corvette (Aft) >>>Exchange Jam for Coordinate (Faction Identity) >>>Reduce Charges to 3. >>>Change Text: CEC Reactor: During the activation phase, if you revealed a 2-speed maneuver, gain 2 [Charge]. If you revealed a [1S] or [3S], gain 1 [Charge]. >CR-90 Corvette (Fore) >>>Change Text: Control Center: When you perform a [Coordinate], you may select to up to 2 friendly ships in your same arc. >>>Increase Charges to 2. >Tantive IV (Aft) >>>Change Title Ability to match Tantive IV (Fore). >Liberator (Fore) >>>Give Title ability 1[Charge] Cost. >Liberator (Aft) >>>Change Title Ability to match Liberator (Fore). >Automated Protocols >>>Adjust to 2 Charges for both use and stat OR change to only grant 1 or 2 Calculate Tokens >>>Issue: There may be TOO much action economy now for Huge Ships >Missile Defense System >>>Remove Jam Requirement >Flight Controller >>>Change Name to Flight Control Team >>>Increase Stat to 2 [Charge], Recurring. >>>Add Restriction: Coordinate >>>Change Text: At the start of the Activation Phase, you may spend 2[charge] to select another friendly ship with Range 0-2. That friendly ship's Initiative is reduced to match an initiative to that of a friendly ship within Range 0-2 until the end of the phase. You cannot increase a ship's initiative with this ability.
  4. My apologies for the delay on these replies everyone. Real world has reduced my free time for the short term, and many of our group are preparing for the slew of Store Championships in the area in the next few weeks. We made all of these templates custom in Photoshop (though the original Pilot card image is from @Odanan's base file on deviant art). We adjusted all of the cards to 300ppi, though I am beginning to have my doubts that the image host we are using maintains the original resolution. The biggest items that I would assume are needing for exact sizes are the Ship Tiles. The Long Ship tiles (CR90, Raider) are 80mm x 225mm. The Short Ship tiles are 80mm x 195mm. We absolutely agree. We were having difficulty at the time finding such an example (it was late/stupifyingly early), and the Gozanti in general we ended up reworking countless times. I will add that to the list of wording corrections. Thank you. We have made them generic within the Ship Type (you won't see "Tantive IV" on the tile, for instance). However, as you would need a ship tile for each ship you have, we don't see the need to have them generic across all the ships (not to mention you would still have at least 2 due to the sizes). This allows printing of the Arcs for the Raider, and any other ship we may see that has a permanent arc, as well as keeping your own fleets consistent in look between all ships. Currently, as it is printed in our pdf, the we are utilizing the full ship token for Huge Ship attacks. Currently, either section can be targeted by the ships enemies, however, if it goes through another section first, the attack is considered obstructed. Huge ships do not obstruct their own attacks. We have had great success with this any many instances, however, we are looking at changing the measurement for when a Huge ship attacks from the entire ship token to only the section that is firing. We did not do this originally due to the added complication of where measurements come from, but it is beginning to cause some funky issues with range. Please keep the questions, recommendations, and playtests coming. Our responses will be limited in the next week or so due to various reasons, and we realize the timing of this is horrendous as the Points Lists have finally been posted for Standard. We will be taking our data of relative strengths, checking it against FFGs in standard, and then giving what we view the points to be thus far in our Epic Conversion as soon as we can (unsure if this will be before or after the C-ROC data is compiled). We are hoping to have more possibly in the next week, but it may not be until the next weekend. Thank you again for all of your input. We look forward to continuing this effort to keep Epic alive into the next edition prior to the official release.
  5. In other news. We present the Gozanti-Class Cruiser! Additional Additions Cargo (Imperial) >Docking Clamps (Aft) >Docking Clamps (Fore) Commander (Imperial) >Captain Needa Teams (Imperial) >Elite Deckhands Cargo (Generic) >Broadcast Array Teams (Generic) >Jam Specialists Any input, thoughts, tests, opinions are greatly welcomed. (and because we could....) Playtest Changes We have found that increasing the Raider's doubleshot to 2 charge cost is much more balancing. Bullseye arc is looking less likely. Rieekan is powerful, possibly too much so with current systems to have him able to repeat his ability. Looking at changes to both Rieekan and Rebel Ships (CR-90 mostly). Gunnery Team is increasing to two charges (still looking for that better name....)
  6. @Marinealver The obliques that you describe is effectively barrel roll for Huge Ships. There are too numerous amount of issues with that concept for us to implement, not the least of which being overlapping other vessels, vessel position, and avoidance of ships by opponent. Huge ships should not be able to alter their position to that level of degree from their starting position. We agree that Huge Ship dial diversity is lacking in first edition, and are still looking to see what additional changes can be made. Token stacking currently appears to be greatly reduced in 2.0, with an apparent thought to prevent such things from being the norm. We thank you for your input, and do continue to work on our system. However, after multiple playtests, and introductions of the system to newer players, we have so far had great success with the base system that has thus far been constructed. We believe one of the hardest hurdles we will have (and have had with our local group) is the resistance to change from what was previously done, which is the case in any edition change for any game.
  7. @Marinealver 1. We shall agree to disagree. The jpeg you present is taken from a naval hard turn maneuver exercise, which are the types of videos we dissected to check if the outside plane is broken in forward momentum. link 2. On your obliques, does this the mean the huge ship would be 'drifiting' the width of the thin part of the maneuver template? Are you removing almost all forward movement, just drifting sideways? If so, then there are more than a few concerns when it comes to the 'ramming' qualities and template use. 2a. Your ideas about adding additional layers of complexity with Ion pips or negative energy to an already complex movement system in Epic 1.0 defeats the objective to streamline the game into 2.0, adds additional barriers from bringing new players into the game, and slows gameplay which is already one of the great barriers in getting players to play Epic. Our playtests also confirmed what many appear to have already voiced with 0 manuevers granting max energy, as well as the inherent dangers in granting epic ships a reverse maneuver. 3. Why does scraping it all together not sound good? If 2.0 charges are effectively energy, why not utilize the system developed for 2.0 (streamlines play, unifies the system, allows to address energy mechanic issues). 3a. We don't see the logic in giving calculate, but not focus, as two calculate are typically better than one focus and they serve an almost identical mechanic. Your arguments appear to be psuedo-fluff based from a restricted point of view, but teams in large environments akin to large ships that are able to focus better collectively perform better than other teams. Focus tokens (as well as stress tokens) can represent how the average state of the crew as a whole. We do not see Ship Cards being representative of a single pilot or driver, but as a representative of the command crew as a whole. 3b. "...governed by stress control...,"? Stress in 2.0 is a mechanic utilized not to govern movement solely, but more primarily action economy. In movement, stress does restrict starfighters from red manuever options while stressed, but this is prevented in huge ships by not giving any of their movement options as red maneuvers. 4. Removing an option simply because it doesn't currently have a use does not warrant removing the possibilities for greater design space. 4a. The Eclipse was a tongue-in-cheek response to the Anime Ship reference. We do not support the idea of a Star Destroyer in X-wing. 5. The Recover Shield option, which you agree by your own statements, is a flawed mechanic that requires alteration. As it is a flawed option, a new mechanic for resource management on huge ships that removes this flawed mechanic does not invalidate the new resource mechanic. Regaining shields in a controlled way via upgrades is already an established mechanic in 2.0, and does not add the layers of complexity that utilizing an additional added mechanic would require, allowing for easier access to the game. Thank you for the compliment on the cards. However, they were not created with Strange Eons. The word space issue was originally a concern, however, thus far we have been able to do it for each of the Huge Ship Aft Section Ship Cards without issue (see images above. Gozanti is still forthcoming, as we are still playing with Title Abilities). I don't think I understand your last statement with the reactor. How would that text read on a card?
  8. I have heard this a couple of times, and politely disagree. The restriction to the 30 degree arc makes them lumbering in our opinion. In Star Wars, physics in a vacuum as we understand in the real world does not exist. Starfighters work similar to in atmosphere aircraft, and capital ships work in a realm that mixes large air craft with naval craft. In naval craft, if a ship has meaningful forward motion, and its source of propulsion is not attached to the rudder, a ship's aft-port corner never crosses, in a meaningful way, the imaginary line created by the port side at its starting position when turning starboard. As these ship battles appear to nearly always assume a forward motion, we removed the fishtailing. Also, the new template is simpler and easier to use in our opinion. However, I do understand and can appreciate thinking towards the original. None of the systems that we have developed are dependent on the new template, so can be compatible with either one. I find this comment somewhat misleading. With the exception of the Stop maneuver, and the the three reverse maneuvers on the Quadjumper, the other maneuvers added are a re-purposing of existing maneuvers to give a 180 turn effect. and even those utilize existing templates (and your division is off, 22 / 16, with the assumption all five straight's are K-turn possible, which was actually indicated against originally on first release). In any respect, we did start playing with adding a 5 straight and 3 turn, and as we start to dive more into dial diversity, we are looking at doing that again. Those with the stop maneuver would increase the Epic options from their original 8 to 12. This would grant further possibilities in design space, and would be easily added with the new the maneuver template (but not with the old). Though your oblique maneuver idea could be interesting in giving greater options to Epic ships. How would you propose doing that with a maneuver template? See the above post about why the Energy Mechanic (and inherently the Energy Step) has been removed. We also find that an Epic Ship needed a resource mechanic to perform basic maneuvers would slow the game down considerably and add a level complexity unneeded for Epic Play. To be fair, we haven't come up with a use for them yet (though it may get used on the Raider, we'll see how playtesting goes). However, taking it away removes that option from the design space, and by having them, allows for a uniformed appearance and thought with 2.0 as a whole. In terms of the Anime Starship Yamatto in Star Wars, see EU Eclipse Class Star Destroyer Super Laser. We agree that shield regeneration should still be a thing, but having an action dependent on a defunct mechanic wasn't going to work. Plus, there is an inherent danger to having a shield regeneration as a standardized action. So it has been relegated to upgrade cards and title abilities. If you look at the post where it is labelled Ship Cards, you will see this is already to be the design. Believe me, I know that's alot of information to digest in the first few posts.
  9. As we had guessed (it's why it's the first change listed), this appears to be the one of the main sticking points in the beginning for a lot of older Epic players, though to a greater degree than we thought. As it lead to a few heated discussions within us before arriving to what we have, let's see if we can help clarify the why and prevent these types of discussions going into ad nauseam territory. Please note, if you see a flaw in our way of thinking or design, please let us know. And when you do so, please provide examples and reasons for it. Why we replaced / removed the Energy Mechanic: First, it is replaced. Not reskinned as a charge mechanic, and we did not retool the charge mechanic to be like the energy mechanic in first edition. The energy mechanic is gone, removed from the system. We had a few reasons for doing this, and it ultimately came down to our list of flaws in Epic 1.0 Design, and what we felt the Energy Mechanic was attempting to do. In First Edition, there never appeared to be enough energy. This was obviously a flaw in the first release of Epic, as ships originally started with 0 energy. Then, at the first or second tournament faq (rules still don't indicate either way), it was stated that Epic Vessels and Upgrades started with FULL energy. While this maintained for a while, and Epic Ship still become mostly either an large Alpha Attack ship in many cases, or it did everything it could to stay alive and its weapons did little. By utilizing the Charge mechanic, as it is described in 2.0, it immediately removes the confusion. But before we get lost in the weeds of a wall of text, lets break down how the Energy Mechanic worked, and what we believe it was attempting to do. The Energy Mechanic: provided a system for Epic Ships to attack multiple times, but in a controlled fashion. linked weapons and some abilities to its speed, reducing the availability of some of these actions, providing hard choices on what to take. as some actions, weapons, and abilities were linked to energy, provided a way for Ion effects and others to disable a Epic Ship, as the normal Ion rules did little to affect it. This is also needed as Stress is a non-factor for epic ships. failed to be enough when having multiple upgrades. Prevented multiple styles of build options, leading into greater points being wasted. ,with dependent abilities such as Recover, gave to a sine wave of gameplay, where ship was either useless or fully dangerous. When building our version of Epic 2.0, we looked at through the lens of "Let's start with the 2.0 rules, and see if we can build a place for Epic within them". We did not want to simply "port" Epic 1.0 into 2.0, as we felt that was self defeating as Epic is far from a solid system. With that, we set ourselves up with a set of rules for building new mechanics (see first post). Anything that was in Epic that was not in 2.0 was viewed as a new mechanic. So let's break down how addressed the above items. Attack Multiple Times: In Standard 2.0, ships are restricted to a single additional attack per round (stated by Devs during unboxing video). By giving Hardpoints an exception to this rule, similar to there place in Epic 1.0, it allows for epic ships to attack multiple times. 1a. Controlled. With the charge mechanic (an already established 2.0 mechanic), we can have weapons take x charges, and recharge at a slow rate, or not recharge at all, controlling the availability of these weapons and abilities through the course of combat. Linked Speed to Energy. With the Charge mechanic being similar to the Energy ability in many ways, we can have the ships gain bonus charges based on speed as a ship ability (another already established space in 2.0). 2a. Ability Availability. Linking the charge mechanic in 2.0 to recharging abilities required a new ability or mechanic of some sort. As action economy is important, we felt that creating a new Action for Epic Ships, that allowed movement of charges, filled the roll of recharging abilities, at the sacrifice of an important resource (your action). Ion effects. With the new Ion Rules (non-revealed blue 1 straight maneuver and no action can be taken except focus) , this already greatly affects an Epic ship. With the ship ability being dependent on a revealed maneuver, the ship cannot gain bonus charges. As epic ships typically do not have the focus action (current exception from the Tarkin upgrade), this denies epic ships of their actions, and most importantly, ALWAY denies them the energize action, diminishing their ability to recharge their weapons / upgrades. And since this allows Epic to streamline more easily into 2.0, it is a definite plus. 3a. Hurting epic ships with energy denial: As epic ships are no longer immune to stress, and the economy of charges being dependent on a action (see above), this becomes a non-factor, as epic ships can be affected in multiple ways that is still within the 2.0 system. With the charge mechanic, we can have multiple upgrades have their own trickle charge system, allowing for upgrades to be useful throughout the game. This allows for a greater diversity in Epic Builds, as well as making Epic Ships worth the resources (points) you put in them, if they took a lot of resources to build. Since many upgrades are psuedo-independent, and by removing abilities such as recover (more on that in the next post), Epic ships become less sine-wave like in game play, and much more consistent throughout the game. As epic ships are huge, center pieces of your small fleets, they should be the consistent rock that contrasts against the dynamic dog-fighters found in the smaller, standard ships. And by it being consistent, the ship is always dangerous, which epic ships should be.
  10. @pickirk01 Thanks for the typo catch on the Liberator. Yeah, I'm almost embarrassed by that dial. Will fix that here momentarily. I think we preempted the FAQ, but you preempted the posting of the rule pdf (which is currently in png form...) (EDIT: PDF link currently present) Their were a few reasons to reducing the CR-90 range. On the fluff side, the Raider should be the Military Warship of all 5. It should have the most teeth, and the most range. The CR90, while capable, is more of an all purpose vessel. The other side, we found Range 5 to be very dangerous in 2.0 for 4 attack dice with all of the dice modification that these ships are now able to get, and only a single range bonus (we do NOT want to go back to the way it was originally in 1.0. Range 4 and 5 were essentially worthless, or Range 3 would be too deadly). Because of these two things, we realized that we should either up the Raider to Range 5, or decrease the CR90 to Range 4. Also, it's hard to escape that massive cross section of space at range 5, and 2.0 is really emphasizing flying your ships versus inescapable arcs. Ultimately, we agreed Range 5 should be extremely rare (right now it is just the Turbolaser). The other thing is we are and have been since we first started the CR90, we have been working on a Turret style upgrade for it that may turn any one Hard Point into a single arc turret. Still working out its possible viability, but it could give the CR90 that range 5 shot again, but with the restrictions inherent in the Turbolaser that shouldn't be given to a Primary Weapon. That symbol on the Raider is the new Shared Arc symbol, though none of us caught its similar look to the Target Lock. It is just signalling to use the middle set of arcs on the ship tile (which is explained in the Epic Rules we linked to up top). Charges at their base level function just like they do in 2.0 standard. What lets you move them from your ship card to other cards is the Energize action. Right now, as a default, only the Aft sections of each of the ships have that action, and are the portion of the ship that get bonus charges based on the maneuver revealed. And as the action is described above and in the epic rule pages linked, when taken, you can move energy to any upgrade card on either ship card, or to the other ship card. Please let me know if the rule book portion on this needs to be clearer. We tried to make it clean and simple, but there are some among us who are... verbose.
  11. Alright- Now that most of the heavy lifting is out of the way. Above is the version of 2.0 my humble gaming group has been working on for some time. I'd also like to shout out to @pickirk01, @Tervlon, and @FiFTy FooT FoX for their initial help and support at the other topic. All of this stuff is here for playtest, development, and opinions. We also have a lot more in the works, and are working to get as much done on this as we can as quickly as we can. With that said, we unfortunately cannot play test every day, or even every week. Not to mention our pool of players is small compared to what's out there (we hope). We are putting this here in hopes to have more development, ideas, criticisms, and opinions to fuel the fire to forge this game. If you don't agree with what we have, please tell us, so we can test it. We invite criticism and critique, but please make it constructive. The posts prior to this one are intended to be kept up to date with the newest stuff, so that way as testing and development adds and/or changes items, these will get changed as well. To reiterate the points issue, we aren't really looking at points. Our playtests here have been more along the lines of "is this worth as much as this ability" or "is this as good as this ship". We have been utilizing a mixture of 1.0 and 2.0 to get close enough, but the main priority is checking if the ships feel right and if they feel they can handle against an appropriate amount of opponents. We will be looking closer at points once the FFG app is out, and the standard points are released. Thank you in advanced for any effort you can give in helping adjust Epic to 2.0.
  12. Work In Progress Proposed Changes (Needs testing. Opinions / Discussion most welcomed and encouraged.) Carlist Rieekan>>Proposed Change 1: Increase Charge Limit to 4, Alter ability to use 4 charges >>Proposed Change 2: Reduce range to "0-3" or "0-2" >>Proposed Change 3: Grant recurring ability to charges. Add text that upgrade cannot gain additional charges from other sources (such as Energize action). >>Proposed Change 4: Reduce to 1 or 2 Charges, alter ability to use 1 charge. Add text that charges cannot be restored. >>>>Concern: Rieekan should NOT be every turn, ever, unless great amount of resources given. No mechanic should exist for ability to kick off every turn, should be difficult for every other turn. >>>>Note: Points Cost will be readdressed upon any change made. Automated Protocols>>Needs to be brought back to drawing board. >>>>Latest interview with Dev again points to reigning in action economy in a controlled manner. This card is essential Push the Limit for Epic ships, and has become almost too essential to every build. Tractor Array (Hardpoint) >>Change Text to "Attack [L]: If this attack hits, instead of damage, for each uncancelled [d] result the defender suffers 1 tractor token, and for each uncancelled [c] result suffers 1 tractor token and 1 [d]." Flight Controller >>Change Name to Flight Control Team >>Increase Stat to 2 [Charge], Recurring. >>Add Restriction: Coordinate >>Change Text: At the start of the Activation Phase, you may spend 2[charge] to select another friendly ship with Range 0-2. That friendly ship's Initiative is reduced to match an initiative to that of a friendly ship within Range 0-2 until the end of the phase. You cannot increase a ship's initiative with this ability. Rules Changes >>Clarification on Turret Arc action with Shared Arcs. Commander Sato >>Clean up wording. >>Deal Double Damage to both ships?? Docking Clamps / Docking Bay / Elite Deckhands >>Pending Docking Rules from FFG Rules Reference Elite Deckhands >>Change ability from repair damage to Recharge abilities? Changes In Progress CR-90 Corvette (Aft)>>Exchange Jam for Coordinate (Faction Identity)>>Reduce Charges to 3.>>Change Text: CEC Reactor: During the activation phase, if you revealed a 2-speed maneuver, gain 2 [Charge]. If you revealed a [1S] or [3S], gain 1 [Charge]. >>>>Concern: Interaction with Rieekan. CR-90 Corvette (Fore)>>Change Text: Control Center: When you perform a [Coordinate], you may select to up to 2 friendly ships in your same arc. >>Increase Charges to 2. Tantive IV (Aft) >>Change Title Ability to match Tantive IV (Fore). Liberator (Fore) >>Give Title ability 1[Charge] Cost. Liberator (Aft) >>Change Title Ability to match Liberator (Fore). Missile Defense System>>Remove Jam Requirement >>Correct Mispellings >>Change Text: "When defending against a [Missile] or [Torpedo] attack, you may spend 1 [Charge] to cause the attacker to reroll any number of attack dice." Maneuver Options (added 5 speed straight and 3 speed turns)>>Change Raider to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 4B Straight>>Change Gozanti to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight>>Change CR90 to 1(B or W?) Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 3B Straight, 3B Bank (L/R), 4B Straight, 5B Straight>>Change GR-75 to 0W, 1B Bank(L/R), 1B Straight, 2B Bank (L/R), 2B, Straight, 3B Straight, 4B Straight Need to learn how to spell Maneuver. >Rules Changes >>Huge Ships immune to Tractor Tokens >>Range from Huge ships are measured from individual sections, not the entire Ship tile. Under Development Scum Commanders >Azmorgian >Cikatro Vizago >Hondo Ohnaka Scum Teams >Thug Droids >Jabba the Hutt >Turret Mount (C-ROC Gozanti Freighter) >Smuggled Cargo >Damage Deck >Crippled Ship Cards Overall Goals Convert all 5 Epic Vessels to 2.0 style format. Average 3 Commanders per Ship. Convert all viable upgrades from 1.0, in spirit or function. Enjoy ourselves. Guidelines on New Mechanics >>Can we use an already established mechanic? If no...>>Does the new mechanic add a level of depth, fun, and intrigue to the game to help convey actions in the Star Wars Universe? If yes...>>Is the new mechanic streamlined with the Standard play of X-wing, or is it too intricate / involved? If yes, then its back to step 2 or drawing board.
  13. Generic Upgrades Cargo Commanders Hard Points Teams
  14. Scum and Villainy The C-ROC Cruiser Ship Tile Maneuver Dial Ship Cards Upgrade Cards Cargo Commanders Hardpoints Teams
×
×
  • Create New...