Jump to content

Ryfterek

Members
  • Content Count

    590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ryfterek

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday July 2

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lodz, Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

899 profile views
  1. 3PO is not a separate activation. He is a part of R2D2's unit, much like a heavy weapons specialist to a clones squad. See his Counterpart: R2-D2 ability.
  2. Cannon speak for the US but here in Poland my Padme is already on it's way to my postal box and my fellow player's Cad is already being painted. So I'd say your release cannot be far away
  3. Cad's Rules insert. Courtesy of @Enzeru.
  4. Ryfterek

    Cad Bane

    A fellow player of mine from our local community already got their Cad unpacked and assembled. Should there be a rules insert in the box (I bet there is one) I could translate the content for you. Turns out the thing was in English after all. See reply by @Enzeru below.
  5. That would be me? Oh, ok. Well, finding out snipers are limited to say, 2 per army, wouldn't of course invalidate data gathered on a triple-snipers composition, not at all. It would simply take most of this data out of any real, applicable context making any takeaway draw no actual, useful conclusion and turn the whole data set into a rather fancy paperweight. Of course snipers would remain a tool as useful as they've been proved so far. But in a triple-sniper GAR list, forcing one away opens up just enough room for a naked Phase 1 unit to squeeze in. Something we'd all agree is a filler figure in the faction and definitely a weaker spot of the list. Trading a useful piece for such a weak spot within an army might have some quite deep consequences on how it can approach the enemy - and how the enemy can approach it. Then again, you might want to invest the forbidden snipers and - perhaps - some preexisting filler piece to introduce a strong unit to your composition. But that changes the number of your activations which - again, in an objective-focused game - will have an impact on your strategy... And there, as someone else suggested, a difference of only a point or two on a unit can blast some better compositions out of existence. In Xwing 2.0, implementing living points system with a list cap at 200 points, reevaluating something even just slightly proved to be capable of turning the tables of the meta. --- Padme is now being packed and sent my way because oh well, oh boy, they've thrown new toys in?! Gimme!
  6. I too am not quick to expect the RR to flip the game over with those releases, but on the other hand we might as well learn there's a tight hard cap at the number of strike teams, who knows. --- As for Padme, the longer I think about it the less I fancy GAR building up secret missions. This ought to be the faction of standing the ground together, as one. Secret missions feel much more at place in Rebels, who'd usually use their limited forces to buy time for an agent trying to achieve something crucial for the stakes of the Rebellion.
  7. That's why I love how X-wing 2.0 spoilers gives power-gamers absolutely NO idea how to proxy the new stuff and play the S out of it in simulators so to shape the "next" meta to their liking. Those "proxy-mode-on" tournaments were some of the bigger cancer / turnoff of 1.0 it that game, where people waiting around for the ships to actually appear on the table felt left out of the fun of discovering how it plays, what's it good with and where it fails. Being a veteran X-wing player very pleased with 2.0 upgrade, the longer I stick around Legion the more traumatizing flashbacks I experience. --- On another note, Padme kinda seems to be modeled after her Clone Wars 3D model? Looking at which I could never help but wonder how could Anakin ever fall in love with her...
  8. @Caimheul1313 thank you for your thorough feedback! As for the linguistics, apologies for the misuse of the article "a". Even though I try the best I can there probably always will be some giveaways I'm not a native. For the terrain and the "Before the Game", what I wrote there comes from a mixture of lecture of the Rules Reference and personal experience from my first games of Legion. In the opening paragraphs of the "Additional Terrain Rules" in the RR (p. 8 ) one can read: Then, later on in the "Large objects" section: A wall with a catwalk on top of it - providing heavy cover when ducked behind it's concrete body is rather intuitive, but the same benefit applied while traversing the wired mesh on top is not. We've faced similar scenarios during our first games of Legion. To make things worse, we've only came to realise the problem once one of us got their unit to such a spot, at which point the discussion was naturally biased by what more tactically advantageous to each of the sides. Hence my recommendation to briefly discuss these possible nuances so not to end the game with a taste of misunderstanding and unjust - e.g. in the case of the catwalk-wall, one player assuming its obvious a single piece provides uniform cover while the other assuming its obvious such a construct naturally differs in its benefits. My point is to start the game with a common and uniform understanding of the shape of the battlefield. This may come from going over the rules together or from house-ruling to one's hearth desire. Point is build an agreement. I don't want to come of as rude arguing while I've asked for the community's feedback in the first place. However I'm trying to highlight this file came to be as a guideline from one beginner to others and is trying to touch upon some things which may not be perfectly clear after single read of the RR. @Deddog The file is now available once more as a PDF and will be up until June 22nd.
  9. Well, yes, it sure has. I suppose you'd like to access the file? I'll re-upload it then, probably within the next hour. As for standing on top - partially true. But if your minis are standing on top of a terrain piece, but the attacker's minis are standing on top of even higher terrain piece, well... It's true that in numerous cases it wouldn't require further inspection by the players, to ensure base is in fact obstructed, but the overall algorithm of the rules logic still includes determining whether or not it's happening, right? As for the other bit, yes, what I meant is "Is the previous block 'true' when it is checked for at least half of all the miniatures which are part of the defender's unit".
  10. The amount of faith in FFG's Rulebook you carry really makes me think you haven't played X-wing, have you? 🙃
  11. How Disney has completely devastated the reputation of SW with their trilogy of Episodes adds some weird taste to this story, innit? That being said, your integrity is respectable, but I don't suppose playing this game now puts any stone to building EA's success (unless you make some in-game shopping). If anything, that's your best shot at showing them a middle finger - "There, I'm playing your stupid game, legally, and you don't get a dime from that!"
  12. Here, enjoy! A PDF file will be available here for a week from now. ;)
  13. This droid has definitely been hitting the gym, but as many, kept skipping the leg day! 😆
  14. You're very much welcomed! It's only natural I would share this work have I made it anyways in the first place! That version you've seen however... still had a hole in in... Yet another iteration in te original post! Can I - finally - make it right, or shall it be a very weird twist on the story of Sisyphus?
  15. Thank you! Updated the cheat-sheet. This last straw broke the camel's neck though and the lines are now crossing *sad R2-Unit beeping noise*
×
×
  • Create New...