Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Szycha

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hey, sorry if it has been respnonded before, but could find any answer and I am starting a game in like 1 hour, so it's my most desperate hour What does "leader already in the system" restriction on action card actually mean? Does it just mean, that: 1. the restriction is there ONLY to ensure, that no one uses action card to "teleport" leaders from leader pool? (which means, you can use action cards of leader who were added to combat/mission by commander selection/mission counter) 2. that the leader has to already be in the system the moment the you start a mission/move action? (which means, he had to be in the system before)? 3. that the leader can has to be in the system the moment the combat/mission starts (which means, you can use action cards of leadres that perform a mission/moved a fleet to combat situation, but not the ones you added to combat/mission by commander selection/mission counter)? I would say, that it's 1. but would like to be sure
  2. IMO You can use both effects if you want to (they are two different effects with the same trigger) but - as A1bert said - they are not cummulative, so one of the effects will be wasted. For me, the wording is clear - both effects change +1 to +2, so when You trigger first effect You will change +1 to +2 and there is no longer +1, that can be changed to +2 by the second effect.
  3. got a rulling from Todd. You can attack the figure that has suffered dmg equal to it's toughness, but You can't "kill" it again.
  4. I see no reason why not to apply stunned condition. Note, that resolving second chance doesn't change the facts, that the defender suffered damage (even if he actually got "healed", because he had 1 hp before the attack) and the attack resolved. Also note, that you cant "play" 2nd chance during the attack, as it has to be played at the start of the round. As a result it will trigger if you played it, but if you didn't you cant do it until next start of the round phase.
  5. Major advantage of blue wall is, that it is a little longer on the left, so you can shoot or choke your opponent while still in cover. It is also easier to draw los to their hallway from the terminal side, because there is no additional wall.
  6. Timing-wise G1 attacks first because of G1 parting shot-->-g2 slow on the draw shot----->G1 slow on the draw shot sequence. In that case If this attack puts G2 owner above 40 he wins the game, because he scored 40 points before his parting shot "then defeated" triggers and it's the last shot in the sequence which, as a result is resolved first. If you go deeper the answer depends on the question asked by myself and ManateeX. However, If you can't "kill" already "dead" figure by attacking it again, G2 should Win, because he killed G1 with his parting (point 6) and because - as You stated - Greedos didnt have any more legal targets G1 parting (point 7) and all next points doesn't change the board state in any way.
  7. I came into it when I was thinking about countering greedo with eJets. When eJet kills greedo during Greedos activation thanks to slow on the draw (or just outside of ejets activation), he can attack "dead" greedo just to get 2 mps and try to get out of his LoS to avoid parting (as long as he is within 2 spaces ofc) - because od the "after the attack abilities, before anything else" rulling. Then, when Dying Lounge appeared I came back to this with a hope of "killing" the "dead" target again (dying lounging figure, that dying lounged my figure to death). This idea was based on the assumption, that attacking "dead" figure and performing all the steps of the attack triggers the "damage check" again and results in the "dead" figure being defeated before it is able to resolve it's attack and kill my figure. I have to admit however, that this assumption wasn't based on the rules but rather my feeling (cause It was just speculating - didn't have time to check it propertly). Now, when I read RRG I see, that there are no clear indications, that this king of check actually takes place, which would lead to a conclusion, that you can't "kill" "dead" figure again
  8. I guess You imply, that it's illegal (or rather semi-legal) to attack a target that already has suffered dmg equal to it's health. Do You have any clear ruling concerning this matter or is it "just" your interpretation?
  9. Yeah, I know the ruling and didn't intend to refer directly to it (because as You said it's irrelevant) but just used it as a timemark to show when I came into the actual ruling concerning grenades :). (Camera ruling caused lot's of mobile/blocking havoc including blocking/non blocking adjacency). As I said, let's leave it like it is, because we won't get anywhere
  10. Well tbh I am afraid I won't be able to find it right now cause It was really long time ago (around ISB HQ rullings concerning placing cameras on blocking terrain) and can't quite remember was it here, on bgg forums or Boardwars discord (and lack of rules queries database do not make it easier :(). It is also possible, that I misunderstood sth back then, because I was just getting into skirmish, so obviously I could take someones answer as official rulling nad I definetly won't argue about it because there is no good answer for "it's agreed among devs but never written". Also I wouldn't be surprised if that was the developers intent, because it is definetely easier then all those exceptions, but taking into consideration importance of this space and impact of the rulling on the meta we need to be SURE. Example with objects on blocking terrain doesn't reffer to the clue of the problem, because objects ona blocking terrain are using mobile rules and it's clear that figures on non-blocking are adjacent to figures on blocking. The real question is - are the figures on blocking adjacent also to non-blocking empty spaces. But let's leave it like it is, because there is nothing more to say
  11. Very nice article, however i have some remarks concerning cross of immortality It is questionable can you use arcing shot to attack figure on blocking terrain. Note, that - by the rules - spaces that share blocking terrain edge are not adjacent, so the figure on the blocking terrain also isn't adjacent to the empty space. When you look at mobile rules, it doesn' say anything about changing adjacency rules, but only: "• If a figure with mobile occupies a space containing blocking terrain, line of sight can be traced to that figure, spaces can be counted to that figure, and adjacent figures can attack that figure." As a result It can be interpretated, that figure on blocking terrain isn't adjacent to the non-blocking space and figure, however, it can be attacked, spaces can be counted and LoS can be trace because of the mobile rule exception, that clearly allows it. On the other hand, you could include Adjacency rules that say, "Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures." and conclude, that because the figure on blocking terrain is adjacent to the figure on non-blocking terrain (which is clearly stated in mobile rules), it is also adjacent to the space occupied by this figure, but it's 100% clear. IMO it's the second option, but you never know There is also a problem with arcing shot wording, because it needs the adjacent space to be empty, so even when we agree, that space under adjacent figure is adjacent it won't matter, because for arcing shot to kick in the space need to be empty However when we rule, that the figure is adjacent to the empty non-blocking space it could be also damaged by grenades, flamethrower etc. targeting the empty space, and it was ruled long ago, that it's not the case. As a result I guess, that the most consistent interpretation is, that you can't attack with arcing shot. However, because the mobile rules state, that the blocking figure is adjacent to non-blocking figure it can suffer damage from blast etc.
  12. Everybody knows, that true gangsters just spray N pray!
  13. Actually You could argue, that when more figures are "closest" all of them suffer damage. Note, that the rulling says "for each gangster, determine the closest non-gangster figures (not figure)". Imo if the intent was to damage only one figure per gangster it would say "for each gansger, determine the closest non ganster figure". But it may be some english grammar nuance I don't understand
  14. unless IMP takes Imperial Black Ops class, so the Rebels won't be able to even hit his troops I played it with 3 melee characters and it was painfull.
  • Create New...