Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grumbleduke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sure some ships will have shields and some won't, but will that actually make a substantial difference? Looking at the images (including the one linked above), the stats comparisons show the Imperial squadrons to be only slightly less "tough" than the Rebel ones. Which makes sense from a balance perspective; balancing the fact that Rebel squadrons have shields (which should be able to regenerate and balance) is going to be really difficult. If the game has a simple hull slider/bar that regenerates out of combat, having shields won't really make any difference; in contrast to the X-Wing games, where a ship with shields could take a whole bunch of damage and almost instantly get back to full by diverting power; but once hull damage started to go through, you'd get damage to individual ship components. Kind of like in Armada.
  2. If it sells well, perhaps they'll launch expansions. Although I suspect they'd make extra ships free, but charge for cosmetics and upgrades. That said, with 4 ships per faction I'm more concerned with balance; I suspect the ships will play almost identically to their other-faction equivalent. So a TIE Fighter being the same as an X-Wing but with a different model. My other big concern is that this is a multiplayer demo rather than a full game (and definitely not a single-player game like the older ones). Even X-Wing v TIE Fighter had 30 single-player missions (eventually), and TIE Fighter and X-Wing both had over 100 after all the expansions. It's looking like Squadrons will have 2 multiplayer missions, and I suspect at most a dozen single-player ones split between the factions.
  3. They're not listed as starter sets. They are "expansion packs." So I suspect they will be more like the X-Wing Clone Wars boxes (a large box with several ships) and less like a new Core Set. They might come with (new) obstacles, maybe at a stretch faction-specific damage decks, but probably nothing more.
  4. Are we sure these are going to be the ones in the initial release? Earlier in the year we had leaks for a "Galactic Republic Fleet Expansion" pack and a "Separatist Alliance Fleet Expansion Pack," along with two squadron packs, the upgrade pack and the dial pack. These new ones seem to be a different wave of releases, based on the higher product codes (the original leak were SWM34-39, these are SWM40-43), the later release date (these are set for January 2021, with the original Clone Wars timetabled for late 2020, although FFG time probably means early 2021 for the first batch, maybe Q2 2021 for these ones) and the size of the ships (these include what should be large ships, unlikely to be included in a "Fleet Expansion" pack). Speculating based on the above, I'd guess these are the "Wave 1" ships, so the first round of ships after the original release. Which might give us the Munificent and Acclimator in the Fleet Expansion packs, probably along with at least one small ship, and maybe some conversions for GCW-era ships? Edit: and the website seems to have the earlier ones listed as separate products. These ships might still be the ones in the Fleet Expansions, but if they're doing what they did with X-Wing at most we might find the Recusant and Pelta in the Fleet Expansions, along with something else.
  5. Consider adding in the word "Then" to the Profundity text: That would make it pretty clear that these are separate events. But the "then" is redundant. When given two instructions in consecutive sentences, it is usually implied that one follows the other, with a "then" between them. It's one of those weird quirks of English. So these are two separate events. You deploy the ship. You mess with officers/commanders. Commander Agate's ability happens after deploying the ship, so that will fit in between deploying the ship, and anything you would do next. If these weren't separate sentences I think it would be a bit less clear; something like "...you may deploy the set-aside ship at distance 1 and may un-equip..." but I think the full stop and new sentence makes it clear these are separate events. If you want to look at it another way, you have to deploy the ship before you can move across cards. Which means you have to go through the whole "deploy the ship" process and if there is an "after deploying ships" thing that is part of the "deploy the ship" process, not whatever process is next. If you had "after doing Step 1" and "before doing Step 2" timings it is clear that the first must happen before the second as the first is attached to Step 1, and the second attached to Step 2. The only thing you can fit between an action and an "after that action" action would be another "after that action" one.
  6. My understanding is that you salvo "using" a hull zone (the defending hull zone). The firing arc is only there to check whether you have arc on the target, and for salvo attacks you skip that step because you ignore firing arcs. So you can salvo a hull zone even if you don't have it in arc, provided it had you in arc (necessary for the original attack to happen).
  7. Game playing Navigational Hazards where both of us had Quasars (opponent had an ISD, I think I was running the Worlds Kitten+Gozantis+Raider list). His ISD came bearing down on my Quasar, which went up to speed 3 to escape and then got Crew Panic, with no shields left and only one hull. It spent the next couple of turns rushing helplessly towards the edge of the board, being ignored. On the other hand, his Quasar also got pretty low, and I think ended up with a Ruptured Engine and Damaged Controls. Which, at speed 1, stuck in a squadron ball, playing Navigational Hazards, was a problem. The game ended when my opponent deliberately sped the Quasar up, knowing that would kill it, but hoping that would let it avoid an asteroid. It still clipped the asteroid and we spent a while trying to figure out what killed the ship first, and whether I got the victory token. Other fun game; running a Sloane Quasar+Demolisher+Corvus list against an Ackbar dual AFMkIIs + MC75 list with all the shiny. Played his Fleet Ambush, which was great for my Corvus (all my squadrons started close, my ships far back). He deployed in a conga line along his edge of the board, with my Demo pincer-ing in from the front and the Quasar and squads coming up from behind. Start of round 1 I Admiral Titus'd his leading frigate down to speed 1. The game involved his ships desperately trying to speed up (and not bump) while running away from my Quasar, which came chasing after them. Not often you get 3 ECMs, Enhanced Armaments, Intel Officer, XI7s battleships fleeing from a light carrier. The squadrons took down the first AFMkII, my Demo hit the other, which got a fairly weak front shot off at it and then jumped over, and the Demo finished things off by finishing off the MC75 (already damaged from the squadrons) out the front and the AFMkII out the back. I felt a bit dirty after that game.
  8. My mistake; it is defined for overlapping obstacles - just under "obstacles" not "overlapping". It's for overlapping everything else (ships, squadrons and the maneuver tool) that it isn't defined in the rules.
  9. Yes. and So being at speed 0 and going through the "execute maneuver" part of a ship activation is still executing a maneuver, and still involves overlapping the obstacle, so still resolves the effect. It is probably covered explicitly by this rule: The rules are a very, very tiny bit unclear as "overlap" isn't defined for obstacles in the rules, but that's when we just default to normal English meanings. [As Karneck points out below, obstacles are the one thing for which overlapping is defined. My bad.]
  10. There was also the list of product codes for Clone Wars; showing 2 Fleet Expansions, 2 Squadron Expansions and 2 general things. Though with under 2 months to Virtual Gencon, I'm not too hopeful there will be an article any time soon.
  11. Yep, but generally you don't get your world-renowned, star professor to lecture a first-year-undergraduate course unless the previous results were so shockingly bad you need to take drastic action. They should be teaching something fancy and advanced that only they can teach, not wasting their time on something anyone should be able to do. Although I don't think that was the worst course; there was another one where the lecturer giving the course was viewed as so bad at it (but was allowed to keep giving it due to some combination of tenure and big donations from his family) that another lecturer taught the same course, unofficially, outside the normal timetable. Aah, good times. Anyway. Fortunately you can do most of this dice-probability calculations with school-level probability (and some brute force).
  12. I suspected there was an easier way of analysing this, but I slept through most of my probability lecture course (in my defence, by the end I was one of the few people who still turned up, and the lecturer was viewed as so bad they were replaced by the department's best, award-winning lecturer the year after). But that talk of using polynomials is giving my half-remembered flashbacks... Also, all these people saying we shouldn't know the odds? What are you - some kind of rule-breaking, reckless, rebel scum?
  13. Turns out one of my numbers was incorrect (I'd put the calculation into Google and it messed up the brackets). Getting at least 9 damage on 6 red dice with no re-rolls is about 1 in 136. I spotted that because, due to boredom, I ran the numbers for damage output on 6 red dice. I treated criticals as damage, and accuracies as no damage. Probability and cumulative probability graphs here. You have a 1 in 260,000 chance of rolling natural doubles, 1 in 10,500 of getting at least 11 damage, 1 in 926 of getting at least 10. These probably happen to someone, but probably won't happen to any one player. It is 1 in 136 for getting at least 9 damage (which is reasonable), 1 in 30 for getting at least 8 (should happen to most players), and 1 in 9 for getting at least 7. ... today I hit 8 weeks without being allowed out of the house.
  14. Close, but I think you also need to account for the different ordering of dice. If we are going for 9 damage we want 3 doubles and 3 hits/crits, or 4 doubles and only 1 hit/crit. If we want at least 9 damage, we can have 3 doubles and 3 hits, 4 doubles and at least 1 hit, or 5 doubles, or 6 doubles. This is going to be a pain, so let's stick with just 9 damage (although at least 9 would be more informative). 4 doubles, 1 hit/crit, 1 blank: (1/8)^4 * 4/8 * 3/8 (taking an accuracy to be a blank). But there are 30 different ways we can get that combination in a single roll (6 choices for which dice is the hit/crit, then for each 5 choices for which is the blank/accuracy). Which gives us: 0.00137329101 3 doubles, 3 hits/crits: (1/8)^3 * (4/8)^3. The number of combinations would be a bit harder to work out by hand, but we have a handy Choose function; we have 6 things and we can choose 3 to be hits (or doubles), 6C3 gives us 20 combinations. For a total probability of: 0.0048828125 Add them together and we get about 0.6%, or almost exactly 1 in 160 chance of getting 9 damage from 6 red dice. Because I'm curious and have been a little maths-deprived lately, let's do the "at least 9 damage calculation as well. 6 doubles: 1/8^6 = 0.00000381469 Only 5 doubles: 1/8^5 * 7/8 * 6 = 0.00016021728 4 doubles and 2 hits: 1/8^4 * 4/8^2 * 6C2 = 0.00091552734 Add that on to our answer to the first part and we get: 0.73% or about 1 in 136 chance of getting at least 9 damage from 6 red dice.
  15. To go back to the original question; in X-Wing Rebels are red, Empire is green, Grand Republic is Blue and the Separatists are a kind of gungy brown. However, Legion uses blue for Empire and Separatists, and red for Rebels and Republic - but that's mostly on the art-work, as Legion doesn't really have firing lines in the same way as Armada and X-Wing.
  • Create New...