Jump to content

Beerasaurus

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Beerasaurus

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Howdy all, Does Colonel Vessery's ability work off his own locks as well as others? Every reference I've found talks about him attacking a ship who an ally has already target locked. Meaning: He performs his maneuver. He locks on to a target as his action. He attacks that target, spending his target lock for re-rolls. He automatically gets a new lock for next turn. Thanks!
  2. Yet another game tonight that was derailed and ultimately left unsatisfying for both players because of the lack of official update to LoS/Cover. I can't imagine going forward with any kind of competitive play until that gets resolved in the official rules.
  3. Great work! I especially love the addition of expedition packs.
  4. Thanks! For Vader I did my best to follow Sorastro's guide.
  5. The reason I said from the middle of the mini--which, unless I'm mistaken, is what FF has said--is because there is a logical assumption that 1) you're not firing from the absolute upright, and 2) your target is deliberately attempting to use the intervening cover. Nobody is standing stock upright and letting a barricade only cover them from the waist down. Just like the more meaningful interpretation of "Dodge" is using micro-cover, not actually dancing around in the open.
  6. Bahahaha! I'm so used to other games I totally forgot. Within Move 1? Before the knuckle of Move 2? Equal to or less than the length of an average Bothan baby's foot? ?
  7. By and large FF's been very good about differentiating between "may" and "must". Page 2 of the RRG says you "can" (may) declare an additional squadron as target. Page 12 of the RRG says you "may" counter. Neither is compulsory.
  8. Since, as stated above, CC is campaign rather than a tournament, it is helpful to think about the situation logically. Flotillas and fighters don't magically explode when the last capital ship is destroyed. They bug out and abandon the battle. ...then they get chased by the First Order until they run out of gas and slow down because momentum doesn't exist in space, but I digress...
  9. We also get a lot of mileage out of just rocking the interfering mini to the side, leaving it's far corners on the ground while sliding the ruler underneath the near side. That has almost zero impact on game space or state.
  10. It's important to remember that just because the movies didn't show something doesn't mean it didn't/couldn't exist. For example, there is no reason to believe that speeder bikes couldn't have been part of a flanking maneuver on Hoth. No ground battle in the original trilogy gets more than a few short minutes of screen time--assuming that you're getting a clear picture of a combat that would have raged for hours is silly. As for why FF picked what they did, it's about balancing out tactical and strategic options to make the game enjoyable. With the addition of STs the Imperial list gets everything it needs to allow for a dynamic mix of play. Storms are your distance hold-outs. Snows are your assaulting force (especially when paired with Vader). Bikes are your recon/flanking and ATSTs are your armored advance (especially when paired with Veers). If you pulled any of those your strategic options would be severely limited by the selection of units.
  11. It is confusing, but a little bit of quick math can clear a lot of it up. If two minis are same height (1"), and are both on a flat surface that does not provide elevation, a 1/2" barricade must obscure half of the mini, because the terrain does not get smaller or change angles the further away they get. Which is to say, it's not that the height of the barricade that is making things difficult, it's that you're not getting low enough and at the right angle to truly see the LoS from the mini's perspective. When in doubt, we like to use a laser to shoot from the middle of the mini.
  12. I strongly doubt there is a way to craft the cover rule enough that it won't require common sense to interpret who does and doesn't have cover. If you interpret the rules literally any large piece of terrain loses it's defensive cover the same way. That could, technically, include really silly things like buildings or other structures. The intent of the rules are clearly to define when the terrain adjacent to the firing mini interferes from its perspective. If you wanted a rules correction I'd say to add a caveat to how far away the cover can be--i.e. "firing unit is in base contact with terrain not more than 1" deep".
  13. Thanks, that's what I was going for. It's a mesh of the US Army's current OCP and Australia's woodland camo.
×
×
  • Create New...