Jump to content

Caimheul1313

Members
  • Content Count

    1,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caimheul1313

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Caimheul1313

    Replacement weapons for corp units

    What do you mean by "work"? A unit with the A280 and the Fleet trooper uniform? It certainly a possibility, but I'd expect that to be some other unit name like "Rebel Landing Troops" or "Rebel Marines."
  2. Caimheul1313

    Multiple attacks

    I do agree it says "instead," so this does hint even stronger at RAI being one weapon, but this still doesn't explicitly limit to one weapon per attack. When I build the first attack pool I pick the E-11 instead of the DLT, when I build the second attack pool I pick the DLT instead of the E-11. It looks like all the pieces are there, just the specific line was missed in publishing. Again, I'm of the opinion that anyone actually trying to use this argument to put weapons in different attack pools without having Arsenal in a game is being a mite silly, and I should be more surprised than I am at this small omission, but then I remember that per the RRG as it is currently written, Armament upgrades have no in game effects, as only Grenades and Hardpoints add additional weapons to the unit. It still leaves unresolved the issue of whether a unit is supposed to be limited to at most two attack pools, or if that was not intended.
  3. Caimheul1313

    A fundamental flaw in these games.

    That's fair. Games like 40k with multi-decade relevance are definitely not the "norm," but even that has entailed GW re-inventing the game every few years. At a certain point, FFG will have released just about everything they can for Legion, without getting REALLY esoteric (Ewok support companion extra troopers!), and then we'll see what state the game is in. Between now and then though, I'll be buying kits so I can AT WORST use them for RPG figures/display pieces, at best use them to play some fan created Star Wars skin for another game. Quite possibly. I'm not super familiar with Runewars, but I have heard it shares some rules in common with Legion.
  4. Caimheul1313

    A fundamental flaw in these games.

    The Runewars Miniature game was released in 2017.
  5. Caimheul1313

    A fundamental flaw in these games.

    @BigKahuna While I agree with you about modeling and painting being in many ways a bigger part of the hobby than the actual gameplay, I disagree with you as to this being a primary motivator for Runewars being resigned to the bargain bins of game stores. Infinity, Warmahordes, and really any manufacturer of metal miniatures similarly do not provide as many modelling options as say Warhammer games, or multi-part plastic kits, yet many seem to be doing quite well for themselves. As well, X-wing and Armada, which have next to NO hobby aspect, seem to still have thriving communities, at least judging by my local area, their forums, and tournament turnout. Armada has even been at a virtual standstill competitive meta wise for over a year. The reason I think that Runewars "failed" has more to do with trying to enter a rather saturated market (fantasy miniature wargaming), without having any particularly noteworthy aspects. It didn't allow for the usage of third party miniatures as some of the new fantasy wargaming rules do (SAGA: Age of Magic, Warlords of Erehwon for instance) and wasn't set in a well known and beloved universe (such as Middle Earth). Legion has the huge advantage from a sales perspective of being STAR WARS. The fact that the rules are pretty good will also help, but it is the ONLY game allowing you to attack Rebel Troopers with Stormtroopers, and FFG is the ONLY company producing miniatures of that type. Additionally, not all miniatures games are asymmetrical, so your first premise is faulty. Many wargames are asymmetrical, and failing to properly account for that asymmetry can lead to issues in the competitive scene if unregulated.
  6. Caimheul1313

    should speeders get breaks?

    1) Repairing a vehicle in the field at all in whatever immensely short period of time a single action is, restoring a person to a battle ready state that same period of time, the battlefield being smaller than the size of a football field/pitch in scale, named heroes of the Rebellion and Empire being involved in almost every "skirmish," the Force in general, repulsor vehicles in general, the base going slightly over the edge of the board causing your miniature to "be defeated," and impossible weapons are fine though? 2) During the course of a relatively short battle, vehicles shouldn't park though, especially not that close to the enemy. Combat choppers don't touch down in the middle of a battlefield (by which I mean gunships, not transports) unless they are shot down as far as I know anyway. Recall that none of our models are ever "killed" according to the wording if the RRG, they are defeated. So it is not that the T-47 is being shot down, it is forced to fly back to base for repairs. 3) All that's really needed for them to be able to contest objectives is more objectives that make vehicles relevant, or a change of claiming. Breakthrough is relatively easy to ensure a living Speeder is in your opponent's deployment zones(s), key positions is a bit trickier but possible. None of the other objectives even care about vehicles, Speeder or not. Adding "parking" doesn't suddenly make vehicles relevant. 4) This is a fair bit of added complexity for very little real benefit, keeping the T-47 out of combat would make things even worse for the rest of the army, since you now are fighting an 800 point-ish force with only 600-ish points, and all the DLTs that would normally target the T-47 are now shooting your more relevant trooper units.
  7. Caimheul1313

    Multiple attacks

    Where in the rules does it state a miniature can only use one weapon? This isn't a corner case rule, this isn't some obscure situation, this is a very basic rule for attacking that should be easily pointed to, with keywords changing the base case. Luke is making two separate Attacks, that is different than contributing a weapon to two different attack pools as part of the same Attack. Arsenal allows you to add more than one weapon from the miniature to the same attack pool, and does imply that a mini may only fire one weapon, but RAI and RAW can be very different, as we saw with range measurements changing from true distance between miniatures to the way we measure now, parallel to the table. The main problem with the way attack is written is Step 3, since you check for "weapons" remaining from the unit, not "miniatures," not "previously selected weapons."
  8. Caimheul1313

    Multiple attacks

    @Tokous as I detailed above in the step by step process, since there is nothing in the rules stating a miniature may only use one weapon per attack, a strict application of the Attack steps leads to a situation where a miniature with multiple weapons can attack a second target so long as is not using a weapon already in the previously declared attack pool without having Arsenal X. I think this is an oversight. I have also contacted the rules email, and am awaiting a response. Modifying your example so it is not absurd, as I do not believe such footwear exists, people do drive while wearing high heels, steel toed boots, or other shoes that make operating a vehicle less safe. If there is no law preventing it, and they are not taught about the increased risk, then they will continue to do so. I seem to recall seeing lines in my high school driving manual concerning footwear choice being a possible hazard, so that is already broadly covered. Without rules, we have no way of knowing how to perform an attack. If the rules for attack are ill formed and lack the restriction of "one weapon per model" then someone reading the rules could (most likely erroneously) come to the conclusion that there is no such restriction and their opponent has no resource to say they are wrong (Outside of tournaments at least, in tournaments of course the TO's ruling is "law").
  9. Caimheul1313

    Multiple attacks

    If that were the case then it should read "Repeat steps 1-2 as needed forming attack pools with the new weapons." As it is "the player may repeat steps 1–2, forming a separate attack pool with the new weapons" that means that the player may form a SINGLE attack pool that contains the new weapons.
  10. Caimheul1313

    Multiple attacks

    No, it specifically says "a separate attack pool" singular containing the weapons. Not separate attack pools.
  11. Caimheul1313

    Standby and Krennic Clarification

    You cannot take more than one Attack ACTION during your activation. Page 14 "Attack," emphasis mine: That is the only restriction, and why Son of Skywalker says "perform one additional Attack" rather than "attack action". Pulling the Strings happens during a different unit's activation, so it does allow for the targeted unit to attack more than once during the round.
  12. Caimheul1313

    Next Imperial Corps and Support Speculation

    Oooo I didn't even think of a hound handler. That could be interesting, and I could see them having a larger Infiltrate denial radius. Time will tell, but in the meantime we might as well amuse ourselves with speculation and theorizing, so long as we do so in a civil manner. 😛
  13. Caimheul1313

    Standby and Krennic Clarification

    They could still take the Aim action, which might be useful if you have Palpatine to target them for Pulling the Strings later (which can result in another Move Action triggering Steady) or any available card actions. But yes, they are unable to take the Attack or Standby actions as they have already attacked during this activation.
  14. Caimheul1313

    Next Imperial Corps and Support Speculation

    Very true, especially given the release of the (in my opinion) fairly similar E-11 as an independent unit. I would be surprised though if it is just a single wound "unit" with no extra protection for being a detachment. Even a two wound unit is just a fantastic target for Leia/snipers to remove in the first turn of the game. I could see part of "detachment" is that the parent unit to the Mark II Medium Blaster has some variant of "Guardian" so long as it is a certain radius. If that is the case, then I doubt the Probe Droid would be a Detachment. I suppose we are likely to find out what the Empire release is prior to finding out more about Detachment though.
  15. Caimheul1313

    Standby and Krennic Clarification

    Which is an important distinction because it means trooper units with face up order tokens from effects like HQ Uplink are eligible. "After X" means "immediatly after X happens" not "sometime after X happens" in Legion. Page 11 of the RRG Abilities: "If the timing of an ability uses the word “after,” that ability’s effect occurs immediately after the described timing event has occurred."
×