Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DwainDibbly

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Having finally finished off the two core set's stormtrooper's and speeder bikes and an earlier attempt with the AT-RT, I've finally gotten around to the Rebel Trooper leaders. Had great fun painting these (not sure how I'll feel when the other 24 are done..), also more enjoyable using all the colours compared to the storm troopers. I'm very happy with the result even if it did take me a little over 4 hours per mini (batched) spread over this week. I followed Sorastro's tutorial (really appreciate them) although substituted several colours, notably the base camo was Camoflage Green and seemed far too pale/bright at first. Fortunately by the time the Black Green, Charred Brown and German Cam Bright Green were added plus the wash, it darkened down considerably. Still to decide on basing. Criticism welcome.
  2. I'm the opposite, I really like the order system as a game mechanic. It gives you that extra randomness to manage and minimise as part of your strategy. Makes the command cards have more importance too as going first with a low pip sacrifices some of your order control. Maybe it's also partly the rush when you want a given unit and manage to draw it
  3. Not sure if you misunderstood what I said, or I misunderstood your response, but I agree, I was referring to the token stack method when I said it's not hard to track a token. I'm just not sure how I feel about bags been required or not, not really given it much thought. Just listened to the podcast and I agree, they dealt with it the best way they could, gave the facts, gave the player a chance to comment and moved along.
  4. I don't want to weigh in on bags being required or not, other than to say that it's not hard to keep track of a given token when you're shuffling. What I do want to add is, I think both yourself and your opponent should have to shuffle tokens both before rounds begin and after any command cards that require a reshuffle. Even in casual games where neither player has any intention or reason to cheat, this is still useful because some people just don't shuffle well enough. Regarding this incident, I know in a few casual games I've played we've forgotten to reshuffle the token pile. It's an easy mistake to make and not just once. So whilst I believe disqualification was appropriate due to the rules violation, I'm not sure I think people should label someone a cheat under these circumstances. As it's not imho clear enough whether it's deliberate or just a mistake. Not listened to the podcast yet, but thought I'd voice my opinion before I'm swayed by the podcast
  5. Just watching the AdeptiCon stream and noticed during one of the first two games on the table with the players using card holders, the right hand player puts a red and a blue token over two of the cards. Anyone know the significance of that? Link to just before they're placed. https://youtu.be/PP1-kVND710?t=8243 I was thinking it may be something to do with cards that can be exhausted to signify when a card would usually be turned on its side? Regardless of whether that's what the tokens represent, what are people planning to do for the cards that can be turned over with a different weapon on the reverse? Short of having two copies of the card and placing a token to cover up the one that's not active, that feels like a trickier one to deal with, especially if you need to reference the other side of the card.
  6. The force awakens was so bad I nearly stopped watching before it'd reached half way. Forced myself to sit through it in the hope it'd get better. Skipped the last jedi and I'm not bothering with the final in the trilogy. The only good thing to come out of Disney having the star wars rights so far is Rogue One and Legion imho Crossing my fingers that after they've had a break from making starwars movies for a few years they'll come back with something with a decent plot/characters and as enjoyable as Rogue One.
  7. I thought only "obscured" was done via LOS from top/centre of attacker, once you determine over half a units minis are obscured, the cover check is done horizontally. Thus the ATST would have to treat anything in-line with the barricade as having heavy cover even if the unit is only obscured due to light cover? So with unit2. The Light cover it's behind is what obscures the mini, causing the horizontal cover check, but it's the barricade that provides it heavy cover. Even though the barricade would not block LOS at all for the AT-ST. p26 RRG Also, nitpick but shouldn't "plain" be "plane" ?
  8. I know the rules have evolved since the original post was made, however, I'm not sure I agree with you that both 2 and 3 have cover. 2 I agree on but wouldn't position 3 receive no cover at all just like position 4. Page 41 of the RRG states (emphasis mine): From the perspective of the AT-ST, assuming pos 1 has no LOS at all, it cannot be shot. There's LOS to 2 but the entire mini is not fully visible, it's obscured and gains cover based on the cover type between AT-ST and mini. For 3 & 4, the centre/top of AT-ST has complete LOS over the entire minis, including base, therefore it would have no cover?
  9. Would have been nice to see reprints of the cards that have had RRG errata added, like Key Positions etc including in the pack.
  10. I agree and we have an example of this now I believe. Sabine has the card that gives her Arm 2 for the round but also gains Detonate 2 until the end of the game. The card explicitly calls out until end of the game. So with rebellious, I would expect if they intended the ability to gain a suppression to actually be per round, the card itself would say rebellious is gained until the end of the game. As it does not, you should expect to lose it and any benefits after the round. Losing it thus prevents the "per round" wording applying beyond the current round. So why the "per round" at all? If we consider the alternative wording: "Once this round" would be problematic if a card has "until the end of the game" for the rebellious effect. As you could argue you can only use it this round even though the keyword remains until end of game (we're into the, is that a direct contradiction in wording, territory) The other way to word it would be dropping the phrase altogether. However, we have the reverse problem now. There would appear to be no limitation on its effects applying multiple times. That would then suggest you could gain a suppression, attack a unit, then later in the same round gain a suppression and move, gain a suppression and move etc. So the once per round phrasing may be required to limit you to using this ability once in the same round. Whilst also allowing for the fact it may be an effect that applies _just_ for this round or until the end of the game depending on whether it's gained via a command card that does or does not that state "until end of game" or as permanent unit ability. I get the feeling regardless of how this one was worded, what the RRG really needs is a couple of paragraphs of sample scenarios that explicitly show you can do this and then this and that, but you cannot do this and that.
  11. We had two rounds left in the game so he could move/claim and then move/claim. With implacable, if you were in base contact with one, I guess you could claim/move, then on your next activation claim again, however in our game that wasn't the case. He needed to move to each. As mentioned though, it didn't matter as Vader died before he was able to activate in round 6. Ironically it came down to a single wound and earlier in the game he'd taken a wound to get another activation that in the end didn't pay off. You take your chances and sometimes they don't pay out Thanks for clearing it up though, just in case this crops up again as I expect Boba Fett in a future game will run into this..
  12. Is there a limitation on the number of objective tokens a single unit can claim? This cropped up in a game earlier today where I was 2-1 down on objectives claimed and Darth Vader was close enough to two tokens that he'd be able to move + claim one turn and move + claim the second turn to potentially win 3-2. If not the best result would have been a 2-2 draw. As it happened, it was immaterial as a bit of concentrated fire blasted Vader away on the last round. I didn't see anything under the objective token rules that would prohibit claiming more than one and the card doesn't suggest there's a limit? Also, is it correct that claim is a card action so it takes up one of your two actions to claim a token you're leader is in base contact with? That's how we played it but want to double check.
  13. The rapid release schedule up to now has been awesome to get the core of the game going but I'm kinda hoping we see a slow down in releases for rebels/imperials very soon. Hopefully clone wars releases and they ramp up on that and imperials/rebels go onto the back burner with a new unit per side perhaps every 3 month. But even if clone wars doesn't release soon, a slow down would be welcome. I guess it's a tough balance as some of us prefer slower releases and others would want even more released than we have now
  14. DwainDibbly


    In a recent game we had a situation where Luke did his thing and was quite close to the edge of the board. The imperials had most of their units left to go and a few trooper/sniper units focussed fire on him, only doing 1 wound damage but adding 4 suppression tokens. Then Darth activated with Master of Evil putting 3 more on Luke (Rule question: I assume Luke counts as a trooper and we didn't play this wrong?). End of round Luke loses 1 token leaving 6 and if he fails to remove any more during his rally step he panics. That would result in a full speed single move towards the edge of the board and Luke leaving the battle field. As it happened Luke managed to remove 1 more token during his rally step to not panic, then spent an action doing a recover to remove the lot. However, had the dice roll gone the other way, that would have killed Luke off. Is it correct that a panic'd unit has no way to end their panic other than the loss of a token at the end of a round and the hope you roll well during the rally step? That got me thinking. In many games I've seen Luke (or other commanders) activated early on to do their damage before any suppression is added and the risk of losing an action occurs. However, if you're near the edge of the board, perhaps there's an argument for delaying the activation of your commander. If your opponent does then try to out suppress you (especially during a Master of Evil turn), you can activate at a point where you've got 3-4 suppression tokens and either roll well in the rally, or with your single action at least perform a recover to ensure there's no way your opponent can panic you and get a wound free kill. Even though I think we've managed to not play suppression correctly in just about every game, from forgetting the +1 cover it gives, to forgetting to deal it out, I find the mechanic fascinating in how it can impact decisions made in the game. It really gives that covering fire feel too.
  15. Played Vader in tonight's game. I played him slow and sneaky, moving him around in cover, although not sneaky enough, took a few points of damage before he got to act. But, when he did, his free dodge force reflexes plus double move 1 with relentless and saber throw had him ripping through troopers and an AT-RT. He's expensive, especially with a full complement of force powers, but if your opponent is not able to avoid him or otherwise play around him, 6 red dice for his saber with 3/3 impact/pierce is just... devastating. I think his points are balanced. For the record, opponent used AT-RT flame thrower on my snow troopers, 10 black dice, 10 hits. Toasty. His next activation had 5 black dice, 5 hits. Sometimes the dice are just not with you
  • Create New...