Jump to content

DwainDibbly

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DwainDibbly

  1. Don't like the silhouette rule and won't be playing anyone that uses it. Fortunately those I play with don't like it either so not using it won't be a problem and I doubt I'd play in a tourney anyway, I guess I won't be regardless now
  2. I use 6x2mm neodymium magnets and a tiny bit of superglue. One in the centre of each base for the small minis, two in the AT-RT/Speeders offset a little. They hold the minis so well to the sheet of steel I taped into the bottom of a "really useful box" that I ended up adding a few sheets of paper in between to make it easier to take the minis out. I've got a full army of Rebel + Imperials in a 9L box, the rulers, counters, cards, dice etc in a 4L box and then all the terrain in one of their 64L boxes. Boxes: http://www.reallyusefulproducts.co.uk/uk/html/boxdetails.php
  3. That's a tough one as two core sets is just such good value for money but I can understand not wanting to get all 4 factions. As others have said, the only real option is find someone else looking to buy into the game and split the units. If it were me, I'd just bite the bullet, buy four core sets and build out your two armies. It might feel a waste to have 50% of the units in each set unused initially, but you could always use them as proxy units to reach 6 core units in your armies (just need to use a bag for the order tokens as you'd have a mixture of backgrounds). You also then retain the option to buy just enough extra expansions (won't need many) for the rebels/republic to give yourself a lot of variety in playing. Enough to do a team game too should you manage to rope another two people in or fancy a huge battle where you both control two armies (rules in back of RRG).
  4. DwainDibbly

    aim token

    As Sryath notes, you can pick any two dice to reroll (or more if you have precise), including dice that are hits. Perhaps you're up against armour and want crits for example. Note, all rerolls must be done in one go though, so if you roll 4 dice, get 3 crits and one miss and have aim. You can re-roll any two dice, or just the blank die, but cannot reroll the blank die get a miss and reroll it again*. This is much like han's uncanny luck, where you can reroll up to three dice. *Except, _I think_, if you have multiple aim tokens (anyone clarify that?)
  5. That's a very good point Out of interest, is there anything in the rules preventing you from attacking your own units? I had a quick read through the RRG but didn't see anything explicitly disallowing it?
  6. Isn't the rally step done at the time you activate your unit? If so, Palpatine's card, which goes before everyone else, may have placed 4 suppression on your unit. With the exception of luke that's enough to double most commanders courage causing a unit (or commander) to panic if they roll 4 blanks during their rally step. With some deployments, a single full speed move could put them off the table. One further question that occurred to me which didn't come up, but I could see occurring in a future game. With veers/leia's bombardment command card that you use after they've activated. If you spent one of your actions on an aim token, can you spend that to re-roll dice during the bombardment?
  7. Few items cropped up in a game today and whilst we _think_ we played it correctly, clarification would be good Palpatine/Vader/Luke Force Powers When using their force powers such as force push, do they need LOS? Or is it _only_ if the power/command card states they can do an attack that LOS is needed? Palpatine's give in to your anger Is this unlimited range? Does this work without LOS like other force powers? On round 1 this seems a strong way to get 4 suppression on a unit and likely result in panic and a lost squad. As it happened "change of plans" was played so this card didn't get played until later in the game by which point all units were in range of enemies and could do an attack thus avoiding 4 suppression. But it feels like quite a powerful round 1 card. Veers and Leia's max firepower/coordinated bombardment. These both mention attack, so I assume LOS to each target is required. Range is 4-infinite so anything beyond range 3 is fair game? Is cover applied when making these attacks? If so, is cover calculated from veers/leia as with normal attack? Leia has peirce under her ranged weapon, does pierce only apply to that specific weapon or does it also apply to this bombardment attack? Do other keywords of veers/leia apply i.e sharpshooter 2?
  8. I really cannot understand why you have a such a problem with the idea that FFG have released a point change to further balance the game? The goal of balancing a game is to allow a wide variety of units to compete with each other. This will allow the possibility for a wider variety to fielded in casual and competitive play. If your take away from FFG's post and what was said in the live stream is that the game is already balanced and that they intend to unbalance it via point changes (there's no other interpretation if you insist the game was already balanced yet they're making point changes regardless) to push players into using different lists in competitions for "variety". If that's still your opinion after reading my earlier posts, then, I guess there's not much more to discuss. Our interpretation is just poles apart and we're only going to waste each others time continuing.
  9. I think any company has the potential to be malicious, but I agree, I see no reason to attribute these point changes to malice. As a community we've all discussed and known for almost a year that some units are under (or over) performing despite everyone's best attempts to use them. These point changes are impacting those same units, which strongly suggests FFG are trying to bring balance to the forces 😜 That said, humans are, well, human. Mistakes will happen, play testing might not show up issues that wider scale play does and the "year of the <insert unit>" is a very real possibility. Perhaps FFG have been too aggressive with some point reductions and those units will now see too much play, pushing out other commonly played units. A shift in lists rather than a widening of variety. Hopefully not, but history of wargaming and video gaming shows balance is a tricky subject to reach without multiple course corrections. So I do not believe this will be the last point change we see, FFG with their "annual" statement likewise expect they'll have to continue to make (hopefully minor) course corrections as the game progresses. Changing topic slightly, there is a "year of the <unit>" that isn't all bad though. Even in a balanced game a unit can appear over powered and dominate competition, right up until the first person realises how to counter it. Those "year of"'s are great.
  10. I think people are really taking FFGs statement of annual point changes and running totally in the wrong direction with it as far as "temporary" goes. The fact points _could_ change again in a years time does not make the current points temporary. Since there is no requirement for FFG to change any of the points at all. They are just setting expectations so that people know IF the current round of point changes doesn't balance all the units sufficiently or IF it causes new problems, then they are prepared to do another batch (hopefully smaller) of point changes. They're also saying that their aim is to do that no more than annually to reduce the issues point changes cause for a community. What they are not saying is that the current set of point changes are temporary and if no problems are found over the next year, well darn it we're just going to change all the points anyway because this batch was just temporary. Semantics aside, hopefully most people understand what FFG mean and what they are trying to achieve. You are correct in that they want to see a variety of units been played however the reason for _why_ we don't already see that is because the game is not quite balanced enough for some units and by fixing that balance they will achieve their goal of a wider variety of units. If FFG identify that too many players have bought and are playing snipers then there are two possible scenarios at play for fixing that with a point change. In what I'd like to think is the scenario most people on here will attribute to FFG: The game is unbalanced, some units are not getting played competitively due to that, you make point tweaks to make those units a little more competitive and if you do a good job, you achieve a wider variety of units being played. Here's the other scenario that assumes the game is already balanced as you seem to believe and that the points changes are not here to balance the game but only to change variety. In that case FFG have decided to deliberately unbalance the game in order to favour another set of units. The result will be players now go out and buy a whole new set of units to play in competition as the game is unbalanced and favours those units. That does not improve variety, it just changes which small set of units people are playing and in a years time, the evil FFG will once more have to change points to favour another set of units as the game will be stagnant with the same lists being played. Everyone will have to go out and buy those instead. Why? Because the unbalanced game will strongly favour a small set of units being played and FFG want people to play something else, lets pick a new unit to unbalance and make the go-to selection for competitive play. It'll help with sales too! One of those seems rather scummy to me and a great way to kill off a community and a game. The other seems like the kind of thing a company wanting to produce a fair game with a lot of units people can enjoy playing without been at a disadvantage would do. Which do you think it is? tl;dr FFG and the community want to see a wide variety of units played casually and competitively. The way you achieve that is by having well balanced units that can compete with each other whilst remaining unique, that is the intention behind their points change. The "annual" comment is just reserving the right to make further tweaks to refine balance or fix mistakes if it's needed (and it's highly likely it will be).
  11. Plenty of players have tried to make the T47 work though. Players have likewise tried to counter sniper spam. These are two issues that I do not believe are due to group think, they're due to balance issues. The amount of imbalance might be small, but it exists. I mean even the game designers have not been able to come up with a good reason to keep the T47 at a high price and neither has anyone in the player base. That is a strong indicator that there's a balance problem. All of which is beside the point, because FFG have stated they're doing a point change to balance the game e.g They've said the units cannot compete at the same level as other units. i.e they are not balanced enough.
  12. but the ONLY reason we do not have a wider variety of units played in competitive play right now IS because of balance issues. Why else do you think people are not playing the T47 in tournys?
  13. You are really trying to suggest the game, as is, is perfectly balanced and these point changes and rule errata are not addressing the imbalance that has been talked about all over this forum for the last year, has been mentioned in the FFG announcement for why they're tweaking and refining the game and is why competitive lists have developed a meta that does not include certain units? That instead it's to unbalance the game just so competitive players can field some different lists? More variety of units should happen as a result of point changes, but the reason for the lack of variety and the way to get there is to ensure those last little bits of imbalance are addressed. That's what this points rebalance and errata is doing. It's only temporary in so far as by next year there'll be a new meta and a realisation that the game isn't quite balanced and needs another minor tweak and the year after that. Perhaps some of the point adjustments were too far, perhaps they were not far enough,perhaps as a result of them we'll see a new meta and interplay of units that wasn't expected and throws out the unit balance. Balance tweaks are an ongoing process and will likely never be perfect, but they are made for one reason and that's to "balance" the game.
  14. I think they assume we've all got great memories, which is why they don't make the errata in a printable friendly way. Then again, with such good memory for errata, we don't need the cards!
  15. I don't believe that easy answer is accurate though. The errata is to fix issues with the game imo and I doubt you'll find many players who will choose to ignore it (fair enough if they do, I just expect them even amongst casuals, to be in the minority)
  16. Why would casual players want balanced armies? It's not like any casuals really want to field the AT-ST or T47! Those who do clearly want to do so to handicap themselves. What bugs me more though is that all the pages have stupid graphical backgrounds which makes printing them costly and makes scrolling through it on a tablet slower than it should be. Could someone at FFG please release a printer friendly edition of the rules, especially the points changes and errata sections. Just removing the background would be a start.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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" ?
  24. 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?
  25. Would have been nice to see reprints of the cards that have had RRG errata added, like Key Positions etc including in the pack.
×
×
  • Create New...