Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Barney

Corellian campaign article is up

Recommended Posts

I'm sort of trying to plan out a Campaign-table for TTS. I'd love to get my local group get together online, and make the moves on the campaign board, and then do the battles on the next Saturday, or whatever. Possible even structure it like a play-by-email game. Sunday night, we play the board. Each pair has until next Sunday to resolve the battle.

 

I'm hoping that fleet movement will be a consideration. That is, A attacks, and X and Y are in position to intercept, buy Z is too far away. But Z can attack a sector where neither B nor C can intercept. Choices to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of trying to plan out a Campaign-table for TTS. I'd love to get my local group get together online, and make the moves on the campaign board, and then do the battles on the next Saturday, or whatever. Possible even structure it like a play-by-email game. Sunday night, we play the board. Each pair has until next Sunday to resolve the battle.

 

I'm hoping that fleet movement will be a consideration. That is, A attacks, and X and Y are in position to intercept, buy Z is too far away. But Z can attack a sector where neither B nor C can intercept. Choices to be made.

Vassal has campaign mode to aid tracking of campaigns! There is your answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

 

 

Because the flow shown and descibed is "matchup" and then "resolve".

No indication is given that you can be in 2 places at once...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

 

 

I feel like maybe people running the campaign would have the common sense to make sure that everyone has a chance to play in games instead of letting players play multiple games a round to the detriment of their teammates, even if it doesn't specifically say so in the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

 

 

Because the flow shown and descibed is "matchup" and then "resolve".

No indication is given that you can be in 2 places at once...

 

As per a earlier post teams have only 3 fleets between them not one each. so after you resolve one battle whats to keep you for being tasked with commanding he next battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

 

 

Because the flow shown and descibed is "matchup" and then "resolve".

No indication is given that you can be in 2 places at once...

 

As per a earlier post teams have only 3 fleets between them not one each. so after you resolve one battle whats to keep you for being tasked with commanding he next battle?

 

 

How many people are you playing with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So do you think it would be:

 

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

 

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

 

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.  :D

 

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but even if you can declare more then one attack per round where does it currently say a player can only fight in one of those battles.

this can still lead to players missing out on a round and just "twiddling their thumbs" for a few hours if there is no limit on the number of games one can play per round.

 

 

I feel like maybe people running the campaign would have the common sense to make sure that everyone has a chance to play in games instead of letting players play multiple games a round to the detriment of their teammates, even if it doesn't specifically say so in the rules.

 

I agree but that would be upto the owner how sometimes has friends in the teams.

I prefer a hard and fast rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it seems like there's been some deliberate measure to go and break the system.

 

"We have a 4 Player game, and things are not even."

Then you find out its 3 Imperial Players, and 1 Rebel player, and people are having to wait...

 

I'm sorry, that's technically a 4 player game, but you must have gone into that knowing what would happen, and thus, there's no point in crying that its not fair or balanced for you...

 

 

Stretching to find holes is bound to find them...  It means you stretched for them....  Feels a little like this:

new_bug.png

 

I am sure the intentionas per the rules when they are presented in full (which they are not yet), is basically this case:

You're a Player if you have a Fleet.

 

You take your Fleet, and challenge it.

 

You determine Defending Fleet.

 

If you answer a Challenge with a Fleet, you can't launch an assault.

 

Which basically means, in a 2 Player-per-Side (But still 3 Fleet game),  One person on your side is Defending, and one Person is attacking.....  The 3rd Fleet doe snothing but be Reserves...  You probably nominate which fleet you're defending with, in that case...  (OR, that Fleet doesn't Exist...  It may well be One Fleet = One Player!)

 

Let us, for the meantime, be excited.

 

Every Party may need a Pooper, 

 

but we are not a Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed is that if it is "keep taking turns declaring assaults until all players are paired " is that whomever is behind on points gets to make two assaults. That should allow teams who get behind to start regaining ground by making more offensive actions that will result in points. If this is the case, the campaign is likely designed with 1500 points per side as the balance point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article will spawn another 70+ pages of speculation. It raised many questions, answered but a few.

 

Yes, so much speculation, so many questions! Like:

  • Can you place plans to one of the bases in an R2 unit and send them to a hidden location?
  • Can you capture an officer upgrade and coerce him/her to reveal the location of the team's home base by threatening to destroy the officer upgrade's home world?
  • Can you infiltrate a base and smuggle the officer upgrade out of the base?
  • Can you hide a unique squadron on the back of a large-base ship until it can hide in a debris field at distance 1-2?
  • Can you reveal that a commander on one team is the parent of a unique squadron pilot on the other team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I'm thinking:
1. I wonder if each match is limited to one admiral per side. I would think so.

2. Does anyone think that FFG would ever put in reballanced upgrade/ship/squadron cards in the new expansion? That's assuming FFG believes that they need to of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I'm thinking:

1. I wonder if each match is limited to one admiral per side. I would think so.

2. Does anyone think that FFG would ever put in reballanced upgrade/ship/squadron cards in the new expansion? That's assuming FFG believes that they need to of course.

 

If they do anything it will be similar to how they "fix" X-Wing ships. Release title or upgrades (that only work for that ship) that have a negative cost, effectively lowering the cost of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2 was a discussion point with Designers at GenCon with...  Shmitty?  I think it was...  Not sure now.

 

 

But basically, if they feel its neccessary, then a Campaign addition would be perfect for that.  But, there is no plans for that at this point in time (IE, they don't think its needed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im wondering if a round is LIMITED to any number of Assaults/defenses.


 


Think kind of like destiny, where you can keep trading turns until someone takes a knee (claims the battlefield) but the other player can keep going


So if you are on an offensive you can choose to press the attack after the initial assault/defend matchups occur, essentially throwing already potentially damaged fleets back into the fray hoping to take a big swath of territory and points but risking crippling your fleets and paying for it next turn.


 


I guess probably NOT but it would be interesting. Then again, FFG hasn't set up cameras and security guards in my house yet to make sure I play with my plastic space ships however the hell I want! I will be buying 2 of these at least anyway so I will probably homebrew some epic campaign rules using CC as a framework.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the fleets persist from round to round, but any player can use them.  So if someone was missing, another player could use that fleet list and play the game.

Which makes the most sense for an ongoing campaign, but could cause problems if the only person with certain ships or upgrades is the one who is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...