Jump to content
Iylankano

Nobody else noticed the new FAQ yet.....

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I think its because Biggs, outside of Rieekan, isn't that big of a deal...  I mean, he's useful, but he doesn't actually reduce effective damage to 0 - the damage is always going somewhere.

With Rieekan, you can be off-putting that damage to something that "Already Died", thus nullifying that damage completely...

That's a bigger problem, and coupled with Rieekan being as Rieekan is...  That make the 'lynchpin' of the broken combo Rieekan, not Biggs.

 

If you Nerfed Biggs in anyway, all you'd do is stop seeing Biggs outside of Rieekan lists...  Whereas now, there's still a use for him there.

Pretty sure you can't shift damage to someone who has already died.

RRG states that when a ship or squadron suffers damage equal to it's hull or life value, it is immediately removed from the board. However, Rieekan prevents the removing of the board, but I'm almost certain that you can't continue to shift damage to something that has already died. This is why I don't care much for the Rieekan nerf, but is more saddened about the lack of a Biggs nerf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Valca said:

So back on track, will this have any impact on the overall activation count?

Maybe in some fleets, but it doesn't offer disincentive to take flotillas for the activation advantage.

It just means you don't have the double whammy of a life boat now. 

It was quoted earlier but FFGs comments in the explanatory article seems to acknowledge the negative impact of the Flotilla/Activation Advantage issue. 

I suspect they'll be watching closely and are maybe considering further change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

You should be blaming Gallant Haven in that instance, for the actual Damage prevention.

It only works when the Target of the attack is under Gallant Haven's Protection.

It doesn't work if its merely "Biggs'd" into Gallant Haven's Range.

 

 

*Because Biggs dealing damage is not an attack, and Gallant Haven only protects from damage from an attack.

I know this, but still don't blame GH. Biggs should have had an uber-Escort function instead of shuffling damage around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Voloch said:

Pretty sure you can't shift damage to someone who has already died.

RRG states that when a ship or squadron suffers damage equal to it's hull or life value, it is immediately removed from the board. However, Rieekan prevents the removing of the board, but I'm almost certain that you can't continue to shift damage to something that has already died. This is why I don't care much for the Rieekan nerf, but is more saddened about the lack of a Biggs nerf. 

This has long since been settled: you absolutely can. There is nothing that stops you from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Voloch said:

Pretty sure you can't shift damage to someone who has already died.

RRG states that when a ship or squadron suffers damage equal to it's hull or life value, it is immediately removed from the board. However, Rieekan prevents the removing of the board, but I'm almost certain that you can't continue to shift damage to something that has already died. This is why I don't care much for the Rieekan nerf, but is more saddened about the lack of a Biggs nerf. 

 

Just now, Truthiness said:

This has long since been settled: you absolutely can. There is nothing that stops you from doing so.

 

We had it reinforced time and again on the Rules Sub-Forum, first by James Kniffen, then by Michael Gernes...  Hitting a ship with Precision Strike over and over to farm Victory Tokens was entirely a valid option - and elad into the "Discussion" about wether Rieekan was Optional or not (and was ruled he was, which then had a follow on to the discussion on wether Jamming Fields were optional, they weren't, but because they had the same wording at Rieekan, they had to be Errata'd to change to "Must" so they were no longer optional."

 

I mean, that explains the disconnect - when people are reading different rules from the same rules sheet, of course it doesn't make sense...  Thank you at least for explaining your reasoning why :)  Given your perspective, yes, I can see how you'd be disappointed...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Valca said:

30 should be sufficient, right? ;)

depends on the magnitude of the change.  If we are just looking for "fewer ships on the board" then 30 will tell us if we're seeing it or not.

On the other hand, if we are looking for a shift in what number of activations show up in top tables, that will take more because we are looking for a change in a sub-population.  Even more if we want to distinguish between Rebels & Imperials.

But I'll run some numbers & let you know how many we will need to detect a 0.5-ship shift in a) average fleet size, and b) average top-table fleet size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

 

 

We had it reinforced time and again on the Rules Sub-Forum, first by James Kniffen, then by Michael Gernes...  Hitting a ship with Precision Strike over and over to farm Victory Tokens was entirely a valid option - and elad into the "Discussion" about wether Rieekan was Optional or not (and was ruled he was, which then had a follow on to the discussion on wether Jamming Fields were optional, they weren't, but because they had the same wording at Rieekan, they had to be Errata'd to change to "Must" so they were no longer optional."

 

I mean, that explains the disconnect - when people are reading different rules from the same rules sheet, of course it doesn't make sense...  Thank you at least for explaining your reasoning why :)  Given your perspective, yes, I can see how you'd be disappointed...

 

I don't know who those two persons are, but as long as there is nothing in the rules or FAQ it's not official. I mean, rules aren't supposed to be looked up in some obscure thread on some flaming forum. If these two people you mention are FFG rules dudes, they should put the ruling in the rules book or the official FAQ.

I know my perspective is my version on RAI as the RAW, IMO, is open for interpretation regarding since Rieekan was introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

This should be interesting.  I'm looking forward to seeing what post-faq store championship data starts looking like.

I don't know if it's worth splitting the data, but it might be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shmitty said:

I don't know if it's worth splitting the data, but it might be.  

can we just put a date column in?  If we have that, we can filter, countif, etc. based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Valca said:

So back on track, will this have any impact on the overall activation count?

Maybe?  

 

1 minute ago, Baltanok said:

can we just put a date column in?  If we have that, we can filter, countif, etc. based on that.

Really, the "complete" column ended up not being used as I intended.  I can just switch that to post FAQ or post Wave 6.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shmitty said:

Really, the "complete" column ended up not being used as I intended.  I can just switch that to post FAQ or post Wave 6.  

It'd be nice if FFG drops W6 next week & they both become legal at the same time...  Purely for making the data cleaner, you understand.  I'm OK with waiting for my toys, but I just want the data to be clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Voloch said:

I don't know who those two persons are, but as long as there is nothing in the rules or FAQ it's not official. I mean, rules aren't supposed to be looked up in some obscure thread on some flaming forum. If these two people you mention are FFG rules dudes, they should put the ruling in the rules book or the official FAQ.

I know my perspective is my version on RAI as the RAW, IMO, is open for interpretation regarding since Rieekan was introduced.

Its also how you "Ask the Question"

 

When you send in a rules request, you get a response (eventually).

Previously, those responses were from James Kniffen - Head Designer of Armada.  You have asked FFG a Question, and that's the answer he gave.

That was then, as a courtesy, shared to the public via the Forum.  Once upon a time, when you went to log a question to FAQ< they told you to check the forum first as the first point of call - it was officially the point of calling for answers.  

Nowadays, that response system comes from Michael Gernes - who is the Producer of Armada.  

 

To be jokingly-snarky, these names are readily available in the Credits for the Game we play :D

 

If you are only playing in a casual environment, then you don't need Rules Rulings anyway - sort 'em out in your group.  RAW vs RAI.

When you want to know what FFG says - even if its not in the Rules - then you ahve to come to FFG.

Some of us just share our personal responses.

That helps us, as a group, as a collective, as a Forum, share what we have found as "Rules as Intended" - because we're getting that Intention, effectively, from the Horses Mouth.

You can be free to discuss or dismiss as you see fit, of course - but in the end, a lot of us (but not all of us, of course) consider the Rules Forum an invaluable tool for aiding that discussion, and coming to pertinent conclusions - and sharing those conclusions with the World, even when FFG does not.

 

To take the issue right now.

The Rules DO NOT STATE that you cannot take Damage beyond what kills you when Rieekan keeps you on the table.

The Rules DO NOT STATE that you can take Damage beyond what kills you when Rieekan keeps you on the table.

So you are left with an intention conundrum, because there is no "RAW" involved.  You can't Quote RAW, because there is no RAW dealing with that specific circumstance...  

 

Your ship was "destroyed" when it got a damage card equal to its hull.  Trufax.

But now its not "Destroyed" because Rieekan says so.  Also Trufax.

To me, for the argument's sake:  the only thing that would have stopped me from putting damage cards on it when it was destroyed, was it was destroyed, and removed from the table - if its not on the table, it can't be targeted, and thus, can't take cards...  

But Rieekan says it stays on the table.  That means another ship can target it, draw line of sight to it, roll attack, roll damage, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

The same with Squadrons.  When squadrons take damage, you move their base plate so the hull points remaining shows...  You'll notice there's no 0.  There's no Boom.

When you lose your last hull point, you're removed.  Thus stopping you from taking any more.

But Rieekan says otherwise.

You can keep taking damage points.  You odn't reset to 0, you just keep taking damage, because you're an eligable target to take damage, because the only thing that stops you from taking damage is not being targeted...

That was a question.  Does that seem right?

 

So we asked, "is that the intention?"

And we got an Answer.  From FFG itself.  When enough people ask the Question, it should result in an FAQ.  But not always.

 

Coming to the Forum, helps you inform that "Intention".  Nothing else.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love these changes. I have always felt dirty playing reeikan or demolisher. I don't have to feel the shame anymore!

Looking forward to some different bomber squadron set ups for the imperials.  People will stop asking "but why no rhymer?"

Nice Work FFG. I think you hit it out of the park, and that's impressive using a nerf bat. 

Edited by Tiberius the Killer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm no fan of Rieekan, but hot **** did they go to town on him...

Also, anyone else think TRC is now slightly overcosted for a once-per-turn card with a token sacrifice? Not hugely, but maybe by a point or so? I mean, it's still solid on the CR90, but I can't help but look more at DTTs for the Arq now, where I was enjoying using TRC Arqs with Needa and Hand of Justice. Suddenly MS-1 Ion Cannons is a nice counter to TRC spam, too. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...