Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AllWingsStandyingBy

Is it just me, or are Raddus and the Profundity really bad?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

What makes you think that? 

i was just saying that @Snipafistwouldn't want to hear my take.

 

now it just sounds like you are goading or gloating.

People will listen to you when you explain the rules. Whether you like it or not, your rulings take precedence because you look at all possibilities when you make a decision. So either you will rule against Snip, or you will rule with him but you already know it could break the game, or at least make some games weird. Like having 0 ships on the board. It's a no-win situation. 

I enjoy being proved wrong. My comment wasn't showing I read the rules gloating, but rather wanting to know how I was wrong if you uncovered some new info that could allow you to daisy chain deployments or have 0 ships on the board at the start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 11:17 AM, GreyFoxx said:

EXACTLY! If you have an admonition hidden up your sleeve ready to pounce out facing whatever direction at any point... You're going be facing one twitchy opponent.

This is kind of my ideal maneuver. Admonition flies into the teeth, preferably jumping the front arc of a front arc ship. It drops a second MC30 going the opposite direction at the same speed as the enemy ship. Then it's just nastiness.

Actually, this might make it possible to guarantee the MC30 player's dream: double side-arc on the same enemy ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As written, you probably could deploy Raddus then Profundity at the start of a single turn, unless the FAQ states otherwise or is nerfed later. During the attack phase, the attacker can amend dice in any upgrade order, this is no different.

Certain none FFG games are very wordy and precise about timing. FFG general rulesets tend to be lighter abd allow for more variation.

The main point is that you could defend against this double drop if you space your ships in such a way that they coukd only deploy overlapping ships/squads and therefore stop it from happening. During that same turn the ships(s) that were going to be used to help deploy the others could then be wiped out.

Like all rules, they are a double edged sword. However, I love the idea, they're very thematic and fun. There's more to life than tournaments you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mward1984 said:

 

There's an idea, a 3 ship list with Raddus, Profundity some RLB'd B-Wings or whatever and the Hyperspace Assault Objective.

Start with no ships of any kind on the board. Go have a cup of tea whilst your opponent is doing his deployment.

 

NOTE: REMEMBER THAT RADDUS HAS TO BE IN THE HYPERSPACING SHIP FOR THIS TO WORK.

That sounds like a quintessential 6-5 game to me :)

The problem is a lot of the "cool" stuff people are suggesting with Raddus are the sort of game plans that will simply force competent opponents into playing for the 5-6 game, which means Raddus is a restrictive commander because you can't win tournaments with a bunch of 6pt wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay.  I'll write.  

But you asked for it.

 

 

 

There are two main variables that await on guidance from FFG to resolve.  One of them as well, simply isn't a matter of interpretation ,its just that the stated system simply does not exist in the current framework.

 

The tough part about the Raddus-Stack is, as how it was stated in the previous thread with the Raddus bomb, is that you need to have multiple effects to resolve in order to choose the order of their resolution.

If at the time you are choosing their resolution, you only have one effect (because the others are not on the board yet), its hard to justify making your choice, proceeding with your choice, and then choosing again.

 

It is, essentially, the same problem as presented with Boarding Engineers and Structural Damage.  If you use your engineers, you generate an effect that has to resolve - in which case, you look at the face up cards and then proceed to flip them face up, one at a time...  If you flip a structural engineer and generate another face-down card, we have established that you do not get to see that new card and/or flip that card face up, because your timing window for looking at cards has effectively passed - even though are you still resolving that original effect.

 

It is the same with Raddus and Profundity.  When you generate the effect (start of the turn), you have to collect all of the effects that share a timing in order to pick their resolution order.  Because of the preestablished rule that things that are off the table don't exist, they don't exist in order to sort them into that order.

And once you do something at a certain point in the turn order, it is arguable that you have made your decisions, and proceeded, so the time for making decisions is thus over, unless the timing order is specifically stated to be after the initial statement of order.

 

In practicality, I'd have to see how the full Raddus-Bomb would work on the play table before I decided on wether it would be "outrageous" or "overpowered".  I found it a really interesting concept to explore, but I also know that I've had a mixed bag of responses (and abuse) from it.  I mean, evne in the playtester feedback area, I've gotten one who encouraged it as intended, and one who said they wouldn't play against anyone who tried to do it...  So opinion swings wildly, and I can't tell if that's because it is something that is actually effective, or wether its just something so completely disconnected to the "norm" that it evokes some sort of viscerial reaction.

 

 

The second part of it revolves around the concept of "tabling", and really only applies when you are trying to do a Raddus Bomb with the Hyperspace Assault objective.  In which case, the legal rules area we exist in isn't stipulated or maintained in the rules themselves, and applying raw logic to the situation results in us in a "divide by zero" legal rules situation.

That is, if you have no ships on the table, the rules do not specifically state you lose the game (that the game ends).  It only states that if all ships in the play area have been destroyed, then you will end the game at the end of the round (from immediately, as updated in tournament regulations).  The stipulation is, have been destroyed.  If they never exist in the first place, its hard to state that they have been destroyed as defined in the rules under "destroyed"...  But on the same side, its hard to state they have not, as a logic view that looks at the end state only can be manipulated to give a positive, or a false positive, in that regards.

The only inference that can be made to wether the game should end if all of your ships is in Hyperspace is actually an inference towards that it should not, that you should play a game with No Ships on the board, as long as no ships have been destroyed...  And that is given by the Hyperspace Assault FAQ itself.

The statement is, if you are deploying, and you cannot deploy additional squadrons (beyond the 3 into being set aside), presumably because the only ship you have is in Hyperspace Assault (as that is the only thing that could stop you from deploying squadrons during deployment - not having a ship to measure distance 2 within), then those squadrons are destroyed........  If the intention was that the game would not be played, why merely stop at destroying the squadrons?  Why would you not simply state that the game ends?  It is a piece of follow-through logic, but it does lend itself to that end-goal belief, that a game can be played with no ships on one side, until the end of Turn 6...  Then the game ends, and any ship in Hyperspace Assault is then counted as being destroyed.

There are also caveats that, effectively, if you have multiple ships set aside due to multiple effects, that if all of your ships in the play area are destroyed, then ships set aside are also destroyed.   This makes the Raddus bomb more difficult and much more risky if you have to effectively deploy each step of the bomb once per turn...  (Have ship arrive from Hyperspace.  Have that ship survive a turn, so at the start it can Raddus out Profundity.  Then have Profundity survive a turn until it can Profundity out its chosen small ship)... and it may indeed be a balancing issue or consideration towards allowing (or disallowing) it from happening, but of course, is also a very meta-subjective set.  With the existance of the Darth Vader boarding card, for example, setting aside things has become inherently more risky, because you can remove the mechanism for allowing you to deploy said set aside items, even without destroying the ship itself.  At least until there is some sort of defense (other than lack of proximity) to defending oneself against boarding teams.

 

I'm rambling now, but I guess you get the idea.

TL; DR:

It seems on the surface you can't multiple-deploy a nested stack of "set aside" items all at once, until FFG gives specific advice countering that.  And the Raddus bomb, although awesome in concept, has its own legal issues with Hyperspace before you even get to the Matryoshka doll effect.

Share this post


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

That sounds like a quintessential 6-5 game to me :)

The problem is a lot of the "cool" stuff people are suggesting with Raddus are the sort of game plans that will simply force competent opponents into playing for the 5-6 game, which means Raddus is a restrictive commander because you can't win tournaments with a bunch of 6pt wins.

When you play hyperspace assault you play for a 5-6 game?

Share this post


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

Okay, okay.  I'll write.  

But you asked for it.

 

 

 

There are two main variables that await on guidance from FFG to resolve.  One of them as well, simply isn't a matter of interpretation ,its just that the stated system simply does not exist in the current framework.

 

The tough part about the Raddus-Stack is, as how it was stated in the previous thread with the Raddus bomb, is that you need to have multiple effects to resolve in order to choose the order of their resolution.

If at the time you are choosing their resolution, you only have one effect (because the others are not on the board yet), its hard to justify making your choice, proceeding with your choice, and then choosing again.

 

It is, essentially, the same problem as presented with Boarding Engineers and Structural Damage.  If you use your engineers, you generate an effect that has to resolve - in which case, you look at the face up cards and then proceed to flip them face up, one at a time...  If you flip a structural engineer and generate another face-down card, we have established that you do not get to see that new card and/or flip that card face up, because your timing window for looking at cards has effectively passed - even though are you still resolving that original effect.

 

It is the same with Raddus and Profundity.  When you generate the effect (start of the turn), you have to collect all of the effects that share a timing in order to pick their resolution order.  Because of the preestablished rule that things that are off the table don't exist, they don't exist in order to sort them into that order.

And once you do something at a certain point in the turn order, it is arguable that you have made your decisions, and proceeded, so the time for making decisions is thus over, unless the timing order is specifically stated to be after the initial statement of order.

 

In practicality, I'd have to see how the full Raddus-Bomb would work on the play table before I decided on wether it would be "outrageous" or "overpowered".  I found it a really interesting concept to explore, but I also know that I've had a mixed bag of responses (and abuse) from it.  I mean, evne in the playtester feedback area, I've gotten one who encouraged it as intended, and one who said they wouldn't play against anyone who tried to do it...  So opinion swings wildly, and I can't tell if that's because it is something that is actually effective, or wether its just something so completely disconnected to the "norm" that it evokes some sort of viscerial reaction.

 

 

The second part of it revolves around the concept of "tabling", and really only applies when you are trying to do a Raddus Bomb with the Hyperspace Assault objective.  In which case, the legal rules area we exist in isn't stipulated or maintained in the rules themselves, and applying raw logic to the situation results in us in a "divide by zero" legal rules situation.

That is, if you have no ships on the table, the rules do not specifically state you lose the game (that the game ends).  It only states that if all ships in the play area have been destroyed, then you will end the game at the end of the round (from immediately, as updated in tournament regulations).  The stipulation is, have been destroyed.  If they never exist in the first place, its hard to state that they have been destroyed as defined in the rules under "destroyed"...  But on the same side, its hard to state they have not, as a logic view that looks at the end state only can be manipulated to give a positive, or a false positive, in that regards.

The only inference that can be made to wether the game should end if all of your ships is in Hyperspace is actually an inference towards that it should not, that you should play a game with No Ships on the board, as long as no ships have been destroyed...  And that is given by the Hyperspace Assault FAQ itself.

The statement is, if you are deploying, and you cannot deploy additional squadrons (beyond the 3 into being set aside), presumably because the only ship you have is in Hyperspace Assault (as that is the only thing that could stop you from deploying squadrons during deployment - not having a ship to measure distance 2 within), then those squadrons are destroyed........  If the intention was that the game would not be played, why merely stop at destroying the squadrons?  Why would you not simply state that the game ends?  It is a piece of follow-through logic, but it does lend itself to that end-goal belief, that a game can be played with no ships on one side, until the end of Turn 6...  Then the game ends, and any ship in Hyperspace Assault is then counted as being destroyed.

There are also caveats that, effectively, if you have multiple ships set aside due to multiple effects, that if all of your ships in the play area are destroyed, then ships set aside are also destroyed.   This makes the Raddus bomb more difficult and much more risky if you have to effectively deploy each step of the bomb once per turn...  (Have ship arrive from Hyperspace.  Have that ship survive a turn, so at the start it can Raddus out Profundity.  Then have Profundity survive a turn until it can Profundity out its chosen small ship)... and it may indeed be a balancing issue or consideration towards allowing (or disallowing) it from happening, but of course, is also a very meta-subjective set.  With the existance of the Darth Vader boarding card, for example, setting aside things has become inherently more risky, because you can remove the mechanism for allowing you to deploy said set aside items, even without destroying the ship itself.  At least until there is some sort of defense (other than lack of proximity) to defending oneself against boarding teams.

 

I'm rambling now, but I guess you get the idea.

TL; DR:

It seems on the surface you can't multiple-deploy a nested stack of "set aside" items all at once, until FFG gives specific advice countering that.  And the Raddus bomb, although awesome in concept, has its own legal issues with Hyperspace before you even get to the Matryoshka doll effect.

Does this FAQ answer the question?

Q: Can a ship spend an evade token to reroll a die and wait to 
see the result before spending another defense token?
A: Yes.

All defense tokens have the same timing to be spent. As I see, we don't choose the order first and them resolve, what definitely would prevent us from resolving the Matryoshka. We go to a time window, choose ONE effect, resolve it, and if there are still effects to resolve choose another one.

Otherwise we should choose the defense tokens before we knew the reroll result.

Or maybe I am missing something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Does this FAQ answer the question?

Q: Can a ship spend an evade token to reroll a die and wait to 
see the result before spending another defense token?
A: Yes.

All defense tokens have the same timing to be spent. As I see, we don't choose the order first and them resolve, what definitely would prevent us from resolving the Matryoshka. We go to a time window, choose ONE effect, resolve it, and if there are still effects to resolve choose another one.

Otherwise we should choose the defense tokens before we knew the reroll result.

Or maybe I am missing something. 

No  Apart from the face that the FAQ is providing a specific piece of advice for that situation, and I've been abused for trying to apply those to other circumstances, and instead, have been told to focus on what the rules say in general...... :)

 

In that instance - all of the Defense Tokens have the same trigger point, and that trigger point exists for all of your defense tokens, so you are, literally, conforming to the Rules Concept that you choose the order of things that are all in the same timing area.  even if Ihavn't chosen them yet, they exist to be chosen.  You don't set the order in which you are going to resolve them, you are choosing the order in which they may be resolved, and choosing not to resolve them (because the evade works) is a legitimate decision chain.  It is not like in other games where ther eis a "stack' that must resolve.  Its merely an order choice.

 

If you had a defense token that generated a defense token, for example...  THAT is where you get the murky situation.  Wether you could use that freshly generated token or not.

 

In this case, you are choosing the order in a legal order...  You just resolve the evade immediately.  Whereas the other tokens don't resolve immediately. 

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


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

No  Apart from the face that the FAQ is providing a specific piece of advice for that situation, and I've been abused for trying to apply those to other circumstances, and instead, have been told to focus on what the rules say in general...... :)

 

In that instance - all of the Defense Tokens have the same trigger point, and that trigger point exists for all of your defense tokens, so you are, literally, conforming to the Rules Concept that you choose the order of things that are all in the same timing area.  even if Ihavn't chosen them yet, they exist to be chosen.  You don't set the order in which you are going to resolve them, you are choosing the order in which they may be resolved, and choosing not to resolve them (because the evade works) is a legitimate decision chain.  It is not like in other games where ther eis a "stack' that must resolve.  Its merely an order choice.

 

If you had a defense token that generated a defense token, for example...  THAT is where you get the murky situation.  Wether you could use that freshly generated token or not.

 

In this case, you are choosing the order in a legal order...  You just resolve the evade immediately.  Whereas the other tokens don't resolve immediately. 

And in reverse?

I have the crit that tell me I have to take an extra damage when overlapping an obstacle (damage control). I, then, overlap the station.

I choose to resolve the station first but the crit is there (and is not optional) when I have to make the choice. What happens then? If what I add "after" that tiny timing window doesn't count,  what I remove doesn't. Right?

Edited by ovinomanc3r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

And in reverse?

I have the crit that tell me I have to take an extra damage when overlapping an obstacle (damage control). I, then, overlap the station.

I choose to resolve the station first but the crit was there (and was not optional) when I have to make the choice. What happens then. If what I add "after" that tiny timing window doesn't count,  what I remove doesn't. Right?

You can 'delete' something from the order if it no longer exists.

Because there is no simultanious you are choosing the order in which to resolve them, and you can get to something and not have it be there to resolve anymore.

 

That is directly what I meant about Armada not having a stack to resolve...  A Stack, in other games, is where things go in an order to resolve and must resolve.

There's no such thing.

You've chosen the order, and the order you have chosen is still an order - in which case, it deletes the critical and that critical no longer exists to resolve.  It doesn't have to resolve.

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


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

No  Apart from the face that the FAQ is providing a specific piece of advice for that situation, and I've been abused for trying to apply those to other circumstances, and instead, have been told to focus on what the rules say in general...... :)

 

In that instance - all of the Defense Tokens have the same trigger point, and that trigger point exists for all of your defense tokens, so you are, literally, conforming to the Rules Concept that you choose the order of things that are all in the same timing area.  even if Ihavn't chosen them yet, they exist to be chosen.  You don't set the order in which you are going to resolve them, you are choosing the order in which they may be resolved, and choosing not to resolve them (because the evade works) is a legitimate decision chain.  It is not like in other games where ther eis a "stack' that must resolve.  Its merely an order choice.

 

If you had a defense token that generated a defense token, for example...  THAT is where you get the murky situation.  Wether you could use that freshly generated token or not.

 

In this case, you are choosing the order in a legal order...  You just resolve the evade immediately.  Whereas the other tokens don't resolve immediately. 

I think you're splitting that hair mighty fine.  You can not only resolve effects in any order, but you can activate them in any order, and you don't move on from a timing point on your turn until you are done doing things available for that timing point.  I think your statement "even if I haven't chosen them yet, they exist to be chosen" belies your argument, as you first say you'd have to "choose the order of things that are all in the same timing area."  You are either choosing them all at the same time, or you aren't, and I don't think whether or not they exist when you make your first choice matters.  In your defense token example you are not choosing the order and then resolving the first, you are just choosing and resolving one, then choosing and resolving another.

Now, I've not the experience with playtesting, and I don't pretend to fully see your reasoning, so there may be more to it, but this was my immediate response to your analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily, this is why I didn't want to post.

The rules themselves provide two completely opposed points at different times.

Finding complete precedence in one doesn't apply to another, but in some cases, it does provide precedence.

 

 

So you know what, my opinion doesn't matter for anything now.

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

It is not the same tha:

You can 'add' something to the order if it started to exists.

The difference is you are trying to add something to the order that is not on the table, and thus does not exist.

The HSA FAQ clearly says Ships and squadrons set aside are not in play. Their abilities and upgrades are inactive and they cannot be affected by any abilities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Admiral Theia said:

I think you're splitting that hair mighty fine.  You can not only resolve effects in any order, but you can activate them in any order, and you don't move on from a timing point on your turn until you are done doing things available for that timing point.  I think your statement "even if I haven't chosen them yet, they exist to be chosen" belies your argument, as you first say you'd have to "choose the order of things that are all in the same timing area."  You are either choosing them all at the same time, or you aren't, and I don't think whether or not they exist when you make your first choice matters.  In your defense token example you are not choosing the order and then resolving the first, you are just choosing and resolving one, then choosing and resolving another.

Now, I've not the experience with playtesting, and I don't pretend to fully see your reasoning, so there may be more to it, but this was my immediate response to your analysis. 

That is how I saw it.

Share this post


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

Primarily, this is why I didn't want to post.

The rules themselves provide two completely opposed points at different times.

Finding completely precedence in one doesn't apply to another, but in some cases, it does provide precedences.

 

 

I don't want to fight. I respect what you say I am just trying to explore as many points as I could to understand it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

I don't want to fight. I respect what you say I am just trying to explore as many points as I could to understand it better.

and you're quite right and legitimate to do so, don't let me dissuade you of that.

 

I'm just apparently advocating a broken position, and that pisses me off more than anything else, because things could have been better.

 

That, and I'm really not in a good place to actually do anything at the moment.

Share this post


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

Primarily, this is why I didn't want to post.

The rules themselves provide two completely opposed points at different times.

Finding complete precedence in one doesn't apply to another, but in some cases, it does provide precedence.

 

 

So you know what, my opinion doesn't matter for anything now.

Fair enough.  Your opinions are definitely well thought out and grounded in an interpretation of the rules, both RAW and RAI, and you certainly seem to have more experience in this area than I (and, I suspect, most of us).

Share this post


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

The difference is you are trying to add something to the order that is not on the table, and thus does not exist.

The HSA FAQ clearly says Ships and squadrons set aside are not in play. Their abilities and upgrades are inactive and they cannot be affected by any abilities.

 

Yes but my question basically is why, after deploying the first ship we are no longer in the timing that let us resolve another effect with the same timing?

If we are at the correct timing and the effect is right there, what is the problem?

I understand the thigh that it was not there (it was set aside). I don't understand why we are not still there (the timing)

Share this post


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

and you're quite right and legitimate to do so, don't let me dissuade you of that.

 

I'm just apparently advocating a broken position, and that pisses me off more than anything else, because things could have been better.

 

That, and I'm really not in a good place to actually do anything at the moment.

One thing I have liked is that we, as a community, in the last two waves at least, have seemed able to come to a relative consensus on rules interpretations on stuff like this.  My feeling is one of "when in more than a little doubt, take the more permissive approach."

Share this post


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

Fair enough.  Your opinions are definitely well thought out and grounded in an interpretation of the rules, both RAW and RAI, and you certainly seem to have more experience in this area than I (and, I suspect, most of us).

Thank you.

Its just more that, as I've stated - I wish I could answer these questions, but at lot of the time, to arrive at one intepretatiion, you ahve to run counter to another, and then you find that both are not only supported, but stated to be so.

 

And I do my best to not involve my personal thoughts on the matter, despite how much that is an actual bias...  (Because I think the Raddus bomb would be the next Nose Punch, but I'm consigned to never seeing it work)...

 

I'll take a permissive approach to allow my opponent to do something, but I never give myself the chance.

 

 

 

 

Probably one of the reasons I lose so much.

And not just in Armada.

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally have no idea why, but the politeness in this part of the thread (maybe combined a bit with your frustration at inability to settle it) just made me totally emotional.

Being a girl sucks sometimes.

Edited by Admiral Theia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

Yes but my question basically is why, after deploying the first ship we are no longer in the timing that let us resolve another effect with the same timing?

If we are at the correct timing and the effect is right there, what is the problem?

I understand the thigh that it was not there (it was set aside). I don't understand why we are not still there (the timing)

Because the trigger is at the start of the round. The ships are not on the table at the start of the round, therefore they cannot trigger. 

The defense tokens does not support your example. You spend defense tokens during the same window but they resolve at different times. The Evade resolves immediately, Brace resolves after damage is totaled, and Redirect resolves as damage is being dealt. You still spend them all at the same time.

That concept can be used for HSA, Raddus, and Profundity.

At the start of the round. Here is your trigger. Now you look at what is on the table and all of those have a green light to resolve. Deploy CR90 with Raddus via Profundity. Raddus was not on the board and missed it's trigger. Even though we are still in the window of "At the start of the round", Raddus does not have a green light.

However, if you have Raddus and Profundity on the table, and playing HSA, you can drop 3 ships in any order. All 3 are triggered at the start of the round, and since you have multiple effects with the same timing you choose the order in which they resolve. 

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...