Jump to content
Parakitor

New Tournament Regulations

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:
10 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Well it wasn't in a news article like most FAQ and tournament rule changes even though there was an update a couple of days ago. Furthermore all changes in this document were not in Red so unless you had a copy of the last rules you wouldn't know what is different.

This is a new 1.0 set. No past documents in this case, it itself counts as new and thus has no changes. At least that is what I am assuming. And the 2017 number is hopefully just a typo and not a sign that they forgot for 12 months just to release the document ^_^

For comparison, the now outdated Epic Tournament Rules https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d1/0a/d10a49e9-6a34-44f9-9881-a640a108d20b/epic_tournament_rules_v32.pdf

The Epic Play Card Restrictions (Biggs having no effect on Huge ships and Navigator being restricted from Huge ships) are curiously absent from the new tournament regulations. Whether this is an oversight, intentional change, or (hopefully) a sign that the Huge Ship Rules will be updated as well, remains to be seen.

Assuming that it's an intentional change, they may have felt that the Biggs' restriction was no longer necessary after his errata. As for Navigator, perhaps they felt that it was only too powerful in the past because not every faction had a Huge ship but now everyone can navigate their battering rams.

 

Edited by FireSpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Parakitor said:

Obstacles cannot be placed at Range 1-2 of any edges.

Comparing the old obstacle placement to the new, that's not the only change...

Old Rules (emphasis added):

Quote

...chooses two of these obstacle tokens and places them into the play area at the same time, within range 1 of each other but not at Range 1–2 of either player edge.

Then, the opposing player chooses two of the remaining obstacle tokens and places them into the play area at the same time, within Range 1 of each other but not at Range 1–2 of either player edge or any previously-placed obstacle token....

New Regulations (emphasis added):

Quote

...chooses two of these obstacle tokens and places one into the play area beyond Range 1–2 of any edge. Then, that player places the second obstacle token within range 1 of the first obstacle token.

The other player chooses two of the remaining obstacles and repeats the same action, except they cannot place either obstacle token within Range 1 of a token placed previously....

Previously you put down the pair together, and neither one could be at Range 1-2 of a player edge or another obstacle token.

Now you place one first, then the other within Range 1 of the first. Only the first obstacle must be beyond Range 1-2 of the edges, the second can be at Range 1-2 of an edge as long as it's within Range 1 of the first obstacle. Finally, neither obstacle can be within Range 1 (not at) of a previously placed token, this is a drastic change from beyond Range 1-2. I have to wonder if the last part was intentional, if so it allows very tight grouping of all the obstacles.

Share this post


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

Now you place one first, then the other within Range 1 of the first. Only the first obstacle must be beyond Range 1-2 of the edges, the second can be at Range 1-2 of an edge as long as it's within Range 1 of the first obstacle. Finally, neither obstacle can be within Range 1 (not at) of a previously placed token, this is a drastic change from beyond Range 1-2. I have to wonder if the last part was intentional, if so it allows very tight grouping of all the obstacles.

I think it is intentional.  Just the change from "any edge" will create a denser formation in the center, which will change the relationship when ordnance epic will fight long range epic.  Numerous fighters will also have a harder time rushing forward on the first few rounds compared to what they once did.  We're about to begin our third round of epic play on our end, so these changes will make things very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Arkanta974 said:

So kit tournament or new scum epic is on the way ? Good to see ffg don't forget Epic game.

So I can said goodbye to my crackswarm too....

Well good to said 4 per ept/secondary weapons but we have some problem to fix too : Zuckuss crew especially ;)

Zuckuss really isn't an issue when he only works on 1 shot per round.

12 hours ago, Marinealver said:

As much as I like Huge ships in Epic I don't necessarily think they should have been a requirement as it does exclude players who may just be able to scrounge up enough to make 300 points. Further more you still have the 4x Ig-2000 list which I think FFG should have figured out a way to make more squadrons like that.

The problem is if you DON'T require huge ships, its pretty much always the better play to just not bring a huge ship and take a giant swarm of smaller ships.  The huge ships are just too inefficient for their points.  If EVERYONE has one, that balances it out a bit.

11 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Why? Everyone complains that spending points on your epic is ineffective and now we have Maul and Zuckuss to make the epics at least worth their points a little bit ...  is that really bad? 

I see no problem with zuckuss/maul for scum right now since the croc only shoots once per round.  Sure, it'll hit hart, but it's a 60-70+ point ship.  It should hit hard.  Maul for rebels could be a bit more of a problem, but havne't tried/seen him used to know for sure.  But previously, while you might attack 4 or 5 times with your CR90, you only had mods for a couple of those shots.  Now you basically have a free TL for every shot you take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have 3 things that I hope for:

 

1 - That the Epic games regulation was a step to be crossed before they released the next Scum huge.

2 - That the missing SKU is the next Scum huge

3 - And finally, that should 1 and 2 be correct, that this new ship is somehow designed to work in tandem with IG-88.  IG-88 in epic was, initially, the main dream behind having more than 2 of them.  If having an epic ship is now mandatory then maybe working some kind of synergy that a new huge could use (besides IG-88A) would be fun.  Wishfull thinking, but my wallet would be all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, dotswarlock said:
55 minutes ago, FireSpy said:

Now you place one first, then the other within Range 1 of the first. Only the first obstacle must be beyond Range 1-2 of the edges, the second can be at Range 1-2 of an edge as long as it's within Range 1 of the first obstacle. Finally, neither obstacle can be within Range 1 (not at) of a previously placed token, this is a drastic change from beyond Range 1-2. I have to wonder if the last part was intentional, if so it allows very tight grouping of all the obstacles.

I think it is intentional.  Just the change from "any edge" will create a denser formation in the center, which will change the relationship when ordnance epic will fight long range epic.  Numerous fighters will also have a harder time rushing forward on the first few rounds compared to what they once did.  We're about to begin our third round of epic play on our end, so these changes will make things very interesting.

Requiring placement away from the neutral edges is fine. The part that I'm questioning is "not within Range 1 of a previously placed token", compared to the old "not at Range 1-2" the difference is enormous.

EpicObstaclesNotAtRange1-2.thumb.jpg.84b58537c82be485eb1354aaf8b0c293.jpgEpicObstaclesNotWithinRange1.thumb.jpg.e5d9a71e67b7e257da8b153975357bc4.jpg

First picture: approximate tightest grouping when not at Range 1-2 of previous obstacles

Second picture: approximate tightest grouping when not within Range 1 of previous obstacles.

Not being "within" range of something is a lot easier than not being "at" range of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this just introduced Flights:  4 ships of the same type, loaded the same way.

Not that I play tournaments much, but VERY nice to see Epic getting some love since 2015.

OTOH, I think I like the Limit 4 rule.  Did @Kaptin Krunch call it, or do you think they've been lurking??. . .

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic is shaping up nicely and we are an faq away from a valid choice against the 100/6 “format” that not everyone likes. I may very well attend an epic tournament vs you’d have to pay me to participate in standard.

And yes they lurk, like B-movie sci-fi cheese monsters, wave to the mirror boys we are not alone. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

I guess this just introduced Flights:  4 ships of the same type, loaded the same way.

Not that I play tournaments much, but VERY nice to see Epic getting some love since 2015.

OTOH, I think I like the Limit 4 rule.  Did @Kaptin Krunch call it, or do you think they've been lurking??. . .

My limits were really close- I placed limits at 4 for most cards. The only different cards I had were Gchips and LRS (at 4) and Minefield Mapper and Tragedy Stimulator(at 3).

 

That and a couple EPT's had different number counts.

Share this post


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

My limits were really close- I placed limits at 4 for most cards. The only different cards I had were Gchips and LRS (at 4) and Minefield Mapper and Tragedy Stimulator(at 3).

That and a couple EPT's had different number counts.

The first talk I had heard of this idea was my beginning of the year "Epic Enthusiasts" thread.  Granted, I don't hang around in tournament halls much, so maybe it's been a idea for awhile.

But, it does seem to me a lot of our "epic FAQ" questions/complaints/ideas have been addressed. :)

Share this post


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

The first talk I had heard of this idea was my beginning of the year "Epic Enthusiasts" thread.  Granted, I don't hang around in tournament halls much, so maybe it's been a idea for awhile.

But, it does seem to me a lot of our "epic FAQ" questions/complaints/ideas have been addressed. :)

Well, no, all of the self-stress cards and Dormitz weren't addressed at all.

Also- I'm not sure if all squads need an epic ship- All First Order and All Resistance squads are no longer possible.

Then, Epic ships need some slightly different rules, and a removal of the Epic Combo cards- I'd give them a soft focus and lock (1 reroll and 1 focus to hit) natively in exchange though.

Share this post


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

Well, no, all of the self-stress cards and Dormitz weren't addressed at all.

Also- I'm not sure if all squads need an epic ship- All First Order and All Resistance squads are no longer possible.

Then, Epic ships need some slightly different rules, and a removal of the Epic Combo cards- I'd give them a soft focus and lock (1 reroll and 1 focus to hit) natively in exchange though.

As far as I can tell the self stress cards don't need to be adressed. Raw they work, and ones like fleet officer have been around for some time with no adjustment. Might just be that they're working as intended considering that.

 

Hellthe new tourney rules loosened restrictions allowing navigator on epics and letting Biggs affect epics so if anything it seems to be pushing to make all epics more powerful now that each faction has one. And if that's the case then why would they nerf all the stress inducers?

Edited by Dabirdisdaword

Share this post


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

As far as I can tell the self stress cards don't need to be adressed. Raw they work, and ones like fleet officer have been around for some time with no adjustment. Might just be that they're working as intended considering that.

 

Hellthe new tourney rules loosened restrictions allowing navigator on epics and letting Biggs affect epics 

By self stress I mean maul and Zuckuss, and only those 2.

Them being around makes the power difference between different Epic ship builds more extreme, which makes it more likely for people to lose the game in the list building phase.

Equalize their power level. No Esege, no Maul, No Zuckuss, no dengar(if Scum gets a Corvette), no Jonus, etc.- in exchange just say "Epic ships can reroll 1 die and change one focus to a hit while attacking"

Share this post


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

By self stress I mean maul and Zuckuss, and only those 2.

Them being around makes the power difference between different Epic ship builds more extreme, which makes it more likely for people to lose the game in the list building phase.

Equalize their power level. No Esege, no Maul, No Zuckuss, no dengar(if Scum gets a Corvette), no Jonus, etc.- in exchange just say "Epic ships can reroll 1 die and change one focus to a hit while attacking"

Fleet officer self stresses to hand out 2 focus more efficient than the 4 pt comms booster that i also hear people call op.

The self  stressers really do seem to be left this way intentionally because theyve been around and worked that way since wave 5. Making it so that pilot abilities just don't affect epics would make for further issues determining which ones do and do not apply. And remember they -just- changed the only pilot ability that they said out right wasn't allowed. To be allowed.

 

I don't think it's heading the direction you think, because it is equalized. Cr90 with maul pays out the nose. Raider with jonus pays out the nose. Croc with all the maul zuck 4lom shenanigans is like 60 pts for 1 4dice attack that's decent. They're equalized.

Edited by Dabirdisdaword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Also- I'm not sure if all squads need an epic ship- All First Order and All Resistance squads are no longer possible.

Then, Epic ships need some slightly different rules, and a removal of the Epic Combo cards- I'd give them a soft focus and lock (1 reroll and 1 focus to hit) natively in exchange though.

Well, technically that's still fluff, since they are subfactions and that doesn't mean enough just yet.

3 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Equalize their power level. No Esege, no Maul, No Zuckuss, no dengar(if Scum gets a Corvette), no Jonus, etc.- in exchange just say "Epic ships can reroll 1 die and change one focus to a hit while attacking"

Also, some free crew or teams could given them those abilities easy enough.

Share this post


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

Fleet officer self stresses to hand out 2 focus more efficient than the 4 pt comms booster that i also hear people call op.

The self  stressers really do seem to be left this way intentionally because theyve been around and worked that way since wave 5. Making it so that pilot abilities just don't affect epics would make for further issues determining which ones do and do not apply. And remember they -just- changed the only pilot ability that they said out right wasn't allowed. To be allowed.

 

I don't think it's heading the direction you think, because it is equalized. Cr90 with maul pays out the nose. Raider with jonus pays out the nose. Croc with all the maul zuck 4lom shenanigans is like 60 pts for 1 4dice attack that's decent. They're equalized.

You are totally misunderstanding me- I'm saying to equalize CR90's with Maul against CR90's that don't have Maul- same for the others.

Fleet officer is DRASTICALLY worse than Comms booster(An action on an Epic ship is worth way more than 1 energy- you need to keep reinforce up), and Comms booster isn't anywhere near OP with current access to upgrades.

This is similar, but a lot of you people in this subforum seem to be here to isolate yourself to make the cognitive dissonance that you aren't good at the game less severe- the amount of bad decisions/advice/list content I've seen in the thread that spawned this subforum and the subforum is staggering.

For Biggs and Navigator, that was likely done in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

This is similar, but a lot of you people in this subforum seem to be here to isolate yourself to make the cognitive dissonance that you aren't good at the game less severe- the amount of bad decisions/advice/list content I've seen in the thread that spawned this subforum and the subforum is staggering.

Did you just call all of us stupid members of a shithole subforum?

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Did you just call all of us stupid members of a shithole subforum?

I did not. I'm saying that alternative play modes (especially those that have higher barriers to entry and less popularity) tend to attract players who are not good at the game, as they don't have to face that realization as often or as harshly. Realizing and admitting that you are bad at the game is *hard* so people try to escape, especially as the game itself is typically a form of escapism. Those that flee the main game tend to be less willing to accept it. This happens in every single type of game I've seen. 

You however, did call everyone that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

 I'm saying that alternative play modes . . . tend to attract players who are not good at the game, as they don't have to face that realization as often or as harshly. Realizing and admitting that you are bad at the game is *hard*. Those that flee the main game tend to be less willing to accept it.

So, I like Epic, which probably means I suck at the game and just can't admit it to myself.

Huh.

I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that I got into this game because I like Star Wars, and this version of the game feels more like an actual space battle in the Star Wars universe than 2 ships vs. 2 ships in the "main game."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

I did not. I'm saying that alternative play modes (especially those that have higher barriers to entry and less popularity) tend to attract players who are not good at the game, as they don't have to face that realization as often or as harshly. Realizing and admitting that you are bad at the game is *hard* so people try to escape, especially as the game itself is typically a form of escapism. Those that flee the main game tend to be less willing to accept it. This happens in every single type of game I've seen. 

You however, did call everyone that. 

 

That is a horrible argument. You may as well be trying to argue that those that like pot-limit hold 'em or stud must be bad at poker since they prefer those game types instead of the most popular and played no-limit hold'em. 

It's just a different game style with different "tricks"/tactics/etc. to know. A kick-*** no-limit player can easily suck at pot-limit if they don't know how to adjust to the changes in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, I like Epic, which probably means I suck at the game and just can't admit it to myself.

Huh.

I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that I got into this game because I like Star Wars, and this version of the game feels more like an actual space battle in the Star Wars universe than 2 ships vs. 2 ships in the "main game."

I'm saying that the proportion of bad players that do not want to admit that they are bad is significantly higher on this sub-forum than on other communities. With a statistics degree, I should know that correlation is not causation. Maybe you are great- I have no idea who you are. I'm saying that this forum has a lot of people misunderstanding what is good/what makes something good and giving bad advice. The post saying that Fleet Officer was stronger than Comms booster was just something that reminded me about what I saw in this forum before I decided that fighting 24/7 about people making probability errors and the like was not for me. 

 

46 minutes ago, kris40k said:

That is a horrible argument. You may as well be trying to argue that those that like pot-limit hold 'em or stud must be bad at poker since they prefer those game types instead of the most popular and played no-limit hold'em. 

It's just a different game style with different "tricks"/tactics/etc. to know. A kick-*** no-limit player can easily suck at pot-limit if they don't know how to adjust to the changes in play.

I guess I need to be more specific- This is a trend in other miniatures/tabletop games specifically.  Poker does not have a significantly different barrier to entry (in the sense of payment required to play, betting with money is not mandatory) depending on the version of the game. 

 

Now, I don't want to get drawn into a poop-flinging contest. If you just want to nitpick specifics in an argument that I wrote on a cellphone, I'll probably ignore you from here out.  I was just trying to say that the overly insular nature of the subforum has attracted the type of person that is not good at the game but refuses to admit that they are bad, and that type of person can cause massive amounts of bad data that won't help provide useful ideas for FFG to lift for their next FAQ. Also, we all know that the FFG forums as a whole are full of these type of people- is it really a surprise that there will be bigger clumps in isolated subforums? 

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...