Learn to Play Rules and Demo Pictures

[DarkTemplars 85]

When a game is this new, and something like the grenade argument comes up, you should go with the weaker version until the designers say differently. 

[Derrault 1,091]

9 minutes ago, Jabby said:

According to the beasts of war lets play, the 600 point one i think, he attacks an at-rt with 2 speeders and uses impact one. Its not definitive but it’s something 

They also were activating 4 units instead of 1 with the Standing Orders card. Which literally says “1 unit” on it.

@Thoras the alternative competing hypothesis of poor reading comprehension is  made in contrast to the claim that differing opinions necessarily indicate something is written confusingly.

The rules pictured in the OP are plain:

LTP rules:

1) Each mini chooses a weapon available to the unit

2) weapon key words are cumulative.

Expanded rules:

3) Weapon upgrades: each mini in the unit may use the equipped weapon upgrade when attacking.

NOTE: later rules on splitting fire between targets specifically call out unique weapons names, whereas the former rules do not.

That is literally the extent of the published rules on keywords and weapon choice in attacks. Those three rules plainly support the hypothesis that 3 minis each using an impact grenade provide impact 3 (which also makes sense, each grenade would have its own chance to get through the armor).

Now, where in the rules are you seeing a specific sentence that contradicts that? It’s all well and good to point to test-games, but we know those are omitting a large number of rules for simplicity, and the games run by early recipients for review have been absolutely rife with appalling errors on every front. So they are untrustworthy as sources, even if we posited they had access to more knowledge of the rules set at this point than we do. But they do not, they just have the same rules posted above. 

[Squark 2,555]

Not to derail the grenade argument, but I'd just like to say thanks for posting the photocopy of the rulebook. It's a big help especially since FFG is dragging their feet with the PDF release.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

1 minute ago, Squark said:

Not to derail the grenade argument, but I'd just like to say thanks for posting the photocopy of the rulebook. It's a big help especially since FFG is dragging their feet with the PDF release.

I'm hoping this forces their hand and they release the rules. This spread quicker than I thought 

[Caldias 2,210]

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

They also were activating 4 units instead of 1 with the Standing Orders card. Which literally says “1 unit” on it.

@Thoras the alternative competing hypothesis of poor reading comprehension is  made in contrast to the claim that differing opinions necessarily indicate something is written confusingly.

The rules pictured in the OP are plain:

LTP rules:

1) Each mini chooses a weapon available to the unit

2) weapon key words are cumulative.

Expanded rules:

3) Weapon upgrades: each mini in the unit may use the equipped weapon upgrade when attacking.

NOTE: later rules on splitting fire between targets specifically call out unique weapons names, whereas the former rules do not.

That is literally the extent of the published rules on keywords and weapon choice in attacks. Those three rules plainly support the hypothesis that 3 minis each using an impact grenade provide impact 3 (which also makes sense, each grenade would have its own chance to get through the armor).

Now, where in the rules are you seeing a specific sentence that contradicts that? It’s all well and good to point to test-games, but we know those are omitting a large number of rules for simplicity, and the games run by early recipients for review have been absolutely rife with appalling errors on every front. So they are untrustworthy as sources, even if we posited they had access to more knowledge of the rules set at this point than we do. But they do not, they just have the same rules posted above. 

I was at the same demo as the original poster, and the people that were running the demo while they were not FFG employees, they were definitely play testers or at least heavily inferred that they were. And they were very explicit that the Speeder Bike impacts don't stack from different weapons.

 

Now I do agree that the rules in the book are straightforward in seeming that grenades do stack with each other. And it's quite possible that they do and they're going off old playtesting information. But I think it's a little silly to say the rules prove my point but these learn to play games dumb down the rules so they don't actually matter, when the rules are for the actual learn to play game.  At this point is just wait and see what the rrg says I think. But there's really no need for either side to belittle each other.

[Orcdruid 500]

4 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

It was apparent Spikey Bits had more knowledge than he was letting on to.

did you watch his legion videos? Because in those he clearly had no clue about what was going on with the game.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

3 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

did you watch his legion videos? Because in those he clearly had no clue about what was going on with the game.

Fairly certain he is a play tester sooooo..... 

Definitely dropped hints he knew FFG had several fully developed waves and is excited when they are revealed. His thoughts and rules were much more coherent than the vids.

 

But hey, what do I know. Certainly no more than you.

[ShadowKite 337]

[devin.pike.1989 1,546]

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Fairly certain he is a play tester sooooo..... 

Definitely dropped hints he knew FFG had several fully developed waves and is excited when they are revealed. His thoughts and rules were much more coherent than the vids.

 

But hey, what do I know. Certainly no more than you.

Did he give any indication as to what might be included in those waves?  

[Undeadguy 5,749]

4 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

Did he give any indication as to what might be included in those waves?  

No, but I didn't press it. No way he would spill the beans, but I got the impression there is some cool stuff coming (as if that wasn't obvious). 

[borithan 237]

On 2/18/2018 at 12:25 AM, Derrault said:

Alternatively it demonstrates that many people have poor reading comprehension skills.

Key words are additive. Impact 1 + Impact 1 = Impact 2.

Each member of a unit may use one weapon in an attack, although all unique weapons must fire together, according to the advanced rules for splitting fire. That means each trooper who uses an impact grenade contributes 1 black die and which has the value of impact 1.

If 4 fire impact grenades they contribute impact 4 and 4 black dice to their target. If the 5th man target something else with an E-11 it doesn’t benefit from any of that Impact.

Or... or... something controversial here... it could just be that FFG have rather vaguely written the rule (particularly seeing as this doesn't appear to be the RRG). I know they have a super solid reputation for writing tight rules, which don't need a FAQ or Errata or anything, and it has never happened before, but there is always a first chance for everything.

I certainly can see an argument for the way you have read the rule, but I can also see the argument that each model is choosing to use a weapon (adding its dice to the attack), but they are all using the same weapon (adding the keywords only once). This also fits better with 1) the apparent advice given by people who are play testing the same, and 2) the apparent balance of the game, where having stormtrooper units running around with the possibility of Impact 5 on their attack seems not to fit with what we have seen so far.

Edited February 19, 2018 by borithan

[WillemTCG 21]

From this rules do i understand correctly that troopers also need to be facing the enemy and have line of sight ?

Like they cannot attack troops behind them their not facing ? 

I mean they can move 360 degree in any direction but not attack in 360 degree ?

[Undeadguy 5,749]

4 minutes ago, WillemTCG said:

From this rules do i understand correctly that troopers also need to be facing the enemy and have line of sight ?

Like they cannot attack troops behind them their not facing ? 

I mean they can move 360 degree in any direction but not attack in 360 degree ?

I read something about trooper facing, but I don't think that's a hard requirement for attacking. My impression was non-fixed weapons have 360 degree fire arc, while fixed weapons will say what arc they have.

[Caimheul1313 2,990]

16 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I read something about trooper facing, but I don't think that's a hard requirement for attacking. My impression was non-fixed weapons have 360 degree fire arc, while fixed weapons will say what arc they have.

It also seems like the FFG bases have faces marked on them for miniatures where that is important. 

Edit:

@WillemTCG To be more clear, the facing only matters on weapons that have the "Fixed Arc" keyword. 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Caimheul1313

[DarkTemplars 85]

The LoS rules that are posted don't seem to mention anything about facing. Have to wait for the RRG. 

[WillemTCG 21]

Ok thanks guy's, yea things would be allot more complicated if troopers also need facing/LOS

[Squark 2,555]

Since facing is determined by the quadrant of a base, and the trooper bases are not subdivided the way vehicle bases are, it seems highly unlikely infantry will have facing rules.

[svelok 6,487]

On 2/17/2018 at 2:59 PM, Caimheul1313 said:

Out of curiousity, does anyone recall if the original X-Wing learn to play book stated there were two factions?

It did, yes.

[Squark 2,555]

Huh. The learn to play rulebook doesn't even mention pivoting. That seems like the sort of thing people would want to know about, especially before they get the hang of lining up their speeder bikes.

[dukncuver 71]

Yes it does, under vehicle movment.  As an action you can rotate up to 90 degrees.

[Squark 2,555]

42 minutes ago, dukncuver said:

Yes it does, under vehicle movment.  As an action you can rotate up to 90 degrees.

Oh, there it is, in the advanced rules. Feels strange it's not in the demo game, since the Speeder bikes lose a fair bit of firepower if they can't bring their forward arc to bear, and if the AT-RT outdeploys Vader, that's the Empire's only real counter in the demo. Granted, once Vader does catch up with it... Well, goodbye AT-RT.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Squark

[luckysolo7 0]

Did you also happen to scan the learning battle setup pages? Or does anyone know where those 2 pages are. 

Nevermind, found the setup on another post.

Edited February 20, 2018 by luckysolo7
correction

[dpbohr 10]

With regards to the keywords stacking...I think everyone is overlooking the fact the keywords on the UNIT Card apply to the UNIT. 

So with the case of Speederbikes, the unit consists of 2 "Bikes", and the unit has Impact 1.  When you add an upgrade that has say Impact 1, the unit will now have Impact 2. 
Therefore when you attack, you will:

1. Roll your attack pool.
2. Perform any re-rolls.
3. Convert your surges
4. Apply any dodge and/or cover modifiers
5. Then modify your attack dice. 
   1. At this point Impact 2 will change up to two hits to critical hits.

Now if each speederbike were to shoot at two different units, you would perform the above steps for each speederbike.  Each having the Impact 2 effect.  

[Undeadguy 5,749]

2 hours ago, dpbohr said:

With regards to the keywords stacking...I think everyone is overlooking the fact the keywords on the UNIT Card apply to the UNIT. 

So with the case of Speederbikes, the unit consists of 2 "Bikes", and the unit has Impact 1.  When you add an upgrade that has say Impact 1, the unit will now have Impact 2. 
Therefore when you attack, you will:

1. Roll your attack pool.
2. Perform any re-rolls.
3. Convert your surges
4. Apply any dodge and/or cover modifiers
5. Then modify your attack dice. 
   1. At this point Impact 2 will change up to two hits to critical hits.

Now if each speederbike were to shoot at two different units, you would perform the above steps for each speederbike.  Each having the Impact 2 effect.  

Wrong. Impact is a weapon keyword, not a unit keyword.

[dpbohr 10]

13 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Wrong. Impact is a weapon keyword, not a unit keyword.

Yes, you are right, it is a weapon keyword...sorry for that.