Unfortunate casualty of the new RRG

[Darth evil 906]

Field commander, it makes Bounty even more a liabilty than ever before. You may end up playing an opponent with 0 characters.

[buckero0 1,956]

28 minutes ago, Darth evil said:

Field commander, it makes Bounty even more a liabilty than ever before. You may end up playing an opponent with 0 characters.

you can't place the bounty on Aayla Secura ?

 

I wish Lok Durd or Plo Koon, Wedge Antilles, etc got made Field Commanders as well.

[Kirjath08 185]

1 minute ago, buckero0 said:

you can't place the bounty on Aayla Secura ?

 

I wish Lok Durd or Plo Koon, Wedge Antilles, etc got made Field Commanders as well.

They don't change their order token, so she'd still be a Heavy unit and can't have a bounty placed on her.

I kinda wish Lok Durd had Field Commander as well.

[Lochlan 1,034]

Just now, buckero0 said:

I wish Lok Durd or Plo Koon...got made Field Commanders as well.

I disagree on those two.  Without the update to the Field Commander rules, nobody was taking the T-Series, and while Aayla probably was seeing some play, she was most likely seeing much less than the other two pilots.  This now gives people a meaningful choice to make.  Especially with Lok Durd—if he had Field Commander, nobody would ever take the T-Series over him.

Also Bounty can only target Commanders or Operatives, and Field Commanders are neither of those.

[Khobai 371]

the new field commander rules were a mistake IMO

57 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

This now gives people a meaningful choice to make.  Especially with Lok Durd—if he had Field Commander, nobody would ever take the T-Series over him.

how is there a meaningful choice if people always choose the field commander?

because thats exactly what youre going to see happen...

it was a good idea but poorly implemented. and that poor implementation will have consequences.

Edited November 23 by Khobai

[Uetur 118]

41 minutes ago, Khobai said:

the new field commander rules were a mistake IMO

how is there a meaningful choice if people always choose the field commander?

because thats exactly what youre going to see happen...

it was a good idea but poorly implemented. and that poor implementation will have consequences.

I agree with you Field commander is a big screw up as implemented.  It makes the low cost to medium cost commanders effectively a liability.

[ScummyRebel 5,346]

There is still opportunity cost. Rex’s cards are pretty decent. Sure, maybe you don’t take the generic commanders because of the ruling but then you’re giving up the non field commander pilots unless double heavy.

I think as it stands this is fine. Time will tell if I’m wrong 

[SoonerTed 376]

2 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

They don't change their order token, so she'd still be a Heavy unit and can't have a bounty placed on her.

I kinda wish Lok Durd had Field Commander as well.

When Covert Ops is used for Iden, whomever she promotes to commander changes it's token. Wouldn't that also apply here?

[FriendofYoda 377]

If Iden nominates a unit of Stormtroopers when using covert ops, can Boba Fett choose the storm unit to place his bounty on?

[SoonerTed 376]

3 minutes ago, FriendofYoda said:

If Iden nominates a unit of Stormtroopers when using covert ops, can Boba Fett choose the storm unit to place his bounty on?

"After setup, a unit with the bounty keyword chooses an enemy commander or enemy operative and marks that unit with a victory token. The token is placed on the battlefield near the unit leader, and remains with the unit as it moves around the battlefield."

 

It would seem bounty can be on a promoted stormtrooper unit, if that promotion happens during setup via covert ops.  If I'm understanding this correctly, I don't see why it would be different with field commanders.

 

Edited November 24 by SoonerTed

[Lemmiwinks86 934]

7 minutes ago, SoonerTed said:

When Covert Ops is used for Iden, whomever she promotes to commander changes it's token. Wouldn't that also apply here?

It would, but the rule explicitly tell us that it doesn't:

"If you do, when you deploy a unit with field commander, mark that unit with the commander token. That unit keeps its current rank;..."

[Lemmiwinks86 934]

4 minutes ago, FriendofYoda said:

If Iden nominates a unit of Stormtroopers when using covert ops, can Boba Fett choose the storm unit to place his bounty on?

Yes, because when a unit is promoted it is considered a Commander for all purposes (you even replace it's order token).

[SoonerTed 376]

37 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

It would, but the rule explicitly tell us that it doesn't:

"If you do, when you deploy a unit with field commander, mark that unit with the commander token. That unit keeps its current rank;..."

It seems to be an obvious screwup, because it doesn't match any other promotion to commander mechanic in the game.  But it won't be fixed by FFG due to the changeover in the license.

 

It's another example of poor quality control at FFG.

Edited November 24 by SoonerTed

[jocke01 920]

They could easily FAQ this, however it's pretty much like bringing ion and impact. It might be completely useless in some matchups.

[SoonerTed 376]

15 minutes ago, jocke01 said:

They could easily FAQ this, however it's pretty much like bringing ion and impact. It might be completely useless in some matchups.

Bounty should at least be possible in every game.

But FFG isn't going to be issuing FAQs anymore I assume. 

Edited November 24 by SoonerTed

[jocke01 920]

1 minute ago, SoonerTed said:

Bounty should at least be possible in every game.

 

But FFG isn't going to be issuing FAQs anymore I assume.

I agree. However how high can a bounty be on tactical droid #17739-b. Won't even cover the cost for fuel these days 😋

[buckero0 1,956]

I just wanted Wedge as my commander in a landspeeder at 61pts driving back and forth like William Wallace in front of my Rebels before they get charge and get massacred

[Lochlan 1,034]

7 hours ago, Khobai said:

the new field commander rules were a mistake IMO

how is there a meaningful choice if people always choose the field commander?

because thats exactly what youre going to see happen...

it was a good idea but poorly implemented. and that poor implementation will have consequences.

The current Field Commander options are definitely better than the current generic commanders we have seen, but they definitely don't compete directly with any of the CIS/GAR named commanders. And from the sound of things it seems like the GAR/CIS generic commanders are going to be very compelling. Also, Field Commanders can't take Aggressive Tactics. Not being able to take that will be a pretty big downside of the tank commanders. 

For CIS specifically, as things currently are I only see three reasons to take the Field Commander:

1) AAT with Maul with more than 8 activations

2) 1 AAT with tons of activations (not even possible until we get the new generic command cards) 

3) 2 AATs without trimming almost everything else out of the list (also not possible until we get the new generic command cards) 

If the list is going to include an actual commander there is almost no reason to include a Field Commander. 

Edited November 24 by Lochlan

[Khobai 371]

47 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

The current Field Commander options are definitely better than the current generic commanders we have seen, but they definitely don't compete directly with any of the CIS/GAR named commanders. And from the sound of things it seems like the GAR/CIS generic commanders are going to be very compelling. Also, Field Commanders can't take Aggressive Tactics. Not being able to take that will be a pretty big downside of the tank commanders.

I disagree. Not having to take a commander like Grievous is a bonus not a disadvantage. Especially for an army like CIS that wants to spam units alongside AATs anyway.

The field commander rules are absolutely terrible as written. Its all upside and no real downside.

Quote

If the list is going to include an actual commander there is almost no reason to include a Field Commander. 

The problematic lists are going to be the ones that dont include actual commanders and only include field commanders.

Allowing CIS to not have to take an actual commander is absurd. Especially when that same advantage isnt given to rebels or empire.

Edited November 24 by Khobai

[SailorMeni 287]

I love the new Field Commander rule. It opens up new fun possibilities. But there were minor oversights.

- I don't understand the reasoning why the field commander doesn't change the rank. That would solve some issues. Though I don't think that it's a big deal for bounty atm. I guess most lists will still field at least an operative (R2, Padme or Maul).
- And it would have been a great opportunity to change Weiss and Wedge to Field Commander as well, giving all factions the option.

[Vector Strike 623]

2 hours ago, Lochlan said:

If the list is going to include an actual commander there is almost no reason to include a Field Commander. 

But there is! An AAT as your secondary commander is much valuable than a generic T-Droid because it contributes quite heavily in the game.

[Lochlan 1,034]

36 minutes ago, Vector Strike said:

But there is! An AAT as your secondary commander is much valuable than a generic T-Droid because it contributes quite heavily in the game.

First off, we don't know for sure what T-series commanders are going to do, but if they are going to have Direct (which it looks like they will), that is potentially huge. Second, I'm not saying don't take an AAT. But if you already have a commander in your list, don't take the T-series pilot. Field Commanders add almost nothing as second commanders (which is why nobody was talking about taking them before the RRG update). They don't even have a courage bubble unless they are your only commander, so all they can do in that case is be the nominated commander for generic command cards, and since Aggressive Tactics exists they generally don't want to do that if they can avoid it anyway. 

[SubOctavian 58]

I have to admit, I like Field Commander rules, and don't have any issues with them. You're saving points, but you're losing many meaningful abilities that come from commander keywords and upgrades, as well as limiting yourself to the generic command cards. It seems like a good choice with it's own weaknesses.

Now, specifically for the Bounty, I would probably amend its text to include Field Commanders. However, it's not critical, as Bounty is a bonus and it's fine that you don't get to trigger it every game, as well as you don't get to use Jedi Hunter when there are no Jedi in the enemy list, and you don't get to enjoy the benefits of impact weapons when there's no armor to shoot at.

[KommanderKeldoth 3,141]

10 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

There is still opportunity cost. Rex’s cards are pretty decent. Sure, maybe you don’t take the generic commanders because of the ruling but then you’re giving up the non field commander pilots unless double heavy.

I think as it stands this is fine. Time will tell if I’m wrong 

I agree. The tanks are still very pricey commanders, comparable to jedi commanders.

I think the only time Field Commanders are auto includes is if you were going to run a tank focused list anyway. Also field commanders dont have command upgrade slots so you miss out on Aggressive Tactics.

[KommanderKeldoth 3,141]

1 hour ago, SailorMeni said:

I love the new Field Commander rule. It opens up new fun possibilities. But there were minor oversights.

- I don't understand the reasoning why the field commander doesn't change the rank. That would solve some issues. Though I don't think that it's a big deal for bounty atm. I guess most lists will still field at least an operative (R2, Padme or Maul).
- And it would have been a great opportunity to change Weiss and Wedge to Field Commander as well, giving all factions the option.

Yes! I agree with both of these points. It would suddenly make Weiss an appealing option. Not sure about Wedge, as the speeders tend to be flanking away from your main force.