|
First games of 2.0 tonight, just checking, can you perform a linked action from a coordinated action? So Coordinate a boost to Fenn Rau, he boosts, links a red focus action, then he does a green manoeuvre, loses his stress and then can roll/TL after?
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
hoiyes posted:First games of 2.0 tonight, just checking, can you perform a linked action from a coordinated action? So Coordinate a boost to Fenn Rau, he boosts, links a red focus action, then he does a green manoeuvre, loses his stress and then can roll/TL after? Yes. Any time you do the first action in a linked chain, you can do the next one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
uncle blog posted:Also, rebel Han Gunner crew's attack is considered a bonus attack. Preventing the triple attack people have talked about. Also mentions that all attacks performed outside the ships normal attack, are considered bonus attacks. gently caress this pisses me off. This is not an FAQ. It is a change to how the card works from what is printed on it. Just ERRATA the drat card to include the word 'bonus. ConfusedUs posted:Yes. Any time you do the first action in a linked chain, you can do the next one. *Unless you're restricted in some other way; you can't Link off Advanced Sensors, for instance. ConfusedUs posted:Honestly I think the change I'm most happy about is the change to failed actions. Fail an action? Can't do it again this round. Was it red? You're stressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:gently caress this pisses me off. This is not an FAQ. It is a change to how the card works from what is printed on it. Just ERRATA the drat card to include the word 'bonus. Why would it piss you off? It’s pretty much how everyone thought it would go and pretty much the way it should have gone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Why would it piss you off? It’s pretty much how everyone thought it would go and pretty much the way it should have gone. It;s the right result handled in completely the wrong way. if they're changing how the card works, they should be changing the card, not issuing an FAQ answer that is directly contrary to the card text.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It;s the right result handled in completely the wrong way. if they're changing how the card works, they should be changing the card, not issuing an FAQ answer that is directly contrary to the card text. Yes, but that would require owning the mistake and this is FFG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Or change the actual RR. Putting a change in general rules in an FAQ for a specific card is just so loving dumb. It was one of the biggest issues with the old FAQ/errata that you had to look through EVERY loving card clarification and answer for more or less any question, because generalised rulings could appear anywhere. They actually put in a keyword for 'extra attack that you only get one of per ship per round' just errata it in. Or just update the core rules to say 'any attack outside your normal single attack for activation is limited to one per ship per round. This is the worst possibel way to handle this except for posting the fuckign FAQ on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
But the FAQ is in the rules reference? I'm not sure I see the benefit in changing the card in the errata section, requiring multiple entries (one for each relevant card, and there are at least three I can think of) over putting a single entry into another section.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
They've released the quick build PDFs for conversion kit ships. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing-second-edition/ Down at the bottom. Includes things like a six threat Falcon: Chewbacca -Predator -Leia -C-3PO -R2-D2 -Luke -Han -Engine Upgrade -Falcon Admiral Joeslop fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Sep 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:But the FAQ is in the rules reference? I'm suggesting a single entry. Either an errata for Han Gunner to say ;bonus attack' or an amendment to the Attacks section to say that any attack outside your normal engagement attack is one/round/ship regardless of whether it says bonus. The problem at the moment is that if you want to know the general rule, you have to look at a specific card's specific answer in the FAQ section at the bottom. Bonus attacks are in the rules. Card errata are more obvious. General rules amendments should be made to the general rules section. There's literally only one card that currently allows an extra attack without using the 'bonus attack' language that they added specifically to avoid this whole issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The problem at the moment is that if you want to know the general rule, you have to look at a specific card's specific answer in the FAQ section at the bottom. This a problem in a lot of FFG games though, they love doing this. They're doing slightly better this time but even still the Arc's FAQ entry doesn't actually answer the underlying issue but instead talks about specific card interactions. It would be very easy to not see how the generalisation of this FAQ entry has implications for how Kavil might work as you might believe that Kavil works like he did in V 1.0
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'm suggesting a single entry. There is only a single entry. And there’s more than just Han. Deathfire also calls out an extra attack without saying “bonus attack”
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:There is only a single entry. Oh ok without referencing FAQ's for specific cards, because there isn't one for Deathfire, Can Deathfire use his ability if he's already had an attack and a bonus attack this round?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Oh ok without referencing FAQ's for specific cards, because there isn't one for Deathfire, Can Deathfire use his ability if he's already had an attack and a bonus attack this round? Nope, because any additional attack is a bonus attack and you only get one of those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Nope, because any additional attack is a bonus attack and you only get one of those. With a rules reference quote. You only get 1 bonus attack, but it says nothing about additional attacks. You can only perform 1 attack whislt that ship is engaging but Deathfire's attack is when someone else is engaging him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:With a rules reference quote. You only get 1 bonus attack, but it says nothing about additional attacks. You can only perform 1 attack whislt that ship is engaging but Deathfire's attack is when someone else is engaging him. Any attack that isn't your one given attack in a turn is a bonus attack. This isn't loving hard, stop trying to make it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Any attack that isn't your one given attack in a turn is a bonus attack. Prove it with a quote from the Rules reference that's not the card specific ruling for Han Solo. It's surely not that loving hard is it? That is the whole point here, you have to lookup rules for different cards to work out how things work generally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Any attack that isn't your one given attack in a turn is a bonus attack. Seriously,, extra attack == bonus attack. This almost reminds me a conversation I heard between some dudes trying to rule lawyer/define what a loving 'round' was. Aramoro posted:Prove it with a quote from the Rules reference that's not the card specific ruling for Han Solo. FAQ says: Yes. Anything that permits an attack outside of the standard attack allowed to a ship when it engages is a bonus attack. This is FFG, man. This is how things have been since, like...forever. enigmahfc fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Sep 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Seriously,, You only know this because of the card specific ruling on Han Solo, that is the problem. No one gives a poo poo about what an attack is, but that they've changed the general rules in a card specific ruling. enigmahfc posted:This is FFG, man. This is how things have been since, like...forever. FFG being poo poo is no reason to not point out FFG being poo poo. It would be far easier if they had just errata'd the rules to clarify that any additional attack is a bonus attack or errata Han Solo to make it a bonus attack which they already had rules for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
The closest the rules come to saying it is "Each ship may perform one attack when it engages during the Engagement phase." The Bonus Attack section says 'if a card instructs a ship to peform a bonus attack," then goes on to say 'A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round." So, yes, if a card instructs a ship to perform a second attack, but not a bonus attack, while other cards DO specifically say 'bonus attack,' then it stands to reason that the intention is that some card really do allow an extra non-bonus attack. So yeah, either write the cards that are supposed to have the same meanings to have the same language, or specify that 'ALL SHIPS can attack a maximum of twice on their turn of the engagement phase; one attack, one bonus attack. A "bonus attack" is any attack labelled 'bonus attack,' or any attack after the first." And proximity mine still needs to be rewritten. Just change it to "When this device detonates, that ship suffers one (hit) damage. Then that ship rolls 2 attack dice, and suffers 1 hit/crit damage for each matching result."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
I was actually wondering when the first big rules argument/debate/gently caress up would be when 2.0 launched. This actually took longer then I thought it would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
There is no confusion. Here is the section straight from the rules reference FAQ section: Q: Is Han Solo [Rebel]’s additional attack a bonus attack? A: Yes. Anything that permits an attack outside of the standard attack allowed to a ship when it engages is a bonus attack. The question uses Han Solo as an example, but the answer is crystal loving clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:There is no confusion. I do agree that this should have been mentioned in its only section instead of under a specific card faq, but the fact that people are arguing that it needs it own section just means we all know about it already, thus having it own section would mean literally nothing to us because we all already know about the ruling. Furthermore...... But yeah, the ruling is not confusing at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:There is no confusion. Is being totally oblivious your thing? No one is confused about the ruling, it's pretty obvious. Like the Cikatro Vizago ruling has implications for the entire game. It's not a card specific ruling, it's a general game rule. You shouldn't have to read all the card specific rulings to know the rules of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:I was actually wondering when the first big rules argument/debate/gently caress up would be when 2.0 launched. This actually took longer then I thought it would. The best rules debate is the Veteran Tail Gunner on a Millennium Falcon one. Especially because Veteran Tail Gunner specifically mentioned in the FAQ and made it no clearer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:
enigmahfc posted:Seriously,,
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Is being totally oblivious your thing? No one is confused about the ruling, it's pretty obvious. Yes it's my thing. You do see my username, right? But it's also yours. This is not a card specific ruling at all. It's in the general FAQ section. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:The best rules debate is the Veteran Tail Gunner on a Millennium Falcon one. Especially because Veteran Tail Gunner specifically mentioned in the FAQ and made it no clearer. You mean Veteran Turret Gunner? If so, I find that one pretty clear, just weird. I don;t see Tail gunner in the Faq, and if there is a debate on it, I'm sort of glad I am blissfully unaware of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:A: Yes. Anything that permits an attack outside of the standard attack allowed to a ship when it engages is a bonus attack. And that line should be a bullet point in the 'Attack' section of the rules reference, then possibly referenced in the FAQ for Han Solo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:You mean Veteran Turret Gunner? If so, I find that one pretty clear, just weird. Yeah turret gunner, It's to do with the single and double arc symbols and what 'same arc' means. It's a fun time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Yes it's my thing. You do see my username, right? You mean the SPECIFIC CARD QUESTIONS section of the FAQ? Obviously one of the questions in there is about general 'prevent damage' affects, but, you know, FFG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:And that line should be a bullet point in the 'Attack' section of the rules reference, then possibly referenced in the FAQ for Han Solo. I don't disagree with that, but the ruling is there and it's clear so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Tl;dr: the rule is clear, but the placement is stupid. And the word «bonus» relating to attack is now totally redundant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
uncle blog posted:Tl;dr: the rule is clear, but the placement is stupid. And the word «bonus» relating to attack is now totally redundant. This is entirely my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I don't disagree with that, but the ruling is there and it's clear so The argument is that because it's buried in a FAQ entry referencing Han Solo, it's quite possible that non-Rebel players won't find it, or won't remember that it's buried way down there, and not in the actual rules reference entry for 'attack' or 'bonus attack,' which means that it is, by definition, not clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
uncle blog posted:Tl;dr: the rule is clear, but the placement is stupid. And the word «bonus» relating to attack is now totally redundant. 'Bonus' joins 'immediately' on the FFG wall of Fame for keywords that don;t do anything anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:'Bonus' joins 'immediately' on the FFG wall of Fame for keywords that don;t do anything anymore. Well, it was good for the entire loving week it lasted *sigh*
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
The weirdest thing in the rules reference is the example of Old Teroch with Static Discharge Vanes. (fuk u ffg give me Fenn Rau with loving afterburners already) Played first two games of 2.0 with Fenn, Guri and Palob. Palob is pretty drat good, what a pain, used him with squad leader and tactical officer. Thought a white coordinate on a ship that doesn't really need their own action to be effective would be pretty good. It was pretty good, but boy I wanted to coordinate barrel rolls way more than boosts. Guri is good, I like fire control system, but don't know that afterburners are worth it on her. Certainly not worth having 0 bid. Might try Outmaneuver instead and have a two point bid. Dash with Bistan is still a pain, but I made the mistake of not bumrushing him first. Won't do that again. Jury is still out out on scum aces. Next up, scum swarm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Debris Gambit is good on Guri. I've been using that and Collision Detector with the title, but I'm not sold on the title actually being worth it. Just buying a shield for 2 points less would have been better in most of my games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
I gotta say, if the worst rules argument we have is "this is in the wrong place," then I'm pretty happy. hoiyes posted:The weirdest thing in the rules reference is the example of Old Teroch with Static Discharge Vanes. (fuk u ffg give me Fenn Rau with loving afterburners already) Guri is really good with several different builds, including "no upgrades at all." FCS keeps her damage up, Advanced Sensors makes it impossible to pin her down, Virago makes her harder to kill and gives weird post-fight movement of questionable value, Outmaneuver is probably a hair too expensive, Elusive keeps her alive... hoiyes posted:Dash with Bistan is still a pain, but I made the mistake of not bumrushing him first. Won't do that again. Dash with ONLY Bistan? No perceptive co-pilot or other thing to give multiple mods? hoiyes posted:Jury is still out out on scum aces. Next up, scum swarm. Init1 generic Quadjumpers are Real Good, just FYI. You should put 1-2 in any swarmy scum list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 15:58
|
|