So I was playing my friend and he had IG-88B.
His Pilot Ability kicked in when I evaded his attack with my defence dice. He re-rolled and told me I couldn't roll defence against it because I'd already thrown my defence dice on the table.
I thought it was a new attack, like Gunner, and I could defend against the re-roll as I would any other attack. Am I wrong?
You were right, your friend is making up rules.
So I was playing my friend and he had IG-88B.
His Pilot Ability kicked in when I evaded his attack with my defence dice. He re-rolled and told me I couldn't roll defence against it because I'd already thrown my defence dice on the table.
I thought it was a new attack, like Gunner, and I could defend against the re-roll as I would any other attack. Am I wrong?
It is another attack and is treated just the same as any other attack, which means he rolls attack dice, and you roll defence dice. Your friend was possibly thinking it was a reroll of the same attack, which isn't the case.
This is another case of do what the card says, not what it doesn't.
Edited by ParravonOnly thing I can think of is if you used an evade token on first attack it is gone and can't be used on second.
I was playing IG88 last night. His pilot ability says if the first attack misses he can attack with one of his secondary weapons. On two occasions I rolled hits that my opponent evaded and didnt take any damage. I assumed that my attack missed and was going to roll my secondary weapon but the other guys said that because one or more of my dice rolled a hit icon my attack hit even though my opponent eveaded.
Does this sound right?
It sounds horibly wrong...
An attack is concidered to have "hit" only if there are uncanceled hit or crit results left at the end of the compare result step of the attack, that is after defender has roled his dice and used any tokens.
You can find it at p10 of the rule book. Step 6 of the attack sequense.
Edited by SmugglerI was playing IG88 last night. His pilot ability says if the first attack misses he can attack with one of his secondary weapons. On two occasions I rolled hits that my opponent evaded and didnt take any damage. I assumed that my attack missed and was going to roll my secondary weapon but the other guys said that because one or more of my dice rolled a hit icon my attack hit even though my opponent eveaded.
Does this sound right?
They were wrong. Very wrong.
Which is why calling the filled explosion symbols on the dice 'hit's is such a bad idea.
Which is why calling the filled explosion symbols on the dice 'hit's is such a bad idea.
[bOOM] sounds better.
Which is why calling the filled explosion symbols on the dice 'hit's is such a bad idea.
[bOOM] sounds better.
works best
Which is why calling the filled explosion symbols on the dice 'hit's is such a bad idea.
[bOOM] sounds better.
But more of us would need to learn how to use those when [boom] isn't much hard to type than [hit].
It's so much nicer when people come asking rules questions and have them right, or at least mostly right, so we can confirm things instead of saying someone is wrong and then trying to point it out. It's even worse when the party that is wrong isn't around to see that it is wrong and why to learn from it.
It's even worse when the party that is wrong isn't around to see that it is wrong and why to learn from it.
Or when someone asks a question, is told the correct answer and then spends 6 pages arguing about it.
It's even worse when the party that is wrong isn't around to see that it is wrong and why to learn from it.
Or when someone asks a question, is told the correct answer and then spends 6 pages arguing about it.
I've got to give you that one.
It certainly is worse when someone does come here asking a question then when they are told the correct answer, which isn't what they happen to believe, they argue about it. There may be times there isn't an exact answer and are times the 'correct' answer should be disputed but we do see people who can't accept that something isn't the way they want it to be.