"Is the Maneuver tool only allowed to be used on the ship being moved?
Are we allowed to use the maneuver tool to premeasure other ships movements?
Thank you for your time.
~Lyraeus"
My question to FFG.
What rules questions came up for Sullust?
Good man, easiest way to solve this.
Btw, what email address do people mailbox these questions?
Edited by ExtropiaContact link, bottom of the page.
Cheers, good to know for future reference 
. . . . This will never die will it?. . .Eyeballing it at other ones is pre measuring. It specifically dictates what you can do as pre measuring. "Lack of exclusion does not impose inclusion". Seriously. Because the rules do bro say I CANT stack my ships. Nor does it say I can't add shields. Or bump my ship.... Etc etc. the rule is very clear and specific. At least in a tournament. Now if in friendly game. Or all agree before hand. Like with command tokens not being next to ship, then it's whatevs.
Nope. No it will not. Lol. It's all in good humor and good fun. Please be assured I am not trying to be mean about it at all.
. . . . This will never die will it?. . .Eyeballing it at other ones is pre measuring. It specifically dictates what you can do as pre measuring. "Lack of exclusion does not impose inclusion". Seriously. Because the rules do bro say I CANT stack my ships. Nor does it say I can't add shields. Or bump my ship.... Etc etc. the rule is very clear and specific. At least in a tournament. Now if in friendly game. Or all agree before hand. Like with command tokens not being next to ship, then it's whatevs.
Nope. No it will not. Lol. It's all in good humor and good fun. Please be assured I am not trying to be mean about it at all.
I know. . . Maybe I should disappear from the forums for a month. . . it might die then. . . oh hell, who am I kidding. These forums spice my day up.
I need to read my resolving an attack step again. I am sure we are not doing somthing right.
I need to read my resolving an attack step again. I am sure we are not doing somthing right.
What do you mean? how are you doing it? What do you think is being messed up?
The only one I noticed at ours was xi7 vs advanced projector, they thought it was only 1 damage total instead of 3.
I striatend that out though:)
Is there a FAQ? I googled this the other day and found a thread saying that it was only one damage.
Also ended up with two guys trying to brace then brace. On the same attack. Two different tokens. And seemed upset when I said they were incorrect.
I had a couple come up. If Tycho is in the middle of a Rhymer ball with TIE Advanced escorts, he can still attack Rhymer and ignore the escort rule right?
Also if Salvation gets 2 Crits on a roll, they count as 2 damage each instead of one. Do those crits also count as a faceup damage if they get through shields?
Tycho cannot attack Rymer as he is still engaged even though he can move per his ability; and, his ability only says he can attack SHIPS while he is engaged. Rymer is a squadron, so Tycho cannot attack him.
The only one I noticed at ours was xi7 vs advanced projector, they thought it was only 1 damage total instead of 3.
I striatend that out though:)
Is there a FAQ? I googled this the other day and found a thread saying that it was only one damage.
Answered here:
It is one damage per hullzone redirected to (so up to 3 total possibly).
Too many ******* rules too many exceptions too many timings too many objects!
And sh*tty rules writing.
One tool can be used to pre measure any time. One can't? Conc fire conjunction Crits. Timing resolution bumping. Shield dials range los objective cards first second player asteroids squadrons a without Crits
Too many technicalities.
It didnt come up in play, but who gets to "fire first" when each player has a Han Solo in play? Lol, Han fires 1st/2nd paradox!!!
It didnt come up in play, but who gets to "fire first" when each player has a Han Solo in play? Lol, Han fires 1st/2nd paradox!!!
No, that one is spelled out in the Rulebook.
Rules Reference, Page 5, Effects and timing
• If both players have effects with the same timing, the first player resolves all of his effects with that timing first.:
Too many ******* rules too many exceptions too many timings too many objects!
And sh*tty rules writing.
One tool can be used to pre measure any time. One can't? Conc fire conjunction Crits. Timing resolution bumping. Shield dials range los objective cards first second player asteroids squadrons a without Crits
Too many technicalities.
Honestly it only seems to be an issue if players are skimming the rules or are being taught rules via paraphrasing. That leads to issues where the actual wording in the rules isn't known just a general "gist" that doesn't help in all situations.
The question that came up for us was the one covered in this thread. In our case both players, the assembled audience of other competitors, and I as the TO all agreed that Ackbar's ability worked with a shot from a single side only.
Since I have this submitted for an official answer, it'll be interesting to see if our unanimous decision (by 9 players) is borne out, or if we made an error in the final match (Empire won anyway).
Edited by Edsel62Too many ******* rules too many exceptions too many timings too many objects!
And sh*tty rules writing.
One tool can be used to pre measure any time. One can't? Conc fire conjunction Crits. Timing resolution bumping. Shield dials range los objective cards first second player asteroids squadrons a without Crits
Too many technicalities.
. . . .I come from 40k where you can swim in the ambiguity so if this is sh*tty for you then no game is good for you.
There are some ambiguities, but those can be sorted. I think a lot of the mistakes (and I still catch myself and my friends making several) got into our play because of how much is left out of the learn-to-play and how inadequate the tutorial scenario was, coupled with the organization of the rules reference. Too many things require cross-referencing different sections of that book, so related rules aren't grouped together in a way that always makes sense. It is possible to believe you understand a mechanic, & then discover something 3 pages earlier or later in the book that you neglected to apply. Timing of choices and effects in particular are not as clear in this game's rules as in, say, the LCG's rules.
Too many ******* rules too many exceptions too many timings too many objects!
And sh*tty rules writing.
One tool can be used to pre measure any time. One can't? Conc fire conjunction Crits. Timing resolution bumping. Shield dials range los objective cards first second player asteroids squadrons a without Crits
Too many technicalities.
. . . .I come from 40k where you can swim in the ambiguity so if this is sh*tty for you then no game is good for you.
My main "serious" game was Warmachine, which is the total opposite end of the spectrum!
This ruleset has a few minor issues, but many of the ambiguities are down to poor reading of the rules. It's certainly orders of magnitude better than the barely coherent pile of garbage that is 40K "rules".
. . . .I come from 40k where you can swim in the ambiguity so if this is sh*tty for you then no game is good for you.Too many ******* rules too many exceptions too many timings too many objects!
And sh*tty rules writing.
One tool can be used to pre measure any time. One can't? Conc fire conjunction Crits. Timing resolution bumping. Shield dials range los objective cards first second player asteroids squadrons a without Crits
Too many technicalities.
My main "serious" game was Warmachine, which is the total opposite end of the spectrum!
This ruleset has a few minor issues, but many of the ambiguities are down to poor reading of the rules. It's certainly orders of magnitude better than the barely coherent pile of garbage that is 40K "rules".
Its pretty easy to misread bits in any ruleset tbh. its easier still in 2 separate rulebooks, which is probably the only gripe i have with FFGs new format (seperate "Learn to Play" and "Reference").
The Learn to Play is useless beyond a general outline. It is essentially a demo rulebook. Throw it out after that.
Its pretty easy to misread bits in any ruleset tbh. its easier still in 2 separate rulebooks, which is probably the only gripe i have with FFGs new format (seperate "Learn to Play" and "Reference").
I think it is the best thing FFG has done for rules in a very long time. The RRG system is genius and one of the best part of FFG rereleasing old titles is that they're including the RRG.
Edited by CremateI think it's GREAT. However, it confuses people a lot early on, until they realise that yes, they can pretty much ignore the L2P book pretty quickly.