Most notable: Leia cannot use Battlefield Leadership on herself.

In case anyone needed a link to the FAQ.

I think the change to Leia is the only thing that directly affects Skirmish. The rest just looks like campaign stuff, in case anyone was wondering.

Most notable: Leia cannot use Battlefield Leadership on herself.

Thank god. I would have house ruled that anyway, but I'm glad FFG nipped that in the bud.

If you look at the updated tournament rules, effective 4.2.2016, round times have been increased from 50 minutes (+10 for setup) per round, to 65 minutes (+10 for setup) per round.

Also notable, the Hired Guns were reworded. They also reworded Failsafe. I expect those are related.

Failsafe was just worded incorrectly, being from the core set. The same as the mission rule of Temptation.

The new wording of Hired Guns prevents them from recovering damage (with Imperial Industry attachment) using Parting Shot to stay in play each time they have suffered damage upto their health. Other figures can still use the Final Blast + Imperial Industry combo to do it once.

For 2 point figures, those Hired Guns sure do pack a punch.

They are fast and always get in the last shot which is nice, but suck for holding objectives since they basically just fall over if you look at them funny. And that is counter productive to what fast units should be... you basically just need to save them for the last turn to try and disrupt what your opponent has claimed..

I think they would have been much better off in a single unit format like the Alliance Smuggler.

For 2 points I would always work one into my Merc lists.

I'm actually upset at how they handled Leia. It's obvious that the errataed text is the intended effect, but there are several timing questions left unanswered.

She was obviously a valid target, but could she legally perform the attack?

Battlefield leadership doesn't explicitly allow multiple attacks in an activation. How explicit does an ability have to be too allow it?

And also, whose activation is it when a character performs an interrupt? Does it cease being anyone's activation or does it remain the interrupted characters activation?

They are fast and always get in the last shot which is nice, but suck for holding objectives since they basically just fall over if you look at them funny. And that is counter productive to what fast units should be... you basically just need to save them for the last turn to try and disrupt what your opponent has claimed..

I think they would have been much better off in a single unit format like the Alliance Smuggler.

For 2 points I would always work one into my Merc lists.

The Smuggler should have been a Merc unit. He's pretty meh in Rebels due to being outclassed by Sabs, but having a cheap runner with Stun access would go a long way to making Mercs competitive in Skirmish.

Battlefield leadership doesn't explicitly allow multiple attacks in an activation. How explicit does an ability have to be too allow it?

The only restriction is that a non-hero figure can only use one action to perform attacks during an activation.

There is no restriction in the number of attacks a figure can perform during an activation. There is no need to explicitly allow performing attacks. There are plenty of cards and abilities that allow to perform attacks without them being actions. (For example Sustained Fire in the campaign.)

Interrupts do not change the currently activating figure.

I'm actually upset at how they handled Leia. It's obvious that the errataed text is the intended effect, but there are several timing questions left unanswered.

She was obviously a valid target, but could she legally perform the attack?

Battlefield leadership doesn't explicitly allow multiple attacks in an activation. How explicit does an ability have to be too allow it?

And also, whose activation is it when a character performs an interrupt? Does it cease being anyone's activation or does it remain the interrupted characters activation?

Anyone else really excited about the 65 minute rounds now? So many games were ending via time rather than points, I really like this change.

So what do you guys say. Is this an indirect confirmation that Bacta Radiator can be used on oneself (since it hasn't been erratad)?

Anyone else really excited about the 65 minute rounds now? So many games were ending via time rather than points, I really like this change.

I like the time change, but it's still poorly worded.

In the setup section it says players start as soon as they finish setup.... but in the time section it specifically calls out 10min for setup time.

These both counter each other. Why not just make it 65min (or 75min) including setup? I'm happy with setup having a separate time limit and everyone starting at the same time regardless how long it took you to find that last puzzle piece. But the wording seems to benefit whoever finishes setting up first.

As for the other changes, the Leia issue never came up locally, I wasn't even aware that she could use it on herself. No one seemed to pick that up.

The parting shot ruling seems to only affect one specific situation in campaign.

The one main thing I don't get is the "intentional draw" rule. It's the same in X-wing now and it's truly baffling.

It makes no sense and directly counters the "no score manipulation" rule.

In what possible situation can an intentional draw not manipulate the score. If the games outcome truly makes no difference due to how the standings have played out, then surely one player conceding would also make no difference.

I think the "intentional draw" rule is to prevent unsportsmanlike conduct, or team collusion.

So what do you guys say. Is this an indirect confirmation that Bacta Radiator can be used on oneself (since it hasn't been erratad)?

There was a direct confirmation from Paul that Bacta Radiator affects MHD too. Figures are always friendly to themselfs (for now at least) and Bacta Radiator specifically says each friendly figure within X spaces.

I think, the 65 minutes rounds will make expensive characters better. A Darth Vader, that gets 2 more activations, might be worth his points.

Regardless of who it makes better, I am all in favor of longer game rounds. It is so frustrating to only be able to play 3 rounds.

As for the other changes, the Leia issue never came up locally, I wasn't even aware that she could use it on herself. No one seemed to pick that up.

the only people who did were the ones deliberatly trying to break things. It was pretty clear in the original text what was intended but some people just love finding tiny loopholes and exploiting them (or being dicks, whichever you think)

It has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with the basic rules of the game. During your activation, you can only attack once, unless something explicitly says otherwise. Battlefield Leadership doesn't do that.

In case anyone needed a link to the FAQ.

Thanks for the link!

It has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with the basic rules of the game. During your activation, you can only attack once, unless something explicitly says otherwise. Battlefield Leadership doesn't do that.

You're simplifying too much.

There is no limit in the number of attacks per activation in Imperial Assault.

The limit is that non-heroes can not perform more than one action that contain at least one attack.

The Attack action allows you to perform an attack. Some special actions allow you to perform an attack or two. But there are abilities that allow you to perform an attack without spending an action, and those do not count towards the one action to attack limit. (The best example in the campaign is Sustained Fire.)

It has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with the basic rules of the game. During your activation, you can only attack once, unless something explicitly says otherwise. Battlefield Leadership doesn't do that.

You're simplifying too much.

There is no limit in the number of attacks per activation in Imperial Assault.

The limit is that non-heroes can not perform more than one action that contain at least one attack.

The Attack action allows you to perform an attack. Some special actions allow you to perform an attack or two. But there are abilities that allow you to perform an attack without spending an action, and those do not count towards the one action to attack limit. (The best example in the campaign is Sustained Fire.)

I made the same mistake back in the day. it's not about number of attacks, it's about number of actions that grant an attack.

"Actions", RRG, Page 3:

A non-hero figure can use only one of its actions to perform an attack per activation.

In *normal* circumstances, this equates to generally a move and an attack, or a double move. However, there are many instances where a single action can grant multiple attacks (see Darth Vader's Brutality), or abilities that contain optional attacks (see Nexu's Pounce), that may or may not get used.

What this means is, the Nexu could not use its second action to attack (or use a command card that grants and attack via action or special action) if it used the attack Pounce grants in its first action.