So how does everyone feel about this? I feel like it hits Imperial players hardest, especially dual ISD lists. I can see why they did it, but I don't really think it was necessary. I actually have had opponents choose my advanced gunnery objective, and while it often worked out in my favor that was not always the case. In fact, an MC80 once made me deeply regret giving my opponent the choice of AG. I feel like the Rebels were plenty competitive with wave II (Ackbar!) and this just takes a tool out of the Imperial's box. Then again, it makes people actually think about their red objective instead of going with and auto-include. It's not like there isn't already a lot to think about with this game though. Imperial fleet building just got harder.

I tend to prefer Most Wanted or Opening Salvo anyways. AG is fine but I'll survive without it.

Not taking gunnery teams on an ISD is just silly.

I think it was unnecessary.

MC-80 is still golden with it.

Well, the MC80 always loved it, that was never in doubt. It just seems like a player running an ISD or two will never take Advanced gunnery as an objective again because it's almost always a bad idea to run and ISD without gunnery teams. Looks like advanced gunnery is now mostly for Rebel players.

Is it really a nerf? Its always been there just that most people were doing it wrong until they had those warier opponents pick up that the Gunnery Teams and Slaved Turrets card have the word 'cannot' which in FFG terms trumps everything.

I never take a Gunnery Team on my ISD-I, so it's still great.

The FAQ ruling wasn't how I would have interpreted the interplay--the AG objective used the word "may," and Gunnery Team uses the word "can," which I read as a similar "may," and so I thought that if there were two "mays" available, it made the most sense to have the second player resolve whichever "may" he or she wished. (Slaved Turrets I get, since it uses "cannot," which supersedes a "may.") But I was obviously wrong.

I still see the objective being fine for imperial players, especially if you have Demolisher (since you most likely want Ordnance Experts over a generic gunnery team anyway). What's better than a Demolisher with Expanded Launchers shooting front-side (RRBBBB, BBBB) with rerollable dice and Screed? How about front-front (RRBBBB, RRBBBB) with rerollable dice and Screed! Eat that suckas!

Still may not be the best red objective for your particular fleet build (or the safest to give your opponent's fleet build), but you can still make hay with that Demolisher as your objective ship.

The ruling is actually directly contradictory to a previous one. We had this debate over in rules forum, I emailed in and this was the response at the time;

Hello, John,

In response to your question:

Rules Question:

In Star Wars:Armada, if a ship has Gunnery Team equipped, and is also designated the objective ship in a game using the Advanced Gunnery objective, may it still choose to use the Advanced Gunnery ability over the Gunnery team and shoot the same enemy ship from the same hull zone?

In this case, Advanced Gunnery supersedes Gunnery Team. The second player is not penalized for choosing to equip Gunnery Team.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

This was back in November. I dont know why they backtracked.

Whenever I have run a full on gunnery team list I stopped running advanced gunnery. Nobody ever picked it. So I started going more towards the other objectives anyways.

As mentioned, this is okay on rebels still, no problem there.

So really the only thing that this has 'nerfed' is a double ISD list or other Imperial list that doesn't have a ship without gunnery teams. You can always stick it on Demolisher in the majority of Imperial lists.

I guess its just not an auto-include anymore. I for one as a primarily rebel player will be happy with a choice between 3 objectives instead of just 2 objectives.

I'm thinking they changed it because Advanced gunnery was showing up way more than other objectives in people's lists. I almost always brought it, often with the intention of steering my opponent to one of my other two objectives. Still, I thought that was a fair and valid list building tactic. Wish they hadn't gone back on it. Now we have an objective that specifically penalizes large imperial ships, but not large rebel ships (MC80 can't even take gunnery team, so they don't have to make a hard choice).

I'm thinking they changed it because Advanced gunnery was showing up way more than other objectives in people's lists. I almost always brought it, often with the intention of steering my opponent to one of my other two objectives. Still, I thought that was a fair and valid list building tactic. Wish they hadn't gone back on it. Now we have an objective that specifically penalizes large imperial ships, but not large rebel ships (MC80 can't even take gunnery team, so they don't have to make a hard choice).

I know its not how you meant it, but I read that last line as "its not fair that MC80's already suck"

I am personally opposed to this because advanced gunnery is one of the only objectives that actually gives a consistent and powerful buff to 2nd player. I find 2nd player to be much weaker then 1st and harder to use well and there are only 2 objectives I think consistently benefit 2nd, Adv Gunnery and Minefields. The rest are very situational and some flat out help 1st player.

Anyway I think they should buff some objectives

I mean for what it's worth regarding Imperials specifically, I agree that not including Gunnery Teams on an ISD-II in the hopes of putting Advanced Gunnery on there later is very foolish.

I don't usually give my ISD-Is Gunnery Teams (as their dice are shorter-ranged so I don't often get a major benefit from shooting at two different targets from the same arc, plus it's amazing lining up a double-arc close range shot if you can). I would happily slap Advanced Gunnery on its front arc to double-tap the same target, though. A full ISD-I 8-dice barrage twice will reduce most enemy ships to nothing more than spiraling crewmen corspes and cooling slag.

Can I ask why no GT on an ISDII is foolish?

Are you all talking about getting 4red&4blue on 2 ships? or 4 red on 2 ships?

Can I ask why no GT on an ISDII is foolish?

Are you all talking about getting 4red&4blue on 2 ships? or 4 red on 2 ships?

Also being able to take anti squad out the front without sac'ing your ability to shoot a ship.

I'm thinking they changed it because Advanced gunnery was showing up way more than other objectives in people's lists. I almost always brought it, often with the intention of steering my opponent to one of my other two objectives. Still, I thought that was a fair and valid list building tactic. Wish they hadn't gone back on it. Now we have an objective that specifically penalizes large imperial ships, but not large rebel ships (MC80 can't even take gunnery team, so they don't have to make a hard choice).

I know its not how you meant it, but I read that last line as "its not fair that MC80's already suck"

Haha, that is definitely not how I meant it. I actually think the MC80 is a great ship, it's just balanced differently than the ISD. It breaks the MC80 to have a gunnery team because of its huge side arcs and all the different things you can do to add extra dice to your roll (Ackbar, Defiance, enhanced armament). Suddenly the MC80 is throwing 10 dice at multiple targets. ISDs naturally throw 1-2 more dice than the MC80, but cannot benefit from the same buffs to actually increase the number of dice they roll. In that way, think it is fair that the imperial player can choose to add a gunnery team to their ship. But, with this new interpretation, the Rebel player can gain a huge benefit to their MC80, while the imperial player will actually be punished for spending points on a valid upgrade. The solution, of course, is for the Imperials to stop including AG in their objectives, which is what I plan to do. I just feel like things were balanced fine before. Really though, I'm probably just grumpy because now I have to completely rethink my objective choices.

I may be in a bit of a minority here, but I can't help but feel that Gunnery Teams already taught bad flying and positioning, much the way Ackbar does. Even in an ISD, you want to double arc your target, putting more fire and overwhelming defense tokens on a single target, rather than firing at multiple targets each turn (albeit at full "best arc" attacks.)

I don't get it.

Having GT on board means I cant use the Advanced Gunnery effect?

Where is the logic?

I don't get it.

Having GT on board means I cant use the Advanced Gunnery effect?

Where is the logic?

The logic is in the Rules Reference Guide in the Golden Rules in the way that FFG write their rules. The word 'cannot' is absolute, because Gunnery Teams has that word specifically it is absolute regardless if you make it the objective ship.

Guys its not even a change, its a clarification, most people have been doing it wrong and now they have clarified it after some people asked the question.

Its not a clarification. Its an about face on a previous ruling. Scroll up.

Through an email, i'm aware of it. The same thing happened with Xi7s.

Oh good, so then you are aware that clarification is not the correct terminology. Its a reversal of a previous ruling. A rule change. The same thing happened with XI7's.

.