Well, the idea (which I'm clearly having trouble explaining) is that you always hold one extra reroll "in reserve". So if you have 3 rerolls, you only roll 3 dice at once (your initial roll, plus 2 rerolls). If you don't have a hit/crit result, you'll always use your last "reserve" reroll - so the order of the previous rolls doesn't matter. If you got a hit/crit in your initial batch, you would have stopped so the order of your rolls doesn't matter.

I do understand that adhering to this sequence of events is the only way this would work....

I'm not following. What if you rolled a hit and a crit - which one is the original roll (the one you'd have kept)?

Neither. He's going to reroll it again with his final reroll ability because it wasn't a Hit/Crit.

Huh? I said what if he rolls both - which one did he roll first and re-roll? Do you mean he only keeps it if it's both on one die?

He has 2 bomber commands, so he has 2 re-rolls. He rolls 2 dice. This represents his initial roll + his first reroll. If neither die lands on Hit/Crit, he rerolls one of the die with his 2nd reroll and accepts that result as final. What he's doing makes sense.

It's statistically sound, but not something I would allow. It just causes too much confusion and opportunities for loose play to accidentally create poor situations.

Edit: Note that this scheme is not statistically sound if attacking with anything that has more than 1 die. A b-wing or a Skaarsgaard bomber can not do this.

Just as an aside, a generally unforeseen reason I wouldn't recommend doing it because observers outside of your game will immediately assume your doing something fishy. I know technically it's not their business but playing Armada in your FLGS is an automatically social event and people talk and observe. Even if no one confronts you immediately you're playing with your reputation and I can tell you it's very tough to lose a cheater reputation. Even if you explain yourself later it's kind of tough to stop people talking since cheater gossip tends to spread like wildfire in a FLGS environment. Saving a second probably isn't worth it.

Can I just point out:



The very fact that what was intended was explained in the OP, but people still questioned it and its processes mere posts later, shows that its a questionable situation

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It's a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

Which, again, goes against Alex Davy himself saying it would stack.

So we're anxiously waiting.

Besides, if BCC doesn't stack.... Targeting Scrambler doesn't stack. And that'll get some panties in a twist amongst Imperial Players.

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

Yeah, I've talked with an employee - a reliable one - who let me on a bit of info. The Raider expansion comes with a title that will allow crit icons to count as damage against squadrons.

I was bummed when this title was missing. It turns out that working near the designers, playtesting, and talking to them don't actually guarantee accuracy.

Let's wait and see what the FAQ says when it comes, shall we?

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

Yeah, I've talked with an employee - a reliable one - who let me on a bit of info. The Raider expansion comes with a title that will allow crit icons to count as damage against squadrons.

I was bummed when this title was missing. It turns out that working near the designers, playtesting, and talking to them don't actually guarantee accuracy.

Let's wait and see what the FAQ says when it comes, shall we?

Ouch, that would have been painful! Just imagine a Raider-1 with this title and Ordnance Experts... maybe that's why it has been scraped.

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

Yeah, I've talked with an employee - a reliable one - who let me on a bit of info. The Raider expansion comes with a title that will allow crit icons to count as damage against squadrons.

I was bummed when this title was missing. It turns out that working near the designers, playtesting, and talking to them don't actually guarantee accuracy.

Let's wait and see what the FAQ says when it comes, shall we?

I understand things change all the time but this different as it being something released as opposed to unreleased. Dude is a judge and play tester as well. So when he says they don't stack, via the designers mouth, I'm inclined to go with that.

Really? Because the designer himself has said that they do stack. So you believe someone telling you what Alex said is more accurate than what Alex himself said?

It seems clear that the information has changed. At one point it either did or didn't stack, and now it's the opposite. The issue is that we don't really know which was true in the past, and which will be true.

All I'm saying to you is that it's great to trust employees, but if they aren't designers themselves then their information is prone to be faulty.

I know a very reputable source at the FFG game center that talks to Alex Davy. He said BCC does not stack and that it will be FAQ'd soon. It a bit disheartening because I was running a list with 2 BCC until then.

Yeah, I've talked with an employee - a reliable one - who let me on a bit of info. The Raider expansion comes with a title that will allow crit icons to count as damage against squadrons.

I was bummed when this title was missing. It turns out that working near the designers, playtesting, and talking to them don't actually guarantee accuracy.

Let's wait and see what the FAQ says when it comes, shall we?

Ouch, that would have been painful! Just imagine a Raider-1 with this title and Ordnance Experts... maybe that's why it has been scraped.

Oh definitely. This may have been before we knew about Ordinance Experts or something. It seemed reasonable and amazing. But a Raider doing a fairly reliable 4 damage to each squadron?

Really? Because the designer himself has said that they do stack. So you believe someone telling you what Alex said is more accurate than what Alex himself said?

It seems clear that the information has changed. At one point it either did or didn't stack, and now it's the opposite. The issue is that we don't really know which was true in the past, and which will be true.

All I'm saying to you is that it's great to trust employees, but if they aren't designers themselves then their information is prone to be faulty.

And where is your source saying he did say it? Some dude at gencon? Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG that I very recently talked with about this than some random person that claims he said it. Yes, people can be wrong all the time but I'm going to believe this as it's as close to the source as you could possibly get short of talking with Mr. Davy himself.

Well, the idea (which I'm clearly having trouble explaining) is that you always hold one extra reroll "in reserve". So if you have 3 rerolls, you only roll 3 dice at once (your initial roll, plus 2 rerolls). If you don't have a hit/crit result, you'll always use your last "reserve" reroll - so the order of the previous rolls doesn't matter. If you got a hit/crit in your initial batch, you would have stopped so the order of your rolls doesn't matter.

I do understand that adhering to this sequence of events is the only way this would work....

I'm not following. What if you rolled a hit and a crit - which one is the original roll (the one you'd have kept)?

Neither. He's going to reroll it again with his final reroll ability because it wasn't a Hit/Crit.

Huh? I said what if he rolls both - which one did he roll first and re-roll? Do you mean he only keeps it if it's both on one die?

He has 2 bomber commands, so he has 2 re-rolls. He rolls 2 dice. This represents his initial roll + his first reroll. If neither die lands on Hit/Crit, he rerolls one of the die with his 2nd reroll and accepts that result as final. What he's doing makes sense.

It's statistically sound, but not something I would allow. It just causes too much confusion and opportunities for loose play to accidentally create poor situations.

Edit: Note that this scheme is not statistically sound if attacking with anything that has more than 1 die. A b-wing or a Skaarsgaard bomber can not do this.

When you say "hit/crit" do you mean a single side with both a hit and a crit result on it? "hit/crit" sounds like you mean either a hit or a crit.

Really? Because the designer himself has said that they do stack. So you believe someone telling you what Alex said is more accurate than what Alex himself said?

It seems clear that the information has changed. At one point it either did or didn't stack, and now it's the opposite. The issue is that we don't really know which was true in the past, and which will be true.

All I'm saying to you is that it's great to trust employees, but if they aren't designers themselves then their information is prone to be faulty.

And where is your source saying he did say it? Some dude at gencon? Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG that I very recently talked with about this than some random person that claims he said it. Yes, people can be wrong all the time but I'm going to believe this as it's as close to the source as you could possibly get short of talking with Mr. Davy himself.

Ok, cool. Sounds like you have all the answers, then.

Really? Because the designer himself has said that they do stack. So you believe someone telling you what Alex said is more accurate than what Alex himself said?

It seems clear that the information has changed. At one point it either did or didn't stack, and now it's the opposite. The issue is that we don't really know which was true in the past, and which will be true.

All I'm saying to you is that it's great to trust employees, but if they aren't designers themselves then their information is prone to be faulty.

And where is your source saying he did say it? Some dude at gencon? Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG that I very recently talked with about this than some random person that claims he said it. Yes, people can be wrong all the time but I'm going to believe this as it's as close to the source as you could possibly get short of talking with Mr. Davy himself.

Our source has it straight from Mr. Davy himself.

Checkmate.

But if you roll two and get a hit/crit and a blank. Which one was 1st the blank or hit crit?

It doesn't save that much time. Vs rolling the dice seeing a blank and saying your using BCC to reroll.

Really? Because the designer himself has said that they do stack. So you believe someone telling you what Alex said is more accurate than what Alex himself said?

It seems clear that the information has changed. At one point it either did or didn't stack, and now it's the opposite. The issue is that we don't really know which was true in the past, and which will be true.

All I'm saying to you is that it's great to trust employees, but if they aren't designers themselves then their information is prone to be faulty.

And where is your source saying he did say it? Some dude at gencon? Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG that I very recently talked with about this than some random person that claims he said it. Yes, people can be wrong all the time but I'm going to believe this as it's as close to the source as you could possibly get short of talking with Mr. Davy himself.

Ok, cool. Sounds like you have all the answers, then.

I'm just saying this was confirmed to me at the CLOSEST possible level next to sitting down with the designer myself. (Which maybe I should try doing as you all are so hostile about it.) Because I'm so close to the source, I'm going to have to take it as truth. That and I don't feel like arguing with a judge.

Now, the whole irony of this is I could just be some random dude on the internet making this claim. However, I promise you I am not. I could call out this person for you all to question yourselves, but I just don't find that appropriate.

I'm just trying to tell you the truth I know.

An Explanation. Its very difficult to say "This is why we don't believe you", without making it about, y'know... YOU. You're not untrustworthy, its just we have investment... let me explain, and please, understand that this is in no way personal

---

We want to trust you, but other questions are raised:


We've been arguing this for weeks in the Forums, in the Rules Section... Where were you?

We had someone with press credentials, go and specifically ask that question for us at GenCon. it wasn't just a random, they went with that sort of thing in mind if they got an opportunity to Interview.

They then immediately shared said information with the Forum, and thus, with the group in general.

...

Its not that we're saying you're wrong. But we have done everything in our power, as people outside of FFG Headquarters (and, honestly, I can't speak for everyone, but *I* certainly feel a little elitist beatdown at at times for that fact) - to get an Answer... And we Got an Answer. As Straightforward as possible.

A LOT OF WORK went into getting that answer.

So of course we rally against someone who just, seemingly, turns up one day and says "Hey, Y'know, You're wrong, I heard it was this way...."

So, absolutely no offense to you. But that is why a lot of us jump up.

I am awaiting this FAQ. As Judge, Marshal, and Primary... Well... EVERYTHING Armada for most of the Calgary Area... I really need to know.

I'm just saying this was confirmed to me at the CLOSEST possible level next to sitting down with the designer myself.

Let me ask a relevant question: when did your source get this information? (i.e. before or after Gencon?)

I was just informed of this VERY recently like 2-3 weeks ago, that's why I was no where to be found.

Heck, I used to run multiple BCC because of these forums and their findings that they do stack. The only reason I found out the other way was because of playing weekly at the FFG game center. It's clear to me that I can't convince you guys other wise.

So I will do everything I can to get a more solid answer. I play at FFG regularly, so I think I can get something.

Huh? I said what if he rolls both - which one did he roll first and re-roll? Do you mean he only keeps it if it's both on one die?

He has 2 bomber commands, so he has 2 re-rolls. He rolls 2 dice. This represents his initial roll + his first reroll. If neither die lands on Hit/Crit, he rerolls one of the die with his 2nd reroll and accepts that result as final. What he's doing makes sense.

It's statistically sound, but not something I would allow. It just causes too much confusion and opportunities for loose play to accidentally create poor situations.

Edit: Note that this scheme is not statistically sound if attacking with anything that has more than 1 die. A b-wing or a Skaarsgaard bomber can not do this.

When you say "hit/crit" do you mean a single side with both a hit and a crit result on it? "hit/crit" sounds like you mean either a hit or a crit.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Regarding the issue at hand - sounds like some water muddying and confusion (and perhaps suspicioun) causing for very little benefit.

Hey - stop hijacking my completely useless, insane, and deranged thread that I created out of sheer boredom! SHEESH - the nerve of some people!

But if you roll two and get a hit/crit and a blank. Which one was 1st the blank or hit crit?

It doesn't save that much time. Vs rolling the dice seeing a blank and saying your using BCC to reroll.

Doesn't matter which was first. I'll show you:

Assuming you have 2 rerolls, you have 3 chances to roll the dice. 1st roll, and 2 rerolls. So you roll the first 2 simultaneously.

Hit, then Blank -> you reroll

Blank, then Hit -> you reroll

Hit/crit, then Blank -> you stop as you would have stopped after the first roll, no reroll needed

Blank, then Hit/crit -> you stop as you would have stopped after the second roll, no reroll needed

Hit/crit, then Hit -> you stop as you would have stopped after the first roll, no reroll needed

Hit, then Hit/crit -> you stop as you would have stopped after the second roll, no reroll needed

Given that the outcomes (your course of action) is the same no matter the sequence....you save time by rolling the first two simultaneously.

Yes, I realize the effort needed to explain this to opponent and onlookers would outweigh any possible benefit. But it's fun to think about...and I might try it in a casual game at home, with a friend who I would have subjected to hours of indoctrination first.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Gotcha. I vote we call that hit+crit or hit&crit.

Regarding the issue at hand - sounds like some water muddying and confusion (and perhaps suspicioun) causing for very little benefit.

Disregarded

Hit/crit is easier to type, hasbeen used more often, and happens more often than wanting a Hit "OR" Crit, which itself, is a borderline case and thus, should bear the burden of the extra word to type out.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Gotcha. I vote we call that hit+crit or hit&crit.

Regarding the issue at hand - sounds like some water muddying and confusion (and perhaps suspicioun) causing for very little benefit.

Disregarded

Hit/crit is easier to type, hasbeen used more often, and happens more often than wanting a Hit "OR" Crit, which itself, is a borderline case and thus, should bear the burden of the extra word to type out.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Gotcha. I vote we call that hit+crit or hit&crit.

Regarding the issue at hand - sounds like some water muddying and confusion (and perhaps suspicioun) causing for very little benefit.

Disregarded

Hit/crit is easier to type, hasbeen used more often, and happens more often than wanting a Hit "OR" Crit, which itself, is a borderline case and thus, should bear the burden of the extra word to type out.

That may be, but / has a long history of usage in the English language (and others) to denote two options, either of which may be selected but not necessarily both. If you don't want to be clear to people who are new to the discussion then enough, that's up to you. I don't think that's a good strategy for welcoming noobs to the game and forum though.

Honestly - You're the first who brought it up. That is why I made my answer (with a joking face even, to keep it light hearted!) the way I did.

I feel it is clear enough, as you are delineating multiple die rolls with a comma, which of course, has a long history of usage in the English language to do that.

If you are insulted by my answer (which was completely unintentional), then you must understand why I am equally insulted as to have such a thing "brought to a vote" in the first place.