The Chain goes both ways - this has been fun

Well, of course, you can't refer to two things as a Singular, you'd have to use a Pluralisation.

The only thing is, it is certainly referring to the Rules Reference and the Learn to Play ... If only there was a booklet that had the words Rules Reference in it... Because as far as I can tell, the Corellian Conflict Campaign Guide shares none of those words in Common.

Indeed. The Corellian Conflict Campaign Guide must not be a Rules Reference Guide.

It does contain some Rules that are to be adhered to in the same, way, and it prefaces that in itself with:

"The Corellian Conflict Campaign Expansion introduces new rules for all modes of play (including campaigns and standard play). These rules are presented here."

These rules include sub headings that are:

New Squadron cards and Objective Cards

Short Player Edges Setup

Dust Fields

"-" Armament

Attacking Stations

and then we're done with the Rules for Standard and Crossover play. These could be argued as addenums to the Rules Reference themselves (much as the same way that the Contain Token is presented to us through Handouts in the Large Ships, Arquitens and Interdictor boxes) - but they themselves do not become part of the Rules Reference Guide. They are accepted as rules in Tournaments through the "official FFG publications" status they gain by being, well, official FFG Publications.

TL;DR - Nice try, and its been fun, but I'm claiming Rules-Fu Win here, since again, I don't have to rewrite english or place additional meaning behind words

7 hours ago, Ginjo Halan said:

So, reread page 9 of the CC Campaign Guide (it may or may not be one of the Rules Reference booklets {plural} Dras )

Under "Tracking Fleet Condition"

"Scarred Ships and Squadrons: each ship or squadron that was destroyed during the battle becomes scarred ..."

From the card Reiken: " When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed , it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase "

All that said....I think I'll just bring an Interdictor .....

Hyperspace retreat clearly overwrite scarring rule.

In order to jump to hyperspace you don't need to be alive, you need to remain in the play area. In fact you don't need to leave the play area at the start of he status phase.

The easiest way to remain in the play area at the start of the status phase is being alive but is not the only way.

If you read 1 or 2 page back you would see I already read the CC booklets and I realiza that the scarring rule could affect Riekan even at the hyperspace but then I see the condition of hyperspace. This condition says you must remain in the play area, not you must be alive, or you must leave the play area,

1. Declare hyperspace retreat in krdee to check point 2. Checked!

2. Remain in the play area at the start of the status phase. Checked!

What happens before, between and after those points doesn't matter as long as doesn't affect point 1 or 2.

At the end, the question we are trying to respond is if a ship IS DESTROYED AND JUMP (what is perfectly possible) to hyperspace the ship becomes scarred or not?

In other words: which one invalidate the other? Or at least modify the other in some way.

IMHO hyperspace invalidate scarring as it is what it says. Yes, anywhere in the CC booklet it said that one is the exception of the other but something similar happens in the RRG.

From ship movement p.11

Move Ship: Place the maneuver tool on the play area and insert the guides of the first segment into the notches on one side of the front of the ship’s base. Then slide the ship away from the guides on the first segment and place the ship by sliding its notches over the guides on the joint that corresponds to the ship’s speed.

No exceptions about overlapping but then...

From overlapping p8

If a ship executes a maneuver and its final position would overlap another ship, it cannot finish its maneuver normally. Instead, temporarily reduce its speed by one (without changing the speed dial) and move the ship at the new speed. This process continues until the ship can finish its maneuver, even if that maneuver is to remain in place at speed “0.” Then deal one facedown damage card to the ship that moved and the closest ship that it overlapped.

Both are RRG rules so anyone has precedence. The overlapping rule basically says that if something (overlapping a ship) happens do this (speed down etc.) and don't that (move with the cureent speed). The CC rules works the same way. Hyperspace rule says that if something happens (remain in the play area) do this (the ship doesn't become scarred) and don't that (the ship becomes scarred).

Is this the way is intended to be? I am not sure. Some say that devs didn't think on Riekan when wrote hyperspace. The fact that they wrote AT THE START OF THE STATUS PHASE rather than AT THE END OF THE STATUS PHASE, AT END OF THE HE ROUND or AT THE START OF THE NEXT ROUND says me the contrary. All those four would work exactly the same way in almost every situation but the first one that works with Riekan. The second time would come up with same timing issues but they had end round effects that are not new in this game. Did they miss Riekan when writing this? Who knows?

The best thing of this is that if you and your friends think Riekan should work or not you could do whatever you want. In my cc group we are playing the cc as written as long as we can in order to see what needs to be fixed or things that would be funnier in other way.

13 hours ago, Truthor said:

The ship or unique squadron would remain in the play area at the time of it being destroyed. It doesn't say it must stay in the play area until the end of the status phase, otherwise it would have free reign to fly at the edge of the table and hit a magical wall that doesn't allow it to leave the play area. Therefore it should be able to hyperspace retreat because Reiken's rule is not holding it in the game, it merely kept it there on that one occasion.

It's like adding dice to your dice pool, you don't assume they are there forever more, it's a reactive effect that lasts as long as it takes for you to resolve the current action. In Reiken's case it cuts out the line that says remove the model from the play area, and inserts it into the end of the status phase.

I would however rule thematically on this one that:

A: The ship has massive hull damage, more than it should normally sustain (it literally wont survive sitting stationary), and you're going to fire it into hyperspace. Sure Captain, let me just slowly edge towards that escape pod over there before you do that...

B: The ship is in hyperspace and is no longer under Reiken's command, therefore his leadership skills of holding the hull together by pushing it together like it's automatic doors and slapping on sticky tape, doesn't work so well any more.

Rieekan's effect is plot armour, not some physical construction. Therefore Rieekan's ships can always survive to get away (and fight another day) if necessary for the ongoing plot. How it works is ineffable

On 3/4/2017 at 8:38 PM, Truthor said:

Hi, noob player reading the rules here.

I'm a little concerned the imperial players will be able to see every time we build a rebel base in 'secret'.

The rules give the values for income that you get every turn and then it says in a note on secrecy, 'all other information (including resource income) is public knowledge'.

Would the imperial players not notice the jump of 25+locale in resource income opposed to 5+locale when we place a presence sticker?

Sorry if this has already been covered.

Hey, can an experienced CC player help me with this?

11 minutes ago, Truthor said:

Hey, can an experienced CC player help me with this?

This is contingent on you only getting one base. If you place multiple Presence stickers on the board, the player won't know which is the real base.

Thanks for the reply Cactusman.

Just to clarify, for a 3 player game, you would need to battle at 2 locations in a campaign turn AND win both battles, just to place 2 presence tokens and for your opponent not to know which one is a base and which is an outpost. Not only that, the rebels would have to have had initiative that turn to be able to attack 2 locations, if they didn't have initiative they couldn't do it.

On a 2 player game your opponents will always know what you have built. Would it not just be easier to put down the base/outpost sticker straight away and cut out the illusion of secrecy?

Yes. It's just one of many poor design decisions in CC. I expect more from FFG and CC is quite lacking, in both design and development. Fun yes, but lacking.

Many thanks for the help Admirals!
I think I'm going to keep a secret record of resource income each turn and from which systems, then ask an independent third party (game club owner, fiance of the guy I'm playing) to validate it if anyone is accused of cheating. I'm not sure if the game designers intended the campaign to be played in that way but it feels like a pointless mechanic if I leave it as is.

Rebels are allowed two bases per player after the first round; it is easy to assume that the rebels will want all of their bases for the extra 20 resource points and the option of having Base defense for an objective. In our campaign the rebels lost a base first round so they had a hole to dig themselves out of vs the Empire. It was a safe (and correct) assumption the next presence they took was a base. The empire has also correctly predicted where the bases are based on the systems the rebels have held.

10 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Rebels are allowed two bases per player after the first round; it is easy to assume that the rebels will want all of their bases for the extra 20 resource points and the option of having Base defense for an objective. In our campaign the rebels lost a base first round so they had a hole to dig themselves out of vs the Empire. It was a safe (and correct) assumption the next presence they took was a base. The empire has also correctly predicted where the bases are based on the systems the rebels have held.

That's how it should be though! The Empire should be guessing and assuming and the Rebel's making feints rather than the Empire side just watching the score sheet to see where the bases are popping up.

I got an answer from FFG about scoring campaign points in assaults against a base:

Quote

In response to your question:

This question is specifically about The Corellian Conflict campaign. How many campaign points are awarded for winning an assault against a base? The rule book says "Then the assaulting player's team gains campaign points equal to that location's VICTORY BONUS value." So, does that mean that winning an assault against a base on Talfaglio (+0 VICTORY BONUS) is awarded 0 points? That seems odd since winning an unoccupied battle there would award 1 point. Should the rule be: 1 plus the VICTORY BONUS? Thanks.

The "Scoring Battles” section on p.9 of the Campaign Guide reads “The player who wins the battle earns at least one campaign point for his team…” However, the last sentence of the second paragraph of “Determine Battle Effects” on p.10 of the Campaign Guide should be revised to help clarify this. That sentence should read (blue text is inserted):

"Then the assaulting player’s team gains campaign points equal to one plus that location’s victory bonus value.”

Thanks for your question!

Michael Gernes

Game Producer

mgernes@fantasyflightgames.com

Wasn't expecting that ruling. I'll have to update my CC Campaign Manager spreadsheet.

On 3/8/2017 at 5:23 AM, Truthor said:

Thanks for the reply Cactusman.

Just to clarify, for a 3 player game, you would need to battle at 2 locations in a campaign turn AND win both battles, just to place 2 presence tokens and for your opponent not to know which one is a base and which is an outpost. Not only that, the rebels would have to have had initiative that turn to be able to attack 2 locations, if they didn't have initiative they couldn't do it.

On a 2 player game your opponents will always know what you have built. Would it not just be easier to put down the base/outpost sticker straight away and cut out the illusion of secrecy?

Introduce a third, shared fleet for each team.

1 hour ago, Thraug said:

Wasn't expecting that ruling. I'll have to update my CC Campaign Manager spreadsheet.

Again. . .

I'm trying to wrap my head around the Campaign Point rules for CC. Let me see if I have this right:

On turn 1 of our campaign, the Rebels successfully assaulted the Imperial base at Nubia. The Rebel Team earns 1 CP for winning the battle at a location with a base, then earns 2 additional CPs for the bonus listed under Nubia. This gives them a total of 3 CPs.

The Imperials won a battle at Vagran, which was unoccupied. They declined to build a base there. They still earn 1 CP for winning a battle at an unoccupied location.

The Imperials declared a Show of Force at Xyquine II. They won the battle and built a base there. They don't earn any CPs for winning this match.

FINAL CP SCORE = Rebels 3, Imperials 1

Thats a pretty ballsy first turn for the rebels

2 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Thats a pretty ballsy first turn for the rebels

I mean... I guess if, after you've declared the first two assaults, you're pretty sure your last fleet hard ( hard ) counters their last fleet, or your last player is significantly better than their last player...

Yeah, still pretty ballsy.

26 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Thats a pretty ballsy first turn for the rebels

Not really. Rebel ships are vastly superior to Imperial ships when restricted to only one upgrade plus squadron support. There is zero reason for Rebels not to immediately blitz if the players are of equal skill and the Rebels can field two solid attack fleets.

55 minutes ago, Yipe said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around the Campaign Point rules for CC. Let me see if I have this right:

On turn 1 of our campaign, the Rebels successfully assaulted the Imperial base at Nubia. The Rebel Team earns 1 CP for winning the battle at a location with a base, then earns 2 additional CPs for the bonus listed under Nubia. This gives them a total of 3 CPs.

The Imperials won a battle at Vagran, which was unoccupied. They declined to build a base there. They still earn 1 CP for winning a battle at an unoccupied location.

The Imperials declared a Show of Force at Xyquine II. They won the battle and built a base there. They don't earn any CPs for winning this match.

FINAL CP SCORE = Rebels 3, Imperials 1

Except that the rebels declare first in the first round. In theory after the first round the Rebels could be 7-0 with this ruling.

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

Thats a pretty ballsy first turn for the rebels

That is a pretty illegal first turn.

13 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

That is a pretty illegal first turn.

Its not - IF the battle at Unoccupied Vagran was Rebellion-initiated, but Imperial-Won

And they're not presented in order-of-attack-resolution... Just an event summary.

Did we make a mistake? I thought we went by the book. Here's the order of assaults:

1. Rebels declare an assault on unoccupied Vagran. The Imperials won this battle and didn't build a base (1 CP).

2. The Imperials declare a Show of Force on unoccupied Xyquine II. The Imperials won this battle and built a base (0 CP).

3. The Rebels declare an assault on occupied Nubia. The Rebels won this battle and placed a presence sticker there (3 CP).

Can someone confirm if we've done this properly and have the correct CP score?

6 minutes ago, Yipe said:

Did we make a mistake? I thought we went by the book. Here's the order of assaults:

1. Rebels declare an assault on unoccupied Vagran. The Imperials won this battle and didn't build a base (1 CP).

2. The Imperials declare a Show of Force on unoccupied Xyquine II. The Imperials won this battle and built a base (0 CP).

3. The Rebels declare an assault on occupied Nubia. The Rebels won this battle and placed a presence sticker there (3 CP).

Can someone confirm if we've done this properly and have the correct CP score?

Ah so they knew who was flying what for that base assault. Slightly less ballsy.

I rate it at 1 1/2 clackers.

Yep, its all good.

I think people were thrown off by the Vagran thing, thinking it was an Imperial Assault -which would have been two imperial assaluts, when the rebels should ahve had 2.

37 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Its not - IF the battle at Unoccupied Vagran was Rebellion-initiated, but Imperial-Won

And they're not presented in order-of-attack-resolution... Just an event summary.

That is true. I read it as if it was written in order.

Sorry.