Regardless of how much they tested the rules change, I question whether they had anyone test the rules doc before posting it.

I'm not at liberty to say what I know about it. The document will eventually be as it should have been.

Regardless of how much they tested the rules change, I question whether they had anyone test the rules doc before posting it.

I'm not at liberty to say what I know about it. The document will eventually be as it should have been.

A1bert, do you have an official role With FFG? I didn't realize that if you do. That'd be super cool

I would venture to suggest that a rules change that breaks other rules without mentioning what you're supposed to do about them is the very definition of "not thought through".

Well, the wording of Of No Importance is perfectly valid still. It reduces the VP gained from the deployment card by 2 to a minimum of 0. There is just no benefit including it or playing it. (Admittedly Sit Tight could be used for effect, but how many of you actually consider including it instead of some other card?)

A1bert, do you have an official role With FFG? I didn't realize that if you do. That'd be super cool

Not official. I'm not employed by FFG.

I would venture to suggest that a rules change that breaks other rules without mentioning what you're supposed to do about them is the very definition of "not thought through".

Well, the wording of Of No Importance is perfectly valid still. It reduces the VP gained from the deployment card by 2 to a minimum of 0. There is just no benefit including it or playing it. (Admittedly Sit Tight could be used for effect, but how many of you actually consider including it instead of some other card?)

Sit Tight works - it's just not worth taking in any kind of competitive list; the Command Card equivalent of Han Solo.

Of No Importance doesn't work because no VPs are ever gained from deployment cards now - simple as that. It's non-functional. The concept it refers to no longer exists.

You seem to be suggesting that you were involved in this process somehow? So I'm not sure if you're taking this personally or something, but how you can on the one hand attempt to reassure us that everything will one day be as it was intended to be while at the same time insisting that everything was perfectly thought through, I'm not sure. It's a screw-up. It's not the worst thing in the world; for all I know FFG will update their FAQs and re-issue the tournament rules tomorrow and we'll have forgotten about all this by next week - but as of right now it's a screw-up. So unless you're telling me FFG deliberately screwed up, then no, they did not think this through.

I may have misunderstood you when you said that the rules change cause Of No Importance to break rules.

I am a campaign player, I'm a rules guy, so sometimes I get involved in skirmish rule discussions - a lot of the rules are common between the campaign and skirmish, I have no personal investment in having things one way or another in skirmish.

But I still don't think losing the functionality of one command card is a cause to say things have not been considered before put into effect. You're welcome to disagree in your opinion.

They've already outdated some command cards by FAQ or releasing new rules ( example, being able to pass, makes Sit Tight worthless)

Well, Of No Importance works only on single unit commons now.

I am still confused.

So you get 9 points instead of 10 if you kill the entire deployment of snow troopers?

I am still confused.

So you get 9 points instead of 10 if you kill the entire deployment of snow troopers?

What happens if the players reenforces twice and then you get rid of the entire deployment card?

Can someone please give a few examples?

Yes, if you clear three elite snows you get 9 points instead of 10, and if you clear two elite saboteurs you get 8 instead of 7.

The rule is currently unclear as to how exactly it interacts with Reinforcements.

Might have been less of an impact if you scored the Deployment card cost for defeating the entire group and scored the Reinforcement cost for defeating units within the group (but not the full group)

Just $0.02

You may think it's unclear, but it's really not.

For each figure you defeat, you score that figure's VP points. If you defeat four snow troopers (one was reinforced) you will score a total of 12 VPs (4x3). You score the points as each figure is defeated, which will be important for mission and figure effects of some types or possibly ending the game at 40 points when combined with VPs from mission goals.

It's as clean and simple as that.

You may think it's unclear, but it's really not.

For each figure you defeat, you score that figure's VP points. If you defeat four snow troopers (one was reinforced) you will score a total of 12 VPs (4x3). You score the points as each figure is defeated, which will be important for mission and figure effects of some types or possibly ending the game at 40 points when combined with VPs from mission goals.

It's as clean and simple as that.

...except that it's not. As has already been discussed in this thread.

At least address people's arguments for why it's not that simple, explaining why you think they are wrong, instead of just ignoring them.

You may think it's unclear, but it's really not.

For each figure you defeat, you score that figure's VP points. If you defeat four snow troopers (one was reinforced) you will score a total of 12 VPs (4x3). You score the points as each figure is defeated, which will be important for mission and figure effects of some types or possibly ending the game at 40 points when combined with VPs from mission goals.

It's as clean and simple as that.

It is not as clean and simple as you claim. As has been said in the thread, the problem is that reinforcements doesn't create a new figure, it takes a defeated figure and puts it on the board. The question is, what happens to the VP? The figure was defeated, and no longer is; the figure on the board is the one that was defeated. Both losing and keeping the VP make sense, and we just need an official ruling.

this can really speed up the game with jabba

some of those VP scoring cards (Celebration, Black Market Prices, Price on their Heads, etc) can end a game pretty quickly if you're trying

The concept of scoring is completely different now. You don't score points, when you destroy a figure. Figures are just put on their card when eliminated. The opponent has as many points as you have figures on your cards multiplied with the figure cost. When the figure is no longer on the card, then you don't have those points anymore. It's written that way.

It's written in conflicting and misleading ways in the Organized Play documents.

Just wait until the IA team makes it clear.

It's written in conflicting and misleading ways in the Organized Play documents.

Just wait until the IA team makes it clear.

This is very frustrating.

I think, that the misleading concept is, that you don't score points at all for killing figures anymore:

Old rule (RRG/P 25):

Defeating Figures: When the last figure in a group is defeated,

the opposing player scores points equal to the deployment

cost of that group. To track this, the card’s controller places the

Deployment card near his opponent.

From the new Imperial Assault Tournament Regulations:

ELIMINATED FIGURES

To facilitate calculating a player’s victory points (see "Calculating a Player’s Victory Points" on page 8), each player should keep their Deployment and Upgrade cards organized, even after a deployment group is destroyed. When a figure is eliminated, the owner of the figure places the corresponding figure model on its respective Deployment card.

CALCULATING A PLAYER’S VICTORY POINTS

A player’s victory points determines who won the game in most situations. Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed. Then the player adds any victory points he or she has gained from card or mission effects.

You only gain (or score) victory points from card or mission effects. Victory points for killing are calculated on a game state basis, but not scored.

So it seems pretty clear to me. We either get a big FAQ concerning this, or we play as written, which would be:

Jabba's Order Hit: You can only spend points gained from card or mission effects.

Reinforcements: The figure is not (or no longer) on its card => no points.

Of No Importance: No game effect.

You may think it's unclear, but it's really not.

For each figure you defeat, you score that figure's VP points. If you defeat four snow troopers (one was reinforced) you will score a total of 12 VPs (4x3). You score the points as each figure is defeated, which will be important for mission and figure effects of some types or possibly ending the game at 40 points when combined with VPs from mission goals.

It's as clean and simple as that.

I going to have to agree scoring is now on defeating figures.

Still messy now with attachments as you do not score that until all of the groups figures has been defeated.

So, now it works both ways sort of.

I not too sure you add the points for reinforcements though,

"Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures"

​So only the actual figures on the cards (Meaning reinforcements take away from that)?

What is clear is nothing is clear.

I think, that the misleading concept is, that you don't score points at all for killing figures anymore:

Old rule (RRG/P 25):

Defeating Figures: When the last figure in a group is defeated,

the opposing player scores points equal to the deployment

cost of that group. To track this, the card’s controller places the

Deployment card near his opponent.

From the new Imperial Assault Tournament Regulations:

ELIMINATED FIGURES

To facilitate calculating a player’s victory points (see "Calculating a Player’s Victory Points" on page 8), each player should keep their Deployment and Upgrade cards organized, even after a deployment group is destroyed. When a figure is eliminated, the owner of the figure places the corresponding figure model on its respective Deployment card.

CALCULATING A PLAYER’S VICTORY POINTS

A player’s victory points determines who won the game in most situations. Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures—including any Upgrade cards attached to a deployment group in which all of its figures have been destroyed. Then the player adds any victory points he or she has gained from card or mission effects.

You only gain (or score) victory points from card or mission effects. Victory points for killing are calculated on a game state basis, but not scored.

So it seems pretty clear to me. We either get a big FAQ concerning this, or we play as written, which would be:

Jabba's Order Hit: You can only spend points gained from card or mission effects.

Reinforcements: The figure is not (or no longer) on its card => no points.

Of No Importance: No game effect.

That would mean that any effects that spend or make you lose VPs (Jabba's Order Hit, the Pickpocket Command Card or the Black Market Deployment Card to name a few) are 100% unusable on VPs gained from killing figures and only usable if you/your opponent scored mission objective VPs. And it would require you to keep track of where your VPs come from all the time. I can't see that being the intention.

VPs are VPs. You have a certain amount depending on game state. Some you've gained from mission rules, some from figures that are currently defeated and some you've spent for abilities. You can't go below zero.

That's it.

You can't have different types of VPs, that would be a nightmare to track. You can't make reinforced troopers be free because that would be annoying to track. And you can't make new troopers be worth extra points because that makes reinforcements obsolete (and would also be somewhat more annoying to track, since you can look at the end of the game and see how many dead troopers there are without digging through the discard pile).

The more I look at it, think about and discuss it, the less sense the other options make.

Of No Importance will need an Errata to either change what it does completely or just make it per non-unique figure instead of per group. Which would be in line with scoring changing per figure instead of per group.
As others have pointed out, they've made command cards obsolete in the past. And it still works as written for single figure groups anyway. It's the the end of the world.

I have read over this a number of times now, trying to figure this out, have read the posts here and other sites. And at first i was at a loss on this, then it hit me, you have to read it all the way though and not stop after the new part, Then you will notice nothing has change,

I believe you are mistaken. 'Each player calculates their victory points by adding together the figure cost of all their opponent’s destroyed figures' is very clear instruction to count VPs per figure, because 'figure cost' is an actual game mechanic term and 'all destroyed figures' clearly means, well, all of them, not just the ones that had their entire deployment group destroyed. The part after the dash is just a clarification specifically regarding scoring VPs for attachments. That's the only instance in which taking out full deployment groups matters for VP purposes and that's why it's separated from the first provision by a dash.

Upon further reflection, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with how aloof FFG is on this entire rules release/update.

When FFG changed the tournament point scoring for X-Wing, they had a big fat article on the frontpage that even contained a 'Word from the Developer' column that explained the reasoning behind the change.

Heck, they even had a 'Developer Diary' article when they errata'd a couple of upgrade cards.

Meanwhile, when Imperial Assault gets a major rules change that literally puts the competitive gameplay on its head, we're stuck for four days and counting trying to figure out what they even mean with not so much as a peep from anyone at the helm.

Yes, I get that X-Wing pays your bills, FFG, and therefore gets more attention. But frankly, at this point, this is disrespectful to the consumers of your product.