So a see on page 9 it says the winning team gains one campaign point for winning a battle. But on page 10 it says if the assaulting player, win at a site with a outpost or base they get campaign points equal to the location victory bonus.

So it it 1 plus the victory bonus or just the victory bonus?

Page 9 says 'at least 1 point', which is incorrect.

The winner scores 1 point. Except base assault where the attacker wins (gain the number listed instead). Special assaults never generate points for anyone.

Most are taking this to mean 1 plus the bonus. There are several locations that have 0 bonus so you would get no points for winning a battle the other way.

Most are taking this to mean 1 plus the bonus. There are several locations that have 0 bonus so you would get no points for winning a battle the other way.

Define 'most'.

Relatedly, in a 6 player game, this would mean the final assault can be declared after only 2 rounds of play.

Most is what I saw in the thread where this was debated. Granted it has been a while since I looked, but it seemed the majority of posters felt the + meant on top of the regular 1 for a win. Until FFG releases a FAQ this is probably another CC rule that needs to have an agreed understanding by the individual groups.

I think that when you attack a base or outpost, as the attacker if you win, you get the "0", "1" or "2" campaign points indicated in the location. If not, as Green Knight said, the campaing could end very quickly as you can get 3 campaign points (33,3% of the points needed to win in a 4 player campaign) in only one battle.

At least to me, that would have no sense.

our group just talked about this last night. we all thought it was 1 for sure and then a bonus if you destroy the base.

But after a lengthy discussion we came to the same conclusion. You could actually get 0 for destroying a base. That might make an initial base at a spot like Raiders Point worth while. No one would dare attack it.

I'm glad (or hope after the FAQ) our original way of thinking is incorrect. that would make the campaign way too short.

Greetings guys.

From another thread where JJ and another got to ask some questions to FFG Mike about CC

3. Is it intended that winning a base assault against a +0VP location give the attacker zero campaign points?

A: Yes.

If you want I'll post the other questions here as well .

Greetings guys.

From another thread where JJ and another got to ask some questions to FFG Mike about CC

3. Is it intended that winning a base assault against a +0VP location give the attacker zero campaign points?

A: Yes.

If you want I'll post the other questions here as well .

Please post everything you know from dev answers.

Greetings guys.

From another thread where JJ and another got to ask some questions to FFG Mike about CC

3. Is it intended that winning a base assault against a +0VP location give the attacker zero campaign points?

A: Yes.

If you want I'll post the other questions here as well .

How about outposts? You don't play base assault missions when attacking Outposts.

It would seem weird, if you would win "0" campaign pts for destroying a Rebel base, but would get "1" campaign pts for destroying a Rebel Outpost.

Greetings guys.

From another thread where JJ and another got to ask some questions to FFG Mike about CC

3. Is it intended that winning a base assault against a +0VP location give the attacker zero campaign points?

A: Yes.

If you want I'll post the other questions here as well .

How about outposts? You don't play base assault missions when attacking Outposts.

It would seem weird, if you would win "0" campaign pts for destroying a Rebel base, but would get "1" campaign pts for destroying a Rebel Outpost.

Outposts have the same scoring for campaign points as bases. If you are the attacking player and win, you get a number of campaign points equal to that location Victory Bonus Value. If you win as the defender you get always 1 campaign point (except Special Assaults of course)

I think the problem here is that their wording is off.

The word 'bonus' implies that it is additive - as does the flippin' plus sign. However, the wording on pg. 10 (as well as the response from FFG Mike) suggests that the 'bonus' is instead of the standard 1 point.

It would be very hard to convince me that this is not just a simple error on their part, and we're a bit confused on their meaning. To me, additive is the original intent, but perhaps they changed their mind and neglected to fully update their document.

I want to chime in here: RAW states "After an assaulting player wins a battle at a location with a base or an outpost sticker, that base or outpost is destroyed, and the opposing team places a Destroyed sticker over the existing sticker. Then the assaulting player's team gains campaign points equal to that location's Victory Bonus value." The RAW goes on to state: "After a player wins a battle as the defender at a location with a base or outpost sticker, or as the assaulting or defending player at an unoccupied location, that player's team gains one campaign point."

This is all the rulebook states for gaining Campaign Points and it is done during the Determine Battle Effects step of the Management Phase. Expanding this out to a real-game scenario, should a team have a base/presence sticker on Raider's Point and someone assault it, they would gain no Campaign Points for that base/outpost. However, should the defender win, they would gain a single Campaign Point.

There is no rule that states, specifically, that you automatically gain a Campaign Point for winning a game on Base Assault.

My opinion: Granting a CP for winning a Base Assault would speed the game up, and also make bases much more valuable to assault, for sure. However, I think it adds to the strategy of how to pick and choose the correct (i.e. most advantageous) battles in order to properly win the resource gathering war to only grant the bonus. I agree with previous posts that the wording "bonus" is misleading.

I want to chime in here: RAW states "After an assaulting player wins a battle at a location with a base or an outpost sticker, that base or outpost is destroyed, and the opposing team places a Destroyed sticker over the existing sticker. Then the assaulting player's team gains campaign points equal to that location's Victory Bonus value." The RAW goes on to state: "After a player wins a battle as the defender at a location with a base or outpost sticker, or as the assaulting or defending player at an unoccupied location, that player's team gains one campaign point."

This is all the rulebook states for gaining Campaign Points and it is done during the Determine Battle Effects step of the Management Phase. Expanding this out to a real-game scenario, should a team have a base/presence sticker on Raider's Point and someone assault it, they would gain no Campaign Points for that base/outpost. However, should the defender win, they would gain a single Campaign Point.

There is no rule that states, specifically, that you automatically gain a Campaign Point for winning a game on Base Assault.

My opinion: Granting a CP for winning a Base Assault would speed the game up, and also make bases much more valuable to assault, for sure. However, I think it adds to the strategy of how to pick and choose the correct (i.e. most advantageous) battles in order to properly win the resource gathering war to only grant the bonus. I agree with previous posts that the wording "bonus" is misleading.

Not quite true. On the page before there is a reference to winning giving a minimum of 1 cp. It's not really a rule though, more of a reference to a later rule. The editors missed this one.