15 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

in show of force, Imps get first player (HUGE), rebels get... ok please someone explain to me what they get. if the imperials focus on winning the battle and only destroy stations as an afterthought/using nonactive arcs, it seems second player gets NOTHING in this scenario. please explain to me what they get.

All they get is knowing where the Imps are going to be - which is nice but no help really, especially if the Imps have gunnery teams.

It might be better if the stations were Armed Stations, or at least one of them. Might be too tough then, maybe an Armed Station with half the dice?

15 hours ago, jekara said:

Don't do this too much. If a fighter isn't in the board it can't have a token. So if all you have is two ISDs the rebels start with two tokens and free 40 resource points and 40 victory points.

I don't see rule this in the Hyperlane Raid objective card. Is there something in the main rules that states this?

5 minutes ago, Democratus said:

I don't see rule this in the Hyperlane Raid objective card. Is there something in the main rules that states this?

It doesn't.

He's just assuming that stuff that are set aside can't be affected during setup.

It's a fairly reasonable assumption, I think, but still an assumption.

Maybe dras can un-assumption it.

1 hour ago, Democratus said:

I don't see rule this in the Hyperlane Raid objective card. Is there something in the main rules that states this?

It's the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Special Rule" section of the objective card.

"The first player (Rebels) gains 1 victory token for each objective token that cannot be assigned."

If it's not on the table, it can't be assigned a token.

It the same as if you don't have your commander on the table in a fleet ambush. It cannot affect, or be affected by, anything on the board.

Sounds fair to me

3 minutes ago, jekara said:

If it's not on the table, it can't be assigned a token.

This is the part I don't see rules support for.

Is this in the RRG?

Kikaze-

You are right, maybe the assumption most of us have been making, that these resource missions should allow easier resources, is wrong, and the intention is for them to be along the lines of "base assault level difficult."

If we are going for that difficultly level then altering the show of force is certainly a possibility.

I still don't think it fix's the thematic or enjoyment though.

I know i played the non cc variation of this objective exactlu once before realizing it was absolute suicide to run. There was no way i could protect the station.

6 minutes ago, Democratus said:

This is the part I don't see rules support for.

Is this in the RRG?

It's in the FAQ under the "Hyperspace Assault" section on page 6. It reads, "Ships and squadrons set aside are not in play. Their abilities and upgrades are inactive and they cannot be affected by any abilities."

If it's not in play it can't get a token.

3 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Kikaze-

You are right, maybe the assumption most of us have been making, that these resource missions should allow easier resources, is wrong, and the intention is for them to be along the lines of "base assault level difficult."

If we are going for that difficultly level then altering the show of force is certainly a possibility.

I still don't think it fix's the thematic or enjoyment though.

I have no hidden knowledge of developer desires, but somewhere between the two seems about right. Getting 40-60 points as a norm. However, for this, HA needs to be changed to make getting points a bit easier and SOF needs to be made a bit harder. Getting at least one station is almost a given.

3 minutes ago, jekara said:

It's in the FAQ under the "Hyperspace Assault" section on page 6. It reads, "Ships and squadrons set aside are not in play. Their abilities and upgrades are inactive and they cannot be affected by any abilities."

If it's not in play it can't get a token.

A token is not an ability.

The Objective does not say to assign objective tokens to ships or squadrons "in play".

I see nothing in that FAQ answer that precludes putting objective tokens on these squadrons.

1 minute ago, Democratus said:

A token is not an ability.

I see nothing in that FAQ answer that precludes putting objective tokens on these squadrons.

There is nothing definitive.

But I think it's a reasonable assumption. Makes a lot of sense.

I wonder what the timing is for placing the objective tokens on ships/squadrons.

It doesn't state to do it after deployment (or before).

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Maybe dras can un-assumption it.

No, I'm done.

It could mean nothing but the rule that said you must assign objective token is a special rule not a setup rule. Deployments happen during the setup I think and RLB works before deploying fleets. I would bet that the special rule trigger after deployments, before the first round command phase but it is an assumption of course. As long as any rule that explicitly point set-aside stuff can affect set-aside stuff I would say you can't assign those tokens to the set-aside squadrons. But again, they are just assumptions.

I would say you can always use your "funny sense" and don't assign tokens to the set-aside squadrons.

Also, by the same rule of "funny sense", in our Hyperlane Raids we are adding 2 special "transport squadrons" to the imperial fleet, each carrying 1 of the mission tokens, that the imperial player must protect. The other 2 tokens are assigned normally. We are using transport minis on squadron bases in order to represent this.

I like that, set them locked at speed 3 and the imperial player can set them at the edge of his deployment anywhere he like. The ships move directly forward at speed 3 and must be protected.

9 minutes ago, Ell said:

I would say you can always use your "funny sense" and don't assign tokens to the set-aside squadrons.

Also, by the same rule of "funny sense", in our Hyperlane Raids we are adding 2 special "transport squadrons" to the imperial fleet, each carrying 1 of the mission tokens, that the imperial player must protect. The other 2 tokens are assigned normally. We are using transport minis on squadron bases in order to represent this.

what are the stats of the transport minis?

Well, we are currently using this:

Sorry it's in Spanish. "Voluminoso" would be Large: When attacking you, a ship doubles its anti squadron dice pool.

The rest is Grit, Heavy (and Transport, which allows to assign cargo cards, ignore this).

31 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I like that, set them locked at speed 3 and the imperial player can set them at the edge of his deployment anywhere he like. The ships move directly forward at speed 3 and must be protected.

Sounds good.

My group is gearing up to launch our CC campaign, and I'm watching this thread closely to see if Hyperlane Raid is indeed a problem. I'd rather not alter the way Victory Points or Resources are awarded, but we have come up with 2 possible tweaks to offset turtling:

1. The Imperial player cannot set their ships' speed dials to 0 (though ship speed could be altered other ways) .

2. The Imperial player deploys their ships anywhere between range 1-2 of their edge (as opposed to anywhere between range 0-2).

This should keep the Imperial ships moving, and push up their deployment from the edge of the table so the Rebels can engage them faster. What do you think? Will these small changes help promote the "convoy" theme of the objective?

I don't know, It could Yipe, though they are both pretty easy to get around it to gain the same effect.

1: not being able to set my ships at speed 0 could just mean I run them all sideways along the back board edge at speed 1.

2: not being able to deploy within range 1 of the edge means I deploy all my ships at speed 1 FACING my edge and run them toward the edge before banking them parallel.

I know it's my idea so I am partial to it, but I still feel like the least tweak to the rules for this card is simply to change the scoring procedure.

Keep everything as written above, simply add a single, final sentence to the "End of Game" section that reads:

"If second player has no ships within 2 range ruler lengths of the player's edge they cannot claim these resources."

If you want to remove even the OPTION to turtle purely as resource denial, which I don't particularly like because it seems more punitive than positive, then you could change the last sentence to:

"If second player has no ships within 2 range ruler lengths of the player's edge they cannot claim these resources and they are immediately awarded to the first player."

This keeps the objective EXACTLY as written. The imperial player can still turtle, if they want, but the benefit from doing so has been removed. If the Imperial tanks, it becomes a win only scenario for the Rebel player as the Imperial is choosing to give up his change at 40 resources while still allowing the Rebel the chance to charge in and blow something up to get something. I think that 9 times out of 10 this will force the Imperial player out. Some might try to get tricky and send a single raider to slip in, but this is going to be so telegraphed that it will end up being free resources to the Rebel player.

4 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

Keep everything as written above, simply add a single, final sentence to the "End of Game" section that reads:

"If second player has no ships within 2 range ruler lengths of the player's edge they cannot claim these resources."

BrobaFett, thanks for the detailed reply.

I've discussed this issue with the Rebel Grand Admiral of our campaign we're going to use your fix. It's simple yet incentivizes the Imperial player to get out of their deployment zone if they want those extra resources. And if they don't, they are free to camp in their deployment zone but aren't rewarded for doing so.

3 hours ago, Yipe said:

BrobaFett, thanks for the detailed reply.

I've discussed this issue with the Rebel Grand Admiral of our campaign we're going to use your fix. It's simple yet incentivizes the Imperial player to get out of their deployment zone if they want those extra resources. And if they don't, they are free to camp in their deployment zone but aren't rewarded for doing so.

Personally, I don't think the one you quoted will be enough. The Imps could still turtle and just do resource denial and win the battle, potentially allowing them to build a base there.

The second goes further and is probably sufficient to get the map played properly. However it still only requires the Imps to get a single ship across, trivialising the feel of a fleet trying to run an ambush.

I'd probably go further to say the Rebels get any tokens from Imperials ships that haven't made it into the end zone. The Imps get a huge advantage already by being able to set all obstacles. They can set a funnel or make certain routes very hazardous for a Rebel approach. This way also brings a truer feel to a running the ambush scenario.

Consequently the Imps will then have to decide whether they'll run it fast and try to survive until round 6 in the end zone area, or run at a slower pace and try to time it to land there on round 6. The Rebels may have the opportunity to get onto to the Imps tails as the Imps fleets will be more reliant on having to travel straight ahead now. All in all, loads of interesting scenarios can now play out.