17 hours ago, Xindell said:

Oh I get the wording and I understand the argument. I simply believe that the intent is not to create 2 turns of the game where a certain admiral's ships are unkillable due to a quirk in the wording. I find it rules lawyery and against the spirit of the campaign. My opinion. Therefor, I would prefer to not play a casual/fun/non-competitive campaign system with folks who, in my opinion, are dodging the spirit of said campaign.

To each their own, though.

Unable to be scarred not unkillable, and due to a paid for ability, and only if the player gives up on the ship at the start of the correct round, and gives up the victory points in determining the winner of that battle, and gives up all the beneficial effects of having a command dial that round.

If you can suspend disbelief enough for spaceships maneuvering like WWII fighters in space, and an Admiral who's death causes other damaged ships to spontaneously die, and fighter pilots who magically shoot through shields, then why stop at Rieekan?

6 minutes ago, OgRib said:

Unable to be scarred not unkillable, and due to a paid for ability, and only if the player gives up on the ship at the start of the correct round, and gives up the victory points in determining the winner of that battle, and gives up all the beneficial effects of having a command dial that round.

You say TomAHto, I say TomAYto. I'm not here to argue semantics with anyone.

6 minutes ago, OgRib said:

If you can suspend disbelief enough for spaceships maneuvering like WWII fighters in space, and an Admiral who's death causes other damaged ships to spontaneously die, and fighter pilots who magically shoot through shields, then why stop at Rieekan?

Look, this isn't about suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure how many times I can say the same thing. This is about the spirit of the campaign. If people wish to play a rules lawyery game, where they exploit a quirk of wording, then have at it. For me, ships destroyed in a campaign game are destroyed. In my opinion, the Rieekan FAQ supports my point. There is no saving them from death. Rieekan isn't a 17th level cleric with a Ressurect spell scroll standing by. The beauty of this is that it is NOT a tournament style game. If you want to exploit the wording, you have that right. If I want to play the game with people who want to play it in the spirit of the campaign, I have that right.

Enjoy your game the way you like to play it! I will too.

but you're with 'destroyed' ships showing up next battle with full hull shields and weapons, just missing one defense token?

Not sure why you feel the need to keep poking, but I've said my piece. I have no desire to argue here. So, again...

Enjoy your game the way you like to play it! I will too.

I'm not poking I am asking. If you don't want to discuss your opinions online then don't post them online, and don't reply if you don't want to engage in discussion. Feel free to play your campaign as you like.

I don't like the suggestion that one faction has a commander that is effectively unusable in the context of playing a campaign.

Perhaps the problem is that your explanation for why you don't want to play it that way denigrates those who think that playing Rieekan as the rules seem to allow feels even more thematic, Xindell. I don't think it's just "rules-lawyer-y" to say that the guy who evacuated the enter Rebel army from Hoth because of a single unidentified droid wouldn't be jumpy enough to risk (or insure) that you lose a battle to save a ship from heavy damage or destruction.

And maybe the Rebels need some help on this, because the Imperials have a resource advantage. Maybe it is both thematic AND good balance.

But I'm not here to tell you how to play. Just maybe think about how you characterize those that play the other way.

Hang on, now I made a point of saying if others want to 'play a rules lawyery game...', and 'I find it rules lawyery...' At no time did I characterize a person as one thing or another. I simply was stating that my opinion is it is a rules lawyery way of playing the game. If that came across differently because people can't read and comprehend, or because I did a poor job of making the point, then my apologies. However, if you go back and read my posts in this, I have been saying from the get go that I simply would not want to play a campaign with anyone who wanted to legitimately play it this way. But, as always, opinions may vary.

I will play to the very word of the rules and use every trick I can if I find myself in a highly competitive game environment, so this was never intended to offend. I simply wouldn't want to play the campaign that way, and wouldn't want to play with people who I perceive as wanting to play it that way.

I hope that clears things up to anyone who may be offended. Again, I have no desire to argue this point further. I said how I feel about it, and I am perfectly willing to accept that others have their own opinions. I feel no need to convince them that mine are right or theirs are wrong.

Most of all, have fun.

Hang on, now. Rules lawyering? Quirk of the wording? Unintended? A trick? Rieekan's ability and hyperspace retreat isn't any of those things. It's very much rules as intended. The wording of hyperspace retreat isn't quirky at all, and if you think it's phrased unusually, that's because it's written specifically to be inclusive of Rieekan.

If you just hate Rieekan so much on principle, then you can talk to your local gamers and ask to ban him from the campaign. But if someone picks him they aren't exploiting anything. They're just utilizing an intentional synergy in the rules. You might as well ban Ackbar and MC80s, because he exploits a quirk in the firing arcs of certain ships that are powerful on the sides.

22 minutes ago, Nostromoid said:

Hang on, now. Rules lawyering? Quirk of the wording? Unintended? A trick? Rieekan's ability and hyperspace retreat isn't any of those things. It's very much rules as intended. The wording of hyperspace retreat isn't quirky at all, and if you think it's phrased unusually, that's because it's written specifically to be inclusive of Rieekan.

If you just hate Rieekan so much on principle, then you can talk to your local gamers and ask to ban him from the campaign. But if someone picks him they aren't exploiting anything. They're just utilizing an intentional synergy in the rules. You might as well ban Ackbar and MC80s, because he exploits a quirk in the firing arcs of certain ships that are powerful on the sides.

Can we please not let this thread devolve? Back to original topic and all that?

So more of attrition and not much asymmetry except for the Interdictors and maybe the diplomats. Don't lose scarred ships (then they are gone for good). Bank up on refits and force your opponent to lose resource points by scarring/killing off his ships.

Too bad there was no raid feature for rebels to paly a little X-wing side game. Imperials could chose to send a squadron or let the mercs (scum take the job).