Anyone else notice that the word "keyword" has started leaking into the FAQ? It shows up in the errata for Tactician and IG-2000. It is not in the rules reference or base rules. I wonder if there will be attempts to rewrite some rules in the future with more systematic definitions and procedures moving forward.

13 hours ago, defkhan1 said:

1. CROC fore and aft sections are now separated by the firing arc (which really just sounds like "we screwed up but don't feel like printing replacement bases for everyone").

Doesn't really matter, since both it and the Gozanti are still technically unusable in Epic outside of mission play. The official Epic documents do not specify Epic Point Values for either ship (though it's obviously supposed to be 2, like the GR-75). Just shows how little FFG cares about Epic.

2 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Anyone else notice that the word "keyword" has started leaking into the FAQ? It shows up in the errata for Tactician and IG-2000. It is not in the rules reference or base rules. I wonder if there will be attempts to rewrite some rules in the future with more systematic definitions and procedures moving forward.

Another sign of the fabled 2.0 on the horizon? To go along with the rumored discontinuation of the Original Core Set?

14 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

"Misprints," as will be proven when you photograph your CROC basechit next to the Rebel and Imperial Transport basechits, are covered under Asmodee/FFG's Replacement Policy. So the good news is we can light up their inbox with PROPER Replacement Tickets. I'll be creating a Tutorial to assist the community. This will not be tolerated.

Speak for yourself, I'm more than willing to tolerate it.

9 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

And here I was thinking "yay, at least we'll get some Kylo clarifications before store champs this weekend..." but no. Still don't really know whose damage deck the card comes from, or what happens if you search for a crit that's not there, or what happens if there are no pilot crits left...

I guess it was a bit much to ask for the FAQ to answer any questions.

"Each player uses his own Damage deck and discard pile and does not assign his own damage cards to any enemy ship" (RRG, page 9, 'Damage' section, 9th bullet)

"The player who assigned it searches the Damage deck for 1 Damage card with the pilot trait" ("I'll show you the dark side" condition card). Not name a crit and searches for it. If the one you want isn't there, pick another.

"If there are no Pilot trait damage cars remaining in the damage deck, no damage card is assigned to I'll show you the dark side" (FAQ, page 9)

I guess it was a bit much to ask for the players to search the answer for their questions

It's just a shame that the C-ROC is forever nerfed because of a QA oversight on FFG's end. They could've sent replacements to anyone who requested them and includes the line in future reprints. Instead we have to deal with a permanently nerfed ship.

6 minutes ago, defkhan1 said:

It's just a shame that the C-ROC is forever nerfed because of a QA oversight on FFG's end. They could've sent replacements to anyone who requested them and includes the line in future reprints. Instead we have to deal with a permanently nerfed ship.

Either that, or we all draw blue lines and fly casual.

Epic tournaments are rather rare where I live anyway. And house rules like that never hurt anybody.

4 minutes ago, haslo said:

Either that, or we all draw blue lines and fly casual.

Epic tournaments are rather rare where I live anyway. And house rules like that never hurt anybody.

My brother's house rule is he gets to smack your knuckles with a ruler if you displace any ship other than the activated ship when performing your maneuvers. So don't tell me house rules never hurt anyone!

Minor error drives local man crazy.

In the FAQ on page 6, in the section entitled "Inside Firing Arc at Range X", the last sentence refers the reader to the diagram below. The correct diagram is located above this text, not below. The next diagram "below" is on the next page and illustrates large ship collisions.

The madness has set firmly in.

5 minutes ago, Incard said:

Minor error drives local man crazy.

In the FAQ on page 6, in the section entitled "Inside Firing Arc at Range X", the last sentence refers the reader to the diagram below. The correct diagram is located above this text, not below. The next diagram "below" is on the next page and illustrates large ship collisions.

The madness has set firmly in.

It's not FFG if they don't screw something up

6 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Speak for yourself, I'm more than willing to tolerate it.

Are you willing to give us "crybabies" a hug?

6 minutes ago, lazycomet said:

Are you willing to give us "crybabies" a hug?

You're the one who said crybaby.

But sure.

15 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Still going to draw a blue line on mine. I only play Epic casually anyway and I think everyone at the table will like that solution better.

I'm with you on that one. Making up a rule to cover up an error is just poor form.

Of course, it gives CROC cruiser a new meaning.

In other news, the FAQ is now only one page lighter than the rules reference. . .

11 hours ago, eagletsi111 said:

The line was there in early photos. I think the Production team messed up across the seas

Was it? If you look at the preview article it's clearly missing. They even use that same component spread photo on the back of h package and you can see there's no blue line. But the rules booklet has the same section describing the blue line as every other epic ship.

Clearly a goof-up on someone's part. That someone is probably not super popular at FFG HQ today.

Still I do agree that it's not really a big deal. The single card huge ships don't really care as much which section takes damage anyway, since it all goes to the same place unlike the Corvettes.

3 minutes ago, pkreynolds said:

Was it?

He is no doubt referring to this image

However, that image is using the gozanti baseplate, as you can clearly see that the firing arcs are imperial green, not scum yellow.

What's even more baffling about the above photo is that while the firing arc is green, the nameplate in the back is definitely Scum yellow.

I was looking at the C-ROC in a shop his afternoon, before I knew of this FAQ but I had heard about the missing line and decided to wait and see how they would handle it.

To add something positive to the conversation, it is a really fantastic looking ship. Excellent paint job and great fine details like all of the shipping containers. FFG's art department did a great job. The Scyk looks good, too. Better than the original paint job at least.

18 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Still going to draw a blue line on mine. I only play Epic casually anyway and I think everyone at the table will like that solution better.

Make it purple, tho.

1 hour ago, defkhan1 said:

What's even more baffling about the above photo is that while the firing arc is green, the nameplate in the back is definitely Scum yellow.

There's a whole lotta photoshop going on.

Just wait. In the next photo it'll have big boobs AND a big aft.

I like big afts, I cannot lie.

Speaking of big afts, I am really digging the jets engines on the Croc. Exactly how do jet engines work in space? ...... What am I saying, it is 2017, no one cares about that kind of stuff anymore, just as long as we are given big afts.

The giant engines also translate into gameplay. The C-ROC has a better dial than both the Gozanti and the Transport.

1 hour ago, defkhan1 said:

The giant engines also translate into gameplay. The C-ROC has a better dial than both the Gozanti and the Transport.

It's a Scum ship, of course it's dial is better than the real faction equivalent.

I mean, the C-ROC is explicitly a souped up version of the Gozanti chassis. It should have better maneuverability. Kind of curious why it costs 5 points less than the Gozanti personally, though I guess it splits the difference between the GR and the Gozanti in terms of cost and the Imperial ship has an ability and coordinate.

Gozanti can carry/deploy ships and has Coordinate. C-ROC has an extra cargo slot and marginally better dial. I think 5 pts cheaper is just a bit too cheap though.

The CROC front/rear thing is kinda...lame....but not the end of the world since its almost a 180 arc anyway. You cant simply "target" the aft section of the ship, since both halves count as "the ship" when determining range/LOS which is still done closest point to closest point. Thats literally a very specific sweetspot where on any other huge ship would hit the front, but on the croc it hits the aft. And for the most part i wouldnt want to be in that sweetspot as i risk getting squashed.

Aggressor thing was "technically" legal due to how Xwing calls out ships that are valid for an upgrade (see tie fighters and xwings). TIE Aggressor contains Aggressor, so therefore it could use the title. It was CLEARLY not intended, but because it was technically legal it had to be faq'd. Im more surprised they preemptively faq'd it rather than piss us off 3 months later.

Jake is probably the only one that could actually abuse turn 0 actions right now - i imagine something is coming in the future to justify that because letting an Awing start a boost ahead of the rest of his list doesnt sound like an issue to me at all.