7 hours ago, Mep said:

I do agree with your assessment, which is again, just an opinion. Much like them introducing neutral characters which breaks the old hero or villain rules (note they never accounted for neutral) this breaks the 30 pt rule. So yes, they will probably be giving a description of this card and any others like it since this is a new design space for them.

These is exactly what I'm talking about with the invented issues surrounding this card.

There is no 30pt rule outside of deck construction. There's no logical basis to look to apply deck construction rules outside of deck construction.

If every application of the rules is just an opinion then every interaction needs to be confirmed by FFG, which is nuts.

There are definitely times in FFG games where there exists ambiguity. Where multiple explanations exist and are possible with the rules. But when the alternatives require you to stretch or out right invent rules to try and find backing we aren't talking about opinion we are just reading the rules for what they actually say.

Back when there was a lot of confusion about multiple actions and how one action needed to be completed before another was taken I pointed out the page 13 rule and described how to use that rule correctly. Most people btw were taking actions inside other actions and putting actions into the queue. Even though my opinion matched what the rules said and how the game was indented to be played, it was still an opinion and people took it as such. I am just a guy on some internet forum and so are you. They needed Lukas to further explain the rule.

So yes, if you do say only draw 5 cards at the start of the game, you are giving your opinion unless you give a direct quote from the rules, in which case it is a quote from the rules without any short hand or interpretation. That is an over simplification of the problem as drawing 5 cards is rather basic. Having a card generate characters which has never been done before is a bit more complicated than drawing 5 cards.

The majority opinion has been given and I agree with it, but remember that is all it is - an opinion. The majority opinion was once actions went into the queue and that opinion was wrong. A generated character needing to be defeated to win the game is the majority opinion and is probably correct and one I agree with but ****, we could all just be as wrong as all the fools putting actions into the queue.

In lieu of any actual ruling on this, why assume it's going to work outside of the obvious way?

The rules for winning the game requires all of a player's characters to be defeated. The new Battle Droid is a character. I don't think there is *currently* any thing to even suggest they wouldn't count as a 'real' character.

Now, the rules may change, but until such point as that actually happens (or is indicated that it will happen), what's the point in discussing it? Well, unless it's more to ask the question of whether they should count as real characters.

24 minutes ago, Mep said:

Back when there was a lot of confusion about multiple actions and how one action needed to be completed before another was taken I pointed out the page 13 rule and described how to use that rule correctly. Most people btw were taking actions inside other actions and putting actions into the queue. Even though my opinion matched what the rules said and how the game was indented to be played, it was still an opinion and people took it as such. I am just a guy on some internet forum and so are you. They needed Lukas to further explain the rule.

So yes, if you do say only draw 5 cards at the start of the game, you are giving your opinion unless you give a direct quote from the rules, in which case it is a quote from the rules without any short hand or interpretation. That is an over simplification of the problem as drawing 5 cards is rather basic. Having a card generate characters which has never been done before is a bit more complicated than drawing 5 cards.

The majority opinion has been given and I agree with it, but remember that is all it is - an opinion. The majority opinion was once actions went into the queue and that opinion was wrong. A generated character needing to be defeated to win the game is the majority opinion and is probably correct and one I agree with but ****, we could all just be as wrong as all the fools putting actions into the queue.

Your overthinking it.

All cases regarding the additional battle droid are covered in actual rules not opinions - like victory conditions with it and so on.

Who would be the likely winner between 5x Roger Roger and 5x Jawas?

40 minutes ago, Alphastealer said:

Who would be the likely winner between 5x Roger Roger and 5x Jawas?

I thought about that the other day, and in my opinion the Jawas would likely have the advantage. Rogers would have access to more cards (gray and red instead of just gray), but their damage is largely indirect and they have no way to generate money. The Rogers would likely start off dealing more damage, but that damage would get spread around however the Jawa player liked. Meanwhile the Jawas would focus down Rogers one by one.

Double post

1 hour ago, Alphastealer said:

Who would be the likely winner between 5x Roger Roger and 5x Jawas?

5 Jawas while fun looks ultra weak. 5 Rogers even now looks like they can really blow some stuff.

1 hour ago, GooeyChewie said:

I thought about that the other day, and in my opinion the Jawas would likely have the advantage. Rogers would have access to more cards (gray and red instead of just gray), but their damage is largely indirect and they have no way to generate money. The Rogers would likely start off dealing more damage, but that damage would get spread around however the Jawa player liked. Meanwhile the Jawas would focus down Rogers one by one.

Except the Battle Droids can use drudge work to generate resources, endless ranks to revive one, and the landing craft to bring in more. On top of using aftermath and attrition to generate extra damage and extra resources. I’d give the edge to the Battle Droids, but if it really is balanced then it would be a close match. I’d love to see it happen sometime.

5 Battle Droids vs 5 Gungan Warriors: the next meta

10 hours ago, Vitalis said:

Your overthinking it.

All cases regarding the additional battle droid are covered in actual rules not opinions - like victory conditions with it and so on.

I share your opinion but I wouldn't be surprise if it turned out to be something different either. If someone figures out a way to abuse this card and warp the meta, I would expect a rules change or clarification that invalids our opinion.

Moving forward, I don't see an all droid deck using landing craft while endless ranks is in the current rotation. I am not sure an all droid deck can even generate the resources for either card nor does it have foci for to get that special to reliably work. Most likely you just load up on all the redeploy weapons and spend the resources on those. I am thinking Landing fits into some big resource generating deck that can recur supports easily or maybe some droid theme deck with Doctor Aphra and a resource character like Unkar and a battle droid to start out with. This will depend on the quality and quantity of cards supporting droids. Will be interesting to see what else they have in this set.

Endless Ranks is a 5cost at once while the landing craft is 2cost and 2more when the proper die result is rolled.

Its not better but its easier to get off due to the resources thing. Hoarding 5+ resources isnt easy, people either disrupt you or force you to use them on other things to avoid getting nuked. But this is only better than the 5resource oneshot because its telegraphed youre trying to bring another back.

Plus, they can be combined. Without any discarded support digging involved thats in theory 4 droids you brought back from the grave instead of just 2. With support digging (graveyard) you could in theory do it endlessly until your opponent manages to obliterate the remaining droids before you can add another.

In practically though the landing craft will probably appear on a normal deck anyway. Its actually pretty cheap for what it does, its just a single die face special that makes it not that reliable.

19 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Oh no.

If they are here...

... that means He is comming.

Remember this post when expansion release in december.

I'll post a photo of this card teared down to pieces and dices being thrown as far as possible down the streets.

Chak

are you kidding me i'd love Gungans to be a thing

PURELY because i know it would PISS SO MANY OFF lol. I didnt really have a problem with gungans or jarjar.

39 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

are you kidding me i'd love Gungans to be a thing

PURELY because i know it would PISS SO MANY OFF lol. I didnt really have a problem with gungans or jarjar.

I would'nt have any problem with them... If they would be part of a "Paws Patrol" episode.

Chak

3 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

are you kidding me i'd love Gungans to be a thing

PURELY because i know it would PISS SO MANY OFF lol. I didnt really have a problem with gungans or jarjar.

Gungans are... acceptable. Jar Jar, not so much.

Man, that art on Talzin looks like something out of a nightmare! If for nothing else, I want a copy of her for that!

8 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

are you kidding me i'd love Gungans to be a thing

PURELY because i know it would PISS SO MANY OFF lol. I didnt really have a problem with gungans or jarjar.

Jar Jar is gonna be the red hero legendary lol.

Eh i could see him being a gray character.

why?

he's....sorta just there. He has no real motives other than staying alive, he only became general because of mostly luck and the people he was around.

first gray legendary will be JarJar. Dice will be 2/4/4resource Indirect Damage, Special, BlankBlank. Special will be "Remove an opponent's die and deal its value in Indirect Damage" and quote will be "Mesa no have a booma!" - 12/16pts

face it the guy did a lot of damage but it was all luck or unintentional. So of course he will do practically 0 intentional damage lol.

It's not Jar Jar so much for me as poor CGI. When CGI is done well, I have zero problem with it. But when CGI goes bad, it goes really bad.

1 hour ago, Ywingscum said:

It's not Jar Jar so much for me as poor CGI. When CGI is done well, I have zero problem with it. But when CGI goes bad, it goes really bad.

Agreed, that was my big gripe with the prequels. They looked like a cartoon series. I'm a big fan of practical effects.

So hard on the early CGI. Even the harry potter's and lord of the rings' trolls from that time period looked bad. Not going to knock down a movie because they used state of the art effects for its time. Jar Jar however is a cartoon character, looked cartoonie so it really came across as a cartoon character. Yoda was a muppet but they managed to act away from the muppet show characters to make something new. That was the mistake, putting roger rabbit into star wars and even have the battle droids say "roger roger" all the time to really drive that point home. Of course you watch phantom now and you don't think Roger Rabbit so much since that movie isn't watched these days.

There was something very real, very fun, and actually touching about the original Star Wars’ flaws. The fact that the Tantive IV is mostly cardboard and the walls all move when someone touches them is awesome! Or the fact that in the celebration at the end some of the guys standing by the door in the back are cardboard standups? Awesome! It’s also really cool watching it knowing that they only had the money for six stormtrooper costumes so they are very careful to never have more than 6 of them on screen (although they use cardboard standups and mannequins in a few scenes). When Lucas went through and CGI’ed out all that stuff, Star Wars lost the magic.

Disclaimer: I say this all as a huge Phantom Menace and Jar Jar fan. I long for the day when I can run an eBossNass/Gungan/Gungan mill deck!

Anyone find it curious that the Battle Droids have the Droid subtype. EMP Grenade special straight-up discards one. Thought they may leave that off characters like they did IG-88. Wonder if they'll make EMP Grenades see play.

Edit: Also, common sense would say that a discarded character is also defeated. But, the rules will need to be updated to specifically mention that. As it is written now, the only way to defeat a character is by dealing damage equal to health, or specific card effects that have the 'defeat a character' text.

14 hours ago, gokubb said:

Anyone find it curious that the Battle Droids have the Droid subtype. EMP Grenade special straight-up discards one. Thought they may leave that off characters like they did IG-88. Wonder if they'll make EMP Grenades see play.

Edit: Also, common sense would say that a discarded character is also defeated. But, the rules will need to be updated to specifically mention that. As it is written now, the only way to defeat a character is by dealing damage equal to health, or specific card effects that have the 'defeat a character' text.

Nice you spotted that. Indeed EMP doesn't limit to support or upgrades... either it's intentionnal or will be explained later.

Chak