9 minutes ago, BRPort said:

For disembark is it correct to say that "if vehicle moves ONE, unit transported can disembark and shoot BUT if vehicle moves TWO, unit transported can only disembark?

Need to clarify the terms you're using, but I'm guessing you mean "ONE" standard move, or "TWO" standard moves, and not "Speed 1" and "Speed 2."

"When a unit disembarks, if the vehicle that is transporting that unit has performed more than one standard move during the current round, disembarking uses that unit’s entire activation and it cannot perform additional actions or any free actions."

So it sounds like you are correct. If the vehicle only performed one or fewer standard moves , then the unit disembarking could shoot after performing the Speed-1 move for disembarking

10 minutes ago, BRPort said:

For disembark is it correct to say that "if vehicle moves ONE, unit transported can disembark and shoot BUT if vehicle moves TWO, unit transported can only disembark?

Quote

When a unit disembarks, if the vehicle that is transporting

that unit has performed more than one standard move

during the current round, disembarking uses that unit’s

entire activation and it cannot perform additional actions or

any free actions.

If the vehicle preforms one move action... then disembark (1 action) and able to preform second action. If the vehicle preforms two move actions, the disembarking unit can only disembark (uses two actions... similar to a climb move).

2 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Technically no. If the vehicle does 2 standard moves during the current turn, a unit desembarking can only make that speed 1 move. But for example the Rebel Landspeeder can make its compulsory move, then a standard move action and if it doesn't make another standard move action, a unit can disembark and attack that same turn, even though the landspeeder performed 2 moves.

I think you're describing the exact scenario he described, so I think it is "technically yes." He is saying if the vehicle performed one standard move, then the disembarking unit could shoot after disembarking.

Also note pivot and reverse are not standard moves. If you slam an occupier over some barricades to get a unit in a bad spot out, then throw it in full reverse, that unit still has their full activation if they get out.

Also considering an Occupier will displace if it pivots over friendly units, it might be better if you need to do a turn or something to have friendlies climb inside then hop out when you're done.

50 minutes ago, riker2800 said:

Good, they fixed the overhang rules and you can repair Speeder! Also a nice thing you can use medics on emplacement trooper, nice one FFG!

Well, when they first revealed the repair and medic, I really couldn't find a reason to take them outside of healing Palp or some other big fellow. They had to make it so there was a reason to buy one or more of those packs besides just the command cards.

42 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Technically no. If the vehicle does 2 standard moves during the current turn, a unit desembarking can only make that speed 1 move. But for example the Rebel Landspeeder can make its compulsory move, then a standard move action and if it doesn't make another standard move action, a unit can disembark and attack that same turn, even though the landspeeder performed 2 moves.

I haven't looked over the new rules, but wouldn't the compulsory move count as one standard move even though it's not a move action?

6 minutes ago, Weikel said:

I haven't looked over the new rules, but wouldn't the compulsory move count as one standard move even though it's not a move action?

No, the compulsory move is not a standard move

Is there any value in throwing a generic commander on the X-34 landspeeder? As I understand it, he could still issue orders, use the Inspire keyword, and prevent troops from panicking. The only things he would lose are Take Cover and his pistol. But he would gain mobility and protection. Thoughts?

6 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

No, the compulsory move is not a standard move

Arguably this section from Movement might apply to the compulsory move, certainly worth sending an email to FFG.

Quote

If a game effect allows or forces a unit to perform a “speed–x” move, that unit performs a full or partial standard move with a speed equal to or lower than “x.” Climbing, clambering, reversing, and pivoting are not standard moves and thus cannot be performed in place of a speed–x move.

Arguably a 'full move' is a forced speed-x move where x equals the speed of the vehicle.

36 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Arguably this section from Movement might apply to the compulsory move, certainly worth sending an email to FFG.

Arguably a 'full move' is a forced speed-x move where x equals the speed of the vehicle.

That's a good point, I think you may be right. Some clarification from FFG could be good on this one.

so question about one of the new items listed here
If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching another mini's base, that mini cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured, unless line of sight from the unit leader to the defending mini is completely blocked.
does that apply to vehicles too.
example i'm touching a atst base and shooting between its legs, does it get obscure/cover from my attack or would it as it says here not be obscured and be no cover in this case if the other mini is in the open.

5 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

so question about one of the new items listed here
If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching another mini's base, that mini cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured, unless line of sight from the unit leader to the defending mini is completely blocked.
does that apply to vehicles too.
example i'm touching a atst base and shooting between its legs, does it get obscure/cover from my attack or would it as it says here not be obscured and be no cover in this case if the other mini is in the open.

"Each plastic sculpt is a miniature, often abbreviated as a 'mini.'"

So I would say, yes it applies to vehicles also, based on the fact they used the terms "mini"

55 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Arguably this section from Movement might apply to  the compulsory move, certainly worth sending an email to FFG.

Arguably a 'full move' is a forced speed-x move where x equals the speed of the vehicle.

Question: Can the upgrade card Force Push be used to force an enemy trooper unit to perform a climb or clamber move?

Answer: No. Whenever a game effect allows or forces a unit to perform a “speed–x” move, that unit performs a full or partial standard move with a speed equal to or lower than “x.” Climbing and clambering are not standard moves and thus cannot be performed in place of a speed–x move.

so compulsory move forces you to do speed-x that movement is a standard move. and per the RRG rules page 42/43 anything that is a full move is a standard move just not a action.

8 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

so compulsory move forces you to do speed-x that movement is a standard move. and per the RRG rules page 42/43 anything that is a full move is a standard move just not a action.

The difference is the wording on the compulsory move isn't the same as Force Push, so an argument could be made that the compulsory move is technically not a "standard move." I am of the opinion that it IS a standard move, but can't find that explicitly stated in the rules.

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

The difference is the wording on the compulsory move isn't the same as Force Push, so an argument could be made that the compulsory move is technically not a "standard move." I am of the opinion that it IS a standard move, but can't find that explicitly stated in the rules.

Best I can come up with is under the general description of the move itself on page 42.

"To perform a standard move , the player performs the following steps..."

Now, does any time you perform those steps equal a " standard move ?"

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The difference is the wording on the compulsory move isn't the same as Force Pu  sh, so an argument could be made that the compulsory move is technically not a "standard move." I am of the opinion that it IS a standard move, but can't find that explicitly stated in the rules.

the part that identifies it as standard move is the way they list the different movements, compulsory says To perform a compulsory move, the unit performs a full move at its maximum speed.
a full move is define on page 42/43 part 3. then on then next section it tells you what isn't a standard move i.e. pivot reverse climb and clamber, the part that i was pointing is that when a game effects allows or forces a unit to perform a movement its still a standard move. yes it refers to force push in that case but speeder x is a force movement per the ruling and falls into standard movement.

Just now, manoftomorrow010 said:

Best I can come up with is under the general description of the move itself on page 42.

"To perform a standard move , the player performs the following steps..."

Now, does any time you perform those steps equ  al a " standard move ?"

the only non standard moves are listed right after it Climbing, clambering, reversing, and pivoting are not standard moves. so if you take out the non standard that is listed then all your left is standard movement.

Not currently in the rules, but clearly defined as to what units a light transport can take, a single mini of small base. Nothing is stating that the upcoming imperial tank can move an emplacement trooper type or anything other than just small base minis or trooper minis at that. Can I get some clarification?

6 minutes ago, choassassin said:

Not currently in the rules, but clearly defined as to what units a light transport can take, a single mini of small base. Nothing is stating that the upcoming imperial tank can move an emplacement trooper type or anything other than just small base minis or trooper minis at that. Can I get some clarification?

the light transport x: open/closed keyword allows a vehicle to transport trooper units that consist of a single mini, such as commanders and operatives. Eligible trooper units must consist of exactly 1 mini, and that mini must be on a small round base.

page 40 of the new RRG
as far as the tank goes there isn't anything preventing you from taking a eweb and transporting it to the front lines as its not a light transport but a transport.

Ok. I had read that about the light transport and transport and just wanted to make sure that I had read it properly. Thank you.

I think its under the emplacement trooper rules. It states they can't be embarked. Or its under the embark/disembark rules.

58 minutes ago, buckero0 said:

I think its under the emplacement trooper rules. It states they can't be embarked. Or its under the embark/disembark rules.

That’s for the Stationary Keyword. And for units with a maximum speed of zero.

I suppose the E-web could disembark with its Speed-1 move (non-standard) and move again (standard move/ plodding restriction). I guess with the disembark move, you would not be able to use reposition. So disembark and be pointed the way you intent.

6 minutes ago, Matroskin said:

That’s for the Stationary Keyword. And for units with a maximum speed of zero.

I suppose the E-web could disembark with its Speed-1 move (non-standard) and move again (standard move/ plodding restriction). I guess with the disembark move, you would not be able to use reposition. So disembark and be pointed the way you intent.

The light transport rule additionally specifies small based, but that's not relevant for the e-web as the regular transport rules have no such restriction.

with the tank transport only (and only the tank not a light) you can transport the eweb as its speed is above 0, this was future proofing itself against future closed transports that come from future releases, so yes the the eweb can be in the tank transport as its speed is a 1 the -1 doesn't come into effect till after it trys to disembark.

Yall are nuts thinking disrupted is better than destroyed.

It was so much fun to knock out a weapon. And it was devastating to get your weapon destroyed.

15 minutes ago, Docgimmethenews said:

Yall are nuts thinking disrupted is better than destroyed.

It was so much fun to knock out a weapon. And it was devastating to get your weapon destroyed.

Yes, it was devastating. Especially for atrt and t47. Like no longer able to contribute devastating.

I prefer this because it’s more balanced and less catastrophic, especially compared to the impact of the other options versus “weapon destroyed”. Weapon disrupted is more level in impact.