2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oh, this is just great.

I take a beating for almost a year because I think 1.0 was not as broken as everyone says, then if finally play my 1st 2.0 game this summer, and now we're all set to go back to 1.0 was better!

A pistachio and rosewater scone with French press coffee.

No - just some people. I'm a firm fan of 2.0 being better, even if not all of 1.0 was bad.

23 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

Let's just sit in silence...

Best. Game. EVER!

Blail you literally have another thread going on right now where you're grasping at straws just to understand how the Nantex works. While basically the whole forum is discussing what to do about it because they all get it.

You sure you don't just need a glass of water?

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oh, this is just great.

I take a beating for almost a year because I think 1.0 was not as broken as everyone says, then if finally play my 1st 2.0 game this summer, and now we're all set to go back to 1.0 was better!

A pistachio and rosewater scone with French press coffee.

Nah, 2.0 is a ton better, despite my constant complaints about the formats or rules or whatever. I think in 1.0 people gave up on fixing the game at its core so they were just sticking band-aids on it. Now that it appears we can solve core problems, we spend a lot more time complaining about them.

I had a cheese and pickle sandwich. A lot better than it sounds actually.

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

I had a cheese and pickle sandwich. A lot better than it sounds actually

Depends on the combination of type of pickle and type of cheese. Sweet pickles with a nice sharp cheddar sounds really good.

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Depends on the combination of type of pickle and type of cheese. Sweet pickles with a nice sharp cheddar sounds really good.

Yeah I went for Dill Spears and Muenster today

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

Yeah I went for Dill Spears and Muenster today

That's got me drooling.

48 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I had a cheese and pickle sandwich. A lot better than it sounds actually.

See, this is EXACTLY what Blail is talking about.

Is it a pickle and cheese in between bread??

Or is it a pickle wrapped in cheese making it a "sandwich" but actually an exemption to the Stuff Between Bread = Sandwich rule??!!!!!

Lunches need the Keyword Sandwich so it's obvious. . .

This just sounds like the OP has memory issues, not that the game has rules issues.

5 hours ago, Quarrel said:

The bomb rule change (from one per round to any number per round but only one per System Phase) was made so FFG wouldn't have to reverse the fiat ruling that cards that let you place a bomb break the "one per round" rule even if they don't say so, which is the opposite of how card/rules interactions usually work. It's a bad rules change because it fixes a problem the wrong way.

Shrug. It's their rule to amend if they like, and given it doesn't break a half dozen other cards at the same time, it's a pretty innocuous change. Unlike a certain Resistance Transport & astromech interaction they also tried to force...

Was fying back from Italy via Germany this morning. So breakfast today was a Gregg's Steak Bake on arrival.

18 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I had a cheese and pickle sandwich. A lot better than it sounds actually.

Have you tried peanut butter and pickles? It’s really good.

22 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oh, this is just great.

I take a beating for almost a year because I think 1.0 was not as broken as everyone says, then if finally play my 1st 2.0 game this summer, and now we're all set to go back to 1.0 was better!

2.0 has some issues with sloppy wordings, but a lot less than 1.0. It is great, and I am pumped that we get Epic, Huge ships, environments, card packs. The latter 2 stuff you could just dream off.

And oh: roibos tea; hot water with lemon and ginger; fruit, mixed müsli with extra fruit and powdered rose hip; rapsberry yoghurt.

water for breakfast over here.

35 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

water for breakfast over here.

3 hours ago, XPav said:

Have you tried peanut butter and pickles? It’s really good.

3 hours ago, kris40k said:

you Southern Albertan's wouldn't understand....

FFG rule writing and structure never really was my favorite amongst games companies. If I'm being honest. It's functional, and it gets the job done. But eloquence is not it's strong suit. To be fair, they did just overhaul this game and did fix a LOT of stuff.

I guess I got a little spoiled on WOTC M:TG. It had a crud ton or rules but after years of working on them they were pretty dan good and clear. It was rare to have a question that want answered by simply rereading the core rules. Timing especially was extremely clear. It took a few games to get the basics down sure, but once you did standardization took over and you could figure out anything new they threw at you. I also really appreciate how over time they condensed many things into one word items. Like "removed from the game" is now just "exile", and the names they use for those condensed versions often are drawn from another card that had that effect. Like the card 'Exile' from the Alliances set way back close to their beginning.

I will admit I thought it curious that they went with charges for the ordnance weapons. They had the old munition tokens at their disposal, which had been done in acrylic at one point, and they completely passed over them. They would have had an easier time I feel if they had just kept them as a separate entity in 2.0.

Perhaps Proton Torpedoes would have been better if they had. Because let's be real, all the attack rules models are ripped off of Magics 'activated abilities' rules. They could have done ...

Attack, (munition token): While attacking blah blah blah. You may only perform this attack against a Target you have locked.

Then you know what you spend too launch the attack, and it never implies that you spend the lock at any point.

Another option would have been to color code the lock icon. Like if the icon is green in the Attack header you just have to have the target locked, if it's red you have to have it locked and spend it. Or even if you had a icon for spending the lock that was distinct.

11 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

I will admit I thought it curious that they went with charges for the ordnance weapons. They had the old munition tokens at their disposal, which had been done in acrylic at one point, and they completely passed over them. They would have had an easier time I feel if they had just kept them as a separate entity in 2.0.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you wondering why many ordnance have multiple uses? Probably to offer more of a choice in upgrades. Are you wondering why they changed the token? Probably because they changed pretty much all the tokens in 2.0, and it makes it easier if charges are used for everything rather than having to track multiple types of tokens for different upgrades.

13 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Perhaps Proton Torpedoes would have been better if they had. Because let's be real, all the attack rules models are ripped off of Magics 'activated abilities' rules. They could have done ...

Attack, (munition token): While attacking blah blah blah. You may only perform this attack against a Target you have locked.

Then you know what you spend too launch the attack, and it never implies that you spend the lock at any point.

The current wording is, "Attack (<Target Lock>): Spend 1 <Charge>..." Which actually tells you to spend a charge, and says absolutely nothing about spending the target lock. Why would you think you had to spend it? And how does your suggested wording, which doesn't tell you to spend the munition token, make things any clearer?

16 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Another option would have been to color code the lock icon. Like if the icon is green in the Attack header you just have to have the target locked, if it's red you have to have it locked and spend it. Or even if you had a icon for spending the lock that was distinct.

Are there any munitions that require you to spend the lock just to fire them (i.e. not for their standard effect)?

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Are there any munitions that require you to spend the lock just to fire them (i.e. not for their standard effect)?

Not yet. There's nothing to prevent there being.

What's interesting about that is that this is an area FFG have actually standardised completely (thus far) since 1e; in 1e there were a mix of ordnance which required spending the token you needed to have to fire it, and ones that only required having it (mostly newer ones like Harpoon and Cruise Missiles). In 2e, (so far) all ordnance simply requires that you have whatever token.

On the first item, I was just saying that they chose to go with charges as the token instead of munitions was odd. They usually seem to avoid invalidating previous items, especially if there was a OP prize version of it. I was glad they went with multiple use of some kind, it was something I and others had suggested years ago now in first Ed. I just have a bunch of munitions tokens sitting around that I COULD use, but to keep everything clear I just use the new charge.

Yes it made it easier in some ways for everything to just run off one token, but other things get more complicated and harder to design to/with. Like, anytime you have a effect like Chopper you have to be careful about what has a token that recurs. Can't have an elegant minor bomblet generator thing that has a recurring charge without those two interacting now. And you miss out on opportunities to have things that reference munitions tokens if you had used them. Things like "spend a munition do X" have to be phrased "spend a charge from a equipped (torpedo), (missile), or (bomb) upgrade do X." Way longer, less eloquent. And with that as well, if you had say a scummy ordnance in the illicit group, those wouldn't interact either the current edition.

It's just a lot of trading really on what the game engine can and can't easily do and be clear on at the same time. To me it's just something that would have made life a lot easier to just have the muni token for things that it would fit. It's just type referencing is all. It's odd they didn't use it.

On the second, I think this is to the OPs point, the cost and the requirement getting split across the colon is odd. Again, seeing how they ripped off activated abilities from magic here, all the requirements and cost being in the header, before the colon, make them easier to read. So yes, it's clear now technically, but you have to write it all out. Like if the card could convey the same thing with three simple items before the colon, you save a sentence from the text box and read the effect faster.

Attack, (Locked on target icon), (spend Charge/Munition icon): do the thing text goes here

For the third item, currently no. But if you wanted to have one now you'd have to write all the rules directly on the card. It would be neat to have a new homing mine or some such that you fire like a device with it's own token for the board, and have to lose your lock to shoot it. Or just a new homing torpedo that requires you to spend the lock ahead of the roll for some effect or another.

I'm just agreeing with BB on the Torpedoes thing. It's an ineloquent format to work with and could be more concise. Just a constructive criticism.

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Yes it made it easier in some ways for everything to just run off one token, but other things get more complicated and harder to design to/with. Like, anytime you have a effect like Chopper you have to be careful about what has a token that recurs. Can't have an elegant minor bomblet generator thing that has a recurring charge without those two interacting now. And you miss out on opportunities to have things that reference munitions tokens if you had used them. Things like "spend a munition do X" have to be phrased "spend a charge from a equipped (torpedo), (missile), or (bomb) upgrade do X." Way longer, less eloquent. And with that as well, if you had say a scummy ordnance in the illicit group, those wouldn't interact either the current edition.

Chopper explicitly says he uses non-recurring charges, so no worries there. And do we really want a Bomblet Generator that simply recurs with no further cost? I'm sorry if I"m misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't see that this way makes things simpler nor more elegant; only complex in a slightly different way.

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

On the second, I think this is to the OPs point, the cost and the requirement getting split across the colon is odd. Again, seeing how they ripped off activated abilities from magic here, all the requirements and cost being in the header, before the colon, make them easier to read. So yes, it's clear now technically, but you have to write it all out. Like if the card could convey the same thing with three simple items before the colon, you save a sentence from the text box and read the effect faster.

I do find it odd that you keep claiming they ripped off Magic's system (haven't played it, so I can't speak to that directly), and yet complain that it works differently (in what sense is it ripped-off if it's different?). Sure, it could potentially be worded a bit better, but it's still pretty straightforward currently.

5 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

On the second, I think this is to the OPs point, the cost and the requirement getting split across the colon is odd. Again, seeing how they ripped off activated abilities from magic here, all the requirements and cost being in the header, before the colon, make them easier to read. So yes, it's clear now technically, but you have to write it all out. Like if the card could convey the same thing with three simple items before the colon, you save a sentence from the text box and read the effect faster.

Attack, (Locked on target icon), (spend Charge/Munition icon): do the thing text goes here

For the third item, currently no. But if you wanted to have one now you'd have to write all the rules directly on the card. It would be neat to have a new homing mine or some such that you fire like a device with it's own token for the board, and have to lose your lock to shoot it. Or just a new homing torpedo that requires you to spend the lock ahead of the roll for some effect or another.

I'm just agreeing with BB on the Torpedoes thing. It's an ineloquent format to work with and could be more concise. Just a constructive criticism.

I posted about this earlier - that format of cause-effect (both the Lock requirement and the Spend 1 [Charge] cost) would lead, very easily, to players thinking that both a lock and a charge have to be spent in order to do the effect. The way that the cards currently work is more appropriate to their use; munitions could not be used in the same way, because there would be confusion in whether the cost to get the effect could be met.

I don't think that the developers "ripped off" the activated ability format from Magic. Any game that requires you to pay a cost (mana, charge, etc) needs to have some way of showing that the cost leads to the effect. The colon is a useful punctuation mark to do it, no matter the system.

@feltipern1 I didn't make it super clear. Apologies. The implication from the ongoing discussion I thought covered it but oh well. In my example you highlight the TL icon would have to be a new one that indicates to the player that the requirement is you have a lock on what you shoot. That's why I wrote it the way I did as a state. The intent was for it to be distinct from the usual icon that is currently in that spot. Same thing for why there's the 'spend' added to the charge/Muni icon placeholder. This way the card would read essentially that you 'spend' your chance to attack, you must be locked on to it(state based requirement), and spend a charge/Muni, as the full set of requirements. Then after the colon is the special effects of the attack.

Alternative to the icon if it makes my point, we could get rid of the confusion by just writing it out. "Attack, Locked, (charge/Muni token):" That way it would give instruction for the verb, what state you must be in, and the token you have to spend.

@JJ48 You actually just made my point a little bit. Chopper has to have that extra bit if text now. As will all future cards that want to juggle a token. They'll all need their own specific call outs and restrictions text depending on what they are trying to do. Many of which they wouldn't have been needed if they had just used seperate mechanics names.

For instance, if we're to go with the logic you proffer, the new Epic ships shouldn't have needed to reuse energy from 1e either, as the charge token could have done the same job. Even the name would've been close enough. But if we used the same mechanic for both that would've been just a nightmare with all the crazy ways that could interact. So they wisely keep them split. Energy is it's own thing, gets it's own interactions by call-out. Charges get their own. Unless instructed, the two don't touch. Makes life simple and clean. I just wish munitions had done this as well. For that matter I'd have been okay if there was a different token for 'organics' abilities like Elusive and Crack Shot that kept them separate from 'hardware' like Passive sensors.

I apologise for the confusion, but I wasn't complaining they were different at all. Just voicing an observation that they are similar enough to be considered a copycat, though FFG has basically copied the older flawed versions of the formatting. Ripped off, but screwed up in the process as it were. A bad clone. I've explicitly stated that the current form 2.0 uses is basically functional. I never said it wasn't. I've only said it could be more clear.

@ both lol Your absolutely right, many many many games use(read ripoff) Magics formatting for their rules. Frankly though it's for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that for all practical purposes magic did much of it first. And not the greatest reason being that Wizards had spent over 25 years figuring out the best way to fit complex instructions on less than half a card. And bottom line, it works. I suppose the restraints of fitting text on a card are a good impetus to refine your technique, and wizards didn't always have it right either. At one point they even had an activated ability on an sorcery as I recall. For those in the know, that basically meant you spent a cost to play it, then you spent a cost to play it. Yeah I wrote that right. Good times.

If we're looking at constructive ways to improve the game, I for one would be more than happy without the confusion around how ordnance, and all replacement attacks work. I once had to correct a guy who thought the TL icon meant he got to take a Target lock action as part of the attack. His reasoning seemed perfectly sound if you hadn't really read the rules. He thought it instructed you to attack and perform an action as the header. It DOES have the SAME icon as the action. 😂

15 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

@JJ48 You actually just made my point a little bit. Chopper has to have that extra bit if text now. As will all future cards that want to juggle a token. They'll all need their own specific call outs and restrictions text depending on what they are trying to do. Many of which they wouldn't have been needed if they had just used seperate mechanics names.

I was going to point out that Chopper would then need to reference "munition tokens" (which isn't too much more concise), but then I realized this would also lock him out from interacting with non-munitions, non-recurring charges. It may not be the worst thing in the world, but it would actually affect the game, not be a simple terminology change. And since charges generally only apply to their current card unless something like Chopper interacts with them, dividing them into smaller classifications that still work the same way would be pointless.

Energy is fundamentally different from charges. Energy is a pool that multiple cards can reference. I expect that if there are cards that add energy, the energy will be added to the ship, like Force, and not to the upgrade, like charges. It also, of course, stops cards like Chopper interacting with the energy.