Then they need to go to Disney and renegotiate their agreement. It’s untenable to have a situation with a game like this where you can’t answer simple rules questions with a couple of days.

21 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I see your point, but having heard the arguments for why HFZ shouldn’t allow you to shoot long range reds, they’re kind of weak. What the game really needs, as I have said and will continue to say, is an official rule/errata team that is ON IT as soon as any confusion pops up. The card has been out a month now, and as far as we know, nobody from FFG is even aware that there is confusion about it. That they haven’t even said, “hey guys, we’re working on it!” is absurd.

The reason I don't think it works is you cannot declare a target that your ship does not have attack range to. I disagree it is a weak argument based on the following references:

Learn to Play pg 13

To perform an attack, the player first chooses one of his ship’s hull zones to attack from. Then he declares the defending hull zone on the ship he wants to attack. The defending hull zone must be within firing arc and attack range (see the “Targeting” section later) . After declaring the defending hull zone , the attacker determines his attack dice. These dice are printed in the attacking hull zone.

Learn to Play pg 16 Attack Example

1. The Rebel player activates his CR90 Corvette A, reveals a P command, and then decides to attack the Victory II-class Star Destroyer.

2. The Rebel player declares that the CR90 will attack from its front hull zone and will target the Victory II-class’ rear hull zone. The Rebel player measures firing arc and range , confirming that the rear hull zone of the Victory II-class is within his front hull zone’s arc and that the attack is at medium range.

Rules Reference pg 2

ATTACK

To perform an attack with a squadron or ship, resolve the following steps:

1. Declare Target: The attacker declares the defender and the attacking hull zone, if any. If the defender is a ship, the attacker declares the defending hull zone. Measure line of sight to the defender to ensure the attack is possible and to determine if it is obstructed.

◊ If the attacker is a ship, the defending squadron or hull zone must be inside the attacking hull zone’s firing arc and at attack range of the attacking hull zone.

◊ If the attacker is a squadron, the defending squadron or hull zone must be at distance 1.

6. Declare Additional Squadron Target: If the attacker is a ship and the defender was a squadron, the attacker can declare another enemy squadron as a defender and repeat steps 2 through 6. The new defender must be inside the firing arc and at attack range of the same attacking hull zone, and the attacker must measure line of sight to it as normal. Each enemy squadron can be targeted only once per attack

Rules Reference Quick Reference Rear Cover

To perform an attack with a squadron or ship, proceed through the following steps:

1. Declare Target: Declare a target that is inside the firing arc and at attack range of the attacking squadron or hull zone. Declare the attacking and/or defending hull zone, if any. Measure line of sight to the defender

Onager Rules Insert (copied word for word as there is no digital copy; I included this b/c here they made a point of saying it can break the declare target restrictions)

While performing an IGNITION attack, firing arc, range, and line of sight are measured from the attacker's ship token as normal, with the following exceptions:

Ignition attacks can be declared against ships beyond the length of the range ruler , which is considered extreme range.

2 hours ago, Karneck said:

I agree it would be great if they had a community team, but again, that is time, money, training, and resources that if they provide for this game, they must provide for ALL of their games. So they don't, because they don't have the time, money, training, and resources for it.

Ok, if the problem is that they are literally not allowed to talk to the community because of some legal agreement with Disney, that’s one thing. If the argument is actually one about time, money, training, and resources, I will say again, “that’s horse ****.”

They need one guy... whoever is the head guy who approves the cards for release... to take maybe an hour every month to answer burning questions like, “hey, did you guys intend to let HFZ increase range?” and “hey, does Escort stop IG-88B from working?”

That is not difficult, nor is it time consuming.

54 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

They need one guy... whoever is the head guy who approves the cards for release...

Except its not "One Guy".

I mean, one could *argue* that responsibility ultimately lands with the Producer.

However, that being said - they're Prodcuer for *multiple* systems, involved in development for *multiple* systems, and as a Producer, sub in, in any other needed position within those other systems.

IE.

You're most likely asking the busiest person to do more work

But in the End.

We have no say, there's likely a *reason* as to why its not done that way... I know in the past, having talked to Michael Gernes, that answering questions was *a week long experience* on its own, basically - because there's a Lot to Wade through, especially when dealing with subjects that may have been raised before they were even involved on the program.

There’s just no acceptable explanation for it. I’m sorry, I’m sure they’re all very nice people, but someone is dropping the ball at FFG. I’ve played numerous tabletop, card, and video games over many years, as I’m sure many of us have, and FFG is the least responsive game producer I’ve ever seen.

The simple fact is that other game companies have this figured out, and FFG doesn’t, leaving one with the inescapable conclusion that someone, somewhere isn’t doing a very good job.

7 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

There’s just no acceptable explanation for it. I’m sorry, I’m sure they’re all very nice people, but someone is dropping the ball at FFG. I’ve played numerous tabletop, card, and video games over many years, as I’m sure many of us have, and FFG is the least responsive game producer I’ve ever seen.

The simple fact is that other game companies have this figured out, and FFG doesn’t, leaving one with the inescapable conclusion that someone, somewhere isn’t doing a very good job.

Sure.

Here's the big deal though... and I point I often got into with people in the past, but havn't for a while:

What are you going do about it?

What productive thing are you going to do about it?

Because posting here about it isn't productive. Its downright negative .

Wastes your time if nothing else.

Which is why, essentially, we do what we do in the meantime, and we work in the framework presented.

Call me biased, but I don't want to see whining, I want to see solutions that we can act upon

Believe me, I’m not here to simply sow negativity. It’s just that in the real world, pressure from unhappy consumers would lead to FFG improving their processes, and quite honestly, the people responsible for interminable product delays and insufficient rules support would be required to improve, and failing that, they’d be sacked and replaced. If nobody complains, nothing gets done.

I want to give FFG gobs of money for a good game, well-supported, delivered on time (most of the time). They’re consistently delivering on... one of those things. If you don’t think they should be answerable to the people who pay for their games, then I’m just not sure where to go with this conversation, except to say that you are very patient, very charitable, and the sort of customer that most companies don’t deserve.

The things I’m agitating for are very, very basic. I don’t expect perfection, and if there were something more positive I could do, I would do it.

42 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Believe me, I’m not here to simply sow negativity. It’s just that in the real world, pressure from unhappy consumers would lead to FFG improving their processes, and quite honestly, the people responsible for interminable product delays and insufficient rules support would be required to improve, and failing that, they’d be sacked and replaced. If nobody complains, nothing gets done.

I want to give FFG gobs of money for a good game, well-supported, delivered on time (most of the time). They’re consistently delivering on... one of those things. If you don’t think they should be answerable to the people who pay for their games, then I’m just not sure where to go with this conversation, except to say that you are very patient, very charitable, and the sort of customer that most companies don’t deserve.

The things I’m agitating for are very, very basic. I don’t expect perfection, and if there were something more positive I could do, I would do it.

Have you given Customer Feedback through the Official Feedback/Contact Page?

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Have you given Customer Feedback through the Official Feedback/Contact Page?

I admit, I haven’t. I think we all know how often people read those sorts of messages. Especially organizations that claim to be overworked already.

Your point’s well taken. It still baffles me that there isn’t more of a grassroots effort to force FFG to respond to customer concerns in a more direct manner. But if my expecting more of FFG is bumming people out, I will dial back my criticism a bit.

1 hour ago, Cpt ObVus said:

It still baffles me that there isn’t more of a grassroots effort to force FFG to respond to customer concerns in a more direct manner.

Because we've been there, done that, and been told directly it doesn't work, but to use the Official Feedback Links, since they tend to bounce through multiple people

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Because we've been there, done that, and been told directly it doesn't work, but to use the Official Feedback Links, since they tend to bounce through multiple people

Fair enough. I will try that.

Realized I never posted the response from the developer that designed the HFZ card.

"Yes, as the ability to gather dice of colors appropriate to the range of the attack is what determines whether the attack can proceed (last bullet of step 2: Roll Attack Dice) and Heavy Fire Zone triggers before the dice are gathered."

In a nutshell, you can switch out the blue dice for red and proceed with an attack at long range.

17 hours ago, Karneck said:

Realized I never posted the response from the developer that designed the HFZ card.

"Yes, as the ability to gather dice of colors appropriate to the range of the attack is what determines whether the attack can proceed (last bullet of step 2: Roll Attack Dice) and Heavy Fire Zone triggers before the dice are gathered."

In a nutshell, you can switch out the blue dice for red and proceed with an attack at long range.

thank you for the update!

Does Quad Laser Turrets work with Heavy Fire Zone? Can I convert a Counter attack to red dice?

If you wanted too, yes. Just remember, QLT only works at distance 1, so you couldn't counter a squadron attack outside D1.

1 hour ago, Karneck said:

If you wanted too, yes. Just remember, QLT only works at distance 1, so you couldn't counter a squadron attack outside D1.

Thanks. Just wanted to check, because I'm about to play an 800pt game with a squadless Executor II. It has HFZ, Quad Laser Turrets, Linked Turbolaser Turrets and Point Defence Reroute. I pity the fool that sends his squads in to that...

On 2/5/2020 at 2:03 PM, Karneck said:

Here is my interpretations. Doesn't mean I am right, but from what I've discussed with other judges, this feels like the "intent" behind the card. Its on the top of my list to get answered when I can.

When a ship equipped with Heavy Fire Zone declares an enemy squadron the target of an attack. If that squadron is not engaged with a friendly squadron, before moving on to the “Roll Attack Dice” step, you may replace any blue dice in that ships anti squadron armament with red dice.

There is much confusion over this card, however the intent is clear.
Here is an example of why this card works. Using the Attack sequence.

For this example, it will be a ship with an anti squadron armament of 1 blue die and an enemy squadron that is within long range of the attacking hull zones firing arc.

Step 1. Declare a Target. In this case, a ship attacking a squadron.

Step 2. As you are checking range, declare you are using Heavy Fire Zone and since you are in the “Declare Target” step, which is before the “Roll Attack Dice” step, this allows you to replace the blue die with a red die. Now when the range is checked, the squadron is in “attack range”.

Step3. And now move on to the “Roll Attack Dice” step gathering the red die needed to conduct the attack at long range.

What is the interaction with the Counter keyword, if a ship also has Quad Laser Turrets equipped?

Counter is an anti-squadron armament of 1 blue die and would be able to be replaced with a red die.

Sorry if this has been asked already-- but don't you have to replace blues with all reds? The card doesn't seem to suggest we can do 1 red/1 blue.

5 hours ago, Wulff_Yularen said:

Sorry if this has been asked already-- but don't you have to replace blues with all reds? The card doesn't seem to suggest we can do 1 red/1 blue.

You are correct, I think I was having a moment.

So yes, it is all or nothing. No mix and match.

On 5/10/2020 at 7:55 AM, flatpackhamster said:

Thanks. Just wanted to check, because I'm about to play an 800pt game with a squadless Executor II. It has HFZ, Quad Laser Turrets, Linked Turbolaser Turrets and Point Defence Reroute. I pity the fool that sends his squads in to that...

I thought that I would let everyone know the outcome of the squad murder wagon. It faced 160pts of squads, and it ruined them. They were taking 2 red dice, rerollable, at long range, then 3 at close range, plus counter damage every time they attacked the SSD, and unique squads had to spend a defence token because I am as carrying officer Palpatine.

It was a thing of beauty and my opponent was very unhappy.