I wonder if points change also include more significant changes.

After all, the point changes are in the RRG, so maybe it'll get updated again when that rolls around, and this is just a quick update to get rules in? Who knows how FFG works, it's not like they reach out to the community much...

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

im also upset the game still has major LoS and cover issues that werent fixed either. like how airspeeders cant see over intervening cover thats on the ground. thats so dumb.

I think you don't understand how cover works.

2 hours ago, Khobai said:

yes but they shouldve ruled that it cant do that

because its outside the max range of the weapon

allowing the tank to continue to do that nonsense is just as bad

It's a laser beam. It shouldn't even have a maximum range, but I digress. If it helps you imagine what's going on, I'd say it's the effective range of the weaponry (any farther out, and it can't accurately hit the target or some other nonsense like the arcing shots in The Last Jedi).

If your complaint is purely based on the balance side of things, I'm not sure why this is a problem. Almost every multi model unit in the game can hit things outside their weapon's maximum range due to how attack ranges are measured (from the unit leader). If it proves to be unbalanced (and I'm not sure it will, since this new shot doesn't ignore cover or anything), then maybe they'll change the ruling in the RRG later.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

I think you don't understand how cover works.

how does it work then? my understanding is you draw an imaginary line from the base of the attacking model to the base of the defending model. and if theres cover anywhere along the line the defending model gets cover. thats exactly how the book says it works so unless its changed somewhere it still works that way.

so the fact the airspeeder is elevated and can clearly see over cover doesnt matter because you draw the line from the airspeeders base not the airspeeders guns so the defending model still gets cover. its one of the reasons the airspeeder is so terrible because its attacks are affected by all intervening cover even if it clearly can see over it.

its also stupid for the At-st since you draw the lines for cover from its feet rather than its head. so models on rooftops still get cover even if the at-st is looking down on them with its guns.

as far as I know none of that has been fixed. the game still treats everything as though its completely flat.

14 minutes ago, Kirjath08 said:

It's a laser beam. It shouldn't even have a maximum range, but I digress. If it helps you imagine what's going on, I'd say it's the effective range of the weaponry (any farther out, and it can't accurately hit the target or some other nonsense like the arcing shots in The Last Jedi).

If your complaint is purely based on the balance side of things, I'm not sure why this is a problem. Almost every multi model unit in the game can hit things outside their weapon's maximum range due to how attack ranges are measured (from the unit leader). If it proves to be unbalanced (and I'm not sure it will, since this new shot doesn't ignore cover or anything), then maybe they'll change the ruling in the RRG later.

why shouldnt it have a maximum range? laser beams defract in atmosphere. of course it should have a maximum range. and that maximum range is 4. which is why its silly that it can rake things at range 5 when its max range is range 4.

I 100% dont agree with that ruling. the secondary targets of the beam should have to be fully within range 4. that would make sense.

Quote

Almost every multi model unit in the game can hit things outside their weapon's maximum range

yeah but only the range of cohesion which is a movement 1 tool. not a range 1 tool like the beam.

8 minutes ago, Khobai said:

why shouldnt it have a maximum range? light defracts in atmosphere. of course it should have a maximum range. and that maximum range is 4. which is why its silly that it can rake things at range 5 when its max range is range 4.

I'll rephrase my statement. The maximum range for a proper laser beam that could kill people would be a heck of a lot farther than the game's equivalent of range 4. But this is fantasy science, after all. Space wizards and whatnot. They could have easily given the Beam weapon a range of 5, but then it likely wouldn't have the neat splitting effect, which is just meant to be a unique game mechanic. It was designed as a weapon that could work beyond its own maximum range, it has never not worked that way in the entire time the keyword has existed.

Long Shot is another keyword that extends the maximum range of a weapon. This doesn't mean it's cheating, this is just how the keyword was designed to work.

10 minutes ago, Khobai said:

how does it work then? my understanding is you draw an imaginary line from the base of the attacking model to the base of the defending model. and if theres cover anywhere along the line the defending model gets cover. thats exactly how the book says it works so unless its changed somewhere it still works that way.

so the fact the airspeeder is elevated and can clearly see over cover doesnt matter because you draw the line from the airspeeders base not the airspeeders guns so the defending model still gets cover. its one of the reasons the airspeeder is so terrible because its attacks are affected by all intervening cover even if it clearly can see over it.

its also stupid for the At-st since you draw the lines for cover from its feet rather than its head. so models on rooftops still get cover even if the at-st is looking down on them with its guns.

as far as I know none of that has been fixed. the game still treats everything as though its completely flat.

You only do the flat plane check if the Line of Sight is obscured by the terrain piece. I suggest you re-read page 31, paying special attention to the diagram on the top of the page.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

how does it work then? my understanding is you draw an imaginary line from the base of the attacking model to the base of the defending model. and if theres cover anywhere along the line the defending model gets cover. thats exactly how the book says it works so unless its changed somewhere it still works that way.

so the fact the airspeeder is elevated and can clearly see over cover doesnt matter because you draw the line from the airspeeders base not the airspeeders guns so the defending model still gets cover. its one of the reasons the airspeeder is so terrible because its attacks are affected by all intervening cover even if it clearly can see over it.

Ok you’ve either misread or misunderstood los.

Line of sight is used to determine if one mini can see another mini. A player determines line of sight from the perspective of a mini, using a viewpoint where the center of the mini’s base meets the top of the mini’s sculpt. If a player can see part of
an opponent’s mini, which includes that mini’s base, from that viewpoint, that player’s mini has line of sight to that opponent’s mini.

this is taken directly from the latest rrg.

In short you look from the top of the model to determine los.

Hope this helps clarify it for you.

8 hours ago, costi said:

Lethal X:
"While a unit performs an attack with a weapon that has the lethal x keyword, it can spend up to x aim tokens during the Modify Defense Dice step. If it does, the attack pool gains pierce 1 for each aim token spent."

Modify Defence Dice happens after the defender rolls dice, so Lethal bypasses Impervious and on top of that, the attacker decides to activate Lethal when he sees the defender dice roll - which means that if the defender rolls poorly, ARC troopers can keep their aim for sharing with other clones.
Is this an oversight, or an intentional buff to an already extremely powerful unit?

Huh so it turns out playing units we don't know the rules too might not be the best idea..... Weird

4 hours ago, Tirion said:

Huh so it turns out playing units we don't know the rules too might not be the best idea..... Weird

Why not? People were complaining about how good the unit was and now we see that it's actually slightly better. What was the harm?

3 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Why not? People were complaining about how good the unit was and now we see that it's actually slightly better. What was the harm?

Getting used to playing the keyword "wrong" can lead to mistakes later, or perpetuation the error by teaching newer players wrong.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Getting used to playing the keyword "wrong" can lead to mistakes later, or perpetuation the error by teaching newer players wrong.

So? Things change all the time. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get to play with toys. That's like saying you shouldn't play the game at all because another RRG could come out and change things so that you've been playing "wrong."

Just now, arnoldrew said:

So? Things change all the time. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get to play with toys. That's like saying you shouldn't play the game at all because another RRG could come out and change things so that you've been playing "wrong."

I was indicating what could be the harm, not trying to say you shouldn't play with them.
And it is a bit different to have the RRG change vs playing with an assumption as to what the rules will be and have the official rules be very different.

24 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I was indicating what could be the harm, not trying to say you shouldn't play with them.
And it is a bit different to have the RRG change vs playing with an assumption as to what the rules will be and have the official rules be very different.

It's really not, though. Either way you're playing one way, to the best of your understanding, then you are playing another way.

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

It's really not, though. Either way you're playing one way, to the best of your understanding, then you are playing another way.

Well, in one way it can be, since people are testing out the units with an imperfect understanding of the rule, playing it wrong may lead to a unit being declared as "useless" or otherwise dismissed by the meta crowd when the unit actually works just fine. Or the exact opposite, a keyword is improperly interpreted to be more powerful leading to people buying multiples of a unit that (once the RRG adds the keyword) turns out is actually very weak. So the amount of "harm" done can differ from the RRG changing/clarifying to people guessing at how a new keyword will work, in order to play with the unit on TT sim before the unit is released.
Once the model is released though, if all we have are best guesses due to the RRG update being delayed, then that's a bit different, since the initial purchases have already occured.

Now, i will admit this isn't much different from the keyword's rules being poorly written, but at least in that situation there was an official ruling in place that was used in a few official tournaments.

Speaking of tournaments, I found it interesting that this RRG update went into effect immediately, as opposed to the normal lead time.

5 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Speaking of tournaments, I found it interesting that this RRG update went into effect immediately, as opposed to the normal lead time.

Probably due to it coming out weeks/months later than it should have.

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

Probably due to it coming out weeks/months later than it should have.

Yeah, that's probably part of it, combined with a current lack of official tournaments (as far as I'm aware at least).

12 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

It's a laser beam. It shouldn't even have a maximum range, but I digress. If it helps you imagine what's going on, I'd say it's the effective range of the weaponry (any farther out, and it can't accurately hit the target or some other nonsense like the arcing shots in The Last Jedi).

Blasters are not laser beams, though. They fire plasma bolts. Which is why you can see the blaster bolt move, after all. Compare that to, say, the lasguns in dawn of war (Or any 40k game; Dawn of War is just the easiest place to point it out). When fired, you see a momentary beam from gun to target, with no travel time.

6 minutes ago, Squark said:

Blasters are not laser beams, though. They fire plasma bolts. Which is why you can see the blaster bolt move, after all. Compare that to, say, the lasguns in dawn of war (Or any 40k game; Dawn of War is just the easiest place to point it out). When fired, you see a momentary beam from gun to target, with no travel time.

But this is the Beam Cannon we're talking about. Is that just a stream of plasma then? I guess that's better at explaining the maximum range, but the beam cannon never seems to have travel time, which made me think it was closer to a laser.

Star Wars isn't remotely scientifically accurate. Physics in the Star Wars universe is whatever is necessary to fit the plot.

2 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

So? Things change all the time. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get to play with toys. That's like saying you shouldn't play the game at all because another RRG could come out and change things so that you've been playing "wrong."

...... They weren't released yet...... Your are changing the point of what I said

3 minutes ago, Tirion said:

...... They weren't released yet...... Your are changing the point of what I said

So? How is it different? The point is the same. They had most of the rules, so they extrapolated the rest and played with toys. Later, the rules they were playing by changed. Some of it is borderline house-rules, but it still didn't hurt anything. The only thing that wasn't correct is probably a mistake in the RRG anyway.

Just now, arnoldrew said:

So? How is it different? The point is the same. They had most of the rules, so they extrapolated the rest and played with toys. Later, the rules they were playing by changed. Some of it is borderline house-rules, but it still didn't hurt anything. The only thing that wasn't correct is probably a mistake in the RRG anyway.

Okay I guess the point I'm trying to make is the online group think shouldn't be making declarations armor a unit or the meta when they don't have even near the whole picture of the wave.

Though the way ffg chooses to release it's waves is a while other issue.

15 hours ago, Sekac said:

While the initial question is answered, they still have the rule wrong though and nobody should ever follow it to the letter (and they won't). Here's what they wrote:

"When a game effect transfers a token from one unit to another unit, that token is physically moved from unit to unit.

• The original unit loses the token and the other unit gains the token.

• When transferring suppression tokens, units with a courage value of "–" cannot be selected as targets for the transfer."

A transfer is just a "remove" (although they call it a "lose" in this instance because they just can't be bothered to be consistent) for one unit and a "gain" for the other. It is NOT a physical transfer of that token from one unit to the other, so just ignore that. Alex Davy acknowledged in his emails to me that one unit removes the suppression token and returns it to their supply, and their opponent takes a token from their supply and the target unit gains it. The idea is that "transfer" would be the shorthand for that process.

I'm genuinely shocked to see a rule that says exactly the opposite 1 day later. It speaks to how nobody is really on the same page when it comes to rules writing.

If, at the end of the "transfer" the token count is correct on both the transferer and transferee, then the rule has been satisfied. Where each molecularly unique suppression token ends up is not the least bit relevant, despite what this says.

I'm confused was there some question/confusion about transfer? I have only played a handful of games with cad and only used his 2 pip twice but I have never run into a scenario where things could get confusing with it.

It doesn't really harm anything per se, but the impact of people in Invader League playing those models and then the community calling them wildly overpowered before they're even out and calling for nerfs before the unit is released is pretty **** disheartening in its attitude, especially for non-tournament GAR players.

Do I feel bad for fielding that unit? Did FFG break the game?

ARC troopers are probably good, but who knows how the meta shifts. If Lethal counters Impervious, then the ARCs themselves are affected. Armor's popularity would be a pretty big swing in the meta as well, especially with generic commanders on the way.

My point is that it's already hard enough for people to let the meta settle once units are released and tried out before making any judgement calls without having an online tournament that took place a few weeks after we got most of the information about that unit being taken as proof that they're the most OP thing ever and we all need to panic and fire the nerf missiles.

32 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

I'm confused was there some question/confusion about transfer? I have only played a handful of games with cad and only used his 2 pip twice but I have never run into a scenario where things could get confusing with it.

Yeah, the question was whether or not Cad Bane could transfer suppression tokens to Vader to immobilize him. The previous rules reference made it clear that he could not have suppression token "assigned to" him but there is nothing preventing him from having them "transferred to".

But since they dropped "transfer" into that card with no definition of what a transfer actually is, it was very unclear.

It was either a shorthand for a remove/gain interaction or an intentional way to circumvent the usual courage rules, but it wasn't clear which.

Turns out it is shorthand for a remove/gain interaction, even though the current rules doc doesn't really reflect that.

This is what happens when you don't prioritize verbiage discipline when writing instructions. Game interactions are dictated in large part by their verbs. FFG likes to use different verbs arbitrarily and interchangeably because consistency has never been important to them. For example, while it is functionally a remove/gain interaction, they arbitrarily referred to it as a lose/gain interaction, using the wrong verb in an update to a document to clear up a different verb problem.

Bless their hearts.