30 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.

There was a little as to whether you could target a unit such as Commander Vader with a courage value of '-' to transfer the suppression token. The email Sekac is quoting is in the post I'm linking here. Interesting, the SAME wording as in the RRG is in the email. "Interesting question! “Gain” and “Transfer” are certainly different; when a unit gains a token, the token is taken from the general supply of tokens outside the game. When a token is transferred, it is moved from one unit to another. The first unit loses the token and the second unit gains it."
So even in the quoted email, it is listed as a transfer of the physical token. The statement that one unit "Loses" the Suppression and the other "Gains" a Suppression is likely to enable game effects that trigger on gaining/losing suppression, such as removing a Standby token when you gain a suppression token.

1 hour ago, Kirjath08 said:

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.

Derp. That's what I get for not backtracking through the series of quotes.

So... a quick trawl through wookieepedia suggests that we're dealing with a true laser beam. So it's maximum range would largely be determined by the gunner's accuracy, yes. Diffraction should not be relevant at those ranges.

21 hours ago, costi said:

Crits don't care about Dodge or cover. And if they do dodge it, you still have an aim token for the next strike team.

If this is how Lethal is supposed to work, then ARC trooper strike teams are the TLT of Legion (TLT was the card that IMO started the power creep in X-Wing 1.0 and ultimately led to 2nd edition because the first one was beyond fixing).

Power creep in X-Wing 1.0 started waaay back in wave 4 with the TIE Phantom. It began the arms race between arc dodgers and turrets.

Just a heads up, but FFG posted another RRG today. Looks like Lethal was changed to the Modify Attack Dice step, so it doesn't get around Impervious anymore.

Edit: I am uncertain if there are any other changes between yesterday's version of 1.7 and today's.

But my panic!!

28 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Just a heads up, but FFG posted another RRG today. Looks like Lethal was changed to the Modify Attack Dice step, so it doesn't get around Impervious anymore.

Edit: I am uncertain if there are any other changes between yesterday's version of 1.7 and today's.

There doesn't appear to be any changes except that one word. they didn't even change the typos. 😆

5 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

There was a little as to whether you could target a unit such as Commander Vader with a courage value of '-' to transfer the suppression token. The email Sekac is quoting is in the post I'm linking here. Interesting, the SAME wording as in the RRG is in the email. "Interesting question! “Gain” and “Transfer” are certainly different; when a unit gains a token, the token is taken from the general supply of tokens outside the game. When a token is transferred, it is moved from one unit to another. The first unit loses the token and the second unit gains it."
So even in the quoted email, it is listed as a transfer of the physical token.

He sent me 2 emails, I only posted one on there.

The follow up was me pointing out that in both cases what is actually happening is the Cad Bane player is putting their suppression tokens back in their supply, and the other player is taking their own out of their supply and putting it next to their model.

Here was the reply to that:

" You’re welcome! And you are correct that “transfer” is an abbreviated description of a more involved process, but grammatical considerations are often subordinate to the physical constraints of our cards, which contain a finite amount of physical space for text. We do as much abbreviation as we can afford to do while trying to keep the mechanics as clear as possible."

A transfer is just a shorthand for "one unit removes a token, the other unit gains one", nothing more.

I'm not surprised his initial email matched the wording of the new reference. Because I'm sure nobody there pointed out how unnecessary it is for that specific token (and not one exactly like it) to end up on the unit being transferred to.

You don’t need to "physically transfer" that specific token. That's stupid.

3 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

There doesn't appear to be any changes except that one word. they didn't even change the typos. 😆

Well, to be fair, that was the most important typo to change.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Well, to be fair, that was the most important typo to change.

There is another ... Exemplar now officially needs LOS as was probably intended indicated by the reminder texts on Padme.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Well, to be fair, that was the most important typo to change.

It's several typos over less than 250 words of blue text.

What they fixed was an ability changing oversight.

Nobody re-read that document, not when it was first posted, not when it was posted again now. Anybody giving even a cursory glance at that document when reviewing it would have caught those inconsistencies. It's mind-boggling.

On 8/22/2020 at 6:02 AM, OneLastMidnight said:

It's several typos over less than 250 words of blue text.

What they fixed was an ability changing oversight.

Nobody re-read that document, not when it was first posted, not when it was posted again now. Anybody giving even a cursory glance at that document when reviewing it would have caught those inconsistencies. It's mind-boggling.

i saw a few typos in it when i read through it first time but didnt catch the defense step rather than attack . i was more worried about Beam, the changes to Ion and Shields is nice though, makes Ion slightly more worth it (most Ion weapons are still overpriced though)

I like that a Duelist (p. 40) may gain the " Immune: Piece " keyword. And now I wonder what sort of pieces that could be? Piece of cake? Or go to pieces? 😊

Or is that a typo ... and should be " Immune: Peace "?

1 hour ago, Triangular said:

I like that a Duelist (p. 40) may gain the " Immune: Piece " keyword. And now I wonder what sort of pieces that could be? Piece of cake? Or go to pieces? 😊

Or is that a typo ... and should be " Immune: Peace "?

All Mandalorians are Immune to Peace.

This is The Way.

2 hours ago, 5particus said:

the changes to Ion and Shields is nice though, makes Ion slightly more worth it (most Ion weapons are still overpriced though)

The changes to Shields have no mechanical effect on the game, they just make it work more smoothly and in the same vein as dodge and cover. What changes did you think took place? Ion always wrecked shield tokens before you could spend them.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

The changes to Shields have no mechanical effect on the game, they just make it work more smoothly and in the same vein as dodge and cover. What changes did you think took place? Ion always wrecked shield tokens before you could spend them.

The only change I can see (which actually makes Ion worse against Shields) is you now apply Dodge and Cover before determining how many Shield tokens needed to be flipped due to Ion. Previously, you could end up having to flip Shield tokens from an attack that is completely cancelled by Cover and/or Dodge... So that said I'm not sure why that makes Ion more worth it?

13 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The only change I can see (which actually makes Ion worse against Shields) is you now apply Dodge and Cover before determining how many Shield tokens needed to be flipped due to Ion. Previously, you could end up having to flip Shield tokens from an attack that is completely cancelled by Cover and/or Dodge... So that said I'm not sure why that makes Ion more worth it?

I agree with you. I don't think ion changed at all from how I understood it to work previously. I guess dodges are forced to be used now, whereas they weren't before, but it was probably pretty edge case to have a dodge and not use it prior to flipping a shield. A nice summary per the 5th Trooper Article:

Quote

Nearly this entire section is blue, but here is the TLDR: they work like you thought they did. This has basically be re-written such that they actually cancel paint (a hit or crit) rather than give you a guaranteed save, which is functionally the same thing but feels cleaner mechanically. It also clarifies that shield tokens belong to the unit, not the mini. Sorry Iden, no you cannot refresh your shield for free every time DIO gets revived.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

The changes to Shields have no mechanical effect on the game, they just make it work more smoothly and in the same vein as dodge and cover. What changes did you think took place? Ion always wrecked shield tokens before you could spend them.

i dint realise that ion hit shields first before the change, i blame that on only ever taking a ion weapon once, the MPL and quickly realised that there were far better options to take

13 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The only change I can see (which actually makes Ion worse against Shields) is you now apply Dodge and Cover before determining how many Shield tokens needed to be flipped due to Ion. Previously, you could end up having to flip Shield tokens from an attack that is completely cancelled by Cover and/or Dodge... So that said I'm not sure why that makes Ion more worth it?

I agree with you. I don't think ion changed at all from how I understood it to work previously. I guess dodges are forced to be used now, whereas they weren't before, but it was probably pretty edge case to have a dodge and not use it prior to flipping a shield. A nice summary per the 5th Trooper Article:

Quote

Nearly this entire section is blue, but here is the TLDR: they work like you thought they did. This has basically be re-written such that they actually cancel paint (a hit or crit) rather than give you a guaranteed save, which is functionally the same thing but feels cleaner mechanically. It also clarifies that shield tokens belong to the unit, not the mini. Sorry Iden, no you cannot refresh your shield for free every time DIO gets revived.

1 minute ago, Mokoshkana said:

I agree with you. I don't think ion changed at all from how I understood it to work previously. I guess dodges are forced to be used now, whereas they weren't before, but it was probably pretty edge case to have a dodge and not use it prior to flipping a shield. A nice summary per the 5th Trooper Article:

Except it did change. Previously it flipped shield tokens before the Dodge and Cover step, now it can only flip a number of shield tokens equal to hits and crits left in the pool after Dodge and Cover are applied.
Also, D10 currently cannot be revived per the rules on Treat and Repair, but that's a seperate matter.

Shouldn't there be some discussion on Bomb carts being allowed to move through Impassable terrain? Supposedly this has always been like this? Even though I'm a rules first / theme second kind of guy, I find this allowance disturbingly damaging to my suspension of disbelief. Unless I'm missing something obvious, a bomb cart can simply move right through/over the middle of a height 3 impassable wall??? Super-hover tech++? Phased dematerialization tech? Ok, I'll stop.

Quote

A bomb cart mini can move through or over impassible
terrain, so long as its final placement is legal. A bomb cart
mini is treated as a unit when determining legal placement.

9 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Shouldn't there be some discussion on Bomb carts being allowed to move through Impassable terrain? Supposedly this has always been like this? Even though I'm a rules first / theme second kind of guy, I find this allowance disturbingly damaging to my suspension of disbelief. Unless I'm missing something obvious, a bomb cart can simply move right through/over the middle of a height 3 impassable wall??? Super-hover tech++? Phased dematerialization tech? Ok, I'll stop.

I mean, it's not significantly worse than needing line of sight to a short cardboard token in order to get the effects of graffiti that is sprayed on the side of a terrain piece.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I mean, it's not significantly worse than needing line of sight to a short cardboard token in order to get the effects of graffiti that is sprayed on the side of a terrain piece.

Do you not find even a glimpse of graffiti inspiring? i certainly do! 🎨 🤩

18 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Do you not find even a glimpse of graffiti inspiring? i certainly do! 🎨 🤩

It's more the fact that the graffiti is incredibly tiny and either placed at the very bottom of the wall, or the very top of the building. So apparently spray paint only works downward in Legion 😛

49 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Shouldn't there be some discussion on Bomb carts being allowed to move through Impassable terrain? Supposedly this has always been like this? Even though I'm a rules first / theme second kind of guy, I find this allowance disturbingly damaging to my suspension of disbelief. Unless I'm missing something obvious, a bomb cart can simply move right through/over the middle of a height 3 impassable wall??? Super-hover tech++? Phased dematerialization tech? Ok, I'll stop.

I think they had to do that to account for all of the varied tables we play on. On some urban tables you could totally just screw your oponent over.

5 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I think they had to do that to account for all of the varied tables we play on. On some urban tables you could totally just screw your oponent over.

That is a good point.
I also haven't seen many pieces of terrain that are thirteen inches or higher.