First Run in X-Wing: Ground Assault

AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
edited August 2016 in Feedback & Gameplay
I've compiled a review / feedback after my first game of X-Wing Ground Assault.

TESTERS

Myself – I play X-Wing regularly and competitively but only locally. A bit of experience with Armada and Warhammer

Tester 2 – Plays some X-Wing casually. Very experienced with other miniatures games like Warhammer and Armada, so he intuitively understood a lot of the rules you were making and had an idea about where you were pulling ideas from.

Tester 3 – casual miniatures player. Doesn't own his own stuff, uses others'.

OVERVIEW

The Ground Assault rules fit in pretty well with the rest of X-Wing but they don't quite meet the “simple to learn, difficult to master” idea of X-Wing.

I read the rules back to front a few times and sought clarification on a few points from the developers prior to the first game. I used the dev's answers as a sort of FAQ until they include it in the next version of the rules. T2 and T3 relied on me explaining the rules to them to get them going. Obviously, questions kept coming up during the game about specific situations, and I'd usually wait until, say, infantry had a shot on a ship before explaining ground to air rules, but I was able to build on T2 and T3's familiarity with X-Wing and get them playing within about 5 minutes without them having to read the rulebook.

I think it's important that we're able to do this. This will likely be a casual format along the lines of Epic or Heroes of the Arturi Cluster, not something that will be played as regularly as 100-pt X-Wing, and one should be able to pick it up quickly.

Our first game was 200 pts and involved vehicles, infantry, a couple of the new upgrades, and ships. We kinda jumped into the deep-end and should've tried at least one introductory mission first, but it was a lot of fun.

The differences between infantry shooting vehicles, to vehicles shooting vehicles, etc. were thematically appropriate but a lot to juggle.

Infantry are a cool new concept but extremely challenging to learn and manage. They constantly brought up rules issues. All of us expressed a desire to see infantry revisited and revised.

The rules need to be fleshed out a bit more as some questions came up during the game. A couple of the issues cropped up because we jumped in head-first and I couldn't find the particular rule mid-game, and that's on us. Some of the text on units and upgrades need to be fixed. This is to be expected in development though.

We found that the vehicles and new upgrades fit in well with the rest of the game. Most of the unit and upgrade cards were easy to understand. Close assaults and rally tests are totally thematic. Before, during, and after the game we bounced around a lot of ideas for the game – missions involving getting ground units through fierce dogfights onto space stations to complete objectives, different units we'd like to see (speederbikes for me), how different missions could highlight the effectiveness of different units (like a tower defense mission for the Rebel turrets), and we spitballed rules for ships being converted to ground troop transports. We're all excited to see this game develop more.

GENERAL GAME

1. I'm not sure if you're designing from the perspective of only mission-based games or if you're considering games where you just grab a bunch of units and throw them into a game, but there should be a cap on the amount of points spent on spaceships in a game of Ground Assault. At least until some more anti-air comes along.

2. Ships might need different deployment rules. They move much faster than everything else and it can be really awkward. In our game, T2's rebel ships got tangled up with T3 and I's Imperial ground and air units and T2's turrets and infantry were just sitting around waiting for us to figure that mess out.

3. Speaking of deployment, do we follow normal X-Wing rules for that?

4. Speaking of turrets, if you're playtesting this version and you've gotten through the introductory missions and you want to go all-in, you should take a “complete the objective” approach rather than “kill everything”. Give the Rebels something to defend so they can put those cool turrets to good use. The turrets might also need different deployment rules so they can be dropped around a key objective.

UNIT BASE DESIGN

The units look great. I especially like the clunky AT-AT. Its unit base, maneuver template, and firing arc is dead-on.

5. Can you put Faction symbols on the unit bases? This would be especially helpful for infantry team bases, which look too similar to be able to tell them apart at a glance.

6. Any way you can squeeze the combat values onto the bases? This might not be possible with the infantry and AT-ST, but the AT-AT should have room.

CARD TEXT (UNIT AND UPGRADE CARDS)

I'm going to pitch my case again on a couple of old issues I brought up previously. If you don't buy in at this point, I won't win you over and I'll move on:

7. The word “upgrade” on the weapon cards that the infantry can use is ambiguous. I disagree that it's clear what it means. When I upgrade my cell phone I replace the old one with a new one, but when I upgrade my weapon in a video game, I give it a benefit or improvement that increases or adds an effect to whatever damage the weapon currently does. The word upgrade can have two meanings – replace this value, or increase this value – and this is why I recommend either using a different word or defining the word in your glossary.

8. I'll ask you to reconsider on the text of the infantry platoons. There are some fantastic infantry units out there such as scout troopers, sand troopers, space troopers, aqua troopers, Ewoks, Wookies, Trandoshans, and more and you'll want to give those platoons some abilities or special rules to make them unique and to capture who they are in the game. I think a keyword and reminder card will work much better than spelling the infantry card rules out on every infantry card. Maybe the rulebook could illustrate an example of how the cards work with pictures and examples?

9. FFG includes helpful reminders everywhere so you remember how stuff works. Everyone knows how turrets work, but it helps to see the red blaster bolt symbol with the circle around it to remind you that that specific ship has a 360 degree firing arc. Similarly, I'd still like to see such a reminder on the infantry card. Maybe a +/- symbol after the unit's Health and Primary Attack to show that those values are modular?

New Issues

10. The infantry don't have the “assault” keyword?

11. The AT-AT should have the “transport” keyword instead of text explaining the function.

12. Sharpshooter confers two different benefits. Does the benefit conferred in the second sentence also require Overwatch to trigger? If so, maybe do “Overwatch:(in bold) (What sharpshooter does while this unit is in Overwatch)”. This would also be a helpful reminder that the card requires that order for it to be active.

·

Comments

  • AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
    VEHICLES

    This was the easiest to pick up and integrated really well into the rest of X-Wing.

    13. What happens if a unit must move because of an AT-AT's “Unstoppable” but has no legal barrel roll maneuver out of the way? Imagine an AT-AT approaching a turret, infantry are nearby gearing up to Close Assault the AT-AT, and a hapless X-Wing is in the path of the AT-AT. Barrel rolls in any direction will not allow him to clear the other unit bases. Is he pushed further past the tokens until he finds somewhere safe to land, kinda like how you resolve a collision in space with multiple ships in your template's path?

    14. What happens if this X-Wing DOES have a legal option but it would place him off the play area?
    ·
  • AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
    INFANTRY

    We find infantry the most difficult part to learn, understand, remember, manage, and to resolve rules issues with. I hope all of the problems and questions I'm wrestling with (and the ones raised previously!) will illustrate how difficult it is. The issue is that the current X-Wing rules do not contemplate a unit represented with multiple tokens, and everything made by FFG doesn't take such a concept into consideration. Nor are there any ships in X-Wing without printed firing arcs.

    Even if you speak to all these issues, the resulting rules could become so bloated that it would make the game difficult to learn and play. A further issue is that as you and as FFG release new stuff you'll constantly have to FAQ and errata. Obviously this will happen with every part of the game and it is a normal part of development but the “multiple bases for one unit” infantry concept will prompt a greater number of issues and questions than any other aspect of the game that you've got here.

    You've responded to some of the issues so far. I understand what you're saying about measuring multiple ranges to units from infantry in another post, but that makes it a little complex to resolve one unit's attack. And there are still a bunch of issues to resolve coming out of that ruling, such as figuring out when abilities trigger based on range (see below).

    I strongly recommend you consider using a single base to represent platoons. Large ship bases are an option. The base plate would have a printed firing arc, faction symbol, and show the unit's combat values. Players could place those infantry team bases on the base plate to signify how much health and attack is left for the unit. As the unit takes damage the platoon's attack decreases by one and a infantry team base could be removed.The unit only has one attack instead of several. This way the unit has only one base and it also has a printed firing arc (the lack of which creates rules issues with certain cards, see below). It can still have a 360 degree firing radius.

    If you go this way the movement template would need to be modified. The rally test could be kept or you could have different coloured maneuvers to bring infantry in line with the rest of the unit types. I like the idea of unifying the unit types to simplify the rules but I find the rally test thematically appropriate and a cool new feature, so I'm split on this issue.

    Alternatively, you could develop a single unique base for platoons.

    I think such a change would resolve the many issues that crop up with infantry. Rather than you having to make up new rules for how the concept of one unit with multiple bases works and you having to consider how each new upgrade and unit could muck things up, instead you rely on the standing and well-tested FFG rules to resolve most of the issues for you.

    Also, it would be easier to launch a close assault. I understand that coordinating a close assault with infantry might supposed to be a skill you master over time, but it is difficult to pull off considering you only have one very short movement template for infantry. When you consider adding in obstacles and the general chaos of the field, I think it might veer into frustratingly difficult rather than it being one of the fun maneuvering challenges that make up the core of X-Wing. However, we have not had much experience with close assaults.

    I may house rule this single base thing I suggested even if you decide against it just to simplify the steep learning curve that infantry add for players. But I'm really curious what others think?

    15. Can you target lock infantry?
    1. If yes, does the target lock apply to the entire platoon?
    2. If yes, what if the target lock is on three infantry teams at one end of the board and the target locking ship encounters the other team who is part of that platoon at the other end of the board?

    16. Can you fire missiles at infantry? Even if you can't target lock infantry, Deadeye or some other means may allow you to circumvent this

    17. What happens if an infantry platoon is hit by an Assault Missile, a ship with Ruthlessness attacks infantry, or something similar? Does the extra damage that spawns from the struck target spawn off of each individual infantry team in that unit, even if that team is halfway across the board from the rest of his platoon?
    1. If it only spawns off one team, how do you determine which team?

    18. When an ability requires you to consider an enemy's firing arc (such as Autothrusters, Outmaneuver, or Fearlessness) and the enemy does not have a conventional firing arc because they're infantry, what happens?

    19. My Platoon wants to shoot Carrie's AT-ST. I have two infantry teams at Range 2 of the AT-ST and two at Range 1 of the AT-ST.
    1. As I understand, I factor the ranges separately for each infantry team. So, when my platoon fires at the AT-ST, do I roll 4 dice and I can re-roll up to two of the dice because of the Range 1 bonus, and then Carrie rolls 1 defense die? OR do I roll 2 dice no re-rolls because Range 2, Carrie rolls 1 defense die, and then I roll 2 dice and I can re-roll up to two of them because Range 1, and then Carrie rolls 1 defense die?

    20. How do infantry work when defending while in separate range bands? For example, my Firespray is loaded with a Tactician and wants to shoot Carrie's platoon of four infantry teams. One of the infantry teams is within Range 1 and the other three are at Range 2.
    1. Do I declare one of the teams as a target and then work out range? For example in this situation, do I have to choose whether to shoot the team at Range 1 for an extra attack die, or at Range 2 to trigger Tactician?
    2. Assuming yes, I choose the team at Range 1 for the extra attack die. I score 4 hits. Do the other three teams suffer damage despite being in a separate range band? Does Tactician trigger?

    21. I feel there are conflicting rules regarding targeting infantry and damage resolution. The owner chooses which base to remove, but the attacker has to select an initial target, right? And you've said that the attacker can choose to hit a specific team (for instance, if they're carrying a heavy gun and you want to remove that threat). Also, you have to factor in which of the teams can receive damage. I think there should be one unifying method for damage resolution against infantry.

    22. If a ship is in base contact with one infantry team, can it fire at the rest of the infantry teams of that infantry team's platoon?
    1. If yes, if it successfully deals a point of damage, can the owner of the platoon elect to have the infantry team in base contact with the ship die? I think no based on the fact that you said it can only deal damage to teams it can legally target.
    2. In this scenario, are any of the infantry teams able to fire back at the ship that their one infantry team is in base contact with?


    I'm sure there's more I just can't think of them right now.

    CLOSE ASSAULT

    23. Can you provide an example where a ground unit “splits” its attack against multiple targets? I'm a little wary of this because, like I was saying with infantry, X-Wing rules don't consider a unit ever “splitting” its attack (I'm not even entirely sure what that means?) and it could run afoul of some other rules and upgrades.
    ·
  • AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
    edited August 2016
    UNIT TYPE INTERACTIONS IN COMBAT

    This is the second most difficult new game mechanic to deal with. Very thematically appropriate, but there's a lot happening here. There is a little bit of consistency (“Damage must exceed armor value, but crits ignore armor” and “Attacks ignore infantry armor” is the case a few times, for example) but not much. Also, the rule that infantry focus results become hits is a bit odd because that only seems to do anything in Close Assault.

    Consider revamping infantry so that they function more on the scale of vehicle damage. If you think of Epic ships, they don't have a different scale of damage despite their size. Instead, their Epic-ness is captured through the use of hardpoint upgrades, the use of energy, multiple high-powered attacks for the Raider, etc. Combat remains the same and the game only becomes a bit more complex with the use of energy.

    If you accept the single base for infantry units change I recommended then this works perfectly with that. A platoon could have a primary attack of 2. Once the unit is at 2 health or less, that attack value is reduced to 1. Depending on balance, Focus results could still become hits or they could be nothing.

    Given ships' native agility and the infantry's low attack value, plus applying the rules for vehicles vs. Air Units, infantry would still need a really lucky shot to nail a ship. This is thematically appropriate and falls in line with your current design without overly complicating things. You could now use “Air Defense” on infantry, further unifying and simplifying your rule structure.

    Infantry would now rely heavily on weapon upgrades which could be geared towards specific unit types, much like Epic ships and their hardpoint upgrades. For example, Single Turbolasers are obviously designed for use against other Epic Ships, where Quad Laser Cannons are intended for starfighters. This is how X-Wing keeps combat rules consistent but subtly captures the feel of different “classes” or types of units.

    Your system was intended to grant a bonus to infantry close assaulting vehicles. Again, this could be captured through upgrades (which you've already cleverly done with grenades). You could consider granting a bonus attack die to infantry also, much like ship-to-ship Range 1 attacks.

    The unit type combat interaction chart then becomes (I'm using font stuff to show similarities in the new chart):

    Infantry vs. Infantry
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. Focus results assign stress

    Infantry vs. Infantry (Close Assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. No defense dice. Focus results assign stress. If the infantry are using “defensive fire”, only crits and focus results count.

    Infantry vs. Vehicles
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor.

    Infantry vs. Vehicles (close assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. No defense dice. If the infantry are using “defensive fire”, only crits and focus results count. Focus results become hits

    Infantry vs. Air Units
    +1 Defense die

    Vehicles vs. Infantry
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS

    Vehicles vs. Infantry (Close Assault)
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS. Can perform a regular attack in addition to close assault but only if it is a Huge Unit. No Defense Dice

    Vehicles vs. Vehicles
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor

    Vehicles vs. Vehicles (Close Assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. Can perform a regular attack in addition to close assault but only if it is a Huge Unit. No Defense Dice

    Vehicles vs. Air Units
    +1 Defense die, no TLs

    Ships vs. Infantry
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS

    Ships vs. Vehicles
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. Missiles and Torpedoes ignore Armor

    With a simple change the combat chart becomes MUCH more consistent but it is still thematically appropriate. The two changes I've proposed (one base for infantry platoons and unifying combat type interactions) work together to make infantry easier to learn, understand, manage, and FAQ but still allow them to retain a unique identity.
    ·
  • AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
    MISCELLANEOUS

    24. A ship bumps a ship on a red K-Turn. When attempting to resolve its maneuver, I can't place it in base contact with the ship it bumped because a ground unit is in the way. Presumably, the ship moves back along its template until it is in base contact with the ground unit, just like how you resolve a collision when there are multiple ships in the way.
    1. Which “bumping” rules take effect? The ship-to-ship bump, which prevents the K-Turn from completing, or the ship-to-ground bump, which allows the K-Turn to complete? (we actually had this happen!)
    2. Same scenario as above, except reversed: Ship bumps ground unit, is pushed back past another ship. Which bumping rules apply?


    NEW IDEAS

    We had some ideas about allowing existing ships to be used as ground transports. Ground Assault would release title upgrade cards for existing ships that would take away crew slots and give them the keyword “Transport” instead.

    During the planning phase, this ship would be assigned a “Landing” maneuver token instead of a maneuver dial. It is still a ship / aerial unit at this point. (alternatively, the ship could reveal its maneuver during the activation phase and choose to perform the landing maneuver instead of the revealed maneuver, depending on balance in the game. Instead of performing the maneuver, the ship is assigned a “landed” token.)

    During the activation phase, when it is that ship's turn to activate it performs a RED 0-speed “Landing” maneuver. The ship does not move but instead a “Landed” token is assigned to it. It is considered a Ground Vehicle while it has the “Landed” token. An infantry platoon can disembark or embark onto the craft as per the usual “Transport” rules.

    The ship has no defense dice and cannot attack or perform actions while it carries a landed token.

    This token is not removed during the end phase

    During the next planning phase, the player can choose whether or not to assign a maneuver dial to the ship. If the landed ship has a maneuver dial then during the activation phase it removes the landed token, becomes an aerial unit once more, and executes its maneuver normally.

    Some complications could come out of this but this what I have in mind for the fundamentals.

    CONCLUSION

    I've presented many issues and questions here but I just want to be clear I'm really excited about this project and I look forward to testing new iterations. If you're reading this and you haven't taken this for a ride yet (how did you get this far?), you're missing out!
    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    Thanks for being thorough, you raise a lot of good points and I will try to answer as many as I can.

    1. I'm not sure if you're designing from the perspective of only mission-based games or if you're considering games where you just grab a bunch of units and throw them into a game, but there should be a cap on the amount of points spent on spaceships in a game of Ground Assault. At least until some more anti-air comes along.
    The rules are primarily designed for missions that take a specific number of rounds of play. Ground based games should focus mostly on ground units with air units acting in a support role. So a points cap for ships could be a way of doing this.

    2. Ships might need different deployment rules. They move much faster than everything else and it can be really awkward. In our game, T2's rebel ships got tangled up with T3 and I's Imperial ground and air units and T2's turrets and infantry were just sitting around waiting for us to figure that mess out.

    3. Speaking of deployment, do we follow normal X-Wing rules for that?
    In general ground units should be deployed before ships of the same Skill value or set up based on a mission. You don't want to have your immobile turrets stuck at range 1 from your board edge. So ground units will usually be deployed further onto the map.

    4. Speaking of turrets, if you're playtesting this version and you've gotten through the introductory missions and you want to go all-in, you should take a “complete the objective” approach rather than “kill everything”. Give the Rebels something to defend so they can put those cool turrets to good use. The turrets might also need different deployment rules so they can be dropped around a key objective.
    Agree totally, ground based games should still have a reason for happening and not be a "death match".

    UNIT BASE DESIGN

    The units look great. I especially like the clunky AT-AT. Its unit base, maneuver template, and firing arc is dead-on.

    5. Can you put Faction symbols on the unit bases? This would be especially helpful for infantry team bases, which look too similar to be able to tell them apart at a glance.
    You could easily write or put a colored dot or ID symbol on the bases as they are. So you could have a Rebel "Able Platoon" with a red A on their bases and a "Bravo Platoon" with a red B. Likewise Imperials could have black letters to designate their platoons.

    6. Any way you can squeeze the combat values onto the bases? This might not be possible with the infantry and AT-ST, but the AT-AT should have room.
    I am not sure this is needed, the information is on the cards but you could write this on yourself if desired.

    CARD TEXT (UNIT AND UPGRADE CARDS)

    I'm going to pitch my case again on a couple of old issues I brought up previously. If you don't buy in at this point, I won't win you over and I'll move on:

    7. The word “upgrade” on the weapon cards that the infantry can use is ambiguous. I disagree that it's clear what it means. When I upgrade my cell phone I replace the old one with a new one, but when I upgrade my weapon in a video game, I give it a benefit or improvement that increases or adds an effect to whatever damage the weapon currently does. The word upgrade can have two meanings – replace this value, or increase this value – and this is why I recommend either using a different word or defining the word in your glossary.
    Point taken, we can look at changing this.

    8. I'll ask you to reconsider on the text of the infantry platoons. There are some fantastic infantry units out there such as scout troopers, sand troopers, space troopers, aqua troopers, Ewoks, Wookies, Trandoshans, and more and you'll want to give those platoons some abilities or special rules to make them unique and to capture who they are in the game. I think a keyword and reminder card will work much better than spelling the infantry card rules out on every infantry card. Maybe the rulebook could illustrate an example of how the cards work with pictures and examples?
    Yes this does make sense, the text really is just saying what the rules have already stated.

    9. FFG includes helpful reminders everywhere so you remember how stuff works. Everyone knows how turrets work, but it helps to see the red blaster bolt symbol with the circle around it to remind you that that specific ship has a 360 degree firing arc. Similarly, I'd still like to see such a reminder on the infantry card. Maybe a +/- symbol after the unit's Health and Primary Attack to show that those values are modular?
    The infantry card does have a 360 degree fire arc circle.

    New Issues

    10. The infantry don't have the “assault” keyword?
    The Assault trait is for vehicles only, infantry and cavalry can always assault.

    11. The AT-AT should have the “transport” keyword instead of text explaining the function.
    That could work, but need to say how many it can transport.

    12. Sharpshooter confers two different benefits. Does the benefit conferred in the second sentence also require Overwatch to trigger? If so, maybe do “Overwatch:(in bold) (What sharpshooter does while this unit is in Overwatch)”. This would also be a helpful reminder that the card requires that order for it to be active.
    That is a good point, it was meant to apply to shooting only, representing sniper fire "pinning" targets. As written you could say that the second part (crit adding a focus result) could happen even from close assaults as well, this is not what was intended.
    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    edited August 2016
    VEHICLES

    This was the easiest to pick up and integrated really well into the rest of X-Wing.

    13. What happens if a unit must move because of an AT-AT's “Unstoppable” but has no legal barrel roll maneuver out of the way? Imagine an AT-AT approaching a turret, infantry are nearby gearing up to Close Assault the AT-AT, and a hapless X-Wing is in the path of the AT-AT. Barrel rolls in any direction will not allow him to clear the other unit bases. Is he pushed further past the tokens until he finds somewhere safe to land, kinda like how you resolve a collision in space with multiple ships in your template's path?
    If unable to barrel roll or move forward or backwards without overlapping another unit then I would suggest moving in the direction of the shortest path to a clear zone or if using token just allow a ship to overlap infantry if it is unavoidable.

    14. What happens if this X-Wing DOES have a legal option but it would place him off the play area?
    The Unstoppable rule is not meant to act as a tool for eliminating opponents by forcing them off the map. So a ship should never be forced to be moved off if at all possible.

    15. Can you target lock infantry?
    1. If yes, does the target lock apply to the entire platoon?
    2. If yes, what if the target lock is on three infantry teams at one end of the board and the target locking ship encounters the other team who is part of that platoon at the other end of the board?
    You can target lock infantry by selecting an infantry base as the target. So only that team is the target of the attack.

    16. Can you fire missiles at infantry? Even if you can't target lock infantry, Deadeye or some other means may allow you to circumvent this
    See above.

    17. What happens if an infantry platoon is hit by an Assault Missile, a ship with Ruthlessness attacks infantry, or something similar? Does the extra damage that spawns from the struck target spawn off of each individual infantry team in that unit, even if that team is halfway across the board from the rest of his platoon?
    1. If it only spawns off one team, how do you determine which team?
    The team with the target lock (or selected target if using Deadeye) would be where the extra hits spawn from).

    18. When an ability requires you to consider an enemy's firing arc (such as Autothrusters, Outmaneuver, or Fearlessness) and the enemy does not have a conventional firing arc because they're infantry, what happens?
    This is where the type of target is very important. With these rules we technically now have three classes of target: Ships, Vehicles and Infantry. So to help resolve and limit some of the upgrades we will read these as written. Tactician and Ruthlessness both specifically mention "ship" so we could say that their rules do not apply to Vehicles or Infantry. This may seem unfair but it will make things much easier to manage. Cards like "Predator" do not specify ship (although they mention pilot skill which implies it) so would be still allowable for attacks on vehicles or infantry.

    19. My Platoon wants to shoot Carrie's AT-ST. I have two infantry teams at Range 2 of the AT-ST and two at Range 1 of the AT-ST.
    1. As I understand, I factor the ranges separately for each infantry team. So, when my platoon fires at the AT-ST, do I roll 4 dice and I can re-roll up to two of the dice because of the Range 1 bonus, and then Carrie rolls 1 defense die? OR do I roll 2 dice no re-rolls because Range 2, Carrie rolls 1 defense die, and then I roll 2 dice and I can re-roll up to two of them because Range 1, and then Carrie rolls 1 defense die?
    You would roll 2 attack die for range 2, then roll 2 attack die at range 1 (with rerolls). Then combine these 4 dice results together as your attack. Then the AT-ST rolls their defense die. So basically resolve all your attack dice together first, as you would for any other attack.

    20. How do infantry work when defending while in separate range bands? For example, my Firespray is loaded with a Tactician and wants to shoot Carrie's platoon of four infantry teams. One of the infantry teams is within Range 1 and the other three are at Range 2.
    1. Do I declare one of the teams as a target and then work out range? For example in this situation, do I have to choose whether to shoot the team at Range 1 for an extra attack die, or at Range 2 to trigger Tactician?
    2. Assuming yes, I choose the team at Range 1 for the extra attack die. I score 4 hits. Do the other three teams suffer damage despite being in a separate range band? Does Tactician trigger?
    You could choose which team to target for range purposes (closest makes more sense) but then Tactician will not trigger as they are not a ship.

    22. I feel there are conflicting rules regarding targeting infantry and damage resolution. The owner chooses which base to remove, but the attacker has to select an initial target, right? And you've said that the attacker can choose to hit a specific team (for instance, if they're carrying a heavy gun and you want to remove that threat). Also, you have to factor in which of the teams can receive damage. I think there should be one unifying method for damage resolution against infantry.
    A target must be selected to check for range purposes. If it is infantry then the owner can still remove any team that was a legitimate target (in fire arc and same range band) so has some freedom for casualty removal.

    23. If a ship is in base contact with one infantry team, can it fire at the rest of the infantry teams of that infantry team's platoon?
    2. If yes, if it successfully deals a point of damage, can the owner of the platoon elect to have the infantry team in base contact with the ship die? I think no based on the fact that you said it can only deal damage to teams it can legally target.
    3. In this scenario, are any of the infantry teams able to fire back at the ship that their one infantry team is in base contact with?
    The ship could shoot at a team that is not in contact but belongs to the same platoon that the one in contact is. The owner could not remove the target in base contact as a casualty. The infantry not in contact can shoot at the ship. In effect this shows that each infantry team can fire independently at targets. The infantry team in contact is eligible to shoot at another target as well.


    I'm sure there's more I just can't think of them right now.

    CLOSE ASSAULT

    23. Can you provide an example where a ground unit “splits” its attack against multiple targets? I'm a little wary of this because, like I was saying with infantry, X-Wing rules don't consider a unit ever “splitting” its attack (I'm not even entirely sure what that means?) and it could run afoul of some other rules and upgrades.
    The example above of some infantry teams shooting a ship and another who is unable to shoot the ship but still able to target another unit would be an example of splitting attacks. Each infantry can behave as a separate model for shooting purposes if targeting different units. However they benefit from the ability to combine their attacks together at the same target. The Target only ever rolls their defense dice once against a platoons attacks. So if 4 infantry teams shoot at an AT-ST as individuals then the AT-ST would get 1 defense die per attack (plus the Armor would stop one hit). As each team has only 1 attack die then the AT-ST is immune. If the 4 teams combine their 4 attack dice, the AT-ST still only has 1 defense die and 1 Armor so the infantry do have a chance of damaging the walker.

    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    edited August 2016
    24. A ship bumps a ship on a red K-Turn. When attempting to resolve its maneuver, I can't place it in base contact with the ship it bumped because a ground unit is in the way. Presumably, the ship moves back along its template until it is in base contact with the ground unit, just like how you resolve a collision when there are multiple ships in the way.
    1. Which “bumping” rules take effect? The ship-to-ship bump, which prevents the K-Turn from completing, or the ship-to-ground bump, which allows the K-Turn to complete? (we actually had this happen!)
    2. Same scenario as above, except reversed: Ship bumps ground unit, is pushed back past another ship. Which bumping rules apply?
    I would say that the unit that triggers the initial bump has priority. So overlapping a ship first stops the K-Turn. Overlapping a ground target first does not stop a K-Turn.

    NEW IDEAS

    We had some ideas about allowing existing ships to be used as ground transports. Ground Assault would release title upgrade cards for existing ships that would take away crew slots and give them the keyword “Transport” instead.

    During the planning phase, this ship would be assigned a “Landing” maneuver token instead of a maneuver dial. It is still a ship / aerial unit at this point. (alternatively, the ship could reveal its maneuver during the activation phase and choose to perform the landing maneuver instead of the revealed maneuver, depending on balance in the game. Instead of performing the maneuver, the ship is assigned a “landed” token.)

    During the activation phase, when it is that ship's turn to activate it performs a RED 0-speed “Landing” maneuver. The ship does not move but instead a “Landed” token is assigned to it. It is considered a Ground Vehicle while it has the “Landed” token. An infantry platoon can disembark or embark onto the craft as per the usual “Transport” rules.

    The ship has no defense dice and cannot attack or perform actions while it carries a landed token.

    This token is not removed during the end phase

    During the next planning phase, the player can choose whether or not to assign a maneuver dial to the ship. If the landed ship has a maneuver dial then during the activation phase it removes the landed token, becomes an aerial unit once more, and executes its maneuver normally.

    Some complications could come out of this but this what I have in mind for the fundamentals.
    Those are cool ideas, ships like the Lambda Shuttle, Sentinel Landing Craft and U-Wing would be appropriate. Also the GR-75 and Gozanti huge ships will have a larger transport role.

    Thanks again for taking the time to share your views. You certainly have given us things to think about by diving into a big battle straight away! Only by trying "everything" at once do these issues crop up. So I hope I have been able to give you as much helpful feedback as you have yourself provided!
    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    edited August 2016
    Just a minor change to this:

    Infantry vs. Infantry
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits cancel armor before armor can reduce damage . Focus results assign stress

    Infantry vs. Infantry (Close Assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. No defense dice. Focus results assign stress. If the infantry are using “defensive fire”, only crits and focus results count.

    Infantry vs. Vehicles
    Only critical hits count and must exceed armor.

    Infantry vs. Vehicles (close assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. No defense dice. If the infantry are using “defensive fire”, only crits and focus results count. Focus results become hits

    Infantry vs. Air Units
    Only critical hits count and must exceed armor. Air Units get +1 Defense die

    Vehicles vs. Infantry
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS

    Vehicles vs. Infantry (Close Assault)
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS. Can perform a regular attack in addition to close assault but only if it is a Huge Unit. No Defense Dice

    Vehicles vs. Vehicles
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor

    Vehicles vs. Vehicles (Close Assault)
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. Can perform a regular attack in addition to close assault but only if it is a Huge Unit. No Defense Dice

    Vehicles vs. Air Units
    +1 Defense die, no TLs

    Ships vs. Infantry
    IGNORE ARMOR, FOCUS RESULTS ASSIGN STRESS

    Ships vs. Vehicles
    Damage must exceed armor. Crits ignore armor. Missiles and Torpedoes ignore Armor

    So to summarize:

    Infantry ALWAYS treat focus results as suppression hits against them from any unit.
    Infantry need critical hits to damage a vehicle or ship, a ship gets +1 defense die. The number of criticals must exceed the Armor value of a vehicle.
    In close assault there are no defense dice but Armor can reduce hits. Infantry cause damage as normal, criticals bypass Armor.
    Vehicle and Ship attacks ignore infantry Armor, secondary missile and torpedo attacks and any primary weapon critical result ignores Armor completely.
    ·
  • yenamyenam Posts: 8Member, Tester
    Please clarify this statement from the above post: "Infantry vs. Air Units Only critical hits count and must exceed armor. Air Units get +1 Defense die"

    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    Ooops, copy and paste error.

    Infantry vs. Air Units
    Only critical hits count. Air Units get +1 Defense die
    ·
  • AllienAllien Posts: 8Member
    Oh thanks, you've cleared up quite a few things. I've taken to edging the pieces Red for Rebels and Black for Imperials. They also have coloured bases to help me tell them apart.

    The rules say “Only infantry, cavalry and vehicles with the Assault trait...” which I read to mean “only infantry with the assault trait, cavalry with the assault trait, and vehicles with the assault trait”. More a deficiency in the English language than anything on your end. However, I understand you now. Cavalry and infantry can ALWAYS close assault.

    The glossary said “transport” is a trait like Assault which is why I pointed that out, but I understand what you're saying. It might be better the way it is.

    OK, so sharpshooter only adds eye results on crits when firing at Range 2 and using Overwatch?

    Sorry when I asked about “splitting attacks” I was reading about “Close Assaults with Multiple Units”. I understand that section to say that an AT-AT under Close Assault from multiple targets could “split” its attack among multiple enemies. So, an AT-AT can roll 2 attack dice against 1 enemy platoon, and then they roll their defence dice and process that attack normally, and then the AT-AT can roll its remaining 2 attack dice against the second platoon assaulting it?

    Just to clarify, the unit type combat interaction chart I put up was a proposed change to the current scheme, not my understanding of the current scheme.

    I can play a game of X-Wing without having to break out the rulebook unless a weird card interaction comes up. I got the sense you were aiming for something similar with Ground Assault, but I find the current combat interactions very complicated as is. Even armor rules aren't consistent. For vehicles regular damage is blocked and crits by-pass, but for infantry crits cancel out armor and any other regular hits rolled in that attack deal damage normally. So I proposed a big change (single bases for infantry to resolve the infantry issues but also to tie in with changes to the interaction chart) where infantry attack dice would be put at a similar scale to vehicle weapons.

    The idea is that the concentrated firepower of many infantry weapons would be equivalent to the attack of an AT-ST. So infantry platoons would have an attack of 2 (or more or less depending on balance and what's thematically appropriate) and the chart would be modified to where I proposed so that the interactions are a little easier to remember. Focus results probably won't be changed to hits anymore under this new system.

    It should work – in what I propose, infantry won't be able to deal a point of damage to an AT-AT unless they score a crit, carry heavier weapons, or use grenades. They'll also be hard-pressed to hit a ship with its extra defense die.

    In the end, rather than having to deal with more than half a dozen types of combat interactions, it is narrowed down to about 3.
    ·
  • DBDraftDBDraft Posts: 104Administrator
    Sharpshooters should be affecting shooting attacks only, so yes the rules should be for range 2 shooting with overwatch.

    Yes the AT-AT could do that, they should declare their intentions to spit attacks and then resolve one at a time.

    Believe me, I think X-Wing has ALOT of weird card interactions.... that is both it's appeal to some and it's Achilles heel to others.

    Of all the new units infantry should be completely different from a ship or vehicle. Ship vs vehicle and vehicle vs ship are practically the standard X-Wing rules with minor tweaks for overlapping, action loss and Armor. Infantry need to have a different feel so they are not just a slow moving vehicle. Having their weapons be less effective at damaging vehicles is offset by their ability to assault and become dangerous to vehicles. I would suggest that you keep your infantry in a group of 4 teams to "act" as a single base and then remove teams as casualties happen. Keeping them close together is realistic, makes it easy to keep track of and identify and allows some different formations for visual appeal. Then you can move one team with the template and simply format the other teams as they were. This may not be what you seem to be suggesting but it should help make them act as a single group.

    The infantry armor rule is a justifiable "thematic" exception. Stormtrooper armor is not that great, but it is a factor I wanted included to give some differentiation from the Rebels. So as it only applies to infantry vs infantry attacks it is not too much to add. Just the order of dice checking is changed. So instead of reduce 1 damage because of the armor, you go "is there any criticals?, if yes then armor ignored, otherwise subtract 1 damage result".
    ·
Sign In or Register to comment.