Advanced Member
The new cylce looks like a lot of fun. Missions are an amazing concept !
Will we get a Death Star II unit ? Or will the Death Star II be represented by an objective, or a series of objectives with a "Death Star II" Trait ? Or a mission ?
Constructing the Death Star II with Moff Jerjerrod and then defending its Sectors with the 181st squadron the was one of my favorite (if not most competitive) decks in the old Decipher CCG.
Advanced Member
Missions are going to be amazing. I am a little concerned that they will mean less units in the pod though. If they had more than 1 edge (from what we've seen), I would be a lot more excited. This cycle makes me really excited though.
Advanced Member
Sure, I'm all for trying to understand the rules.
Do you know the placement of the mission cards? do they go on your opponents side of the board near their objectives, or do you just keep it on your side of the table? I assumed the opponents side, but again, thats just an assumption.
Advanced Member
Do you know the placement of the mission cards? do they go on your opponents side of the board near their objectives, or do you just keep it on your side of the table? I assumed the opponents side, but again, thats just an assumption.
Advanced Member
Do you know the placement of the mission cards? do they go on your opponents side of the board near their objectives, or do you just keep it on your side of the table? I assumed the opponents side, but again, thats just an assumption.
I don't claim to know any more than what's in the article. What it does say is that they play as objectives under your opponent's control. Personally, I'd assume that means physically placing it on my opponent's side of the board to help us both remember that it's their objective that I attack and they defend... but maybe it could just sit in the center of the board or some such thing. The rules may not even be that specific about the physical placement of the card as that actually is entirely about making the game easier to play and doesn't actually have bearing on the rules (example: while technically the damage dun via Trench Run should go on the Death Star dial, pretty much everyone I've seen use it places the damage on the Trench Run card because it's easier).
Advanced Member
Gotcha, your name is on some of the past rules sheets as a play tester so i assumed you had more insight than other people.
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Gotcha, your name is on some of the past rules sheets as a play tester so i assumed you had more insight than other people.
#outed
Advanced Member
Sure, I'm all for trying to understand the rules. I was meaning to address the complaints about the templating (eg "how can the Mission be in your opponent's control and allow you to trigger the Reaction?" or "what's up with out-of-faction? that doesn't have a defined meaning!") when the intent is pretty clear and it seems safe to assume that those would be addressed in the rules when released.
As far as number of engagements per turn, there are currently no rules limiting number of engagements per turn. You can get up to a pretty high number of engagement via Wookiee Navigator and effects that remove a focus to allow it to attack again. Best I can come up with is DS has used Join Me to take 2 Wookiee Navigators, blows up 2 copies of Journey to Dagobah, engages one of the 3 remaining objectives with a committed wookiee navigator, rage to ready it, engages it again, rage to ready it, engages it again, engage it again, engages remaining objective 2/3 with remaining wookiee navigator, engages it again, engages remaining objective 3/3 (with enough Nudj's played, could potentially get another engagement in there via destroying an objective to get a rage back with Palpatine and getting another wookiee swing in) for 9+ engagements. Sure, there could be a rule introduced that limits engagements to some number, but at that point it's just baseless speculating.
Advanced Member
Boba - from what I see they deploy with your opponents objectives - but they are your card ...sorta? I assume if they give a resourse then it is your opponents to spend. But I am spit balling.
Advanced Member
I thought they said you played them to your opponents side.
Quick takes
-Glad Event Cancel is with Navy
-Lure of the Darkside seems super fun and DS missions seem like a great way of getting the DS to attack more
-Stolen AT-ST, maybe we get our first Chewie Pilot
-I've always thought this game needed something like missions. I agree with the design criticism though. They aren't the greatest looking cards.
-Han looks super fun.
-All those people that wanted a new Emporer here he comes. Don't complain when he is rubbish ;-). I wonder if he is Sith or Navy. My assumption is Sith and that Lure hoes with him.
-The executor though, that could be Navy
-Endor seems like a good way of continuing the pilot theme while expanding the ground game at the same time.
Agree on the design of missions...but to be fair they are SUPPOSE to be objectives...so in that regard an objective with a COST and PIPS is really all they could be , no?
Advanced Member
The new cylce looks like a lot of fun. Missions are an amazing concept !
Will we get a Death Star II unit ? Or will the Death Star II be represented by an objective, or a series of objectives with a "Death Star II" Trait ? Or a mission ?
Constructing the Death Star II with Moff Jerjerrod and then defending its Sectors with the 181st squadron the was one of my favorite (if not most competitive) decks in the old Decipher CCG.
My guess is a series of death start II objectives one of them will have the all mighty new emperor.
Advanced Member
I agree and don't mind the design. This is a great way to add something to the game without adding too much.Agree on the design of missions...but to be fair they are SUPPOSE to be objectives...so in that regard an objective with a COST and PIPS is really all they could be , no?
Advanced Member
@tierdal : Han changes the objective you're engaged to. Every participating unit are now considered being engaged to the new objective, even those who already stroke the former objective.
The answer I'll be waiting for in the rule sheet is if both objectives are now considered having been engaged, just the former one, or just the new one.
No - im almost 100% they would not be. Same as being redirected by Yavin 4.
Advanced Member
Soon the chosen one will come - and bring balance to the force... and his name is JAMMING PROTOCOL 
PLEASE PLASE DONT COME WITH A 3 cost 1 HP resourse...please please please
Advanced Member
Boba - from what I see they deploy with your opponents objectives - but they are your card ...sorta? I assume if they give a resourse then it is your opponents to spend. But I am spit balling.
Yeah, thats another good question. if its got resources, is that thiers to spend.
Advanced Member
We don't have actual rules yet, but I bet Missions will behave slightly differently from Objectives. But I've been waiting for a new card type like this, bringing more theme and excitement back to the game. I can't wait to play Plan of Prophetess, luring gullible little Yoda over to the dark side! Very exciting preview, hopefully there are no delays.
I also cringed and wondered at that "out of faction" choice of words.
From the article: "Once you successfully destroy Assassination Contract, you’ll advance the Death Star dial accordingly and per the mission’s Reaction, you’ll also destroy each enemy unit that doesn’t match its controller’s affiliation card.
From that description, it looks like a wording change to clean up how wordy the Snoova effect was rather than a new effect.
Yeah, thats another good question. if its got resources, is that thiers to spend.
Even if your opponent has no Endor objectives in his deck, you can ensure that you have a target for Shield Generator Assault by playingGround Support (Solo’s Command, 910) as an Endor objective under your opponent’s control.
Again, from that wording of "under your opponents control", if the Mission did have resources, they'd be the opponents to use once you've played the Mission
Advanced Member
From the article: "Once you successfully destroy Assassination Contract, you’ll advance the Death Star dial accordingly and per the mission’s Reaction, you’ll also destroy each enemy unit that doesn’t match its controller’s affiliation card.
From that description, it looks like a wording change to clean up how wordy the Snoova effect was rather than a new effect.
Even if your opponent has no Endor objectives in his deck, you can ensure that you have a target for Shield Generator Assault by playingGround Support (Solo’s Command, 910) as an Endor objective under your opponent’s control.
Again, from that wording of "under your opponents control", if the Mission did have resources, they'd be the opponents to use once you've played the Mission
Ya i miss spoke...its under THEIR control so you can send damage to it but not use it to pay for anything with anything
Advanced Member
The wording on some of these cards is poor. While it's obvious what is meant by "out-of-faction," there are no such thing as factions in this game, per se, while there are affiliations. Also not sure why they decided "engaged with" is better than "engage/engaging." Am I marrying my characters off to my opponent's objectives now, or what? Finally, I really wish they'd developed a new template for mission cards, beyond the presence of a cost icon and the "Mission" type line. Or just eliminated the resource icon itself, since nobody's likely going to want to play one that gives their opponent additional resources anyway. Otherwise these look exactly like neutral objectives and it's going to confuse people, especially newer players.
Gameplay-wise though, it looks cool. It's about time we got a Rebel Han who does more than skedaddle. And to be clear, I do very much like the concept of mission cards, just not the visual execution. I've always felt like "objectives" should be things you are trying to do, not destroy. Missions fill that conceptual void for me, and I look forward to playing them.
Maybe the resource icon is there for a reason. Like what if you were able to play a really cheap Mission that has a forced reaction to your opponent's refresh phase that makes them damage one of their units? That would be a Mission that is powerful enough to warrant providing your opponent extra resources, especially since you can just completely ignore the Mission and attack the 3 Objectives your opponent has available.
I don't see what the big deal is with the faction wording. I use that term all the time, they are factions after all.
So does the New Han Solo effectively let's you strike an objective twice on a turn and also be able to do 4 engagements in a turn. Also, of your attacking a mission, does that allow a 4th engagement per turn?
The issue everyone is taking with the wording is because it creates an inconsistency in the words used for the game that doesn't need to be there. We already have "Affiliation" as the word used to denote the different Affiliations. If you introduce Faction, which should mean exactly the same thing but isn't currently yet defined by the rules, eventually there will be an issue with wording and cause a rules problem. Something will work with cards that are X Faction but not work with cards that are X Affiliation, even if they are both Jedi/Sith/Whathaveyou.
Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
