| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
This is the place to study and discuss the ways of the Forceâ„¢
This came up last night and the person I was playing against couldn't believe it.
My opponent has no defending characters. I have a Repair Droid out that is not focused. I delcare him as a attack. Focus to strike, deal no damage but then do my one unopposed damage. That is doable correct? I checked the rulebook and it says nothing about not being able to attack if you don't have any damage icons, that you just need to attack with a ready unit.
It makes no sense in real life but then again card games are not real life :)
| Page 1 of 3 (34 messages) | 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
brimmstorm said:
This came up last night and the person I was playing against couldn't believe it.
My opponent has no defending characters. I have a Repair Droid out that is not focused. I delcare him as a attack. Focus to strike, deal no damage but then do my one unopposed damage. That is doable correct? I checked the rulebook and it says nothing about not being able to attack if you don't have any damage icons, that you just need to attack with a ready unit.
It makes no sense in real life but then again card games are not real life :)
You played correctly. Additionally, a unit with no icons could be used to defend and prevent unopposed damage. In such an instance, it still must focus to strike even though that has no effect.
Yeah I knew I was right. I more posted this so I can tell him I was right.
I think he only fought it because it won me the game :)
Won me a game in a tourney last night. "Hey 3PO, go blow up that objective would you?" "Right away sir."
"A little nonesense now & then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka.
So what you all are saying DS can with 2 Duty Officers & a Orbital Bombardment card take one unopposed objective in 2 turns or 2 unopposed objectives in 3 turns ?
Sass said:
So what you all are saying DS can with 2 Duty Officers & a Orbital Bombardment card take one unopposed objective in 2 turns or 2 unopposed objectives in 3 turns ?
In a vacuum sure but that would require the LS to do nothing.
For card search, deckbuilder, articles,podcasts visit: Card Game DB
djuanbond said:
Nope, it is rewarded even if there was no defenders at all. Even if there was no defenders at the start at the end of the engagment there is still no surviving defenders. Just because there was no defenders at all doesn't mean the unopposed bonus does not apply.
For card search, deckbuilder, articles,podcasts visit: Card Game DB
djuanbond said:
True, there were no participating defenders to have survived, but the question on the unopposed bonus isn't "were participating units all destroyed?" which could indeed be interpreted as requiring units to destroy. The question is "are there any surviving defenders?" If there were never any defenders, then there are also no surviving defenders.
Not that I didn't believe you guys, but I wanted to get an official response from FFG on this. Here it is:
-----------------
Unopposed is rewarded if there are no surviving defenders. This can happen in one of two ways:
djuanbond said:
Not that I didn't believe you guys, but I wanted to get an official response from FFG on this. Here it is:
-----------------
Unopposed is rewarded if there are no surviving defenders. This can happen in one of two ways:
both 1) and 2) are the same when unopposed is checked. If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.
No defenders, whether there were none to begin with, or none survived, doesn't matter. All the unnopposed checks for is:
After all strikes are resolved, are there any defenders alive in the engagement? If no, unopposed awarded. If yes, no unopposed is rewarded.
"A little nonesense now & then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka.
stormwolf27 said:
If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.
The rules question link was used, and what was posted was the response that was received.
ziggy2000 said:
stormwolf27 said:
If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.
The rules question link was used, and what was posted was the response that was received.
Ah. That's what I get for responding while tired. I thought he was still asking which is true.
"A little nonesense now & then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka.
That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.
"A little nonesense now & then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka.
stormwolf27 said:
That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.
Except that reading the rules literally and using RAW gets you the correct answer.
| Page 1 of 3 (34 messages) | 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS