$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 128.15

7,583 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
47.8% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Wars: Rebellion» Forums » Strategy

Subject: EMPIRE: preventing Rebel refresh phase objectives rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I, Cut Supply Lines, 1PT: Play if at least 3 Imperial systems contain either a sabotage marker or a Rebel unit.

Sabotaged loyal systems: clear with R&D. Sabotaged subjugated systems: make them loyal to set up R&D, or Construct Factory (project deck), or tactically abandon them. Clear blockades.
Quote:
II, Heart Of The Empire, 2PT: Play if the Coruscant system contains a Rebel unit and no Imperial units. Then return this card to your hand.

Maintain a strong defense in Coruscant, factoring for missions. You can grudgingly tolerate losing either space or ground, but never both.
Quote:
II, Leave No One Behind, 1PT: Play if there are no captured Rebel leaders.

While the means of trying to mitigate this is straightforward, it is hard to consistently lock and has large opportunity costs. Odds are good that you'll lose it.
Quote:
III, Establish Outposts, 1PT: Play if at least 5 systems contain a Rebel unit.

If they manage to have distributed plastic in the late game, run enough patrols to keep the system count down.
Quote:
III, Inspire Sympathy, *PT: Play to gain 1 reptutation for each destroyed system.

Only destroy planets when it really counts, especially if you have most of the other refresh objectives in check.
Quote:
I, Defend The People, 1PT: Play if at least 4 Rebel systems contain a Rebel unit.
1, Regional Support, 1PT: Play if all populous systems in 1 region have Rebel loyalty.
II, Popular Support, 1PT: Play if at least 6 systems have Rebel loyalty

Notice how there were five individual objectives prior to this, with five individual answers, and now there is a group of three? This is the heart of the post, and a major Empire strategy: go bananas removing Rebel loyalty from the board. This especially includes turning a system that you already have subjugated from Rebel-loyal to neutral, for no immediate gain. This likely means that you'll be playing Rule By Fear every single turn, usually against a subjugated Rebel system. Defend The People needs Rebel-dominated systems, but a subjugated system is often only a mission away from reverting. That risk gets into the non-objective, general game risk of letting Rebel loyalty stay on subjugated systems: a single successful mission against it can result in a unit-building and depoyable system for the Rebels. The other two objectives count even if they are subjugated, so it's simply a numbers game. If there is a piece of cardboard on the board with a Rebel symbol, go after it!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Troy Thompson
United States
California
flag msg tools
Quote:
This is the heart of the post, and a major Empire strategy: go bananas removing Rebel loyalty from the board. This especially includes turning a system that you already have subjugated from Rebel-loyal to neutral, for no immediate gain. This likely means that you'll be playing Rule By Fear every single turn, usually against a subjugated Rebel system.


I have twice seen Mon Mothma captured and turned. Both happened early and led to decisive Imperial victories precisely because of this. I have a hard time using Palpatine consistently for Rule by Fear because I feel like I'm "wasting" an action. But since Darth Mothma has no tactics, Rule by Fear becomes automatic.

I used to always try to Lure Luke, but now Mon Mothma is my primary target.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luke Heineman
United States
LaCrosse
WI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hold up: if the empire subjugates a rebel loyal system, that system still counts for these objectives? I thought the subjugation token effectively trumped the rebellion loyalty marker until the subjugation token is removed?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Probst
Germany
Kiel
Schleswig Holstein
flag msg tools
No, it's still a system "with Rebel loyalty". It's just not a "Rebel system" anymore. Subjugation and Loyalty have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
lukeheineman99 wrote:
Hold up: if the empire subjugates a rebel loyal system, that system still counts for these objectives? I thought the subjugation token effectively trumped the rebellion loyalty marker until the subjugation token is removed?

Definitely not. If the Empire wants to remove the loyalty marker from a subjugated system, they have to do a mission that changes loyalty.

If the Empire is subjugating a Rebel-loyal system, and gain 1 loyalty on the system, the Rebel token is removed, but the system remains subjugated. They would have to gain 1 more loyalty to make it Empire loyal. If you had Subjugation removing the Rebel loyalty, that would mean it would remove that step.

Subjugation is useful, but it doesn't remove the need for missions like Rule by Fear to dissuade Rebel loyalty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A very interesting counter strategy to how most people seem to play empire. This seems to be a more "turtly" style where you remove rebel loyalty so they score fewer objectives and thus you have more time to find their base. As opposed to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND strategy of moving your fleet with 80% of your actions every turn to lock down rebel production.

I feel like this can work by also doing capture missions and hoping you draw a narrow down rebel base location card. Which are reasonably common.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
David Umstattd wrote:
A very interesting counter strategy to how most people seem to play empire. This seems to be a more "turtly" style where you remove rebel loyalty so they score fewer objectives and thus you have more time to find their base. As opposed to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND strategy of moving your fleet with 80% of your actions every turn to lock down rebel production.

That is the idea, and has been my experience with it so far. Expanding is still my secondary priority behind loyalty destruction, so I do it with remaining activations, but Rule by Fear (at a minimum) each turn cuts into them a bit. In exchange, it seems to yield a longer game in which the Rebels are hard-pressed to do anything because their board presence is utterly demolished, in such a way that blunts comebacks through missions and objectives. I need to work on Rebel counter-strategies, because it's tough.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arno Noms
msg tools
mb
If you manage to Rule by Fear every turn, clear sabotage AND lock down all of the rebel production, you have either incredible luck with the mission draw or a rather clueless opponent.

If I sabotage loyal systems, I'm forcing you onto R&D which in turn reduces your action count even further. When I notice that you are really trying to cut down on my loyalty massively, I - as the rebel player - have less problems setting Mon Mothma aside to oppose a diplomacy mission and let Leia handle the Alliance building. With R2D2 Leia makes for an even better leader in the pool because you don't know if she'll move or oppose and she can oppose more stuff.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thrombozyt wrote:
If you manage to Rule by Fear every turn, clear sabotage AND lock down all of the rebel production, you have either incredible luck with the mission draw or a rather clueless opponent.

If I sabotage loyal systems, I'm forcing you onto R&D which in turn reduces your action count even further. When I notice that you are really trying to cut down on my loyalty massively, I - as the rebel player - have less problems setting Mon Mothma aside to oppose a diplomacy mission and let Leia handle the Alliance building. With R2D2 Leia makes for an even better leader in the pool because you don't know if she'll move or oppose and she can oppose more stuff.

Eliminating loyalty locks down current and potential Rebel production as a primary side-effect, so the efforts aren't discrete.

I'm pretty down on dedicated mission opposition in general, as it trades actions 1:1 for the mere possibility of doing something useful. I'll do it tactically if something looks huge, and especially if the odds are greatly in my favor, but planning Mothma v Palpatine is an even-odds invitation for the most devastating early/mid-game capture the Empire can make.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
astroglide wrote:
David Umstattd wrote:
A very interesting counter strategy to how most people seem to play empire. This seems to be a more "turtly" style where you remove rebel loyalty so they score fewer objectives and thus you have more time to find their base. As opposed to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND strategy of moving your fleet with 80% of your actions every turn to lock down rebel production.

That is the idea, and has been my experience with it so far. Expanding is still my secondary priority behind loyalty destruction, so I do it with remaining activations, but Rule by Fear (at a minimum) each turn cuts into them a bit. In exchange, it seems to yield a longer game in which the Rebels are hard-pressed to do anything because their board presence is utterly demolished, in such a way that blunts comebacks through missions and objectives. I need to work on Rebel counter-strategies, because it's tough.


Given you're using RBF to neutralize planets it means a lot of subjugation. as the rebels I'd probably spam sabotage on subjugated planets to prevent placement opportunities and score Cut Supply Lines. Also it can open you up to a lot of incite rebellions.

Try that as a counter strategy. Eventually the rebels will out influence the empire if they focus on grabbing influence in places the empire can't reach easily (Nal Hutta, Rodia, Kessel, and other places depending on setup.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
David Umstattd wrote:
Given you're using RBF to neutralize planets it means a lot of subjugation. as the rebels I'd probably spam sabotage on subjugated planets to prevent placement opportunities and score Cut Supply Lines. Also it can open you up to a lot of incite rebellions.

Whether or not RBF is used, I think any reasonable Imperial strategy is going to mean a lot of subjugation. As described in the OP, there are several options to mitigate: make them loyal to set up R&D, or Construct Factory (project deck), or tactically abandon them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
astroglide wrote:
David Umstattd wrote:
Given you're using RBF to neutralize planets it means a lot of subjugation. as the rebels I'd probably spam sabotage on subjugated planets to prevent placement opportunities and score Cut Supply Lines. Also it can open you up to a lot of incite rebellions.

Whether or not RBF is used, I think any reasonable Imperial strategy is going to mean a lot of subjugation. As described in the OP, there are several options to mitigate: make them loyal to set up R&D, or Construct Factory (project deck), or tactically abandon them.


I've actually seen empire players use RBF to get rid of a bunch of their subjagated systems. It's a less expansive strategy but it gets them more better units. Usually you have to couple this strategy with good captured leader cards so you don't have to do all the hard work of hunting down the base. It has it's weaknesses and it's advantages.

It's why I was so intrigued by your use of RBF cause I had always seen it used to get rid of subjugation
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
David Umstattd wrote:
It's why I was so intrigued by your use of RBF cause I had always seen it used to get rid of subjugation

Yeah, the most typical use in the early/mid game for this strategy is to remove Rebel loyalty from subjugated systems.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arno Noms
msg tools
mb
astroglide wrote:
Thrombozyt wrote:
If you manage to Rule by Fear every turn, clear sabotage AND lock down all of the rebel production, you have either incredible luck with the mission draw or a rather clueless opponent.

If I sabotage loyal systems, I'm forcing you onto R&D which in turn reduces your action count even further. When I notice that you are really trying to cut down on my loyalty massively, I - as the rebel player - have less problems setting Mon Mothma aside to oppose a diplomacy mission and let Leia handle the Alliance building. With R2D2 Leia makes for an even better leader in the pool because you don't know if she'll move or oppose and she can oppose more stuff.

Eliminating loyalty locks down current and potential Rebel production as a primary side-effect, so the efforts aren't discrete.

I'm pretty down on dedicated mission opposition in general, as it trades actions 1:1 for the mere possibility of doing something useful. I'll do it tactically if something looks huge, and especially if the odds are greatly in my favor, but planning Mothma v Palpatine is an even-odds invitation for the most devastating early/mid-game capture the Empire can make.


The first step in locking down Rebel production is putting units there, apart from the few loyalty missions. That means that you need actions to move stuff around. If you use Rule by Fear on a subjugated rebel-loyal system, then you are not further cutting down Rebel production - it's already zero. You just make it harder to regain production from this system - which means that the rebels merely have to go to another system to be successful.

Using Mothma to oppose is only viable, when you have 7-8 Leaders because then the Rebels can have more leaders than useful stuff to do. You get 2 new missions, have probably 2-3 moves/battles which leaves you with 3 guys for the base missions - which is often more than you wanna do around turn 5-6.

So I rather use Mothma to oppose empire loyalty missions. If she gets captured/lured, it's a hit the rebels can take after turn 5-6.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug DeMoss
United States
Stillwater
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Watch what happens if Mothma gets captured and Rieekan is detained, though. Suddenly you can't move the base for a turn if you haven't recruited one of the two recruitable Logistics leaders. That can kill you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thrombozyt wrote:
astroglide wrote:
Thrombozyt wrote:
If you manage to Rule by Fear every turn, clear sabotage AND lock down all of the rebel production, you have either incredible luck with the mission draw or a rather clueless opponent.

If I sabotage loyal systems, I'm forcing you onto R&D which in turn reduces your action count even further. When I notice that you are really trying to cut down on my loyalty massively, I - as the rebel player - have less problems setting Mon Mothma aside to oppose a diplomacy mission and let Leia handle the Alliance building. With R2D2 Leia makes for an even better leader in the pool because you don't know if she'll move or oppose and she can oppose more stuff.

Eliminating loyalty locks down current and potential Rebel production as a primary side-effect, so the efforts aren't discrete.

I'm pretty down on dedicated mission opposition in general, as it trades actions 1:1 for the mere possibility of doing something useful. I'll do it tactically if something looks huge, and especially if the odds are greatly in my favor, but planning Mothma v Palpatine is an even-odds invitation for the most devastating early/mid-game capture the Empire can make.


The first step in locking down Rebel production is putting units there, apart from the few loyalty missions. That means that you need actions to move stuff around. If you use Rule by Fear on a subjugated rebel-loyal system, then you are not further cutting down Rebel production - it's already zero. You just make it harder to regain production from this system - which means that the rebels merely have to go to another system to be successful.

Using Mothma to oppose is only viable, when you have 7-8 Leaders because then the Rebels can have more leaders than useful stuff to do. You get 2 new missions, have probably 2-3 moves/battles which leaves you with 3 guys for the base missions - which is often more than you wanna do around turn 5-6.

So I rather use Mothma to oppose empire loyalty missions. If she gets captured/lured, it's a hit the rebels can take after turn 5-6.


The strategy the OP is suggesting focuses on getting rid of influence to counter rebel objectives, not rebel production. So it allows the rebels to be stronger in production and weaker in vp which has strengths and weaknesses.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
David Umstattd wrote:
The strategy the OP is suggesting focuses on getting rid of influence to counter rebel objectives, not rebel production. So it allows the rebels to be stronger in production and weaker in vp which has strengths and weaknesses.

It makes Rebel production stronger only to the extent that RBF and such are reducing the amount of board activations. The general concept is still to follow the Rebels around the board, and still to subjugate (at a minimum) everything that they make loyal - the addition is to follow up on that by also removing their loyalty. This does suppress future production if executed successfully, as it prevents the Rebels from re-opening builds and deploys on a subjugated system by pulling off a combat mission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
astroglide wrote:
David Umstattd wrote:
The strategy the OP is suggesting focuses on getting rid of influence to counter rebel objectives, not rebel production. So it allows the rebels to be stronger in production and weaker in vp which has strengths and weaknesses.

It makes Rebel production stronger only to the extent that RBF and such are reducing the amount of board activations. The general concept is still to follow the Rebels around the board, and still to subjugate (at a minimum) everything that they make loyal - the addition is to follow up on that by also removing their loyalty. This does suppress future production if executed successfully, as it prevents the Rebels from re-opening builds and deploys on a subjugated system by pulling off a combat mission.


Right. Empire play is all about managing your board activations. Whereas rebel play is more focused on managing mission activations.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Private Blinky
msg tools
There is no doubt, as the OP suggests, that the major strategic tenet of eliminating as many Rebel-loyal systems as possible is a solid and reliable method to try and achieve victory (deny Rebel objectives AND unit production with favorable results? but of course!), and I have used it to some great effect in my last few plays as the Empire. I can see this becoming a more go-to means for Empire players if they aren't doing this already.


So it begs the question; with these means are there any methods to counter these types of tactical suggestions? Well yes, indeed there are, but first and foremost just be aware that this Empire strategy aims for the long-play, so the Rebel player has to keep that in mind and minimize their own risks/exposure as best they can.


- Since you are going to be dealing with the long-play, it really helps if the Rebels do an early scope on the probe deck with Rapid Mob, the knowledge of those cards for the attempt and focus on performing a late-game base relocation can help make some of the following tactics much more impactful.

- Obviously, when gaining Loyalty, be sure to focus on systems that the Empire cannot easy reach without a couple activations. This will help keep the loyalty longer and keep your leaders more secure from immediate capture.

- There are only 4 Rebel missions that can alter system loyalty (and two of them force you to place loyalty in only that particular system), while the Empire player 6 loyalty-affecting missions in their deck (9 if you count the Superlaser Online projects) Yikes! While the Empire has the higher mission count, the Rebels have the higher potential for leaders with Diplomacy skill icons: 8 Rebels (1x3,2x2,5x1) vs only 5 Imperials (1x3,2x2,2x1), meaning with some heads up play, you should strive to get any Rebel leader in place on prior activations to help supplement any areas you suspect will be high candidates for loyalty attempts that round.


Empire performing 2-in-1's by both Subjugating and switching a newly-controlled Rebel-loyal system in the same round?
- If you have enough firepower available, use your first action to engage a fleet that you anticipate that will be moving to try and do the above. Once engaged, the Empire can either choose to send a leader to defend (likely making the Empire fleet immobile for the round and reducing the number of options for the loyalty attempt), or will try to keep the fleet mobile (which will give the Rebel player a better chance at completing an combat-orientated objective). Plus you could possibly retreat your leader to defend another second system if that system is also a candidate for losing Rebel loyalty.

Empire mitigating Rebel missions involving Subjugated neutral systems by making them loyal?
- Go ahead and make that system neutral again to make it automatically return to subjugated (once again maybe focusing on a planet you scoped earlier to maximise the potential of liberating it for the purpose of a late-game move). You will preferably want to do this with two leaders on the loyalty mission so to give you a buffer on any capture attempts and/or contestion of the mission, and chances are that the Empire player may be so busy attempting to alter Rebel loyalty that they may not have anything available to contest your attempt.

The Empire player tending to completely vacate Sabotaged systems?
- Assuming you have scoped the probe deck, start sabotaging any of the systems you had drawn and seen (if it would make logical sense to sabotage them anyways). There is no restriction preventing the Rebel player from relocating to a system that contains only a sabotage marker, and eventually the Empire will have spend resources and leader activation to avoid the scenario, or they run the risk of allowing the Rebels a way out.


Remember, as others have pointed out here, rather than the Rebels always gaining material/position, every action that the Rebels succeed in slowing down the Empire's actions (whether simply managing to block a mission or having to re-treading ground that has already been covered) ultimately helps run out the clock for the Rebel side.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arno Noms
msg tools
mb
David Umstattd wrote:
Thrombozyt wrote:
astroglide wrote:
Thrombozyt wrote:
If you manage to Rule by Fear every turn, clear sabotage AND lock down all of the rebel production, you have either incredible luck with the mission draw or a rather clueless opponent.

If I sabotage loyal systems, I'm forcing you onto R&D which in turn reduces your action count even further. When I notice that you are really trying to cut down on my loyalty massively, I - as the rebel player - have less problems setting Mon Mothma aside to oppose a diplomacy mission and let Leia handle the Alliance building. With R2D2 Leia makes for an even better leader in the pool because you don't know if she'll move or oppose and she can oppose more stuff.

Eliminating loyalty locks down current and potential Rebel production as a primary side-effect, so the efforts aren't discrete.

I'm pretty down on dedicated mission opposition in general, as it trades actions 1:1 for the mere possibility of doing something useful. I'll do it tactically if something looks huge, and especially if the odds are greatly in my favor, but planning Mothma v Palpatine is an even-odds invitation for the most devastating early/mid-game capture the Empire can make.


The first step in locking down Rebel production is putting units there, apart from the few loyalty missions. That means that you need actions to move stuff around. If you use Rule by Fear on a subjugated rebel-loyal system, then you are not further cutting down Rebel production - it's already zero. You just make it harder to regain production from this system - which means that the rebels merely have to go to another system to be successful.

Using Mothma to oppose is only viable, when you have 7-8 Leaders because then the Rebels can have more leaders than useful stuff to do. You get 2 new missions, have probably 2-3 moves/battles which leaves you with 3 guys for the base missions - which is often more than you wanna do around turn 5-6.

So I rather use Mothma to oppose empire loyalty missions. If she gets captured/lured, it's a hit the rebels can take after turn 5-6.


The strategy the OP is suggesting focuses on getting rid of influence to counter rebel objectives, not rebel production. So it allows the rebels to be stronger in production and weaker in vp which has strengths and weaknesses.



I'm fully aware of what the OP posted. In response I suggested that the Rebel player should take advantage and squeeze the leader pool further through sabotaging and opposing - basically pressing 1 for 1 leader trades as much as possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
PrivateBlinky wrote:
Obviously, when gaining Loyalty, be sure to focus on systems that the Empire cannot easy reach without a couple activations. This will help keep the loyalty longer and keep your leaders more secure from immediate capture.

I think this one is pretty critical. Between a mediocre and far away system and a good and close system, I'd lean toward mediocrity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
astroglide wrote:
PrivateBlinky wrote:
Obviously, when gaining Loyalty, be sure to focus on systems that the Empire cannot easy reach without a couple activations. This will help keep the loyalty longer and keep your leaders more secure from immediate capture.

I think this one is pretty critical. Between a mediocre and far away system and a good and close system, I'd lean toward mediocrity.


This is why I think Nal Hutta is a generally undervalued system. In certain board setups it's freaking amazing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Body
msg tools
I'm not sure I see the value in turning subjugated systems neutral as opposed to non-subjugated. The latter cuts Rebel production/deployment while the former does not. I could see doing it if it meant blocking the "all systems in a region" objective, but otherwise I think I'd go for the non-subjugated worlds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fahbs2000 wrote:
I'm not sure I see the value in turning subjugated systems neutral as opposed to non-subjugated. The latter cuts Rebel production/deployment while the former does not. I could see doing it if it meant blocking the "all systems in a region" objective, but otherwise I think I'd go for the non-subjugated worlds.

The idea isn't to favor non-producing systems when given a choice, it's to continue pounding away loyalty even after you've subjugated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Body
msg tools
Plus I'm an idiot. I forgot the little tidbit that RBF can only be used in systems with an Imperial unit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.