Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Star Wars: Imperial Assault» Forums » Rules

Subject: Murne - False Orders Greedo question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jake Freiburger
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've read a couple threads trying to clarify exactly what abilities the rebel player/Murne gets to use when using False Orders, but I'm still not totally clear what happens if she False orders Greedo.

When Murne False Orders Greedo to attack someone, does Murne/the rebel player also get to trigger "Slow on the Draw" and have the target of Greedo's attack shoot Greedo first?

Similarly if that "Slow on the Draw" attack defeats Greedo, does the Rebel player also get to resolve "Parting Shot?"

I think the answer is yes, but if so it makes it pretty pointless to ever bring Greedo to a campaign that Murne is in. Once the threat level reaches four hes basically more useful to the heroes than to the Imperials. lol

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
The controlled figure can use any ability on their card during a false orders attack; just remember that all non-neutral figures are hostile and no figure is friendly to the contolled figure during this attack. So, for instance, an officer that is adjacent to the controlled figure and no other Imperial figure cannot cower from the attack, nor can a controlled stormtrooper that is adjacent to another trooper use squad training, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustav W
Sweden
Lund
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think the Imperial player would ever use the possible attack on Greedo from Slow on the Draw though. If the rebels are for some reason attacking themselves (it can be done with False Orders as everyone is hostile to the figure) they should definitely use the free attack though. As you suffer damage in step 7 of the attack you would still control Greedo when triggering Parting Shot so it could be used by the rebels in this unlikely situation.

csouth154 wrote:
The controlled figure can use any ability on their card during a false orders attack; just remember that all non-neutral figures are hostile and no figure is friendly to the contolled figure during this attack. So, for instance, an officer that is adjacent to the controlled figure and no other Imperial figure cannot cower from the attack, nor can a controlled stormtrooper that is adjacent to another trooper use squad training, etc.

I don't think this is correct. I know you have played like that in your PBF but the rules say.
Bespin rulebook under SPECIAL SITUATIONS REGARDING ATTACKS wrote:
All non-neutral figures are considered hostile and no figures are considered friendly while performing this attack

So while every figure is hostile to the False Orders target and thus can't use abilites like Squad Training itself, the False Orders target is not hostile to everyone, it's still friendly to other Imperial figures so it can trigger Cower for Officers or Armor Corps from the Armored Onslaught deck.

For further reference regarding this see.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1595891/does-murne-rins-fal...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Relationship works both ways: if every figure is hostile to the FO target, then the FO target is hostile to every figure. A figure cannot attack a friendly figure, and a figure cannot be attacked by a figure that is friendly to it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
I just noticed that I am a commenter on that thread you linked. Lol.

Still, though, I personally do not agree with the position that relationship is a one way street. That just does not make sense to me. Short of official clarification from FFG saying otherwise, I think if a figure is able to attack another figure, the attacker cannot be considered friendly to the target. Just doesn't make a lick of sense...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustav W
Sweden
Lund
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Relationship works both ways: if every figure is hostile to the FO target, then the FO target is hostile to every figure. A figure cannot attack a friendly figure, and a figure cannot be attacked by a figure that is friendly to it.

While I can understand that this would be viewed as logical I don't think the rules say so. They only make every non-neutral figure hostile to the figure attacking (for the duration of the attack), nothing else changes, so the figure itself is still hostile to rebel figures and friendly to imperial figures.

Clipper and a1bert seems to agree with me in the above referenced thread.

Edit: I took my time cross examining rulebooks and cards before posting so did't see your last post before submitting this one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Webbe wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Relationship works both ways: if every figure is hostile to the FO target, then the FO target is hostile to every figure. A figure cannot attack a friendly figure, and a figure cannot be attacked by a figure that is friendly to it.

While I can understand that this would be viewed as logical I don't think the rules say so. They only make every non-neutral figure hostile to the figure attacking (for the duration of the attack), nothing else changes, so the figure itself is still hostile to rebel figures and friendly to imperial figures.

Clipper and a1bert seems to agree with me in the above referenced thread.


I believe that the rules are insufficient to answer this question. They never say that an attacker and its target must have the same relationship to each other (my argument), but they they also never say they can have different relationships to each other. Logic would strongly imply that an attacker is, by definition, hostile to the target of its own attack. Unless FFG says otherwise, I cannot believe they intend for an attacker to ever be friendly to its target.

Clipper and A1bert are almost always correct...but in this case I disagree with them if they think an attacker can be friendly to the figure it is attacking.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
The actual rules quote is:

"All non-neutral figures are considered hostile and no figures are considered friendly while performing this attack"

Now...this is a poorly worded rule to begin with. They do not include "to the controlled figure" after "no figures are considered friendly"...it is only implied. Taken literally, this rule would mean no figure anywhere on the board is friendly to any other figure; meaning an officer adjacent to another imperial figure could not cower from a controlled figure's attack... and no one is arguing that.

I believe they mean this rule to define the mutual relationship between the controlled figure and its target, only.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That rule is clearly written with an implied 'to the figure performing the attack'. This is not going to affect relationships of other figures on the board to each other.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next total solar eclipse holiday in 2017 in the USA.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A figure can not declare attacks against friendly or neutral figures. Allowing to target any non-neutral figure is (almost) all that the rule does.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
That rule is clearly written with an implied 'to the figure performing the attack'. This is not going to affect relationships of other figures on the board to each other.


OK, I agree...but I also feel that the implication is that the controlled figure cannot be friendly to its target. I have fired off a question to FFG. I simply cannot believe they intend for the controlled figure to be friendly to anything, especially its target.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Freiburger
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I appreciate the rules discussion everyone (really, I do). But I think I'm more confused now than I was when I started this thread. lol
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rico P
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Note: I could be wrong, we haven't gotten around to playing with Murne yet

from what I gather it's basically: "You may use abilities as long as they don't require some other friendlies", because the mind-controlled figure isn't really friendly to anyone while being mind-controlled

So suppose you control eStorm, you can use the surge for +2, surge for +3acc, you roll its dice (Blue+Green), but you can't use 'Squad training', AND if for some reason it died after finished attacking the original controller does NOT get the bonus from 'Last Stand' because again, it wasn't really "in the group" when it was mind-controlled

Same for eIO. You can use the surge for stun/+1 dmg all that stuff, but you don't get 'Cower' because no one is really friendly when that eIO is being mind controlled
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next total solar eclipse holiday in 2017 in the USA.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Last Stand does not require being friendly. It triggers regardless of how the figure was defeated. The controller of the defeated figure decides which remaining figure in the group gains focused. (If the attacking figure was defeated, who that is depends on whether he was defeated during of after the attack under Murne's control.)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Clipper wrote:
That rule is clearly written with an implied 'to the figure performing the attack'. This is not going to affect relationships of other figures on the board to each other.


OK, I agree...but I also feel that the implication is that the controlled figure cannot be friendly to its target. I have fired off a question to FFG. I simply cannot believe they intend for the controlled figure to be friendly to anything, especially its target.


Finally, this is settled:

I wrote:
Regarding Murne's False Orders: I know that ALL non-neutral figures are hostile to the attacker while the attack is being performed. Doesn't this also mean that the attacker is hostile to everything, as well? Or can an attacker be considered friendly to its target? My position is that relationships must be mutual. Others argue the opposite; that, for instance, an officer that is adjacent only to a controlled imperial figure that is attacking it could cower because nothing in the rules say that the attacker is not friendly to it. This does not make logical sense to me...



Paul wrote:
Hi Craig,

When Murne is performing an attack with an Imperial figure, that figure is not considered friendly to other Imperial figures, only hostile. So, in your scenario, the Officer could not use Cower.

Thanks!

Paul Winchester
Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games


The takeaway here is that relationship between two figures is always mutual.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.