Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Although this sounds like a rules question, we don't have the rules yet, so its more of a discussion. A year ago it was a little confusing that although the the sabotage card says Attempt on ANY system, it was declared that it was possible only on populous systems, it made sense, there was no need, and remote systems never became imperial so there was no reason to argue.

With the new shield bunker unit the imperial player will be allowed to deploy units to remote systems


now this is a perfect reason to sabotage those remote systems, and the drawing on the sabotage card even supports it.

Do we think that the ruling about this card will be reversed?
it makes sense to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
jooice wrote:
Although this sounds like a rules question, we don't have the rules yet, so its more of a discussion. A year ago it was a little confusing that although the the sabotage card says Attempt on ANY system, it was declared that it was possible only on populous systems, it made sense, there was no need, and remote systems never became imperial so there was no reason to argue.

With the new shield bunker unit the imperial player will be allowed to deploy units to remote systems


now this is a perfect reason to sabotage those remote systems, and the drawing on the sabotage card even supports it.

Do we think that the ruling about this card will be reversed?
it makes sense to me.


Probably not because R&D still can't be used to remove sabotoge from remote systems under any circumstance.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
R&D cant but Motti's card can, also having a remote system that is forever sabotaged isnt the worse thing in the world.

Finally maybe they will say that a system with a shield bunker is considered imperial or loyal (unlikely). Or something
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yan Bertrand
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm of the same opinion as David. Too many rules / balance points bent to allow that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Herman92 wrote:
I'm of the same opinion as David. Too many rules / balance points bent to allow that.


except that the rule that is being bent is an errata that the card says nothing about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The biggest reason for this errata is so sabotage can't be used to stop the DS from being built. Which is ironic given it's artwork.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas with Subtrendy
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
jooice wrote:
R&D cant but Motti's card can, also having a remote system that is forever sabotaged isnt the worse thing in the world.


Also, it makes Rebel objectives involving sabotage all that much easier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Subtrendy Gaming wrote:
jooice wrote:
R&D cant but Motti's card can, also having a remote system that is forever sabotaged isnt the worse thing in the world.


Also, it makes Rebel objectives involving sabotage all that much easier.

Remote systems cannot possibly count for the purpose of that objective, only sabotaged Imperial systems can.

Unless the definition of Imperial system is going to change in expansion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Private Blinky
msg tools
Sabotage, likely not, for the points others have raised.

Blockading the system with Rebel ships in the space zone, on the other hand... *cue evil laugh* devil
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
PrivateBlinky wrote:
Sabotage, likely not, for the points others have raised.

Blockading the system with Rebel ships in the space zone, on the other hand... *cue evil laugh* devil


Cue the questions of people asking "the shield bunker says I can deploy to remote systems. Does that mean I can deploy even if there are rebel ships blockading the shield bunker?"

No. It only removes the remote system restriction. But I'm sure people will ask this anyway...

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Sherlock
United States
Anaheim Hills
California
flag msg tools
badge
Admin @ www.cigargeeks.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would just wait for the game to come out instead of speculating what the rules would say.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Cirone
United States
Mansfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am confused on how the shield bunker gets on a remote system to begin with... you cannot deploy to remote systems and structures cannot be moved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Jayne Starlancer wrote:
I am confused on how the shield bunker gets on a remote system to begin with... you cannot deploy to remote systems and structures cannot be moved.


Oversee Project or Imperial Might. Possibly others too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Jayne Starlancer wrote:
I am confused on how the shield bunker gets on a remote system to begin with... you cannot deploy to remote systems and structures cannot be moved.


No speculation. Just saying what FFG says.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas with Subtrendy
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Have we seen the Imperial unit sheet yet? Perhaps the shield bunker is a project, and perhaps the project card reads something like this:

"Resolve in any non-Rebel system. Place a mission token on this system, and put a shield bunker on spot 2 of the build queue. When you deploy the shield bunker, deploy it to this system, and remove the mission token"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Subtrendy Gaming wrote:
Have we seen the Imperial unit sheet yet? Perhaps the shield bunker is a project, and perhaps the project card reads something like this:

"Resolve in any non-Rebel system. Place a mission token on this system, and put a shield bunker on spot 2 of the build queue. When you deploy the shield bunker, deploy it to this system, and remove the mission token"


see original post for imperial unit sheet.
you get it from orange circle producing planets instead of AT-STs.
I am not saying that there isn't a project or a new rule that deals with this, but we know the main way to build these.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
From Dice Tower video review:

"In addition to normal deployment rules, a Shield Bunker may be deployed to any system that contains at least 1 Imperial ground unit and does not contain any Rebel units. The planet's loyalty does not matter."

Okay then, I want to deploy it to destroyed system...

Spoiler (click to reveal)


We're also getting replacement cards for Sabotage, Son of Skywalker, Good Intel and Construct Super Star Destroyer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Graham Richardson
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
you missed the part about needing 1 Imperial ground unit, thus keeping you from deploying it to a destroyed system haha.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Destroyed systems can contain ground units, if they have transport.

No tongue this time, because rules.


Edited to add:

I'm sure the intention is "bunkers cannot be deployed to destroyed systems", of course, but... you know... rulebook proofreading etc.
 
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if they were allowed, I could see a thematic justification: putting a small outpost on one of the asteroid remnants of the planet with a shield.

I'm not sure how overall useful it would be, though. And I suspect that even if the rules don't specifically address this, the ruling would be that they can't go there. All having it in a destroyed system would do is protect a Death Star.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
sigmazero13 wrote:
Even if they were allowed, I could see a thematic justification: putting a small outpost on one of the asteroid remnants of the planet with a shield.

I'm not sure how overall useful it would be, though.

How useful? Immensely useful. There can be no ground battle in destroyed systems, so Bunker cannot be destroyed in combat. And with its 3 health, very hard to destroy with missions - only with Plant Explosives? Therefore, if Rebels don't have that card, the Death Star is absolutely indestructible. Unless it ever leaves that system.


Similar situation: Let's say we have a system which already contains only Death Star and Shield Bunker. Nothing weird so far. Then Death Star destroys the system. Is the Bunker destroyed immediately? Nothing in the rules revealed today would indicate so. It stays there, but is destroyed the moment Death Star moves out of the system. laugh


Anyway, we all know what the ruling would be; all of this is just a harmless "what-if".
1 
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Even if they were allowed, I could see a thematic justification: putting a small outpost on one of the asteroid remnants of the planet with a shield.

I'm not sure how overall useful it would be, though.

How useful? Immensely useful. There can be no ground battle in destroyed systems, so Bunker cannot be destroyed in combat. And with its 3 health, very hard to destroy with missions - only with Plant Explosives? Therefore, if Rebels don't have that card, the Death Star is absolutely indestructible. Unless it ever leaves that system.

If that's what the Empire wants to do with the Death Star, I guess. Seems like a waste to put it there, especially since it can't deploy stuff there.

But it may all be moot
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:
From Dice Tower video review:

"In addition to normal deployment rules, a Shield Bunker may be deployed to any system that contains at least 1 Imperial ground unit and does not contain any Rebel units. The planet's loyalty does not matter."

Okay then, I want to deploy it to destroyed system...

Spoiler (click to reveal)


We're also getting replacement cards for Sabotage, Son of Skywalker, Good Intel and Construct Super Star Destroyer.


Oh gosh, this would break the hell out of the mechanic because ground units can't fight each other in a destroyed system.

I'm near 100% sure this isn't intended.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So no sabotage or new starting card with different text on it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yan P.
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
New starting sabotage with different text on it. According to an early reviewer on the FFG boards, it allows you to DESTROY a SHIELD GENERATOR (presumably also in a remote system).

So, no sabotage token, but achieves the same result.
 
 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.