Jump to content

Brat Smalllighter

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Again I appreciate your well balanced post which covers the main aspects and a lot of gameplay issues. Even though I don't agree with all your weighting your thoughts are reasonable and in terms of balancing a matter of taste anyway. I just want to correct the one of my points you said you didn't get about the difference of target lock and focus in terms of flying. As you pointed out correctly I had a wrong thought about target lock requiring to have a ship in arc two following turns. You can aquire a lock in the same turn and use it, sure. But note that this has restrictions due to iniative order of flying and range as low ps ships often struggle to acquire a lock in first round of engagement. SDE focus action bypasses this. But I meant the amount of planning involved. To make a target lock work (with lower ps) you have to emphasize where the ship you have in lock will end its turn or what other possible targets will be present at the end of the round. And to use the advantage of a target lock staying after the end of the round you need to plan this accordingly. But with SDE again this gets a no-brainer and so significantly disfavors efforts for good flying. As for the comparison to crackshot, well you're right this is very powerful but also its gone when used. SDE on the other hand works the entire game granting a significant offense and defence boost as also versatility with its options. You're very right about the stress effect to shutdown SDE completely but here I like to point out that stress does so with all the actions anyway and I could argue that when used on SDE it just seems more effective because SDE grants that much of a power spike if not getting disabled All arguments still leave me convinced that Super Deadeye is nothing we should want as it would be severely off-balance and underpriced and is still not agreed how to rule by all of the community So, with all that said I'll come to rest with my thoughts as I just wanted to make sure some major points don't get forgotten in this debate. Thanks to everyone for their efforts
  2. Well you took some effort to address my point. While I'm glad you did, I think you may agree that if we would discuss any ship the posts would easily emerge out of hands so I try to keep my arguments slim. [edit: didn't work :)] Aside I think the debate should focus more on the ruling techniques than on balancing issues (and btw there is still a group that is convinced that under the current ruling Deadeye for rerolls (I will call it SuperDE from now on) is not possible) But I put balancing on the table so blame is to me :) and I'm glad you asked so here are some points: Your first argument about SuperDE beiing not that important due to aces needing other epts is a considerable point. But I won't underestimate its possible uses. While ceiling ps is very important for high ps aces it's not completely mandatory. Middle ps aces on the other hand almost don't benefit at all from adaptability and VI thus become SuperDE lovers. This would put additional pressure on expensive aces which are actually suffering a lot under bombs and upcoming tools to negate green dice.. About double focus (F+F) combinations you have to consider there is more than simple rec spec. Besides basic token sharing abilities like Garven Dreis, f.e. Soontir Fel got it build-in and is well used (sure he wants ptl but hey I try to make a point:)). Fleet officer or General Hux are viable ways to provide even multiple ships with double focus. Even the SuperDE F+F is more easy to achieve than a TL+F because everyone got F but not TL (just to mention auzitucks) and rec spec is, while less present, still existing (auzitucks again, arc-170). This gives SuperDE lovers a significant damage spike. Related to this issue, everyone who was just using Deadeye before gets boosted significantly due to the additional features.(possibly any small ordnance carrier with an ept., I'm looking at you Nym...) Well, its open to discussion whether ordnance carriers could use a boost, are powerful enough or even going to be overpowered but this would def. have an impact on it. I'm concerned it shifts the balance from target lock to focus in an unhealthy way. As focus got an edge on defence plus more options when to use it its counterbalanced by loosing it in the end of the round. Target lock doesn't provide defensive options and is restricted only to a corresponding ship which had been locked before but is slightly balanced by lasting until spent. Still we are honest often focus gets the preferrence. With SuperDE then way more. (Yay now no difficult decision and I'm free to choose depending on situation and dice symbols!) Well it eradicates the need for TL at all! (Yay no more target comp bargain, free extra slot for defence on my ace!) which brings me to my biggest concern, a point you slightly mentioned and thus to a question I want to ask the community for opinion. When SuperDE replaces 'spend target lock' with 'spend focus' for reroll, does it replace the need for a corresponding ship to have locked? Can I, instead of having the restriction to only use it on a ship I have locked before, just use the reroll on any attack on a ship in my arc? In the core rulebook on page 11 it is written: "Spending Target Lock Tokens If the attacker has a target lock on the defender he may return his pair of assigned target lock tokens to the action token supply to choose any number of attack dice (...)" "the attacker may spend target lock tokens only when he is attacking a ship that his lock is targeting." In the rules reference of the TFO core-set the phrase is missing and it states shortly: "Target Lock: The attacker can spend a target lock he has on the defender" Question: Does the second phrase in the first text still apply when using SuperDE here? Because if yes one can argue that you'd still need a ship locked when using a focus for a reroll.. At least from a balancing point of view I could live with a DE ruling like that.. And besides, assuming there's no need for a lock than we got an argument more on the SuperDE-is-harmful-side because with no need for having your target in arc two following rounds it lowers the need of good flying significantly and infavors not only our beloved ps-aces but also the game itself. Well, don't get me wrong, I don't like ruling on intend too, rules must be played the way they are written until occasionally changed but, as you said, with murky waters like this and a SuperDE with possibly revolutionary changes (as so I see them) I'd prefer to stay a little on the conservative side until we get an errata (hopefully). Looking forward replies, guys
  3. Guys really, it is not settled. There are two major opinions about the ruling. And I can only recommend to look at what's at stake in this case. This place is used as a reference to lots of players or TO's and this way we got a responsibility for our loved game. In the case of Deadeye I can only strongly recommend to try to look at the RAI. A Deadeye which optionally allows to use a focus instead of a target lock to reroll any attack, not to mention the possible combination of double focus for target lock+reroll, various possible combinations with other abilities plus its origin power of freeing the restrictions to fire secondary weapons, all together just for 1pt ept without a drawback (except of not for big ships) doesn't feel not only as a bargain than almost as a cheat to the game imo. This could possibly be a game breaker. So even if it's not totally clear how to rule this until there might be an errata we should consider the damage this could possibly cause to the current meta or just the confusion when it gets ruled differently on various tournaments. All I say is we should be cautious to push for a 'desired' outcome for the sake of power.
  4. As for Deadeye closely reading it qualifies for 'attacks' that instruct to resolve game effect 'spend target lock'. Whether this 'attack' is the whole process until step 8 of the attack chart (here effects trigger that say 'after attack') or just the card (att x, range y-z) with the 'attack' header doesn't matter, in both the attack instructs to resolve game effect 'spend target lock' only in step iv. More exact the instruction is in the card text and gets resolved in step iv. (pay costs) In following steps (f.e. modify dice) the attack (chart) instructs (with may, can, must) to resolve other game effects (by resolving abilities for adding, changing, rerolling dice). Note that 'spend target lock' is not mentioned in this step as it is a game effect that is instructed by the ones mentioned there (and so not by the attack itself). So from this view Deadeye cannot be used to reroll dice. There might be others who may not agree with this reading though.
  5. Yeah it's a bit muddy Let's say all effects in the game are game effects. Closely read it gives examples of game effects that instruct the player to resolve a specific (game) effect (called 'spend target lock') AND game effects that do not instruct the player to resolve this specific one. And with the target sync text all these examples are included (the valid ones qualify for it's use).
  6. Game effects can occur during attacks. So for sure they are inclusive. If you look closely to the attack chart steps there is no condition mentioned in step i which checks for a specific weapon requirement. So when you complete step i and move to step ii and declare a specific weapon attack which you cannot do you cannot perform this specific attack. Anyway because step i has been completed you qualify for at least a primary attack of the basic sort.
  7. Guys, even if an attack is a game effect (which I honestly don't know) A game effect IS not an attack. It CAN be but it can be anything else (like a barrel roll or a shield reload or whatever). TS is referring to game effects allowing for any game effect in the game. Deadeye is referring to attacks which might be specific game effects but not all. @Jimbawa, I don't cut out any step. As you said during an attack a player must go to all steps in order. I'm just talking about the steps in question. The first step is not in question in this topic. Furthermore when you look closely to your post there must be the possibility to cancel an attack even in further steps when a condition is not met. For example for a secondary weapon you must cancel the attack in step ii (choosing weapon) or at least in step iv (paying costs) when you don't have a corresponding token, even when step i has been resolved. And in opposition to my reading of your standing I strongly believe that a game effect instructing you to do something during an attack is still a game effect instructing to do something. And if an attack is supposed to be a game effect itself we have the situation that game effects can occur inside game effects. Then still it has to be resolved 'from inside out', like a program. FFG made clear that interlinked game effects can occur and are to be resolved in this manner: game effect A triggers game effect B game effect A pauses game effect B resolves completely game effect A resumes So here when we assume that an attack is a game effect the attack pauses to give another game effect place to happen until finished. Then the attack resumes. You cannot say both "attacks are game effects" AND "game effects are attacks" but you do if you proclaim that anything that happens during resolving the attack chart is actually an attack when it comes to the question whether an attack instructs you to do something or a game effect does.
  8. To clarify this look at the text of a secondary weapon Proton Torpedoes ATTACK (TARGET LOCK): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack. It says you have to resolve a game effect (spend target lock, which occurs specifically in substep iv) in order to perform this specific attack It clearly makes a difference between game effect and attack. The attack instructs you to resolve a game effect for the attack to occur. The Deadeye text gives another option for resolving this specific game effect.
  9. No my post says that there is a difference if a game effect instructs you to spend a token or if an attack instructs you to do so. When a game effect during an attack occurs to instruct you to do something it is still and only the game effect. It is NOT the attack that instructs you. You cannot perform an attack if you don't met the conditions (fulfill the instruction to trigger a game effect i.e. spending a target lock for a secondary weapon) but you can perform an attack without using a game effect (not matching conditions for it to trigger i.e. primary attack without modifying dice)
  10. Guys really, don't try to read what the cards don't say. Attacks and game effects aren't the same. Even when some players claim all steps together in the attack timing chart qualify as a whole attack they must admit that during an attack game effects may be resolved. These game effects obviously cannot be attacks. Spending a target lock - "Spending a target lock to reroll attack dice" counts as a game effect that instructs you to spend a target lock The FAQ says: Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock? A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to another ship are not examples of spending a target lock. This clarifies what conditions qualify for spending a target lock to trigger a game effect and what do not as assigning or removing a token does not. There are two steps I see in the attack timing chart that mentions spending anything. First is "Pay cost to perform the attack". Here the attack instructs the player to spend a token. It still is a game effect as the FAQ statet above but a specific one. The other step comes in saying "[Attacker/Defender] resolves ability that modify [attack/defense] dice", which may trigger game effects Note that this step does not instruct the player to spend anything. The corresponding game effect does if the player chooses to resolve this. Game effects during an attack are still game effects that instruct the player to do something. They are not attacks and don't like to be mixed with Deadeye part 2 - "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock, you may spend a focus token instead" Deadeye uses 'an attack', which is specifically two things. The primary weapon attack and cards with the Attack: header. with only the latter instructs the player to spend a target lock. Targetting Synchroniser. ... If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead. It specifically uses the words 'game effect' (which Deadeye doesn't). Here the player may use the target lock of the TS equipped ship for any of its uses. Note that regardles it says 'may' the target lock must be spend if used to trigger a game effect (so no multiple uses of one target lock).
  11. I don't see any problem here. In step (iii) you declare a target of your attack from all viable targets. The check for weapon requirements has already been done in step (ii), although you don't need to pay the costs (if applicable) until step (iv). as the check for requirements cannot succeed if you don't meet the conditions there is no situation where you couldn't fire your weapon after arriving at step (iii)
  12. That seems to hit the nail right on the head. Looks like FFG just mixed their vocabulary. On first view pretty much could be solved when the "Attack [Target Lock]" rule's wording changed from defender into target..
  13. Hi guys. Just along with jmswood's point I'd like to throw in my two dimes: There's a difference in "Attack [Target Lock]" and "Attack [Focus]" in terms of target selection. Former has the restriction to only give viable targets with corresponding red target lock tokens while the other does not have this restriction. A ship with Attack (focus) can select any target in arc and range. The timing chart is as this: Declare Target i. measure range ii. choose weapon (Ship chooses Unguided Rockets. It has the 'Attack [Focus]' header. Say it has a focus so condition is met) iii. declare target (any ship in arc and range qualifies as viable ship) iv. pay cost. (Unguided Rockets don't instruct to spend a focus.) v. target becomes the defender In this scenario you have to choose Biggs as a target when he is in range to the declared target in step iii. Now from the reading of the first part of deadeye: "you may treat the "Attack [Target Lock]" header as "Attack [Focus]" It lets you use the "Attack [Focus]" game effect instead which is described above. The condition is checked in step ii. before Biggs comes into play (step iii.) So when you use deadeye in step ii. you have to select Biggs in step iii. if he is in range and arc. You still have the option to not use deadeye in step ii. and instead use a secondary with a target lock on another ship in case you have one. Then Biggs cannot interfere in step iii. as FFG made clear that Biggs cannot force a specific weapon selection. In step iv. (pay costs) the second part from Deadeye (which is independent) allows now to spend a focus instead of spending a target lock. So this way the attacking ship can surpass Biggs ability and attack another ship. From my reading this should be a viable rule interpretation although I admittedly don't like it. In my oppinion it would give deadeye too much power. Any thoughts?
  14. Hi guys. First hello to everyone, you are an encouraging crowd. Love to see the community being that active and constructive as FFG gives a lot to discuss I'd like to throw in a detail which hasn't mentioned yet in all these debates to my notice. There's a difference in "Attack [Target Lock]" and "Attack [Focus]" in terms of target selection. Former has the restriction to only give viable targets with corresponding red target lock tokens while the other does not have this restriction. A ship using a weapon with Attack (focus) can select any target in arc and range. The timing chart is as this: Declare Target i. measure range ii. choose weapon (Ship chooses Unguided Rockets. It has the 'Attack [Focus]' header. Say it has a focus so condition is met) iii. declare target (any ship in arc and range qualifies as viable ship) iv. pay cost. (Unguided Rockets don't instruct to spend a focus.) v. target becomes the defender In this scenario you have to choose Biggs as a target when he is in range to the declared target in step iii. Now from the reading of the first part of deadeye: "you may treat the "Attack [Target Lock]" header as "Attack [Focus]" It lets you use the "Attack [Focus]" game effect instead which is described above. The condition is checked in step ii. before Biggs comes into play (step iii.) So when you use deadeye in step ii. you have to select Biggs in step iii. if he is in range and arc. You still have the option to not use deadeye in step ii. and instead use a secondary with a target lock on another ship in case you have one. Then Biggs cannot interfere in step iii. as FFG made clear that Biggs cannot force a specific weapon selection. In step iv. (pay costs) the second part from Deadeye (which is independent) allows now to spend a focus instead of spending a target lock. So this way the attacking ship can surpass Biggs ability and attack another ship. From my reading this should be a viable rule interpretation although I admittedly don't like it. In my oppinion it would give deadeye too much power. Any thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...