Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Biophysical

Questionable thematic explanation for why Guidance Chips works differently depending on primary weapon values

Recommended Posts

Thematically, Guidance Chip has been a weird card to justify.  My basic assumption, and I suspect that of most others, is that a specialized targeting system wouldn't care how many lasers a fighter is carrying when it is tracking and chasing a target.  This confusion stems from the assumption that Guidance Chip improves the ability of a Missile or Torpedo to hit its target.

 

What if that assumption is wrong?  What if the true purpose of Guidance Chip was to take over what the ship's pilot is doing during missile firing.  Perhaps there are a number of tasks a pilot is performing in the cockpit to keep a missile on target as it zooms through space.  Maybe he or she must paint the target with a radar, maintain communications with the missile, etc.  Say GC takes care of all that mess.  Now the pilot is free to do what pilots like to do:  shoot other fighters with their guns.  Maybe the extra dice modification from GC is not the warhead seeking better, but the contribution of a ship's blasters to the missile's attack, either by boxing in a target to reduce maneuverability or taking advantage of evasive maneuvers that may leave the target vulnerable in some other way?  

 

This idea doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny, but it's the best I've got so far about why primary weapon value makes a difference in an ordnance attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more. I raised much the same question and didn't get any particularly satisfying answers.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/197499-guidance-chip-fluff-question/

Your theory is the most plausible I've heard. The fluff aspect is quie important as I find it an instrumental part of gaming to imagine/picture what is going on or has been abstracted. Sadly as I mentioned in the other thread the image on the card is of no help with this question.

The Guidance Chip card seems inherently incongruous/paradoxical to ship roles and capabilities.

Most specialised ordnance carriers (TIE-Bombers and Punishers, and the K-Wing) have two dice primaries. Based on how GC works this infers that those ships actually have worse integrated/organic missile and torpedo targeting systems than ships like the X-Wing, Kihraxz, and the TIE-Defender, with three dice primaries....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all forgetting that this is a game, and that not every teeny, tiny detail needs to be justified.

 

Call yourself a nerd? Justifying the text on a piece of cardboard that's part of a plastic spaceship game is very important and serious business to us!

 

Personally I think that the card represents a ship diverting all power from lasers to targeting computers or whatever, so a ship with more power hungry lasers would have more power to put into targeting, leading to a more accurate shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy - it's a power question.

 

Ships with enough blaster output to roll 3 attack dice must be able to generate enough energy to do so.  Ships that only attack with 2 dice plainly have less weapon energy.

 

The guidance chimp is apparently a tie-in to the targeting system that takes a LOT of energy to increase the weapon accuracy.  So ships with 'just enough' power to use it (1 or 2 attack ships) just get a blank to hit, while ships with a lot more reactor power (3 attack dice) get a blank to crit conversion.

 

EDIT: d'oh!  Ninja'd!

Edited by xanderf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure as shootin' gonna try and make this work on B-wings.  Here's my fluffy head-cannon explanation.

 

Guidance chip communicates with the fighter itself and uses the cannon telemetry system to augment the warhead's own guidance solution.  A craft with more lasers has a more sophisticated targeting telemetry algorithm and can provide greater accuracy correction to the warhead-borne guidance chip.

 

Imagine the little target tracking display on the Falcon turrets or Darth Vaders console.  Guidance chip allows the warhead to pull in that info as extra targeting data.  B-wings, X-wings, Defenders that all shoot multiple cannons need better on-board systems to make sure all those laser bursts converge at the correct distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure thematically ordnance hits harder than primary weapons.

Most ordnance in game is 3 dice. a straight boost on 2 dice ships but 3 dice ships get 3 hits without much trouble but Crits are rare. By pushing 1 die to a crit on 3 dice primary ships ordnance still hits harder than their primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all forgetting that this is a game, and that not every teeny, tiny detail needs to be justified.

 

aka

 

gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. fluff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 Attack value ships are that way partially to better weapon systems.  The Guidance Chip integrates better with the better systems and just is able to do more damage due to working with a better system.

This was my thought process too. The 3 attack ships already have more sophisticated weapons systems. Adding a Guidance Chip to a less sophisticated weapons system still improves it but said system doesn't have the technological advancements necessary for the Guidance Chip to perform at its fullest potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone approaches gaming from a different point of view. To my mind X-Wing has (mostly) brilliant gameplay. I'm comfortable with their abstraction of 3D among other key aspects, most upgrade cards I can picture how that translates to "reality" - this one crawwed a bit. As for fluff and thematics, well I doubt this game would have the following it has if it was "Cremulon Fighter-Z" vs "Ooodnanite Bomber M47."

Thanks jimmius and xanderf - reallocating laser capacitors to ordnance sensors/systems is the best rationalisation I've heard so far. [Of course I wonder if that should apply to other secondary weapons then with a different upgrade.... ;)]

Edited by Trevor Goodchild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all forgetting that this is a game, and that not every teeny, tiny detail needs to be justified.

Yeah, it's pretty obviously that there is no thematic justification for it.  It's just a game balance thing.

 

Just like how nobody that costs more than 4 points can sit in a TIE Shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's pretty obviously that there is no thematic justification for it.  It's just a game balance thing.

 

Just like how nobody that costs more than 4 points can sit in a TIE Shuttle.

 

You know that (terrible, ignorant) phrase, "too cool for school?"

 

This is "too fleet for the jump seat."

 

Or maybe they just have one of these signs:

16392-0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...