WWHSD

FAQ 4.3.2 went up today.

69 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I wonder if FFG waited until after seeing this weekend's System Open results to decide how they wanted to rule on this. At this point, buffs to Targeting Sycnhronizer almost amount to an Imperial buff. 

 

Imperials have 3 different ships that can fill 3 different roles that have tech slots. Rebels and Scum each have only one. 

What scum ship has a tech slot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

Also allows for ships to have two target locks on the same ship if you can figure out a good enough reason for needing that.

Red Line's ability, so you can spend a targetlock and have one to reroll dice in case of a bad roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

And it can't usefully use TS at all without also paying for a Targetting Computer or K4 Security Droid.

At which point you're paying 20-21 points for a PS1 ship with two attack dice whose main role is to serve as a spotter.

Punning Pundit likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAQ entry for Targeting Synchronizer feels fishy for me. 

If the second paragraph on the card simply read: "friendly ships at range 1-2 can spend your Target Lock tokens as if they were their own" what would be the difference in the final outcome? 

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but FFG have usually been very specific in their wording, and the fact that they didn't put it like that to begin with, feels like the current explanation was a forced change, and not what the card text originally intended.

Edited by Mef82
nitrobenz and joeshmoe554 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mef82 said:

The FAQ entry for Targeting Synchronizer feels fishy for me. 

If the second paragraph on the card simply read: "friendly ships at range 1-2 can spend your Target Lock tokens as if they were their own" what would be the difference in the final outcome? 

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but FFG have usually been very specific in their wording, and the fact that they didn't put it like that to begin with, feels like the current explanation was a forced change, and not what the card text originally intended.

I think it needs the wording about 'attack: TL' to work without letting OL get multiple locks - otherwise, you don't HAVE a TL on the enemy, so you don't get the ordnance firing effect.  But there's little reason why the latter part couldn't have been worded as you suggest, I don't think.  It didn't need 'if a game effect blah blah blah' to work without overpowering OL and ATC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hotshot Copilot's FAQ makes sense to me, guys! Spend the focus on anything and during any time in the defined window and you satisfy HSCP's requirement.

And, if for some reason you cant spend the focus token (range 1 of Carnor Jax, or the 2 cases outlined), then you dont spend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phild0 said:

Hotshot Copilot's FAQ makes sense to me, guys! Spend the focus on anything and during any time in the defined window and you satisfy HSCP's requirement.

And, if for some reason you cant spend the focus token (range 1 of Carnor Jax, or the 2 cases outlined), then you dont spend it.

It seemed straight forward until I read it out loud. It's the first two blocks that have the problem. The way it is written makes it seem like the ship with HSCP is the one that needs to spend the focus token.

 

I don't think I know anyone that would see these two things as the same:

Thing 1:

"When attacking a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

Thing 2:

'When a ship equipped with Hotshot Co-pilot is attacking, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

Edited by WWHSD
PaulTiberius likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phild0 said:

Hotshot Copilot's FAQ makes sense to me, guys! Spend the focus on anything and during any time in the defined window and you satisfy HSCP's requirement.

That's not what it says, but the oppossite. I understand that's how it is suppossed to work, but after a hotfix on the FAQ, they didn't clear that up so i don't know what to think anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a way to read the Hotshot Co-pilot FAQ that makes sense. What results in a wrong reading are these groupings:

Quote

When (attacking a (ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped)), the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.
When (defending against a (ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped)), the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.

What makes it make sense are these groupings:

Quote

When ((attacking a ship) with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped), the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.
When ((defending against a ship) with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped), the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.

The subject in both sentences isn't the victim of Hotshot Co-pilot, but the ship that has it equipped. When that (ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped) attacks, the first sentence is in effect, and when that (ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped) defends, the second sentence is in effect.

Yes, it could be a lot clearer from a rules lawyering point of view. But I think the intent is rather obvious, and rules lawyering is a) good for convincing FFG to make the wording unambiguous and b) not reasonably useful for anything else than that.

Edited by haslo
PaulTiberius likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, making rules unambiguous, while it might not seem that useful in this particular case where the intent is obvious (while the writing is horrible), it is for those where intent can be also ambiguous, and those are the important ones.

Edited by DreadStar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, haslo said:

Yes, it could be a lot clearer from a rules lawyering point of view. But I think the intent is rather obvious, and rules lawyering is a) good for convincing FFG to make the wording unambiguous and b) not reasonably useful for anything else than that.

Generally I agree with you.  But in this instance?  That is just unbelievably bad wording.  Like either trolling bad or incompetent bad.  Those are the only two possibilities in this case.

pt106 and haslo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Generally I agree with you.  But in this instance?  That is just unbelievably bad wording.  Like either trolling bad or incompetent bad.  Those are the only two possibilities in this case.

I don't normally disparage the design team to this extent but the writing on the HotCoP FAQ entry is literally the worst possible way it could be written and still be argued to convey the sense it's intended to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

It takes some skill and talent to be able to write a FAQ entry that both says the same and the opposite of the intention of the card.

I think whoever wrote that FAQ entry is a poet.

Definitely the work of an insane genius.

 

16 hours ago, Mef82 said:

The FAQ entry for Targeting Synchronizer feels fishy for me. 

If the second paragraph on the card simply read: "friendly ships at range 1-2 can spend your Target Lock tokens as if they were their own" what would be the difference in the final outcome? 

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but FFG have usually been very specific in their wording, and the fact that they didn't put it like that to begin with, feels like the current explanation was a forced change, and not what the card text originally intended.

I can't see any difference if the 2nd sentence were changed to your version.  Maybe it's future-proofing?  Maybe it's just poor wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mef82 said:

The FAQ entry for Targeting Synchronizer feels fishy for me. 

If the second paragraph on the card simply read: "friendly ships at range 1-2 can spend your Target Lock tokens as if they were their own" what would be the difference in the final outcome?

Would that still work for things that have "Attack (Target Lock):" headers? I think not?

Edit, scratch that, you're only talking about the second paragraph.

Edited by haslo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

They will either a) not care or b) make him have no effect on epic ships in  epic document for Biggs.

 

Does anybody play epic? :P

 

Kidding aside. Biggs was broken in Epic because he could effect a bunch of attacks in a single combat round. Also, there were certain combos that could make Biggs nigh unhittable. Zuckuss at most can come into play with two attacks using Quad Laser Turrets. Those aren't very good though as they are pretty range limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2017 at 4:31 AM, gamblertuba said:

Also allows for ships to have two target locks on the same ship if you can figure out a good enough reason for needing that.

Epic ship with Han Solo crew? Or even non-epic just for HSCP proofing. T-70s for spotters might be iffy though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now