Jump to content
evcameron

Composure talent and intentionally failing a linked action

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, evcameron said:

Interesting catch... I don't think this is intended, as it could lead to some strange cases where you currently have a lock, attempt to move it somewhere else, don't have range to the enemy ship you wanted to lock and are forced to move your current lock to a friendly ship or obstacle. 

Yep, I'm definitely on the side of this interpretation, for the reason you gave. If you're on the cusp of range 3 to a bunch of enemies, with one already locked, but there's an outside chance that a different enemy might be just close enough to give locking them a try. If you then fail that, losing you existing lock on an enemy and having to lock a friendly seems especially harsh.

I think, though step 2 may be 'mandatory', choosing 'no object' at range 0-3 is a valid choice. 

I think it's supported by the language of the fail condition under Lock.

"While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen"

If it were mandatory to lock something you had in range, I think that clause would say "While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object can be chosen"

Edited by GuacCousteau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been going back on forth on this issue since I saw it. Good to see the conversation here. I think the idea that you have to lock something else if it's in range is the proper interpretation, but we shall see. With old Norra and PTL, I would lock all the time. I'm still debating on if Norra or Shara are the better Arcs in 2.0 so far. Lots of interesting options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Edit: Actually, maybe not. There is no may in "2. Choose another object at range 0–3.", which means it could be mandatory, if the Card Interpretation rules hold here: "The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory, the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect."

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

It really must apply. For example, when completing a red maneuver: "During the Check Difficulty step of executing a maneuver, if the maneuver is red, the ship gains one stress token"

It doesn't say must... but we have to assume it's a must, or else taking a stress is optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

Page 2 of the PDF under 'Card Interpretation' there's a section on 'Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”'.

Edited by __underscore__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

Page 2 of the PDF under 'Card Interpretation' there's a section on 'Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”'.

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. I was scrolling all through the alphabetical rules section, but didn't think to go right to the top for some reason.

Looking at it, I really don't think there's any reason to assume those language conventions also apply to the rules document itself. It's talking quite specifically about pilot and upgrade cards, and the key line in question says 

"Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory, the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect."

Effects are the results of game mechanics or abilities within gameplay itself. 

I see no reason why the steps to be followed in performing a mechanic as detailed in the rules reference would be considered 'effects'. 

7 minutes ago, evcameron said:

It really must apply. For example, when completing a red maneuver: "During the Check Difficulty step of executing a maneuver, if the maneuver is red, the ship gains one stress token"

It doesn't say must... but we have to assume it's a must, or else taking a stress is optional.

Not necessarily.

That's just prescriptive language. The example you gave doesn't leave room for an option, so there's nothing optional about it. It's explaining a game mechanic.

The specifics of how to interpret card language is a rule to try and prevent confusion during a game session. 

If the Card Intepretation rules applied into the document, you'd run into all sorts of areas where the rules no longer work.

An example, based on how the word 'can' is used:

"The word “can” is used to mean “has the capacity to.

...

The ship always applies this effect as the effect is not optional but instead an expanded capability"

Now let's take a look at the rules for Actions (pg3)

"Ships can perform actions, which thematically represent things a pilot can do, such as repositioning slightly or flying defensively.

When a ship is instructed to perform an action, the ship can perform a standard action, which includes actions listed in that ship’s action bar, as well as abilities that have the “Action:” header on that ship’s condition, damage, ship, or upgrade cards."

And for Focus (pg 11)

"Pilots can focus to concentrate and expand their combat prowess. When a ship performs the ? action, it gains one focus token. A ship is focused while it has at least one focus token. Focus tokens are circular, green tokens."

Notice there's not a single instance of 'may' there? By the rules laid out for how 'can' is to applied, actions become non-optional and as a ship 'can' focus it must therefore... always focus? 

It doesn't really make sense. 

But I think it demonstrates my point that the rules reference itself just uses general prescriptive language and doesn't rigidly follow the language conventions it describes as applying to the cards themselves. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

It doesn't apply. If you read that card rules apply to the rules reference then the linked action section can be interpreted as making the linked action mandatory each time. I messaged the gencon judges about it and they talked to the devs. It was pretty clear that the rules reference wasn't written like it was card text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this seems kinda silly.  Obviously the way we're looking at Composure so far is not in the spirit of what FFG has been trying to bring about with 2.0.  The card will likely have the word "white" added - failing a white action permits you to perform a white focus action.  Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain.  Mind you, until they fix the card, I completely agree with the current rules assessment.  I don't like it, but I concur with it.

 

Hopefully they fix it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain.

What about the red Jam on the HWK?

What about the red co-ordinate on the Reaper, Escape Ship and U-Wing?

There's a bunch of other ships with red barrel rolls and boosts too. It's a lot of ships that Composure potentially becomes a lot less useful on if this is the fix. 

I agree that this probably isn't an intended effect of Composure, but there must be a better way to fix it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

What about the red Jam on the HWK?

What about the red co-ordinate on the Reaper, Escape Ship and U-Wing?

There's a bunch of other ships with red barrel rolls and boosts too. It's a lot of ships that Composure potentially becomes a lot less useful on if this is the fix. 

I agree that this probably isn't an intended effect of Composure, but there must be a better way to fix it. 

 

I follow the KISS rule where possible.  You are correct, it will suck for certain ships.  Those ships would be better off with another Talent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

OK, this seems kinda silly.  Obviously the way we're looking at Composure so far is not in the spirit of what FFG has been trying to bring about with 2.0.  The card will likely have the word "white" added - failing a white action permits you to perform a white focus action.  Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain.  Mind you, until they fix the card, I completely agree with the current rules assessment.  I don't like it, but I concur with it.

 

Hopefully they fix it soon.

I really don't see much of a problem with this, certainly not one that would require a hard errata. Very few ships don't have linked actions that don't involve focus. Punishers don't have EPTs, so bombers with their BR > TL, and E-wings with their choice of boost or BR. That's it, those two ships are the only ones that can do it. One a fairly fragile ordinance platform, the other being one of the most expensive small ships in the game. If anything, this explains why the E-wing costs so **** much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DarkArk said:

I really don't see much of a problem with this, certainly not one that would require a hard errata. Very few ships don't have linked actions that don't involve focus. Punishers don't have EPTs, so bombers with their BR > TL, and E-wings with their choice of boost or BR. That's it, those two ships are the only ones that can do it. One a fairly fragile ordinance platform, the other being one of the most expensive small ships in the game. If anything, this explains why the E-wing costs so **** much.

I love TIE Interceptors.  They're probably my favorite ship in the Star Wars universe.  I'm very happy with the 2.0 version, but Composure permits the old Turtle effect if you're anywhere near a rock (and I typically am).  This brings back token stacking, the elimination of which was a major part of 2.0.  I want to win games based on my skill with flying my ships around, not with how many tokens I can stack that make me impossible to kill.  Force me to fly smart, not rely on rules to do my work for me.  Again, I'm talking about the spirit of this current incarnation of the game.  Composure seems similar to Luke Gunner - it's a crutch for players that can't judge distance (Luke is for folks that can't gauge where their opponents will be).  Experienced players should gain less from Composure, but as it stands, it could wind up an auto-include for Squints.  I really don't think we want that as a collective.  Auto-includes mess up the game.  Diversity makes for meaningful gameplay.

 

Again, the point is currently moot anyway.  I agree with the assessment of how the rule works right now.  I simply stated I expect them to change it to fit with the goals they've repeatedly proposed from FFG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

I love TIE Interceptors.  They're probably my favorite ship in the Star Wars universe.  I'm very happy with the 2.0 version, but Composure permits the old Turtle effect if you're anywhere near a rock (and I typically am).  This brings back token stacking, the elimination of which was a major part of 2.0.  I want to win games based on my skill with flying my ships around, not with how many tokens I can stack that make me impossible to kill.  Force me to fly smart, not rely on rules to do my work for me.  Again, I'm talking about the spirit of this current incarnation of the game.  Composure seems similar to Luke Gunner - it's a crutch for players that can't judge distance (Luke is for folks that can't gauge where their opponents will be).  Experienced players should gain less from Composure, but as it stands, it could wind up an auto-include for Squints.  I really don't think we want that as a collective.  Auto-includes mess up the game.  Diversity makes for meaningful gameplay.

 

Again, the point is currently moot anyway.  I agree with the assessment of how the rule works right now.  I simply stated I expect them to change it to fit with the goals they've repeatedly proposed from FFG.

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack 

Was going to say this too. Kinda confused what the debate is here. The rules clearly state, too lazy to exact reference, you can’t do the same action twice in a row. Therefore the best you get out of this is 1 focus, after failing something else, and having no evades to begin with. All this grants is the action not a token.

Also correct me if I am wrong because I don’t have a solid wording in front of me but I’m pretty sure you don’t get the link action if you fail the enambler. Again could be wrong on that but it’s kinda silly if I am.

Edited by LordFajubi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack 

Ah, I was missing that part.  Man, I gotta start looking at these cards more carefully.  I was worried you could go back to the old Evade and Focus nonsense, obviously.  Since that's not the case, winner winner, chicken dinner.

Share this post


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

Was going to say this too. Kinda confused what the debate is here. The rules clearly state, too lazy to exact reference, you can’t do the same action twice in a row. Therefore the best you get out of this is 1 focus, after failing something else, and having no evades to begin with. All this grants is the action not a token.

Also correct me if I am wrong because I don’t have a solid wording in front of me but I’m pretty sure you don’t get the link action if you fail the enambler. Again could be wrong on that but it’s kinda silly if I am.

The main upside would be that it lets a ship do 2 actions without a stress. For example an interceptor can boost then attempt a barrel roll, have it fail, and get a white focus. You're correct that you don't get the linked action if you fail the first one, but the whole point was to use it on the second action.

I don't think it's a big problem or anything, but for 2 points it is quite good. Although definitely it's best use was the E-wing (reposition plus white focus was really nice, especially because it doesn't have any green turns), which seems to not work based on what @__underscore__ pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, evcameron said:

The main upside would be that it lets a ship do 2 actions without a stress. For example an interceptor can boost then attempt a barrel roll, have it fail, and get a white focus. You're correct that you don't get the linked action if you fail the first one, but the whole point was to use it on the second action.

I don't think it's a big problem or anything, but for 2 points it is quite good. Although definitely it's best use was the E-wing (reposition plus white focus was really nice, especially because it doesn't have any green turns), which seems to not work based on what @__underscore__ pointed out.

For what that ship costs it deserves the bump lol

Edited by LordFajubi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really dont see how this could be "fixed" without utterly screwing over a handful of other ships.

Short of composure being the first hard-eratta anyway. By that i mean change it to have a charge so you can only do it once anyway so big whooptiedoo (maybe twice)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

i really dont see how this could be "fixed" without utterly screwing over a handful of other ships.

Short of composure being the first hard-eratta anyway. By that i mean change it to have a charge so you can only do it once anyway so big whooptiedoo (maybe twice)

I think the simplest fix (if one is needed) is to make the focus action that you get the same color as the action that failed. 

So now if you use it off a linked action, you are no longer getting 2 actions with no stress. 

Edited by evcameron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, evcameron said:

I think the simplest fix (if one is needed) is to make the focus action that you get the same color as the action that failed. 

So now if you use it off a linked action, you are no longer getting 2 actions with no stress. 

Or make failed red actions still give you stress. Thought that kinda odd to rule it the way they did. Red actions are something that in doing it causes you pressure from difficulty. You would think failing it would cause more stress not less. It would end a lot of other shenanigans too which I am more than fine with.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...