Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Marinealver

Should E-wings and TIE Defenders be given the Tech slot? (what about other Rebel/Imperial ships?)

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Um... Can't spend the synced lock now, and Barrage Rockets aren't lock dependent, they go off of Focus.

Targeting SynchronizerBarrage Rockets


Nah bruv you're misunderstanding but I don't blame you.

See, if you use OS-1, you need a TL to fire if you have weapons lock disabled, right? But Barrage Rockets need focus. So logically, you need a LOT of setup to fire post Adv-SLAM with Barrage Rockets. You'll need to focus, and already have had a TL...

_Unless_ a faster or larger ship (NOT mutually exclusive) Target Locked before the OS-1 Starwing did, then that means it can still fire! This is extremely valuable. Better yet, a squadron of OS-1s with ADV. SLAM can consistently have good, clean shots on each other's targets.

THAT'S my logic here. I spent a LOT of time in the sim trying to get Gunboats viable and let me tell you my friend that is so much easier said than done. Gotta' say though... Free Jamming Beams sure do look interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Giledhil said:

I thought having undercosted Faction-only EpTs made them different ^^

And the Quadjumper exists. So yeah, give that frigging slot to the E-wings !

Thats the wrong kind of different, to which you kind of agree.

Share this post


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


Nah bruv you're misunderstanding but I don't blame you.

See, if you use OS-1, you need a TL to fire if you have weapons lock disabled, right? But Barrage Rockets need focus. So logically, you need a LOT of setup to fire post Adv-SLAM with Barrage Rockets. You'll need to focus, and already have had a TL...

_Unless_ a faster or larger ship (NOT mutually exclusive) Target Locked before the OS-1 Starwing did, then that means it can still fire! This is extremely valuable. Better yet, a squadron of OS-1s with ADV. SLAM can consistently have good, clean shots on each other's targets.

THAT'S my logic here. I spent a LOT of time in the sim trying to get Gunboats viable and let me tell you my friend that is so much easier said than done. Gotta' say though... Free Jamming Beams sure do look interesting!

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think OS-1 works like that, and the new Targeting Synchronizer is incredibly narrow.   OS-1 does not add an "Attack [Lock Symbol]" requirement to an attack, it instead creates a specific exemption to disarm tokens.  There's nothing here for TSynch to bite on.

latest?cb=20180914170424

There would be increased flexibility in targeting choices for Alphas if they don't have disarm tokens, but TSynch doesn't grant an offramp to OS-1 restrictions.  In part because OS-1 isn't a restriction, it's a loosening of other restrictions.

//

Anyhow, in general, I'm on the "no" front for Tech slots on non-sequel era ships.  I'm fine with the fluffy restriction on Tech slots.  If Quadjumper is the only exception to FO/Res, so be it.

Edited by theBitterFig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, millertime059 said:

Defenders are viable. Costly, but very effective if you can avoid getting kill boxed.

Dont let yourself be kill boxed.

The points drop should be plenty.

Also, their bogeymen have been nerfed, which makes them even better than before. You can still run 2 I5 juke machines-- one of them a defender-- with points to spend. And Rexler is a great points fortress (odd number of high-hp, consistent damage resilience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, player3010587 said:

Also, their bogeymen have been nerfed, which makes them even better than before. You can still run 2 I5 juke machines-- one of them a defender-- with points to spend. And Rexler is a great points fortress (odd number of high-hp, consistent damage resilience).

Yup, the Palob penalty will give them room to shine, I think.

Because Palob was their biggest threat aside from Protorp Alpha lists.

Palob, Boba, 4-lom was always the most difficult thing for me to fly against. I could beat it regularly, but it was almost always on points due to the zone of denial Palob makes.

Soontir can nearly solo Double Punisher Double Barrage Bombers, But Palob Boba were one mistake from defeat always. Defenders were the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been for it for awhile. It provides a thematic link to the factions in a way that shows continuity. Not to mention the E and the Defender still don't have much to make them unique. (Okay, white kturns will always be good) But they just feel like beefier ships with better stats. The dial for the E is particularly expected. Points change will shed some light now that will see at least a few more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DexterOnone said:

The Quadjumper is a Resistance / FO era ship... ;)

Yeah, back in 1st edition it made more sense to give era slots to the subfaction ships and not to other Rebel Ships that in Legends would exists in the same AY year. But now that the split has been made I think it is time to revisit E-wings, K-wings, and the TIE Defender to see if there can be a tech slot added. After all since we still don't have artifact slots for Jedi/Sith ships do we need a slot that is only Disney era?

Share this post


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

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think OS-1 works like that, and the new Targeting Synchronizer is incredibly narrow.   OS-1 does not add an "Attack [Lock Symbol]" requirement to an attack, it instead creates a specific exemption to disarm tokens.  There's nothing here for TSynch to bite on.

latest?cb=20180914170424

There would be increased flexibility in targeting choices for Alphas if they don't have disarm tokens, but TSynch doesn't grant an offramp to OS-1 restrictions.  In part because OS-1 isn't a restriction, it's a loosening of other restrictions.

//

Anyhow, in general, I'm on the "no" front for Tech slots on non-sequel era ships.  I'm fine with the fluffy restriction on Tech slots.  If Quadjumper is the only exception to FO/Res, so be it.

"While you have exactly one disarm token, perform torpedo or missile attacks against targets you have locked."

Which means, you can only attack stuff you have locked. Which means, you require the Target Lock to attack something. That means, Targeting Synchronizer allows you to take a focus so long as somebody else took a Target Lock on who you want to shoot, so in turn, after ADV. SLAM, you can Focus and shoot your Barrage Rockets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

"While you have exactly one disarm token, perform torpedo or missile attacks against targets you have locked."

Which means, you can only attack stuff you have locked. Which means, you require the Target Lock to attack something. That means, Targeting Synchronizer allows you to take a focus so long as somebody else took a Target Lock on who you want to shoot, so in turn, after ADV. SLAM, you can Focus and shoot your Barrage Rockets.

 

I see why you want to interpret things this way.  There's a plain usage argument for it.  However, there is technical language here which you're ignoring.  Targeting Synchronizer refers to the " attack requirement." (I'm using the board's emojis to approximate the Lock symbol as best I can).  That is to say, Targeting Synchronizer only refers to the "Attack []:" at the front of many special weapons.  Special Weapon, p. 17:

Quote

Special weapons appear as “attack:” headers in card text. They provide additional types of attacks other than a ship’s primary weapon(s).

Special weapons have a combination of arc requirements, range requirements, attack value, and possibly other requirements. [...]

Some attacks also have special requirements listed in parentheses after the header.

◊  The “attack (😞” header indicates that the attacker must have a lock on the defender.

◊  The “attack (👁️😞” header indicates that the attacker must have a focus token.

OS-1 is not--in game terms--an attack requirement.  It doesn't interact with the Attack [rent this space]: at all.  Instead, having a lock grants an exception to the Disarmed rule (p. 10).

TSynch lets you out of the weapon's requirements only.  It doesn't allow OS-1 to exempt you from the Disarmed condition.

Edited by theBitterFig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Giledhil said:

The thing is really useless, outside from a Barrage Rockets carrier.

The problem is trying to make a ship that wasn't designed for ship-to-ship dogfighting viable in a game built around ship-to-ship dogfighting

Share this post


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

I see why you want to interpret things this way.  There's a plain usage argument for it.  However, there is technical language here which you're ignoring.  Targeting Synchronizer refers to the " attack requirement." (I'm using the board's emojis to approximate the Lock symbol as best I can).  That is to say, Targeting Synchronizer only refers to the "Attack []:" at the front of many special weapons.  Special Weapon, p. 17:

OS-1 is not--in game terms--an attack requirement.  It doesn't interact with the Attack [rent this space]: at all.  Instead, having a lock grants an exception to the Disarmed rule (p. 10).

TSynch lets you out of the weapon's requirements only.  It doesn't allow OS-1 to exempt you from the Disarmed condition.

...Right.

While disarmed, you may attack, with your warheads of choice, a locked foe. So if you have Sync, you may attack them- not with your primary weapons, but with your secondaries, like torpedoes or missiles.

Thus, if something else has TL'd your target, you've focused, and you are weapons disabled, you can still fire the missiles. If that is not the case, OS-1 does nothing and is a worthless card that should be burned. But that isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defender was already great, and their points reduction basically just offsets the cost of the Juke talent that should be stapled to every Defender anyway.

I'm very curious to dabble with the E-Wing again. I played around with a Corran/FCS/Chopper/Elusive/Afterburners build in the old list, but it wasn't worth 87 points compared to other Rebel options. The same build is now only 76 points. That's pretty good for a PS5 pilot with an insane dial, the ability to refill shield and charge tokens, and a bullseye double-tap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

...Right.

While disarmed, you may attack, with your warheads of choice, a locked foe. So if you have Sync, you may attack them- not with your primary weapons, but with your secondaries, like torpedoes or missiles.

Thus, if something else has TL'd your target, you've focused, and you are weapons disabled, you can still fire the missiles. If that is not the case, OS-1 does nothing and is a worthless card that should be burned. But that isn't the case.

Look.  I think I've laid out my case pretty well.  If you go all hand-wavy and wishy-washy, you can kinda sorta maybe get the rules to almost mean what you mistakenly think they mean.  But well... the rules don't mean that.

To that end, where on the card OS-1 does it use the word requirement?  Point to that word, and you'll have proved your point.  But you can't, because the word isn't there.  Because OS-1 isn't a Lock attack requirement!  It's the fact that OS-1 doesn't restrict attacks, but loosen the restrictions.  A lock exempts you from the Disarmed rule--the configuration isn't adding an attack requirement--because an attack requirement has a specific meaning in the rules of X-Wing.  It isn't something you can elide over, like you're trying to do.

For example, if there were a Gunboat with the Force and a Force Talent, it couldn't use Instinctive Aim to get around a Disarm token with OS-1.  Like Instinctive Aim, all Targeting Synchronizer does is turn "Attack [Lock]:" into "Attack:."  It doesn't magically change the text of OS-1.

And it's all a moot point anyhow, since Galactic Empire ships can't even take Tech upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Look.  I think I've laid out my case pretty well.  If you go all hand-wavy and wishy-washy, you can kinda sorta maybe get the rules to almost mean what you mistakenly think they mean.  But well... the rules don't mean that.

To that end, where on the card OS-1 does it use the word requirement?  Point to that word, and you'll have proved your point.  But you can't, because the word isn't there.  Because OS-1 isn't a Lock attack requirement!  It's the fact that OS-1 doesn't restrict attacks, but loosen the restrictions.  A lock exempts you from the Disarmed rule--the configuration isn't adding an attack requirement--because an attack requirement has a specific meaning in the rules of X-Wing.  It isn't something you can elide over, like you're trying to do.

For example, if there were a Gunboat with the Force and a Force Talent, it couldn't use Instinctive Aim to get around a Disarm token with OS-1.  Like Instinctive Aim, all Targeting Synchronizer does is turn "Attack [Lock]:" into "Attack:."  It doesn't magically change the text of OS-1.

And it's all a moot point anyhow, since Galactic Empire ships can't even take Tech upgrades.

Are you- serious..?

I'm not saying the configuration is adding an attack requirement. I am saying, clearly, that Targeting Synchronizer removes the requirement of having a target locked by that vessel, 1-1.

I don't actually know if you're reading what I'm saying, or if I'm not explaining it well enough- maybe I need pictures? That's not an insult either, at this point I think I'd genuinely need a powerpoint presentation to get this point across.

Share this post


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

Are you- serious..?

I'm not saying the configuration is adding an attack requirement. I am saying, clearly, that Targeting Synchronizer removes the requirement of having a target locked by that vessel, 1-1.

I don't actually know if you're reading what I'm saying, or if I'm not explaining it well enough- maybe I need pictures? That's not an insult either, at this point I think I'd genuinely need a powerpoint presentation to get this point across.

What I'm saying is that it's kind of irrelevant that Targeting Synchronizer removes the [Lock] attack requirement when disarmed.  Even if Proton Torpedoes or whatever are "Attack:" instead of "Attack [Lock]:" it doesn't matter, since you're still disarmed.

There is no relevant interaction between OS-1 and Targeting Synchronizer.

Share this post


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

What I'm saying is that it's kind of irrelevant that Targeting Synchronizer removes the [Lock] attack requirement when disarmed.  Even if Proton Torpedoes or whatever are "Attack:" instead of "Attack [Lock]:" it doesn't matter, since you're still disarmed.

There is no relevant interaction between OS-1 and Targeting Synchronizer.

Not between the synchronizer, but it means that you don't need the target lock from yourself, to attack what's ahead. You just need something else to TL it.

I know those two cards do not directly interact.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×