fire control system vs Captain Kagi

[KineticOperator 2,534]

The only time "if able" could possibly apply is at the moment you are gaining the target lock.  Let me paraphrase the alternative point of view, to ensure I understand it correctly.

 

1 - Kagi requires you to target him "if able".

2 - If you were performing a target lock action, Kagi would be a legal target (he is within Range 3)

3 - Therefore, your ship is able to TL Kagi in the general sense, which means he is now the target of your TL.

 

My issue with this is that if you require Kagi to be the target based on what your ship is generally able to accomplish, rather than restricting it to only what your ship can accomplish right now, then Kagi could and would be the target of target locks no matter where he was on the table.  It can be argued that even if Kagi were beyond range 3, it would be possible under other circumstances to TL him, so he must be the target.  Your ship is still "able" to target him generally speaking, even though right at this moment he is out of range.  If you do it this way, the "if able" phrase on Kagi is meaningless, and the rules for TL are meaningless as well since Kagi's ability would completely override all restrictions.

 

It seems to me that the only way to apply restrictions is at the moment you are attempting to perform the action.  If you are attempting to perform a TL, Kagi must be the target if he is legal right now, under the circumstances you are currently attempting to perform the TL under.  Whether or not he would be legal under other circumstances is immaterial.  You are not able to target lock Kagi if he is not a legal target right now, regardless of whether that is because he is out of range, or because you already have a TL on Kagi, or because Fire Control System does not allow Kagi to be the target of your Target Lock.

 

Kagi does not remove restrictions, or make him a legal target when he otherwise would be.  This is the key component of the argument against FCS providing a TL on Kagi when he wasn't the target.  Other wording is immaterial, you have no legal mechanism available to target Kagi.  It doesn't matter whether or not he is the required target, because you cannot target him at all.  

 

An analogy would be Biggs.  If Biggs is out of range or arc, it doesn't make any difference what Biggs' ability says because you don't have the ability to shoot him.  Nothing in Biggs' ability allows your weapon to shoot beyond Range 3, so if he is out of range you simply cannot shoot him and may shoot other targets freely.  The perfect example would be this:

 

Your HWK has gunner and an ion turret.  Biggs is at range 1, but not in your primary arc.  When you fire, you fire your turret at Biggs because he requires you to do.  According to the FAQ, you do not have the option of choosing a different weapon, you are required to use the weapon that is capable of hitting Biggs so you MUST use your ion turret, and you must target Biggs with it.  However, if you miss and Gunner activates, your next attack will NOT be at Biggs no matter what else is going on because Gunner only activates the primary weapon.  The fact that you "could have" targeted Biggs with your ion turret is immaterial, you cannot target him right now, using the weapon you are using right now, because Gunner does not allow you any attack you wish it only provides a primary weapon attack.  Gunner can not activate your ion turret, so you don't have the choice.  Biggs' ability does not override the fact that you cannot use your ion cannon at the moment.  IF you could, then Biggs would work, but you CANNOT, so Biggs' ability does not work.

 

IF you can target Kagi for a lock, right now, then you must.  But if you cannot, then Kagi's ability is immaterial.  He is NOT a legal target right now.  Nothing in his ability changes that essential fact, regardless of whether he would have been a legal target at some other point in the turn or under other circumstances, just like Biggs' ability does not override the restrictions of Gunner regardless of whether Biggs would have been a legal target at some other point in the turn or under other circumstances.

Edited September 3, 2013 by KineticOperator

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

I never said that Kagi changes the rules, in fact, Kagi is still subject to them, exactly as Biggs. In order to be able to Target Lock him, you have to be in range (range requeriment), no need for firing arc, and you must not have an already existing TL on him (because the FAQ explicity forbids acquiring a TL on an already locked target). It happens to be that those are the 2 only true rules that target lock operates under. We can add the necessity of 'pre-declaring' your target under tournament rules if you suspect your opponent is being malicious, but that's it. Those are the true rules on Target Lock.

 

However, restrictions that come with some TL effects are not rules 'per se' but more like EXCEPTIONS to the rules. having to lock 'the target from your previous attack' is a exception to the rule that allows you to target anyone at range 3 or less from your ship. Having to target your previous target operates as a restriction, but that not makes it a 'rule'. It is only another special effect, from a card, which precisely tend to contain exception to the rules.

 

And in that regard, Kagi is nothing more than another exception to the rules. Kagi is not aspiring to break any rule from target locks, he is only displacing your target and he is not truly breaking any 'rule' when it takes the place of your target. If anything, it is a 'conflict of exceptions', where one exception limits us to a predetermined target, and the other forces a change of target to Kagi.

 

You too are assuming that those exceptions that apply to target lock are 'rules' when in fact, they are nothing more than special restrictions that come with special effects, but at the end, they are in the same position as Kagi. He is too a special effect, an exception to the rules.

 

We are only trying to see which 'exception' prevails.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

Which is why I used the specific example that I did.  Nothing in Biggs' ability would cause the "removal" of other restrictions, and in the example I provided Biggs is a legal target.  However, because the shot is being generated by Gunner, rather than by normal means, we have additional restrictions (must use primary weapon).  Whether or not Biggs would "normally" be a legal target is immaterial, this is not a "normal" attack.  Similarly, whether or not Kagi would "normally" be a legal target for a lock is immaterial, this is not a "normal" target lock.

 

Gunner allows an attack with the additional restriction of using the primary weapon only.

Fire Control System allows a target lock with the additional restriction that it may only be placed on the target fired upon.

 

In your first paragraph, you left out something important.  Also, I need to point out that the text on cards are indeed rules, with as much force as the rules in the book.  More force, in fact, since when card text conflicts with the text in the book the card has precedence.

 

 

 In order to be able to Target Lock him, you have to be in range (range requeriment), no need for firing arc, and you must not have an already existing TL on him (because the FAQ explicity forbids acquiring a TL on an already locked target). It happens to be that those are the 2 only true rules that target lock operates under.

 

Those are not the only "true rules" that target lock operates under these circumstances.  The other rule that it operates under is the one written on Fire Control System, that applies under the circumstances also written on Fire Control System.  If you are using the FCS to gain a target lock, then you must target lock the ship you just shot at.  There is no leeway provided here, and the text on FCS would overrule anything else.  Kagi ALSO has the phrase "if able", which clearly (to me) proves that his ability does not take priority over any other restrictions.  Without that phrase, I believe your argument would have more merit, but it seems clear to me that Kagi cannot override other restrictions, and that the "if able" phrase was added in order to emphasize that point.

Edited September 3, 2013 by KineticOperator

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

Which is why I used the specific example that I did.  Nothing in Biggs' ability would cause the "removal" of other restrictions, and in the example I provided Biggs is a legal target.  However, because the shot is being generated by Gunner, rather than by normal means, we have additional restrictions (must use primary weapon).  Whether or not Biggs would "normally" be a legal target is immaterial, this is not a "normal" attack.  Similarly, whether or not Kagi would "normally" be a legal target for a lock is immaterial, this is not a "normal" target lock.

 

Gunner allows an attack with the additional restriction of using the primary weapon only.

Fire Control System allows a target lock with the additional restriction that it may only be placed on the target fired upon.

 

In your first paragraph, you left out something important.  Also, I need to point out that the text on cards are indeed rules, with as much force as the rules in the book.  More force, in fact, since when card text conflicts with the text in the book the card has precedence.

 

 

 In order to be able to Target Lock him, you have to be in range (range requeriment), no need for firing arc, and you must not have an already existing TL on him (because the FAQ explicity forbids acquiring a TL on an already locked target). It happens to be that those are the 2 only true rules that target lock operates under.

 

Those are not the only "true rules" that target lock operates under these circumstances.  The other rule that it operates under is the one written on Fire Control System, that applies under the circumstances also written on Fire Control System.  If you are using the FCS to gain a target lock, then you must target lock the ship you just shot at.  There is no leeway provided here, and the text on FCS would overrule anything else.  Kagi ALSO has the phrase "if able", which clearly (to me) proves that his ability does not take priority over any other restrictions.  Without that phrase, I believe your argument would have more merit, but it seems clear to me that Kagi cannot override other restrictions, and that the "if able" phrase was added in order to emphasize that point.

 

That is exactly what I tried to explain in my previous post. What it's written on the FCS card is not a rule. It's only a special restriction, a special effect derived from triggering the text on the card.

 

Kagi is also a special effect. They operate at the same level. FCS does not automatically takes prevalence because it is a 'rule'... It's not. It's only a special effect on FCS that limits/restricts you to your previous target. Kagi's special effect collides directly with FCS's special effect, but not with a 'rule'.

 

You said: "If you are using the FCS to gain a target lock, then you must target lock the ship you just shot at"

And I say: "But if you gain a target lock, you must target Kagi"

You say: "If able"

And I say: "you are able, you are at range 2, and don't have a previous TL on him"

And you say "But I can only target my previous target"

And I say "but Kagi forces you a change of target"

And etc etc etc....

 

And this goes on eternally, because BOTH special effects are operating at the same level. That's precisely the source of conflict. Both are exceptions, especial effects on cards that directly contradict themselves.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

How about this.

 

I said "If you are using the FCS to gain a target lock, then you must target lock the ship you just shot at"

And you say "But if you gain a target lock, you must target Kagi"

And I say "If able"

And you say  "you are able..."

 

At which point, I believe you are simply incorrect.  I am not able.  I am using FCS to get the target lock, and I am not able to target lock Kagi using the FCS.  Whether or not I would otherwise be able to do so (range 2, no previous TL) is immaterial.  This would be like saying "You don't have a TL on Kagi, so that means you are able to do so" but while he is out of range 3 I still cannot target him.  In order to perform an action, you have to satisfy ALL of the requirements, you cannot ignore any of them.  I am not able to do so right now, under these circumstances, which is the only measurement that we can use.

 

Unless I shot at him, Kagi is not a legal target for TL using FCS, is that not beyond debate?

 

IF Kagi's ability simply said "Any time an opponent acquires a Target Lock, that target lock will target Kagi".  THAT wording might override other restrictions.  But we don't have that, we have an ability that according to its own wording is subservient to other rules.  The "if able" caveat resolves the eternal conflict you mention, and does so in favor of the other ability/rule.

Edited September 3, 2013 by KineticOperator

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

You are not able if you follow the FCS restriction limit on your lock.

But you are able if you follow Kagi's restriction on your lock.

 

Again, both are restrictions.

 

FCS restricts you to lock your last target.

Kagi restricts you to lock him.

 

Both activate at the same time, when you decide to acquire a target lock.

 

Both are special effects on cards. Both are at the same level.

 

Seems to me that you are conceding prevalence to FCS 'because it happens first' but even that is incorrect, since as I said, both restrictions have exactly the same trigger, acquiring a target lock.

 

It is simply a conflict of restrictions. You are using the restriction you like most to prevent the other from happening, but in doing so, you are effectively choosing one over the other, when both restrictions have exactly the same power or right to apply. It is like choosing which of your two childs you love most. Both are your childs. You may be right, of course, but you have exatly 50% chance of being wrong.

[Buhallin 4,563]

Seems to me that you are conceding prevalence to FCS 'because it happens first' but even that is incorrect, since as I said, both restrictions have exactly the same trigger, acquiring a target lock.

No, we're conceding prevalence to FCS because Kagi concedes prevalence to any and all other restrictions by saying "if able".  You don't seem to want to deal with those words.  You admit they're redundant in your reading, but it goes deeper than that - your entire argument actually hinges on them being meaningless.

 

And, again, Kagi simply doesn't do what you say he does.  You aren't treating it as a restriction - you're treating Kagi as something that lifts other restrictions.  That's a big difference.  The way you're trying to read it, the "right" answer should probably be that Kagi prevents the lock at all - the FCS presents one valid target, Kagi prevents one valid target, and those two targets are not the same, meaning there is no valid target that can satisfy all the restrictions.

 

Here's another direction to think of it from.  "If XXX" is a conditional in the game.  Without that "if" being met, Kagi's ability does nothing.  This is standard across the board.  Kagi's a little odd because the conditional is at the end, but it still clearly applies.  "If you have a ticket you can ride" and "You can ride, if you have a ticket" are functionally identical.  And if that "if" isn't satisfied, Kagi's ability does nothing, because the conditions for its activation are not met.

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

No no, I deal with those words and I recognize them to be the main source of conflict. If the words 'if able' weren't there, Kagi's ability would be even more absolute, to the point that it could even induce another debate on the subject. I already acknowledged that they are a pretty good argument in favor of FCS, but we can't be 100% sure that they are not redundant. My argument may hinge on those words being meaningless, yes, but yours also depends entirely on them having the meaning you stated for your argument.

At this point, I'm not saying that Kagi lifts restrictions, I'm only stating that he's nothing more than another restriction, with equal power to other reatrictions, and that in top of that happens to occur at exactly the same moment as FCS. For Kagi lifting restrictions it should have prevalence over them, prevalence that I never granted for sure, and certainly do not now.

Also, I have to apologize to Kinetic because he's not 50% chance of being wrong, in fact, he is 100% chance to be right since its interpretation is totally valid. But Kagi's version is also 100% correct, for the meaning (or redundancy) of the words 'if able' seem to carry the weight of the interpretation.

[Buhallin 4,563]

At this point, I'm not saying that Kagi lifts restrictions

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying.  The FCS limits you to exactly one specific valid target for the lock - the ship you just fired at.  You're saying that Kagi removes that restriction to allow the firing ship to lock on to Kagi.  As I said above, if both restrictions were equally in effect, then the firing ship couldn't lock anyone, because any target would violate at least one restriction.

 

And yes, my interpretation relies on my definition of "if able".  Fortunately for me, that has the advantage of matching the common meaning of the phrase.  You've decided that "if able" is meaningless text that doesn't actually have any rules bearing.  So long as you're willing to discard rules that are inconvenient to your position, you're going to be reading it wrong, and obviously going to resist any efforts to help you understand it.

 

I wonder if I could convince my opponent that "reduce your target's agility by 1" is redundant text?

[KineticOperator 2,534]

Success!    I finally see where you are coming from.  Sorry for being so dense.  By your reading, you have two conflicting restrictions, that cannot be reconciled.  Kagi says "only me" and FCS says "only the other guy".

 

I believe that if we were to follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then we must simply not allow a target lock to occur at all, since we are unable to satisfy all conditions (Range, previous lock, FCS, and Kagi) simultaneously (as Buhallin stated).  We cannot ignore any of them, and just as we have been saying that Kagi would not "override" the restriction provided by FCS, neither would FCS "override" Kagi's restriction (which is what you have been saying).

 

Your line of reasoning is sound.  I do believe that you should reconsider the way you understand the final phrase "if allowed".  I contend that this phrase provides clear instruction on how to resolve conflicts where Kagi's ability is involved.  Where your point is certainly correct in a general sense (both rules/restrictions are equally valid), I believe that in this specific case Kagi is subordinate to FCS for the sole reason that Kagi tells us he is.

 

In my previous example, the reason Biggs' ability "loses" to Gunner is the part of Biggs' text that reads "if the attacker could target you instead".   While not worded exactly the same, it is grammatically equivalent to the phrase "if able".  Both of these provide clear direction about the priority placed on the card text.  Both Biggs and Kagi surrender priority to conflicting rules/text.

Edited September 3, 2013 by KineticOperator

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

 

At this point, I'm not saying that Kagi lifts restrictions

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying.  The FCS limits you to exactly one specific valid target for the lock - the ship you just fired at.  You're saying that Kagi removes that restriction to allow the firing ship to lock on to Kagi.  As I said above, if both restrictions were equally in effect, then the firing ship couldn't lock anyone, because any target would violate at least one restriction.

 

And yes, my interpretation relies on my definition of "if able".  Fortunately for me, that has the advantage of matching the common meaning of the phrase.  You've decided that "if able" is meaningless text that doesn't actually have any rules bearing.  So long as you're willing to discard rules that are inconvenient to your position, you're going to be reading it wrong, and obviously going to resist any efforts to help you understand it.

 

I wonder if I could convince my opponent that "reduce your target's agility by 1" is redundant text?

 

No Buhallin, Kagi doesn't lift any restrictions, but he certainly adds to them. And I would like to point you precisely on one inconsistency on the 'lifting' word usage. For Kagi being able to 'lift' a restriction, it means that the restriction is already established. In other words, you consider Kagi incapable of lifting restrictions, because those restrictions, already exist, are in place, and are producing effects. Kagi wouldn't be able to lift FCS restriction because it is already producing effects. And that would be a valid line of reasoning...

 

... But it happens in this precise case that both restrictions activate simultaneously, just as soon as you declare that you will take the target lock. In this case, Kagi cannot lift a restriction not "because he has not enough power to do so", he cannot for the simply and innocent reason that the other restriction is not fully established yet, there is nothing for him to 'lift' yet... He is directly competing 'on the fly' and on real time with FCS for the Target Lock. Both FCS and Kagi grabbed the TL token at the same time, and they are pulling with the same force in opposite directions.

 

Also, I'm not resisting any effort to understand your PoV. I more than understand it.

 

You say that 'if able' means: "If able taking into account other possible restrictions"

But I say that 'if able' means: "If able according to the standard Target Lock rules"

 

Can you affirm 100% that I'm wrong and mistaken in my understanding?

 

Also, note that your interpretation bases on the fact that the other restriction must be ALREADY established. To take into account other possible restrictions, those restrictions must be already in place and working.. Again, can you affirm 100% that FCS restriction takes full effect before Kagi's restriction, thus, limiting it?

 

So, In the end, Kagi is powerless against FCS, but FCS is also powerless against Kagi. FFG has to choose which child gets the toy (token). The other will cry for sure, but there is only one Toy, and life is not perfect.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Jehan Menasis

[KineticOperator 2,534]

I believe for the sake of consistency, that neither FCS nor Kagi "goes first".  In other situations, FFG has consistently required us to find a course of action that would simultaneously satisfy all restrictions.  In this case, a course of action that would satisfy both FCS' requirement that you TL the defender, and Kagi's restriction that you TL him.

 

I believe the only way to read "if able" is, "If able to right now".

 

I suggest that you are adding text where none exists or is even implied by asserting that "if able" means "if able according to the standard Target Lock rules".  It does not seem correct to me to add the caveat "according to the standard Target Lock rules".  We are not acquiring this Target Lock according to standard Target Lock rules, we are acquiring it via FCS rules.  If you simply take the statement as it stands, you are required to take all restrictions into account at the moment you attempt the Target Lock.  Which means you must account for FCS restrictions, because Kagi specifically says his ability only works if you are able to target lock him.  It seems self evident to me that "if able" means "if able to right now", as opposed to "if able at any point in the game" otherwise we would have an enormous mess indeed.  If we were acquiring a TL according to standard rules, then of course we would have to target Kagi.

 

How about this, lets reverse the "if able".

 

Kagi:  "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship."

FCS:  "After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender if able."

  Correcting the awkward grammar resulting from a straight cut and paste, it could be worded like this.

FCS:  "After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock.  This lock must target the defender, if able."

 

In this case, FCS would clearly not allow you to put a TL on somebody besides Kagi because "if able" would indicate that FCS is subordinate to Kagi.  Alternately, we could just delete "if able" from both of them.

 

Kagi:  "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship."

FCS:  "After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender."

 

In this case, both abilities would conflict in the unresolvable manner that you have alluded to.

 

In my opinion, we have a case where Kagi's text pretty clearly indicates that other restrictions have priority.

Edited September 3, 2013 by KineticOperator

[Buhallin 4,563]

But I say that 'if able' means: "If able according to the standard Target Lock rules"

 

Can you affirm 100% that I'm wrong and mistaken in my understanding?

Yes.  Yes I can.  I'll even make it explicit: "I hereby affirm 100% that you are wrong and mistaken in your understanding."

 

All solved now, right?  Nah, didn't expect so.

 

Abilities always operate on the current game state, including other abilities which have modified the rules.  They must.  Being able to pick and choose whether to use the currently-modified game state, or the baseline state, is gibberish.  "If able" doesn't change that.  This is one of the most fundamental elements of CCG-style rule/ability systems, and is pretty immutable.

 

For your last point, that the FCS must already be established...  It is already established, because it's part of what allows you to take the target lock in the first place.  There is no gap there.  It's not "Take a target lock, and at some later trigger your options for the target will be restricted."  It's "Lock the target you just shot at."  There is no separation there, and no point when the lock operation exists without the "target you just shot at" part.  There is absolutely no point in time where the FCS can lock on to anyone other than the target they just picked.

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

 

Yes.  Yes I can.  I'll even make it explicit: "I hereby affirm 100% that you are wrong and mistaken in your understanding."

 

 

All solved now, right?  Nah, didn't expect so.

 

 

On the contrary, If you are so absolutely convinced that I'm mistaken, I trust you. Sincerely. From this moment, in all my games, 2 points of FCS will override 27 points of Kagi. I honestly must confess that I do not have your level of confidence on rules and interpretation, but it always comes handy to have someone who has.

 

Also, if you are so sure that FCS target restriction (caveat: not rule) establishes itself immediately when you acquire the TL because they are -and always were- like a single entity, that cannot exist one without the other, with no possible gap of time, and begins to affect possible courses of action before other restrictions activate (despite having the same activation trigger, for the same cause and at the same moment in time), it is obvious that Kagi cannot win in any way the TL contest, because there will be always an already existing, operational, untouchable fully working restriction on FCS which  always will prevent him for 'being able' to absorb the TL.

 

In fact, Kagi truly never stood a chance against FCS. I'm now sure that FFG will concede prevalence to FCS... It simply cannot be otherwise.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Jehan Menasis

[Forensicus 883]

I dare put in a  thought on this issue since it bears similarities to so many of the other discussions in here:

 

Many of the upgrades and Pilot Abilities (PA)that you choose to include will have a "power" to neutralize an upgrade or PA in your opponents squad build. This is actually why you might want that upgrade/PA to begin with. Sometimes it is straightforward for instance it makes pretty good sense putting Draw their Fire on a Chewbacca YT-1300 or alternatively put Determination on Lando, both choices can/will make it sucky for your opponent rolling [Crit]'s on you.

 

Having said that I will, in order to try to prevent a storm of comments on my post, say that there are, at least to many of us, sometimes some timing/trigger issues that can make it confusing. If playing casually one must decide "on the fly" if one finds the Rules and/or FAQ unclear, in competition one has the TO as aid in the process.

 

But beware, you might be accused of "wishfull thinking" when you venture into this Forum seeking clarification through posting.

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

I don't think "seeking clarification" means what he thinks it means.

Edited September 3, 2013 by CrookedWookie

[Darkheart 58]

 

@Darkheart: The "When" timing keyword is usually used to apply to an entire long-run process, such as Wedge's "When attacking" or Dark Curse's "When defending".  In this case, "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock" means that Kagi's ability is active for the entire process of acquiring the lock, covering all 4 steps.  It may not affect the entire process - just as Wedge's ability only actually affects one step of the attack, Kagi only affects one step of the target lock process (target selection).

I actually have to cede to Buhallins point. I was looking at "acquires a target lock" as an end state.

 

Which brings it back to "you may, on the defender" vs "it must, if able".

****, I could flip either way on this one. Slight leaning towards Kagi taking the lock still.

 

I hope if FFG come back with an answer/FAQ on this they give an explaination as to why rather than their minimium effort yes/no answer.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

I actually have to cede to Buhallins point. I was looking at "acquires a target lock" as an end state.

To be fair, the "when" keyword is not used as consistently as I might like.  It frequently seems to be used for things that would be more appropriately an "if" or "after".

 

But in this case, it HAS to apply to the entire process of the target lock, because otherwise Kagi does nothing.  If his ability only triggered after the lock process was complete, then his ability would kick in too late to actually affect the acquisition of the lock.

[Buhallin 4,563]

From this moment, in all my games, 2 points of FCS will override 27 points of Kagi. I honestly must confess that I do not have your level of confidence on rules and interpretation, but it always comes handy to have someone who has.

Why would the point cost have anything to do with how the rules fall out?  That's not really a meaningful comparison even when they're the same kind of card - comparing a ship to an upgrade is a bit silly.

 

Not that it's likely to make you feel any better about it, but this is not an opinion generated by me alone, or in a vacuum.  We discussed it over at TC, and the consensus was pretty much unanimous.

[Cerealthief 26]

Is this a 40k forum??
 Rather than reading what you hope for, read what is there.

 

 The FCS directly says it is limited to the defender therefore it is UNABLE to lock Kagi.

Now this may have triggered a nutral response if Kagi was in range. ie. Kagi stopping the lock tacking place at all EXCEPT his own rule allows for the lock to still take place. "If able"

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

I think it's worth bearing in mind (and ignoring the cost of the cards, which is a nonsensical argument, since ALL of the upgrades are cheap compared to ships and ALL of them override some basic text - what's that?  3 points of stealth device cancels out my 29 points of Wedge Antilles?  Uh, yes, actually, that's precisely what it does.)...

 

But I think it's worth bearing in mind that there are exactly two ships right now which could mount FCS which could conceivably counter his ability.  One of them is his own ship, the other one is the B-wing.  It's a cheap upgrade but it goes on a couple of fairly pricey ships, and more importantly, only on two kinds out of, what, twelve?  So it's not like it throws his ability out the window if one upgrade in the game ignores it.

 

So it's a bad ability if you're facing off against a squad of B-wings with FCS.  Big deal.  Blaster turret is a bad card if you're facing a list built around Dark Curse.  There are good and bad match-ups in the game by design.  Things are meant to have other things that counter them.

[Bazinga 24]

Have we heard any news from ffg on this topic?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Bazinga

[Sergovan 1,440]

Nothing yet.

[Darkheart 58]

And good luck with that.

The only time I have seen a FFG representative on the forums is to close down a thread because it was getting rather heated. No answer was ever given to that thread either.

You would thing that there were enough wave 3 questions in the forums by now to warrant a couple of new pages of FAQ.

..........And breath.

[Rodent Mastermind 2,056]

I think it all comes down to a simple question.

 

If Kagi didn't have his ability, would you be able to Target Lock him after attacking a Tie Bomber with your FCS?

 

As you would not be able to  choose Kagi, I don't believe his ability would trigger. or to put it another way

 

When you come to acquire a target lock, if you make a list of every model you could legalliy put a Target Lock on, if Kagi is on it you MUST target lock him. In the case of FCS there is only one name on the list and that is the model you just shot.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Rodent Mastermind