fire control system vs Captain Kagi

[Sergovan 1,440]

And the answer is:

 

Q: If a ship acquires a target lock by using Fire-Control System, and that ship is within range of Captain Kagi, is the locking ship required to lock onto Captain Kagi?

A: No. The target lock granted by Fire-Control System must be acquired on the defender. If the attacker acquires an additional target lock, such as from Weapons Engineer, that target lock must be acquired on Captain Kagi if possible.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Sergovan

[Cerealthief 26]

Common sense again! I am really not sure how you get 4 pages from discussing such an issue

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Because (some) people didn't want FCS to override Kagi and were determined to perform rules gymnastics to justify it.  

[Sergovan 1,440]

Common sense doesn't fit to the rulings being made by FFG. They make sense to the designers, but they don't let us in on the reasons why. We get an answer, just never the discussion that produced it.

 

Apply common sense to this:

 

Do green maneuver, use R2 D2 and get a shield back before hitting asteroid.

 

Do a green maneuver, use R2 D2 and DON'T get a shield back before running over a proximity mine.

 

Doing the exact same thing but it is what you are running over that determines when you get the shield back? Really?

[Cerealthief 26]

1 example does not counter the many that go right.
 

[Buhallin 4,563]

I may disagree with Sergovan on some of his points, but really...  ONE example?  That's all you can come up with?  Plenty of X-wing's rules, abilities, and how they interact defy any sort of common sense.  Stealth Device interacting with, well, pretty much anything, perhaps?  Even in this FAQ update we have a case where pretty much identical wording has two different outcomes.  There's nothing common sense about that.

 

From my posts here I obviously thought this one was pretty clear, but screaming "COMMON SENSE!" in everyone's face is nothing but an ad hominem attempt to shut down actual analysis.

[Sithborg 11,644]

See, there is two types of "common sense".

 

There is the "rules common sense", where the rules set a solid foundation for every interaction. Things are precise, clear and spelled out.

 

Then there is "common common sense", where what "feels" right is correct. Ruling by intent over what the rules say, is perhaps a better phrase.

 

Sadly, FFG tends to go with the 2nd type for their games. And makes heated arguments pointless, because really, we have no idea how FFG will rule from day to day.

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

Common sense doesn't fit to the rulings being made by FFG. They make sense to the designers, but they don't let us in on the reasons why. We get an answer, just never the discussion that produced it.

 

Apply common sense to this:

 

Do green maneuver, use R2 D2 and get a shield back before hitting asteroid.

 

Do a green maneuver, use R2 D2 and DON'T get a shield back before running over a proximity mine.

 

Doing the exact same thing but it is what you are running over that determines when you get the shield back? Really?

 

haha, I thought the opposite...

 

Except for that example, that I can think of, common sense mostly has trumped mico-timing rules interpretations.

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

From my posts here I obviously thought this one was pretty clear, but screaming "COMMON SENSE!" in everyone's face is nothing but an ad hominem attempt to shut down actual analysis.

 

With respect, I think that common sense is simply another way of looking at it.  Though I am sure there are many who will argue with anyone that disagrees with their particular point of view.

 

Shame though...

Edited October 22, 2013 by Ken at Sunrise

[Buhallin 4,563]

With respect, I think that common sense is simple another way of looking at it.  Though I am sure there are many who will argue with anyone that disagrees with their particular point of view.

There really isn't any such thing as "common sense".  When someone says "common sense" what they really mean is "My first instinctual response" and it will typically have very little actual support.  The entire point of "common sense" is that you can't explain the reason - if you could, you'd do so rather than just saying "Well, it's common sense."

 

There are plenty of things in X-wing that defy "common sense".  The obstacle rules are one big pile of uncommon sense.  So are the "hit" rules and Stealth Device.  Nothing common about the sense behind simultaneous fire situations.  Now, you may say that Boba Fett MAYBE getting a dead Howlrunner's bonus depending on the attack order is "common sense", but that just underlines how uncommon it really is.

 

I'm also going to take a bit of exception to your portrayal of "common sense" winning over deep timing discussions.  This has happened, yes, but it's happened because FFG hasn't bothered to actually provide reliable timing rules which allow players to resolve those timing issues on their own.  We've been left to try and reverse engineer a set of timing rules from the few concrete examples we have in the FAQ and a lot of "Well, the game doesn't work otherwise."  That's not some stellar victory for common sense - it's a failure of the rules team to provide a comprehensive system.

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

We can disagree and still have fun playing right?

 

Happy gaming,