Hey guys,

Just a couple of questions about this if you will indulge me.

• Does the second attack have to be on the same ship you attacked first time round?
• Does the defender roll another set of defence dice on the second attack?

Thanks!

Why would you think either of those things.

You may perform one attack. It's the same in every way to any other attack, including picking your target, and begin defended against.

Bit strong mate!

I asked as my brother asked me about during a game yesterday and I just wanted to clear it up as I'm the one that got my brother's and mate into this game I wanted to be sure I was right in the things I was telling them.

Hi Ben

Looking at his pilot card (my wave 4 ships arrived yesterday! Yay), I'd say that you could take a normal round of move, action, attack,etc, then in the end phase you could perform another attack against the same or separate target, as per the rules for range, etc. the payoff being that you cannot attack in the next turn at all - even if you're in a range 1, 6o'clock sweet spot! So it balances out that you get 1 attack per turn but can tactically choose to attack out of the normal phase if you're in an advantageous position during the end phase I would also conclude that you could use and focus or target locks you have for this attack

Yeah, and as it is a new attack u can also use youre secondary weapon!

The defender will defend as usual aswell.

Hey guys,

Just a couple of questions about this if you will indulge me.

• Does the second attack have to be on the same ship you attacked first time round?
• Does the defender roll another set of defence dice on the second attack?

Thanks!

• Nope.Some builds (like FCS and Weapons Engineer) encourage you to pick two different targets and shoot at the most likely missed ship first.
• Yes. It is a second attack, with everything that entails.

Hey guys,

Just a couple of questions about this if you will indulge me.

• Does the second attack have to be on the same ship you attacked first time round?
• Does the defender roll another set of defence dice on the second attack?

Thanks!

• Nope.Some builds (like FCS and Weapons Engineer) encourage you to pick two different targets and shoot at the most likely missed ship first.
• Yes. It is a second attack, with everything that entails.

Too bad Weapons Engineer is a Crew and Corran cant take him. Otherwise correct.

Marksmanship is the most useful upgrade for conducting two attacks as it is a strong focus for both, and you can use it against two different targets.

Thanks guys, appreciate the polite responses

Corran Half-Hand (GOT reference from my local group) has been fun with FCS and marksmanship. action is marksmanship and first attack is normal. gain the TL. use the half-hand's ability to attack again this time with FCS and Marksmanship is still in effect.

played a couple of games against ECHO with th eimperials having inistiative. since echo and half-hand have the same PS they attack simulataneously. echo de-claoked to attack (big mistake). i used the above strategy and crippled him before he could cloak again.

I like the above combo, spending the 1 more point to boost Corran's PS to 10 and making him a counter to the Phantom

Bit strong mate!

I asked as my brother asked me about during a game yesterday and I just wanted to clear it up as I'm the one that got my brother's and mate into this game I wanted to be sure I was right in the things I was telling them.

I do not see his response as critical.

He is asking you to explain the chain of rules interpretations you used that led you to deciding to ask the question. As you go through the though process of doing this, you will likely realise the answer.

It's a fairly standard method of answering a question, at least in software engineering. It's also necessary for a game developer to ask these sorts of questions so they can see where and why the rules are unclear.

I don't understand how that is criticsm. He's not calling you mental.

Bit strong mate!

I asked as my brother asked me about during a game yesterday and I just wanted to clear it up as I'm the one that got my brother's and mate into this game I wanted to be sure I was right in the things I was telling them.

I do not see his response as critical.

He is asking you to explain the chain of rules interpretations you used that led you to deciding to ask the question. As you go through the though process of doing this, you will likely realise the answer.

It's a fairly standard method of answering a question, at least in software engineering. It's also necessary for a game developer to ask these sorts of questions so they can see where and why the rules are unclear.

I don't understand how that is criticsm. He's not calling you mental.

As a professional software engineer with eight years in the industry, I agree with you, but professionally I have also had to adjust to the fact that the precise, direct, and constantly challenging nature of communication software engineers utilize and enjoy comes across as offensive to most non-engineers I work with, and in order to have a successful career I need to be cognizant of this fact, and mentally switch gears when outside of an engineering setting. And I've still had a few incidents.

Another thing to be aware of the the negative interpretation bias of inherent in written communication. Psychologically, for whatever reason, we default to interpreting the written word in a negative tone. Weird, right? It's actually why smileys are so common in online communication, because the phrase:

"If you think you can handle it"

will typically be interpreted as insulting by default, while:

"If you think you can handle it :)"

doesn't.

Sorry if this is long, but to recap: engineering style discussion is awesome, but engineers need to be aware that it is DIFFERENT from how most people talk, and adjust, and always remember that when we read things our brain is predisposed to interpret the tone as negative if there isn't enough context to justify applying another tone.

I do agree his response wasn't overly critical, but I can see why it would be interpreted that way. It was actually a helpful way to put it (encouraging the reader to think about why that came to an assumption when the context technically wasn't there to justify it), but I can also see how many people would consider it a sarcastic attack.

@riplikash: This is interesting. I deal with a lot of art creatives, who also employ direct methods of communication.

@riplikash: This is interesting. I deal with a lot of art creatives, who also employ direct methods of communication.

I think it tends to be common in any creative field, since continual criticism, iteration, and improvement of a given product is such a core part of being successful in those fields. You don't get far if you don't continually criticize and challenge pretty much everything about what you are working on. In contrast, I think careers that are focused more on people (a market that heavily outweighs creative jobs) tend to take a softer approach, because you don't get far if you are continually criticizing everyone around you.

Because I have noticed the designers and artists I've worked with also seem to run into similar communication issues with more people focused departments.

@Glentopher: I don't assume you're a game developer. If that's not what you mean, I don't understand the question.

@riplikash: I think we have different definitions of creative.

Bit strong mate!

I asked as my brother asked me about during a game yesterday and I just wanted to clear it up as I'm the one that got my brother's and mate into this game I wanted to be sure I was right in the things I was telling them.

I do not see his response as critical.

He is asking you to explain the chain of rules interpretations you used that led you to deciding to ask the question. As you go through the though process of doing this, you will likely realise the answer.

It's a fairly standard method of answering a question, at least in software engineering. It's also necessary for a game developer to ask these sorts of questions so they can see where and why the rules are unclear.

I don't understand how that is criticsm. He's not calling you mental.

As a professional software engineer with eight years in the industry, I agree with you, but professionally I have also had to adjust to the fact that the precise, direct, and constantly challenging nature of communication software engineers utilize and enjoy comes across as offensive to most non-engineers I work with, and in order to have a successful career I need to be cognizant of this fact, and mentally switch gears when outside of an engineering setting. And I've still had a few incidents.

Another thing to be aware of the the negative interpretation bias of inherent in written communication. Psychologically, for whatever reason, we default to interpreting the written word in a negative tone. Weird, right? It's actually why smileys are so common in online communication, because the phrase:

"If you think you can handle it"

will typically be interpreted as insulting by default, while:

"If you think you can handle it :)"

doesn't.

Sorry if this is long, but to recap: engineering style discussion is awesome, but engineers need to be aware that it is DIFFERENT from how most people talk, and adjust, and always remember that when we read things our brain is predisposed to interpret the tone as negative if there isn't enough context to justify applying another tone.

I do agree his response wasn't overly critical, but I can see why it would be interpreted that way. It was actually a helpful way to put it (encouraging the reader to think about why that came to an assumption when the context technically wasn't there to justify it), but I can also see how many people would consider it a sarcastic attack.

This thread went from x-wing to interpersonal communication across the internet in about 2-seconds flat.

Seriously though, this is the most informative thing I've read in probably forever. Thank you for taking the time to mentally construct and then write out the best reason I can explain why the internet is what it is: analytical people conversing with emotional people and their subsequent misunderstandings.

Today was educational.

I have found that it is better to just read the cards and do exactly what is written, and not try to add to the rule or detract from it by thinking about what you take the statements to mean.

They FFG guys are communicating in a small space per the cute little cards so they write the rules in a concise manner. The words mean what they mean... period.

It puts me in mind of friends I have seen correcting their children. No means no the first time. If you do not like it or want to wiggle it around then you will get confused.

This thread went from x-wing to interpersonal communication across the internet in about 2-seconds flat.

Seriously though, this is the most informative thing I've read in probably forever. Thank you for taking the time to mentally construct and then write out the best reason I can explain why the internet is what it is: analytical people conversing with emotional people and their subsequent misunderstandings.

Today was educational.

Bit strong mate!

I asked as my brother asked me about during a game yesterday and I just wanted to clear it up as I'm the one that got my brother's and mate into this game I wanted to be sure I was right in the things I was telling them.

I do not see his response as critical.

He is asking you to explain the chain of rules interpretations you used that led you to deciding to ask the question. As you go through the though process of doing this, you will likely realise the answer.

It's a fairly standard method of answering a question, at least in software engineering. It's also necessary for a game developer to ask these sorts of questions so they can see where and why the rules are unclear.

I don't understand how that is criticsm. He's not calling you mental.

As a professional software engineer with eight years in the industry, I agree with you, but professionally I have also had to adjust to the fact that the precise, direct, and constantly challenging nature of communication software engineers utilize and enjoy comes across as offensive to most non-engineers I work with, and in order to have a successful career I need to be cognizant of this fact, and mentally switch gears when outside of an engineering setting. And I've still had a few incidents.

Another thing to be aware of the the negative interpretation bias of inherent in written communication. Psychologically, for whatever reason, we default to interpreting the written word in a negative tone. Weird, right? It's actually why smileys are so common in online communication, because the phrase:

"If you think you can handle it"

will typically be interpreted as insulting by default, while:

"If you think you can handle it :)"

doesn't.

Sorry if this is long, but to recap: engineering style discussion is awesome, but engineers need to be aware that it is DIFFERENT from how most people talk, and adjust, and always remember that when we read things our brain is predisposed to interpret the tone as negative if there isn't enough context to justify applying another tone.

I do agree his response wasn't overly critical, but I can see why it would be interpreted that way. It was actually a helpful way to put it (encouraging the reader to think about why that came to an assumption when the context technically wasn't there to justify it), but I can also see how many people would consider it a sarcastic attack.

This thread went from x-wing to interpersonal communication across the internet in about 2-seconds flat.

Seriously though, this is the most informative thing I've read in probably forever. Thank you for taking the time to mentally construct and then write out the best reason I can explain why the internet is what it is: analytical people conversing with emotional people and their subsequent misunderstandings.

Today was educational.

My point was creatives are emotional yet still use analytical techniques for communication.

Generally the people that get upset when you ask them "why" aren't necessarily engineers or creatives, but more the sort of people who have a strong sense of personal self, which leads to very black and white views. "X is correct. Why? Because it just is. I don't need to justify it. Asking me about would just make me angry as it's pointless to discuss. It is just is right."

I find the core difference in analytical communication between creatives and engineers comes from the fact that most creatives accept that objective definitions are by nature subjective, since you have to subjectively choose a metric by which to perform the objective measurement. Most engineers know this but feel it's not part of their domain and when it comes up in software we call it 'philosophical differences' and move on.

Well this took an interesting turn!

I am a people person and I have to talk to alot of different people in my job so I definitely use a softer style.

My brother who works in software testing is alot more direct and can come across as blunt so I completely see where you guys are coming from.