2 hours ago, impspy said:Nu-canon gives the TIE/LN and TIE/IN targeting computers; when are we getting our cheap, TIE-only Targeting Computer mod ffg?
The problem is not the ship. It’s the pilots. Only with Tarkin’s training techniques and close supervision have TIE/LN/IN pilots been able to achieve even a 50% work rate in regards to engaging the ship’s targeting computer.
What the .......?
....
16 hours ago, gennataos said:I guess? I'm going to keep assuming one has to move through a loose cargo token to trigger it, which also means I'm probably not going to bring rigged cargo.
Not to be combative, but I am pretty sure it triggers when placed on to a ship.
From the rules thread:
A: Yes. When an object is placed underneath a ship, that ship counts as overlapping that object.
From the rules book:
Ships, obstacles, and devices are all OBJECTS.
So when you place a rigged cargo chute, the ship counts as overlapping it and any effects that trigger on overlapping the rigged cargo chute trigger.
1 minute ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:Not to be combative, but I am pretty sure it triggers when placed on to a ship.
From the rules thread:
A: Yes. When an object is placed underneath a ship, that ship counts as overlapping that object.
From the rules book:
Ships, obstacles, and devices are all OBJECTS.
So when you place a rigged cargo chute, the ship counts as overlapping it and any effects that trigger on overlapping the rigged cargo chute trigger.
I'd actually prefer that!
Just now, gennataos said:I'd actually prefer that!
So rigged cargo chutes are back on the table? 
2 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:So rigged cargo chutes are back on the table?
If this is confirmed, **** yeah.
31 minutes ago, gennataos said:If this is confirmed, **** yeah.
Not sure how it could be interpreted otherwise. Rules thread from FFG says that ship overlap objects placed under them and debris counts as an object. You are good to go my friend.
1 hour ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:Not to be combative, but I am pretty sure it triggers when placed on to a ship.
From the rules thread:
A: Yes. When an object is placed underneath a ship, that ship counts as overlapping that object.
From the rules book:
Ships, obstacles, and devices are all OBJECTS.
So when you place a rigged cargo chute, the ship counts as overlapping it and any effects that trigger on overlapping the rigged cargo chute trigger.
Right so the ship definitely counts as overlapping the cargo chute, but the key question is "what happens when a ship overlaps a debris cloud?"
According to the rules reference, nothing (note the lack of mention of debris clouds):
There are other sections which address what happens when you move and overlap, or execute a maneuver and overlap, but those wouldn't apply here since you are not moving.
I agree their clarification is strangely vague, so I don't know how to take it. But strictly by reading the rules, overlapping a debris doesn't appear to do anything unless you are either moving or executing a maneuver.
Edited by evcameron10 minutes ago, evcameron said:
Oy... enough rules lawyering. I'll fine you in contempt and throw the book at you for it. Seriously though, not to single you out here @evcameron, you just happen to be the last in line, but a debris cloud is listed as being an obstacle in it's entry. It's not an asteroid, it's debris. The rules are pretty clear. Attempts to lawyer things should likely find another thread so that you embarrassment may be buried later. This thread is always on top for people to see what you've done.
Just now, LagJanson said:Oy... enough rules lawyering. I'll fine you in contempt and throw the book at you for it. Seriously though, not to single you out here @evcameron, you just happen to be the last in line, but a debris cloud is listed as being an obstacle in it's entry. It's not an asteroid, it's debris. The rules are pretty clear. Attempts to lawyer things should likely find another thread so that you embarrassment may be buried later. This thread is always on top for people to see what you've done.
Wow @LagJanson, disappointing to hear you you lash out like that when I try to articulate what people are debating. I even state in my post that I think it's confusing, I'm not trying to argue something for my own benefit.
Can you show me where the rules are "pretty clear"? This isn't petty rules lawyering, it's trying to understand the rules. There is a legitimate debate here. In fact before this non-clarification from FFG, I think the community consesus was that cargo chutes didn't cause stress on drops, and this FFG post doesn't actually address that.
It's important for these debates to happen so that a community consensus forms, otherwise we have different judges in different places ruling it differently.
The point with poop chutes can be summed up differently.
A B-wing rams into a Debris cloud and triggers its collision detector. The front nubs clear the debris, but the back does not.
At the start of the next planning phase, does the B-wing have to use collision detector immediately to not take stress?
Just now, evcameron said:Wow @LagJanson, disappointing to hear you you lash out like that when I try to articulate what people are debating. I even state in my post that I think it's confusing, I'm not trying to argue something for my own benefit.
Can you show me where the rules are "pretty clear"? This isn't petty rules lawyering, it's trying to understand the rules. There is a legitimate debate here. In fact before this non-clarification from FFG, I think the community consesus was that cargo chutes didn't cause stress on drops, and this FFG post doesn't actually address that.
It's important for these debates to happen so that a community consensus forms, otherwise we have different judges in different places ruling it differently.
I can lash all I want. People already know I'm a jerk. I'm a polite jerk most of the time, but no less of one. To be honest though, it was stated with tongue firmly in cheek.
Just now, LagJanson said:I can lash all I want. People already know I'm a jerk. I'm a polite jerk most of the time, but no less of one. To be honest though, it was stated with tongue firmly in cheek.
I'll put my tongue firmly in your cheek...
...Wait...
I say, make the chute stress peeps on impact.
It's more fun.
Just now, Bucknife said:I say, make the chute stress peeps on impact.
It's more fun.
We have very, very different definitions of fun!
These rules are tearing us apart.
Live Free, No Rules
Whoever wants it more is right.
5 minutes ago, Brunas said:We have very, very different definitions of fun!
I seriously thought the (potential, unstated at this time) change to not stress on drop was a continuing series of letting people just resolve the maneuvers on their dials. It started with the change to red maneuvers while stressed, it continued in the various Conner Net rules (now fully absorbed into the Ion rules that let you do your maneuver if you get ionized between placing your dial and revealing it), and I thought this was another intentional step in that direction. /shrug
Edited by skotothalamos15 minutes ago, LagJanson said:I can lash all I want. People already know I'm a jerk. I'm a polite jerk most of the time, but no less of one. To be honest though, it was stated with tongue firmly in cheek.
Good thing your embarrassing lash out was in this thread to be preserved for all time! 
Joking aside, it's just a game of plastic ships, I just want clear rules so I know what will happen when that piece of cardboard gets put under my plastic spaceship!
@Killerardvark says they stress on overlap.
It was enough for me when he said they didn't. It's enough for me now that he says they do.
Spacefight is serious business.
12 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:I seriously thought the (potential, unstated at this time) change to not stress on drop was a continuing series of letting people just resolve the maneuvers on their dials. It started with the change to red maneuvers while stressed, it continued in the various Conner Net rules (now fully absorbed into the Ion rules that let you do your maneuver if you get ionized between placing your dial and revealing it), and I thought this was another intentional step in that direction. /shrug
That's pretty much all I'm trying to figure out...if I drop a rigged cargo on a ship which has dialed in a red move, will they get stress NOW and do a white 2-forward when they reveal their dial?
1 minute ago, jagsba said:@Killerardvark says they stress on overlap.
It was enough for me when he said they didn't. It's enough for me now that he says they do.
Oh? When/where did he say that?
I'm not sure why people get mad over questions over rules, I don't understand the investment. I think the only internet communication which puts me on tilt is when someone is condescending to me, in which case they can suck a bag of dicks.
Oh wow. That didn't get censored? Really? Do I win something for this?
3 minutes ago, evcameron said:Good thing your embarrassing lash out was in this thread to be preserved for all time!
Wouldn't be the first time in this thread! Far from the worst.
3 minutes ago, evcameron said:Joking aside, it's just a game of plastic ships, I just want clear rules so I know what will happen when that piece of cardboard gets put under my plastic spaceship!
The tricky bit is that you could be asking for a lot at this time.
3 minutes ago, jagsba said:@Killerardvark says they stress on overlap.
Now, it could be that this is a change in 2.0 that everybody is overthinking. I could totally be in error here, and it wouldn't be the first time. I'm ultimately not going to entertain the argument in store with a player who sees differently, though.
2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:Now, it could be that this is a change in 2.0 that everybody is overthinking. I could totally be in error here, and it wouldn't be the first time. I'm ultimately not going to entertain the argument in store with a player who sees differently, though.
It's probably this, like it was with the Aileron thing. Problem is, the rules don't really read that way and there's a question of designer intent to change that interaction in Second Edition. Maybe they meant to change it? Probably not, but maybe? Most of us just want any ambiguity to be removed.
Now, the folks who have a torch to bear for their preferred rules interactions or want to redesign the game? I skip those posts/threads.
17 minutes ago, gennataos said:Oh? When/where did he say that?
He's said it a couple times in a couple threads on the mynock fb page.