Cad Bane: After dropping or launching a device you may perform a red boost.
Composure: After failing an action, if you have no green tokens you may perform a focus action.
If you use Cad to boost, but intentionally 'fail' the action can you focus, then move and take another action like a target lock?
Focus + target is supposed to be hard to get without coordinate.
Looking at Composure, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on a red action or a linked action. So you could use it with Cad Bane, Vectored Thrusters, Autothrusters, and probably a few other options to get a target lock and a focus in the same round with no stress.
It works but I doubt it would "work well." Consider: you need to be in a position where (1) one of your boosts is blocked (2) the move you want isn't. I bet folks will notice situations for it more often when you really try (nose-to-nose then follow up with a Tallon Roll, or maybe flying a friendly ship in front of the Scurrg). However, it just seems like it'll be hard to get a huge amount of value from Composure/Cad on the table, due to where the ships need to be in relation to each other, and wanting to have a good spot to drop a bomb. It'll be cool to see it pulled off, though.
Personally, I'm excited for Composure tricks, but mostly for more simple ones: A-Wings and TIE Interceptors using their ship abilities. A-Wing moves into R1, takes a TL, then "boosts" to Composure a Focus. TIE Interceptor boost, then "barrel rolls" into an Asteroid or another ship to Composure a Focus. I go back and forth on how easy I think it'll be to pull these kinds of things off.
Two squint squads I kinda want to try:
All Guts, No Shields: 4x Saber Squadron Ace, Composure, Hull Upgrade, 4 point bid
Mostly Guts, Some Shields: 4x Saber Squadron Ace, Composure, Shield Upgrade, no bid.
Works better on e wings. Or red jam ships.
1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:Works better on e wings. Or red jam ships.
Not necessarily on E-Wings. The Lock rule isn't clear on whether you can intentionally fail a Target Lock when there exist valid targets to lock.
It doesn't say "you may choose" but just "choose an object" which suggests you can't intentionally fail if there is any object (that includes asteroids) legal to lock. Almost surely that is going to be true.
On the other hand, the first step doesn't specify you have to measure to all objects--that might be enough hair splitting to work. The full rule:
So while Step 2 doesn't allow you to decline to choose an object if one exists, Step 1 defines the scope of the objects. If only objects which are invalid (normally beyond Range 3, but E-Wings have their own rule) are selected within Step 1 for checking, you can fail the action, because there are no valid objects.
Yeah.
I'd kinda started on "E-Wings can do it!" and went over to "No, they can't" and now I'm back on "This looks really strong with E-Wings." Still, I don't know that it's fully settled.
*interesting sidebar: E-Wings cannot acquire locks at Range 1, but may acquire locks at Range 0.
14 hours ago, theBitterFig said:*interesting sidebar: E-Wings cannot acquire locks at Range 1, but may acquire locks at Range 0.
Yes I suspect that this is an oversight of bad wording because of version 1... I don't see why it would be range 1 and not range 0-1
Also doing Boost -> fail lock -> Focus is far from impressive lol...
We want Lock and Focus, so we need a ship that can start with lock then fail the next action, or get free boost or roll like cad bane...
Edit: Is there any ship that can start a dual action with Lock ?!
Edit 2: And it is really hard to fail a Lock on an E-Wing... and also, you can't fail the first part of a dual action and still do the second part...
1 minute ago, muribundi said:Also doing Boost fail lock -> Focus is far from impressive lol...
We want Lock and Focus, so we need a ship that can start with lock then fail the next action, or get free boost or roll like cad bane...
Edit: Is there any ship that can start a dual action with Lock ?!
A-Wings can Lock, then Boost. E-Wings can start with a lock from the first turn, then when they fail to lock later on, the first lock hasn't gone away.
And Boost or Barrel Roll for free into Focus is Flight Assist Astromech without the arc restrictions, which we know as an incredibly powerful card. Combine that with Long Range Scanners, and it seems solid. Add in that for an E-Wing to pull it off, it'll be at least an Init 4, so you'll be moving after any other generics.
Yes E-Wing can start with a Lock from an earlier turn, and then do Barrel Roll into fail Lock and get focus. But I doubt this will be a big deal, and you are aware that E-Wing will fail to Lock only if all the ship and other object are in range 1 of him ? Not something that will happen often.
For the A-Wing, yet cool, that is a ship that would probably be able to abuse it easly.
Interceptor can also pull it in fact.
Edit: No they can't, they don't have lock lol...
1 hour ago, muribundi said:Also doing Boost -> fail lock -> Focus is far from impressive lol...
Not really. It's still two actions, no stress.
55 minutes ago, muribundi said:Yes E-Wing can start with a Lock from an earlier turn, and then do Barrel Roll into fail Lock and get focus. But I doubt this will be a big deal, and you are aware that E-Wing will fail to Lock only if all the ship and other object are in range 1 of him ? Not something that will happen often.
Depends. I think it's still an open question, see above. My current view is that you can measure to any number of objects, and then must choose one of the objects which is valid to lock. I strongly believe that step 2 isn't flexible: you can't decline to choose an object if any are legal targets However, it doesn't say to have to measure to *all* objects. And such, you could choose to measure only to a single object at range 1, and then you don't have any legal targets, and the action will fail. If you're allowed to restrict the scope of the objects in step one, then it's possible to fail in step 2.
2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:Not really. It's still two actions, no stress.
I forgot the no stress part, I suspect they will errata it fast...
The more things i see about "failing" and composure lead me to feel the card is just bad design.
6 hours ago, Kanawolf said:The more things i see about "failing" lead me to feel it is just bad design.
Here, I corrected your sentence lol...
I know I'm the only one thinking it, but failing action is bad design, there was already enough thing that punish bad planning in this game.
On 8/23/2018 at 11:58 AM, theBitterFig said:Depends. I think it's still an open question, see above. My current view is that you can measure to any number of objects, and then must choose one of the objects which is valid to lock. I strongly believe that step 2 isn't flexible: you can't decline to choose an object if any are legal targets However, it doesn't say to have to measure to *all* objects. And such, you could choose to measure only to a single object at range 1, and then you don't have any legal targets, and the action will fail. If you're allowed to restrict the scope of the objects in step one, then it's possible to fail in step 2.
No, because the step 2 does not say to chose in the object list defined in step 1. It say you must chose an object at range 0-3. You can't just say mmm I refuse to measure so there is no object at range. To not fail step 2, you must measure, if there is clearly an object at range 2, then it is illegal to ignore it.
The step 1 is there to clarify that pointing the "wrong" ship is not a fail anymore. It is exactly like the Roll or the Boost, you can't chose to fail by just saying... mmm nope according to my eye, without testing, it does not pass. You must try it, and if it pass, you must do it.
Same thing here, step 2 say if there is an object, you must chose it, whatever you like it or not.
Clearly, if there are any objects you've measured distance to within range, you must choose one of them. But, as I read it, the rule doesn't force you to measure to objects you haven't chosen to measure distance to. If step 2 said "choose another object at range 0-3, or return to step 1 " then I would be convinced, but that's not the text. Specifically, your alternate reading that step 1 only clarifies that you don't have to select just one ship before measuring seems insufficient. If step 2 checks anything and everything as you suggest, step 1 is entirely irrelevant.
I also wouldn't describe this as simply choosing to fail--indeed you go through all the steps of the rule. You select some number of objects. You check the ranges (step 1). You choose one to lock if legal (step 2) and assign a lock token (step 3) , but fail if you cannot chose a legal object (second "additionally" bullet point). My example is actually quite like Boosting: you choose the direction to boost and check it, but you don't check other boost directions before determining whether the action fails.
This needs official clarification. As you say, Step 2 doesn't clearly limit things to objects selected in Step 1. However, Step 2 also does not say to include additional objects. It neither clearly limits, nor clearly expands.
//
Here's the other thing: I kinda think the rules really need to allow Locks to fail. To fail to lock the ship you want costs you an action, which is fair. Where things get unfair is when you already have an existing lock. Suppose Wedge is trying to chase Old Teroch and Fenn Rau. He had a lock on Old T from last turn, but he's clearly far out of range. Wedge thinks Fenn Rau might be get-able at range 3, attempts to lock. If that action fails, no big deal. That was the risk Wedge decided to take. However, for Wedge then to be forced to lock an asteroid he had no intention of locking costs him not just the failed lock action, but also an earlier action, since his old lock on Old T is now gone. That's a massive over-punish.
E-Wing Composure Shenanigans are kinda BS, but forcing ships to lock unwanted objects is, IMHO, even bigger BS. Allowing a ship to chose the pool of object they're willing to lock seems fair, particularly, since there's no way out once that pool is selected.
Failing action is bull **** right from the start. I can't over kill you. Adding lost of action was already one of the stupidest move they could have done. So starting from there, I see loosing your target lock as just a joke over another joke.
And if what you mean is true, and you say "I measure range to this ship", border at range 3, and forget to say that you would also measure to another one closer. Then you lost your action with no lock at all? No, you would also measure after having already checked the other one even if you did not name it specifically before starting to measure. So why can you just stop when you wish, when clearly step 2 want you to find something.
And the boost clearly define that you can't try the other direction. Target Lock do not say that you can't measure to other. Granted, Barrel Roll specifically tell you to try to find a valid spot between the three possible.
And Barrel is a good example. You can't decide to fail by just trying one of the three spot.
Yes this will need an FAQ. And when they announced this stupid idiot action fail, I could have bet that it would create more arguing then solve anything
Edited by muribundi13 hours ago, muribundi said:Failing action is bull **** right from the start. I can't over kill you. Adding lost of action was already one of the stupidest move they could have done. So starting from there, I see loosing your target lock as just a joke over another joke.
And if what you mean is true, and you say "I measure range to this ship", border at range 3, and forget to say that you would also measure to another one closer. Then you lost your action with no lock at all? No, you would also measure after having already checked the other one even if you did not name it specifically before starting to measure. So why can you just stop when you wish, when clearly step 2 want you to find something.
And the boost clearly define that you can't try the other direction. Target Lock do not say that you can't measure to other. Granted, Barrel Roll specifically tell you to try to find a valid spot between the three possible.
And Barrel is a good example. You can't decide to fail by just trying one of the three spot.
Yes this will need an FAQ. And when they announced this stupid idiot action fail, I could have bet that it would create more arguing then solve anything
I disagree with the implications of your second paragraph. As I see step 1, it doesn't rule out measuring in sequence. I think it'd allow a scenario like: "Measure to Ship A, Measure to Ship B, Measure to Asteroid M, hrm... none of these are in range, I'll measure to Ship C, etc." and continue to expand the list as much as you want before you move on to step 2, and choose one of those objects. For example, the "Declare Target" step 1.a. of the attack rule uses similar language--measure Range to any number of enemy ships--and that has long been held to allow you to continue to measure ranges until you've found a ship in arc and range that you're interested in attacking, or to opt out of performing an attack.
The question to me isn't whether you can add objects, but whether you're required to add in also Ship D and Asteroid N, if you have no interest in locking those objects.
With Barrel Rolls, you choose first the direction (left or right) then the final position (front-middle-back). It's not a clean example to Locks, however. Selecting Left or Right sets the parameters (the three final positions). If none of those positions are valid, then it fails. I could see acquiring a lock being similar: initial decisions set the parameters, then allow a choice between various legal outcomes. With a barrel roll, the parameters are the same every time: front-middle-back. With Locks, they aren't, and I tend to think Step 1 allows you to describe them.
//
This gives me an awesome idea for a Device. Scrambler Beacon. Enemy ships cannot lock other objects if it is possible for them to lock this device. This device may be attacked: treat it as having 3 agility and 1 hull point.
Can't see how the concept of failing an action isn't good design. Taking actions in some circumstances has now introduced a risk/reward decision. Meaningful decisions made based on a player's ability to asses the boardstate is surely a good thing.
Grabbing a handfull of tokens and dumping them on the table regardless of what just happened was one of the worst things about the later stages of 1.0.
On 9/5/2018 at 4:52 PM, ScaredOfCrows said:Can't see how the concept of failing an action isn't good design. Taking actions in some circumstances has now introduced a risk/reward decision. Meaningful decisions made based on a player's ability to asses the boardstate is surely a good thing.
Grabbing a handfull of tokens and dumping them on the table regardless of what just happened was one of the worst things about the later stages of 1.0.
Because you double punish. Because encouraging physical ability in a game that should be mental is not good design. Not everyone have the same spacial / eye quality. It does not reward good thinking, it reward the fact that your eyes calculation is better then your opponent, something that have nothing to do with your good planing.
You are already punished for that during movement, they had no need to add it to action too.
And in fact you are encouraged to throw a bunch of token on the table, because this is more safe then trying to do Boost or Barrel Roll.
And contrary to popular belief, the game are now slower then before, because you loose more time thinking about if you take the risk or not with a Lock or close call Boost.
On 8/31/2018 at 3:23 PM, theBitterFig said:Here's the other thing: I kinda think the rules really need to allow Locks to fail. To fail to lock the ship you want costs you an action, which is fair. Where things get unfair is when you already have an existing lock. Suppose Wedge is trying to chase Old Teroch and Fenn Rau. He had a lock on Old T from last turn, but he's clearly far out of range. Wedge thinks Fenn Rau might be get-able at range 3, attempts to lock. If that action fails, no big deal. That was the risk Wedge decided to take. However, for Wedge then to be forced to lock an asteroid he had no intention of locking costs him not just the failed lock action, but also an earlier action, since his old lock on Old T is now gone. That's a massive over-punish.
Right now you can't retry a decloak if you failed in the direction you choose (Loosing your possibility to attack is way more punishing then loosing your already set Lock) and you loose your charge token on Afterburners if you can't complete the boost. So I have a hard time to see loosing your previous Lock as such a massive over-punish in comparison...
It's basically been confirmed that the e-wing can never fail a lock
because you can lock an asteroid now remember, so there will always be something it can lock beyond R1 (unless most of them are destroyed and you have all enemies in R1).
1 hour ago, muribundi said:Because you double punish. Because encouraging physical ability in a game that should be mental is not good design. Not everyone have the same spacial / eye quality. It does not reward good thinking, it reward the fact that your eyes calculation is better then your opponent, something that have nothing to do with your good planing.
You are already punished for that during movement, they had no need to add it to action too.
Have you considered the possibility that the game is not mental by design, but combination of metal and visual?
On 8/22/2018 at 11:15 PM, theBitterFig said:All Guts, No Shields: 4x Saber Squadron Ace, Composure, Hull Upgrade, 4 point bid
On 8/23/2018 at 3:55 PM, muribundi said:Edit: No they can't, they don't have lock lol...
No, but it does make them one of a select few ships able to get Focus/Evade, especially without stressing themselves to heck.
EDIT Scratch that because if they evade they have a green token and can't use composure.
Under the circumstances, I'd consider Sabers with Composure/Stealth Device, because Focus/Evade/Agility 4 is....well....we all know what a bugger it can be to hit, even before 1.0 autothrusters were a thing.
Edited by Magnus Grendel
24 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:
No, but it does make them one of a select few ships able to get Focus/Evade, especially without stressing themselves to heck.
Under the circumstances, I'd consider Sabers with Composure/Stealth Device, because Focus/Evade/Agility 4 is....well....we all know what a bugger it can be to hit, even before 1.0 autothrusters were a thing.
Focus/Evade wouldn't work. Composure only triggers if you don't have a green token.
//
Well, Word-of-God has made ruling on Locks, which personally I think is B***s***. I believe a ship ought to be able to delineate a subset of object they are interested in locking, and not be forced to lock an object outside of that subset. Even if there were some more specific ruling to block out Composure shenanigans, I'd still believe this ought to be the case. Rulings such as this haven't always made it to the final FAQ, but so it goes. And it's total BS.
1 hour ago, svelok said:Have you considered the possibility that the game is not mental by design, but combination of metal and visual?
We are playing a board game, not ping pong. As a dexterity game, X-Wing is a total failure then, ship bump around and slide. We use unprecise cardboard to move on soft play mat that band. Clearly this is the worst setting to make a game where you punish player for misjudging alligment. There nothing precise in this game, so punishing someone for miscalculating a Lock range is bad design.
They could have made it way less punishing then it is right now and would have accelerated the game at the same time. Like, by default giving a focus if you fail your lock (Loosing a previous Lock if you had one) Doing partial Barrel Roll or Boost.
1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:Focus/Evade wouldn't work. Composure only triggers if you don't have a green token.
//
Well, Word-of-God has made ruling on Locks, which personally I think is B***s***. I believe a ship ought to be able to delineate a subset of object they are interested in locking, and not be forced to lock an object outside of that subset. Even if there were some more specific ruling to block out Composure shenanigans, I'd still believe this ought to be the case. Rulings such as this haven't always made it to the final FAQ, but so it goes. And it's total BS.
So this is more BS then loosing your Decloak opportunity or your Charge token if you fail the action. Like every action, just don't try it if you are not 100% certain. Loosing your action was the idiot design, after that, calling BS on stuff you don't like is pointless.