The new mini FAQ states that failed actions give stress. Composure let‘s you do a focus action after a failed action. But now you’ve got stress which doesn‘t let you do actions.
Soooo i guess with some rare exceptions (contraband cybernetics) this upgrade has now become absolutely useless before most of us have even tried it?
3 minutes ago, KaLeu said:The new mini FAQ states that failed actions give stress. Composure let‘s you do a focus action after a failed action. But now you’ve got stress which doesn‘t let you do actions.
Soooo i guess with some rare exceptions (contraband cybernetics) this upgrade has now become absolutely useless before most of us have even tried it?
Well, no. It now works as (probably) intended- As a cheap way for New Players to get a failsafe in case they fail an action (i.e. Barrel Roll, Boost, Coordinate, or Jam).
What it originally enabled was quite frankly absurd, and almost certainly a result of rushed playtesting. A middle of the road solution might have been possible if they errata'd composure's focus action to match the color of the failed action, but that would still give Tie Bombers focus-> Target Lock when they flew in formation. Or composure could have only triggered on failed white actions. But I like the element of risk to performing a failable red action, personally.
Edited by SquarkFail a barrel roll/boost and still get a focus for your efforts seems better than not getting anything. You just can't abuse it. It's not a nerf. It's a needed rules tightening to cut down on action cheating.
Clearly when they were testing the game, no one figured out the interaction between composure and red actions, which was clearly never intended. For 2 points, the card was broken based on the rules.
I will say, there is still a small window for composure to be decent. If you take a platform that really wants to Jam or Coordinate, it may be worth the 2 point investment to gain a Focus in the situations where you are just out of range. These aren't amazing, but for only 2 points, (that's only 1 point in 1.0), it really shouldn't be good. Before, if it was a 10 point upgrade it still may have been undercosted.
Edited by SirCormacI stand corrected, missed the part about „red“ action.
Weirdly, it could actually still be a good upgrade on interceptors. Not sure if that boost or barrel fits? Try it, and if you fail, take your focus action, and then do a boost or barrel roll anyways! Still fringe, but not terrible for 2 points.
Speaking of jam or coordinate, Reapers REALLY like composure
Edited by ficklegreendiceJust now, SirCormac said:A platform that wants to TL and shoot munitions wouldn't be a bad option either, as sometimes you are just out, and then are left defenseless if someone moves into range after you moved. These aren't amazing, but for only 2 points, (that's only 1 point in 1.0), it really shouldn't be good. Before, if it was a 10 point upgrade it still may have been undercosted.
It's nigh impossible to fail the 2.0 Lock action unless you're in the endgame and somebody went a little crazy with seismic charges; The lock action checks everything in range and only fails if there are no legal choices; including obstacles and friendly ships.
Just now, Squark said:It's nigh impossible to fail the 2.0 Lock action unless you're in the endgame and somebody went a little crazy with seismic charges; The lock action checks everything in range and only fails if there are no legal choices; including obstacles and friendly ships.
Yeah, I deleted that 2 seconds after I wrote it.
1 minute ago, SirCormac said:Weirdly, it could actually still be a good upgrade on interceptors. Not sure if that boost or barrel fits? Try it, and if you fail, take your focus action, and then do a boost or barrel roll anyways! Still fringe, but not terrible for 2 points.
Yep. It's one of the few that links into a reposition action. A-wings to some extent as well, but you have to start with a BR, fail, take a focus and then link to a boost.
its a card that shouldnt have existed in the first place.
Its intent is clear and perfectly fine, but theres no way to govern it from "intentional failure" which everyone was doing. How on earth they never thought we'd just go "Ok ima boost into your face. It failed. FOCUS!!" purely intentionally.
Not factoring that situation in, its kinda crap to begin with. Its 2pts and eats the talent slot for literally a "failsafe" tactic. If you fly properly, it'll never do anything.
Note that it also has a use on Guri who wants to get very close an personnal while possibly jumping out of arc. Or worse case scenario, that failed boost nets you a focus, which is better than a calculate action (on top of her getting another focus from her innate ability). Not the best use, but for 2 points, not the worst.
Just now, Vineheart01 said:Not factoring that situation in, its kinda crap to begin with. Its 2pts and eats the talent slot for literally a "failsafe" tactic. If you fly properly, it'll never do anything.
It's handy for new players, and sometimes a failsafe is worth it if millimeter judgements are expected (especially if fatigue could become a factor)
Just now, dotswarlock said:Note that it also has a use on Guri who wants to get very close an personnal while possibly jumping out of arc. Or worse case scenario, that failed boost nets you a focus, which is better than a calculate action (on top of her getting another focus from her innate ability). Not the best use, but for 2 points, not the worst.
Guri does not have the focus action on her action bar, and as such does not meet the requirements to equip composure.
Edited by Squark10 minutes ago, Squark said:Guri does not have the focus action on her action bar, and as such does not meet the requirements to equip composure.
Correct, the sex robot cannot take Composure.
The old method allowed janky shenanigans with A-Wings as well. Take your Target Lock or Evade action, perform your free "boost" knowing that it would fail, and get a focus instead. That would have been too strong for a 2-point upgrade.
28 minutes ago, SirCormac said:Weirdly, it could actually still be a good upgrade on interceptors. Not sure if that boost or barrel fits? Try it, and if you fail, take your focus action, and then do a boost or barrel roll anyways! Still fringe, but not terrible for 2 points.
Just as a clarification for anyone who doesn't recognize this. Failed action still counts as performing that action, so it has to be whichever one you didn't fail.
Edited by Ixidor1 minute ago, Ixidor said:Failed action still counts as performing that action, so it has to be whichever one you didn't fail.
Correct, but it's still a super neat interaction.
Composure Shenanigans nerf is fine. I might have preferred to errata Composure to grant a focus action in the same difficulty as the failed action (so fail a red coordinate, red jam, red barrel roll, or any red linked action, you can take a Red Focus action), but that's a minor quibble which is mostly neither here nor there. The fix FFG made to failing red actions--that they still give stress--is better than the status quo.
As noted, a status quo almost surely caused by lack of play testing and review. Already.
//
What irks me is that there is essentially no way to fail a TL now. It's theoretically possible, but will never happen in normal gameplay. There will almost surely be some object or friendly ship within range, and you must choose one of those to take a lock. I think there was a way to interpret the rules before the revision to allow a player to bound their search, to limit the ships they're interested in target locking to *pointing at the table* these three enemy ships, for example. Choose among those, taking a lock one if legal, failing if none of the defined list is legal. By allowing locks to fail, this does two things. First , it'd allow Composure to trigger (which, with the Fail rules change, doesn't allow shenanigans). The point of Composure was a crutch, to allow beginning players to have a backup focus if they mess up their locks and movement actions. They have to spend 2 points and give up a Talent upgrade slot, so that seems like a fair tradeoff. Second , it'd allow a ship which already has a lock it wants to keep to not be forced to discard it. I have no problem at all with a failed action costing a player their opportunity. They wanted to do X, and instead do nothing. They should have guessed the action better. However, I'm irked by losing not just the opportunity, but also a previous lock. That's losing two actions for one failure, and to me it feels like a bit of an over-punish.
But, that's just like, my opinion, man.
30 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:Composure Shenanigans nerf is fine. I might have preferred to errata Composure to grant a focus action in the same difficulty as the failed action (so fail a red coordinate, red jam, red barrel roll, or any red linked action, you can take a Red Focus action), but that's a minor quibble which is mostly neither here nor there. The fix FFG made to failing red actions--that they still give stress--is better than the status quo.
As noted, a status quo almost surely caused by lack of play testing and review. Already.
//
What irks me is that there is essentially no way to fail a TL now. It's theoretically possible, but will never happen in normal gameplay. There will almost surely be some object or friendly ship within range, and you must choose one of those to take a lock. I think there was a way to interpret the rules before the revision to allow a player to bound their search, to limit the ships they're interested in target locking to *pointing at the table* these three enemy ships, for example. Choose among those, taking a lock one if legal, failing if none of the defined list is legal. By allowing locks to fail, this does two things. First , it'd allow Composure to trigger (which, with the Fail rules change, doesn't allow shenanigans). The point of Composure was a crutch, to allow beginning players to have a backup focus if they mess up their locks and movement actions. They have to spend 2 points and give up a Talent upgrade slot, so that seems like a fair tradeoff. Second , it'd allow a ship which already has a lock it wants to keep to not be forced to discard it. I have no problem at all with a failed action costing a player their opportunity. They wanted to do X, and instead do nothing. They should have guessed the action better. However, I'm irked by losing not just the opportunity, but also a previous lock. That's losing two actions for one failure, and to me it feels like a bit of an over-punish.
But, that's just like, my opinion, man.
Yes, the procedure should be "declare target lock, pick target, measure. If target is not in range, action failed." This matches pretty much every other procedure in the game, and I have no idea why they made this strange procedure for target lock. It would be like being forced to boost in some other direction if your chosen direction is blocked, and you only fail if you try left, right, and forward and none is possible.
Edited by cfmcdonaldstrictly because of composure, and nothing more.
While minor it allowed ships with a linked lock to have a linked "focus" since you could always say "Im going to lock that obstacle across the map" and fail.
I dont think that part was necessary, making failed red actions stress you was enough imo.
16 minutes ago, cfmcdonald said:Yes, the procedure should be "declare target lock, pick target, measure. If target is not in range, action failed." This matches pretty much every other procedure in the game, and I have no idea why they made this strange procedure for target lock. It would be like being forced to boost in some other direction if your chosen direction is blocked, and you only fail if you can't boost left, right, or forward.
I thought there was a ruling in 1.0 that pretty much did this? If you couldn’t boost or barrel roll you reset and picked a different direction.
At any rate I like these rulings. The failed red action just plain makes sense and the TL thing is completely avoidable by not doing TL’s everywhere to gain board knowledge. It is completely in line with 2.0 procedure. Think about what you are doing. Spam and die like the crack induced leper monkey you are flying like.
1 hour ago, KaLeu said:The new mini FAQ states that failed actions give stress. Composure let‘s you do a focus action after a failed action. But now you’ve got stress which doesn‘t let you do actions.
Soooo i guess with some rare exceptions (contraband cybernetics) this upgrade has now become absolutely useless before most of us have even tried it?
What mini FAQ? Got a reference (and a page number) please?
Just now, Marinealver said:What mini FAQ? Got a reference (and a page number) please?
See the Second Edition page, there's a new version which will be official on 28 Sept.
50 minutes ago, cfmcdonald said:Yes, the procedure should be "declare target lock, pick target, measure. If target is not in range, action failed." This matches pretty much every other procedure in the game, and I have no idea why they made this strange procedure for target lock. It would be like being forced to boost in some other direction if your chosen direction is blocked, and you only fail if you try left, right, and forward and none is possible.
Well, there is something I like about the current TL rules: you're open in what enemy ships you're able to attempt locks towards. You could measure range to each of the three enemies in your arc. Having it be somewhat open balances the fact that you might miss the target you might want most. My only issue is that there's no way to shut that door, or limit the search for an object to lock. It's literally every ship and asteroid in the game, ever time.
I think it's a lot less punishing than being forced to boost/barrel roll in an opposite direction, but a difference in degree rather than kind.