10 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Not between the synchronizer, but it means that you don't need the target lock from yourself, to attack what's ahead. You just need something else to TL it.

I know those two cards do not directly interact.

I mean, if you're not disarmed, having someone with Targeting Synchronizer can go a long way.

If a gunboat is disarmed, a Defender (or whatever) with Targeting Synchronizer ship doesn't have a dang thing to say about it, and the gunboat will still need their own lock.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, if you're not disarmed, having someone with Targeting Synchronizer can go a long way.

If a gunboat is disarmed, a Defender (or whatever) with Targeting Synchronizer ship doesn't have a dang thing to say about it, and the gunboat will still need their own lock.

That doesn't make any sense though. Everything about the wording says it should happen this way.

So again this is talking about Next Gen Rebel and Imperial Starfighters that are not Disney New Era starfighters, which I guess is current gen but okay lets reframe the scenario.

X-wing and TIE Fighters fall in the OT era so lets call them the Battle of Endor Generation. So BoE Gen includes X-wings, Y-wings, A-wings, B-wing, TIE Fighters, and TIE Interceptors, along with a few other starfighters from the OT such as the TIE Bomber for Empire Strikes Back and TIE Advanced from Battle of Yavin fall in that category. In retrospect thanks to a new Disney movie the U-wing and the Scarif TIEs also are retconned into that era. Okay so that is the general frame of X-wing Rebels and Empire factions, and those ships should never get the tech slot.

So lets talk about outside of the BoE prior to that you have Z-95 Headhunters and TIE Advanced prototype (although there has been mentioning of Z-95 Close Air Support for the Rebel Strike team on Endor). That is the opposite side of getting the tech slot I want to talk about the Rebel and Empire Starfighters after BoE which is the E-wing and the K-wing. The TIE Defender was BoE generation thanks to Rebels, however that being sort of a prototype in a field test but it clearly was made after TIE Advanced and TIE Interceptor so it should get the Tech slot as if it was a post BoE Generation Starfighter. TIE Avenger is a little more questionable because it was the precursor to the TIE Defender and the TIE Interceptor but the TIE Interceptor came later and after that the TIE Defender. Since it isn't in X-wing miniatures yet lets not worry about that.

So now the XG-1 Starwing Assault Gunboat. Well the best source we have is the TIE Fighter game and I would place that as BoE generation. Sure the Missile Boat had advanced systems such as SLAM but the default Gunboat was closer inline with the TIE Bomber TIE Interceptor time frame. In comparison the TIE Defender was clearly a generation ahead of the gunboat.

Now the other question is the TIE-Punisher aka TIE-Interdictor? Well whatever it is called now it looks like some one said hey wield another TIE Bomber to this TIE Bomber. But it is inspired from the TIE Bomber so is it a next gen in the TIE Family tree? It has the sensor slot which is pretty good (I know some players refer to that as the OT tech slot). So in this case it may be more of a matter of gameplay instead of continuity on why it shouldn't have a tech slot. Besides, what can the tech pool of upgrades offer that is better than trajectory simulator?

Now if I may go off topic, the nice thing about FFG's adjustable slot system is that old ships can retroactively have upgrade slots added to them. So where as if an illicit slot was added to wave 6 all ships wave 5 and prior had to wait for an upgrade (usually a modification) to get a hold of such upgrades. Now lets just say FFG added in a new slot in wave 4 or 5 call it the Artifacts slot, it is sort of like a modification slot but for force users such as the Jedi and the Sith ships in Wave 3 can get that slot even though it didn't exist until Wave 5.

So back on topic the Empire and Rebel ships that are candidates for Tech slots are

• E-wing
• K-wing
• TIE Defender
• TIE Punisher?

Okay, we can leave out the TIE Punisher from that list.

5 hours ago, Marinealver said:

The TIE Defender was BoE generation thanks to Rebels, however that being sort of a prototype in a field test but it clearly was made after TIE Advanced and TIE Interceptor so it should get the Tech slot as if it was a post BoE Generation Starfighter. TIE Avenger is a little more questionable because it was the precursor to the TIE Defender and the TIE Interceptor but the TIE Interceptor came later and after that the TIE Defender. Since it isn't in X-wing miniatures yet lets not worry about that.

I really hate how Nucanon has mucked about with the timeline of fighter development. Since when was the TIE Avenger (which AFAIK has always been considered synonymous with the TIE Advanced from TIE Fighter , XvT , and XWA — definitively a later craft than the Squint) a predecessor to the TIE Interceptor?

10 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

That doesn't make any sense though. Everything about the wording says it should happen this way.

Nothing about the wording says that it should happen that way. If you ignore the wording, look at the "sense" of things, it could work. But if you look at the actual rules language on the cards, you don't get anywhere near a Defender with TSynch letting an OS-1 Alpha fire while disarmed against a target they don't have locked.

OS-1 creates a specific state where, if true, you can ignore the Disarmed rule.

Targeting Synchronizer is really specific--it interacts with the Lock Attack Requirement. That is, the part on secondary weapons which says "Attack [Lock]:". This has nothing to do with the conditions for OS-1's disarm exemption, which isn't a Lock Attack Requirement.

It's like black pepper and chili pepper. Both are spicy, and called pepper, but biologically and chemically they're two totally different things. OS-1 and Targeting Synchronizer both have really specific, really different interactions with Locks, and no meaningful interaction within the same X-Wing list.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Nothing about the wording says that it should happen that way. If you ignore the wording, look at the "sense" of things, it could work. But if you look at the actual rules language on the cards, you don't get anywhere near a Defender with TSynch letting an OS-1 Alpha fire while disarmed against a target they don't have locked.

OS-1 creates a specific state where, if true, you can ignore the Disarmed rule.

Targeting Synchronizer is really specific--it interacts with the Lock Attack Requirement. That is, the part on secondary weapons which says "Attack [Lock]:". This has nothing to do with the conditions for OS-1's disarm exemption, which isn't a Lock Attack Requirement.

It's like black pepper and chili pepper. Both are spicy, and called pepper, but biologically and chemically they're two totally different things. OS-1 and Targeting Synchronizer both have really specific, really different interactions with Locks, and no meaningful interaction within the same X-Wing list.

I feel like I've been repeating myself at this point. Until the gunboat gets something like this- which it probably won't, we won't know for sure- because that's a question that would definitely be asked. God knows we've been repeating ourselves at each other long enough. I mean, how many times do I have to say, "I'm aware they do not specifically interact with each other"?

4 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I feel like I've been repeating myself at this point. Until the gunboat gets something like this- which it probably won't, we won't know for sure- because that's a question that would definitely be asked. God knows we've been repeating ourselves at each other long enough. I mean, how many times do I have to say, "I'm aware they do not specifically interact with each other"?

To me, a lot of what you're saying looks like a contradiction.

You say

13 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

That doesn't make any sense though. Everything about the wording says it should happen this way.

and

7 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I'm aware they do not specifically interact with each other.

And these things, as best I can tell, are exactly opposite.

I don't know what "not interacting with each other" means other than the following. If a Defender has TSynch and a lock, but an OS-1 Starwing has a disarm token but no lock, then the OS-1 Starwing cannot attack. This is the only conclusion I can reach reading the text of the cards.

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

To me, a lot of what you're saying looks like a contradiction.

You say

and

And these things, as best I can tell, are exactly opposite.

I don't know what "not interacting with each other" means other than the following. If a Defender has TSynch and a lock, but an OS-1 Starwing has a disarm token but no lock, then the OS-1 Starwing cannot attack. This is the only conclusion I can reach reading the text of the cards.

However. If something else has locked, then the Gunboat does not need to lock on to attack, the Target Lock parameter has already been sidelined by the other vessel Target Locking. That's it. It's genuinely that simple.

43 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

However. If something else has locked, then the Gunboat does not need to lock on to attack, the Target Lock parameter has already been sidelined by the other vessel Target Locking. That's it. It's genuinely that simple.

This is only true so long as the Gunboat *IS NOT DISARMED.* Once there is a disarm token, things change. And you have to look at the actual text of the cards.

7 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

This is only true so long as the Gunboat *IS NOT DISARMED.* Once there is a disarm token, things change. And you have to look at the actual text of the cards.

Which I have been doing. So long as you have one disarm token, you can still fire missiles/torpedoes. Otherwise, OS-1 loadout is a coaster.

15 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Which I have been doing. So long as you have one disarm token, you can still fire missiles/torpedoes. Otherwise, OS-1 loadout is a coaster.

In this thread, I've never seen you reference the actual text of the cards. You've waved your hands, described the gist of what the cards do, rather than examine the meaning of the words. Maybe they've drifted too far up the thread. I've linked the card images here, just to be sure.

//

Suppose a Starwing with Barrage Rockets, OS-1, a focus, exactly 1 disarm token, and no locks on anyone.

The Starwing cannot attack Poe, because the Starwing does not have a lock on Poe. This is the text of OS-1. You can still perform torpedo and missile attacks against targets you have locked. But in this gamestate, that's not the case.

//

Add in a TIE Defender with Targeting Synchronizer has a lock on Poe.

The Starwing still would not be able to attack Poe. Targeting Synchronizer does nothing to the situation, because there is no [Lock] attack requirement on the Starwing. There is an "Attack [Focus]:" requirement on Barrage Rockets, so Targeting Synchronizer doesn't have anything to bite on with the Rockets.

The Targeting Synchronizer also does not allow OS-1 to grant an exemption, because that's not what Targeting Synchronizer does. It does not have some nebulous "Friendly ships can ignore anything to do with Locks" text. It has a really specific text. It refers to the [Lock] attack requirement. From the rules reference, page 17, Special Attacks: "Some attacks also have special requirements listed in parentheses after the header. ◊ The “ Attack [Lock]: ” header indicates that the attacker must have a lock on the defender." This is the only rule in the game that Targeting Synchronizer interacts with.

OS-1 is not a [Lock] attack requirement, it's an entirely different set of mechanics (specifically, it'd be a Golden Rule exemption, an upgrade contradicting the rules reference text on the Disarm rule). A Defender with TSynch doesn't grant an exemption, because it isn't saying that anything friendly ships want to do with a target lock works. TSynch says something very specific--about attack requirements--and those are only the " Attack [Lock]: " headers at the start of secondary weapons.

That's utterly irrelevant here, because it doesn't matter to OS-1 whether or not a Missile or Torpedo has an " Attack [Lock]: " requirement, or is an " Attack: " without other requirements. The Starwing would still be disarmed, and without an actual lock the Starwing couldn't shoot. Because it's not the same rule that Targeting Synchronizer interacts with. Because this is the actual--not imagined--text of both cards.

So if this means you think OS-1 is a weak upgrade? Well, that's like your opinion, man. I haven't flown too many Starwings, but when I have flown OS-1 Vynder, I was able to fire off a few Torpedoes while disarmed on targets I had locked, and it was cool. So I guess I think it's not a coaster. As with any upgrade, YMMV, but it's not doing nothing.

But if you think that TSynch would let OS-1 ignore it's own card text? You'd be wrong. You wouldn't be reading either the rules of X-Wing, or the words that are actually printed on the cards.

21 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

In this thread, I've never seen you reference the actual text of the cards. You've waved your hands, described the gist of what the cards do, rather than examine the meaning of the words. Maybe they've drifted too far up the thread. I've linked the card images here, just to be sure.

//

Suppose a Starwing with Barrage Rockets, OS-1, a focus, exactly 1 disarm token, and no locks on anyone.

The Starwing cannot attack Poe, because the Starwing does not have a lock on Poe. This is the text of OS-1. You can still perform torpedo and missile attacks against targets you have locked. But in this gamestate, that's not the case.

//

Add in a TIE Defender with Targeting Synchronizer has a lock on Poe.

The Starwing still would not be able to attack Poe. Targeting Synchronizer does nothing to the situation, because there is no [Lock] attack requirement on the Starwing. There is an "Attack [Focus]:" requirement on Barrage Rockets, so Targeting Synchronizer doesn't have anything to bite on with the Rockets.

The Targeting Synchronizer also does not allow OS-1 to grant an exemption, because that's not what Targeting Synchronizer does. It does not have some nebulous "Friendly ships can ignore anything to do with Locks" text. It has a really specific text. It refers to the [Lock] attack requirement. From the rules reference, page 17, Special Attacks: "Some attacks also have special requirements listed in parentheses after the header. ◊ The “ Attack [Lock]: ” header indicates that the attacker must have a lock on the defender." This is the only rule in the game that Targeting Synchronizer interacts with.

OS-1 is not a [Lock] attack requirement, it's an entirely different set of mechanics (specifically, it'd be a Golden Rule exemption, an upgrade contradicting the rules reference text on the Disarm rule). A Defender with TSynch doesn't grant an exemption, because it isn't saying that anything friendly ships want to do with a target lock works. TSynch says something very specific--about attack requirements--and those are only the " Attack [Lock]: " headers at the start of secondary weapons.

That's utterly irrelevant here, because it doesn't matter to OS-1 whether or not a Missile or Torpedo has an " Attack [Lock]: " requirement, or is an " Attack: " without other requirements. The Starwing would still be disarmed, and without an actual lock the Starwing couldn't shoot. Because it's not the same rule that Targeting Synchronizer interacts with. Because this is the actual--not imagined--text of both cards.

So if this means you think OS-1 is a weak upgrade? Well, that's like your opinion, man. I haven't flown too many Starwings, but when I have flown OS-1 Vynder, I was able to fire off a few Torpedoes while disarmed on targets I had locked, and it was cool. So I guess I think it's not a coaster. As with any upgrade, YMMV, but it's not doing nothing.

But if you think that TSynch would let OS-1 ignore it's own card text? You'd be wrong. You wouldn't be reading either the rules of X-Wing, or the words that are actually printed on the cards.

man how many times have i tried to drop this, I don't even care who's right or wrong at this point

Props to @theBitterFig for trying to explain this so many different ways so many different times. I probably would have given up a while ago. You are 100% right, though I think it's a bit of a moot point because I don't see any Empire ships getting the tech slot anytime soon.

I feel like Tech being the Sequel Faction's thing* is fine; the Defender and E-Wing don't need the help and it could lead to some game-breaking problems with cheap torp spam. The limiting factor on the F/O and Resistance is that they don't have cheap torpedo carriers. The Empire and Rebels do and if you can roll up at I5 and let your squad unload torps (even single modded with a focus), you can burn almost anything down.



* and the Quad, but running Tech on a Quad is a mistake(TM) so ymmv

1 hour ago, impspy said:

and the Quad, but running Tech on a Quad is a mistake(TM) so ymmv

Not as much with the price bump. Could see some play with Zuvio.

On 1/30/2019 at 4:27 AM, Ambaryerno said:

I really hate how Nucanon has mucked about with the timeline of fighter development. Since when was the TIE Avenger (which AFAIK has always been considered synonymous with the TIE Advanced from TIE Fighter , XvT , and XWA — definitively a later craft than the Squint) a predecessor to the TIE Interceptor?

Yeah the TIE Avenger is a rare beast considering even the gunboat made it into miniatures. I think Decipher CCG put in the cannon on it being a precursor to the Interceptor. THe timeline was the Advanced 1x, Avenger then after the Avenger the split between the Interceptor and the Defender with the Defender taking on more of the roll of the Superior TIE Fighter and Interceptor just the throw away kamakazi craft. Thing is I can see a superior product being cast aside for a more economical one. It happens all the time (the lowest bidder philosophy). Heck back in my days in the Corps I would dread getting new stuff. Either it was more worn down 2nd hand equipment from the other three branches, or Uncle Sam just found a lower bidder. Out in the corporate world, it is much worse.

Quick question about Full Throttle:

If I move thru a debris/asteroid but I fully execute the maneuver at speed 3-5 do I get to perform the free evade action?

Because the time window called is 'after fully executing a maneuver' right before the check stress and perform action step.

2 hours ago, Arma Quattro said:

Quick question about Full Throttle:

If I move thru a debris/asteroid but I fully execute the maneuver at speed 3-5 do I get to perform the free evade action?

Because the time window called is 'after fully executing a maneuver' right before the check stress and perform action step.

Asteroid: Yes, you get a Full Throttle Evade. Relevant also to the new N-1, which also has Full Throttle.

Debris: No. You take the stress from the Debris before having fully executed the maneuver.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Asteroid: Yes, you get a Full Throttle Evade. Relevant also to the new N-1, which also has Full Throttle.

Debris: No. You take the stress from the Debris before having fully executed the maneuver.

Awesome! Thank you!

Just saying.

If the N1 can get systems?

Then something OT can get Tech.

I like the idea of giving some of the more advnaced rebellion era ships a tech slot. Are there any other scum ships that are advanced enough to warrant it? The star viper seems pretty high tech but it's firmly in the empire-jedi era. Nothing else really jumps to mind, but I haven't read the EU books since I was a kid.

19 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Just saying.

If the N1 can get systems ?

Then something OT can get Tech. 

Sensor. The Hyena has the Sensor Slot as well.

35 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Just saying.

If the N1 can get systems?

Then something OT can get Tech.

That's really not at all comparable.

2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Sensor. The Hyena has the Sensor Slot as well.

Right yeah my bad.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

That's really not at all comparable.

Eh. I dunno', I can easily see the TIE Defender and E-Wing getting tech due to this.