1 hour ago, ImperatorRegnum said:

A lot of talents in this game have names that aren't meant to be taken super literally. For example "Bad Motivator" can be used on 'any device;' it doesn't have to work only on droids even if the bad motivator line was used in reference to a droid in the movie. Most of the talents' names are just for flavour.

You mean Speaks Binary doesn't mean I can beep, whistle, and chirp out my dissertation?

5 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You mean Speaks Binary doesn't mean I can beep, whistle, and chirp out my dissertation?

Sure. but auto correct is gonna do a number on it.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

You mean Speaks Binary doesn't mean I can beep, whistle, and chirp out my dissertation?

Only at the second rank.

On 6/23/2019 at 1:25 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope because the Tricky Target talent only comes into effect when the target in question is being attacked, and then only treats the ship as smaller for purposes of targeting it . It doesn’t actually change its Silhouette physically. Similarly, with Supreme Pride and Joy, the talent doesn’t physically change the ship’s silhouette, but it does allow the pilot to treat it as such for piloting and pilot only maneuvers for the remainder of the round and the next round, but not for being targeted by other craft. Both talents allow the ship to be treated as smaller in silhouette, but each does so for different purposes , and different effects and outcomes.

I agree that's how the rule is intended, but that's not how it's written. Tricky Target has no such stipulations in its full talent description.

13 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

I agree that's how the rule is intended, but that's not how it's written. Tricky Target has no such stipulations in its full talent description.

Yes, it does. That's what everyone has been saying. The talent only kicks in when you're being targeted, and specifically only affects the one targeting your ship, forcing them to treat your ship as smaller than it actually is for the purposes of targeting only.

So with the back and forth in this thread, I'm reminded of something GM Chris of Order 66 podcast said with regards to interpreting some bit of rules back in the Saga Edition days:

There's Strict RAW, Greasy RAW, and finally RAI (Rules As intended). The first being the rules exactly as worded, with no room for personal interpretations. The second being using the rules as worded, but then re-interpreting specific words to say what you want them to say (also known as rules-lawyering, especially if done malaciously). And finally going not so much by the wording of the rules, but what was the intent of the rules.

With Tricky Target, strict RAW is that it only applies when the ship in question is being targeted by an attacker, and RAI is much the same, since it just says "when your ship is being attacked" with the suggested intent that once the difficulty pool for the attacker is set, then Tricky Target has done its bit and thus no longer applies once the results of the dice are determined. Under those two, it's pretty clear that Barrel Roll wouldn't be applicable, since at the stage in resolution that Barrel Roll would be applicable (calculating damage from a successful combat check), Tricky Target is no longer in effect as the defender is no longer "being attacked" but instead has "been attacked" (past tense).

Greasy RAW is interpreting the "when attacked" portion of Tricky Target to mean that the silhouette reduction takes place all through out the process of the attack, from declaration of intent, calculating the dice pool, and then finally through resolving the results and damage of the attack. That same sort of logic could then be applied to say that because Tricky Target makes my ship effectively smaller, that it means a Silhouette 5 ship that's being attacked in either the port or starboard zones where it has little to no defense would thus now count as Silhouette 4, and ships that size don't have port or starboard defenses, and thus the attacker is forced to use either the fore or aft defense zones, which probably offers a much better defense. Thus the term "greasy RAW" in that not only is the interpretation of the rules slippery in and of itself, but that's also a slippery slope to blatant exploits of the rules that were clearly never intended but yet are justified under the same rationale that was applied initially.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does. That's what everyone has been saying. The talent only kicks in when you're being targeted, and specifically only affects the one targeting your ship, forcing them to treat your ship as smaller than it actually is for the purposes of targeting only.

Like I said before, I agree with how the rules should be interpreted , as talents like Barrel Roll didn't exist when EotE was first printed.

But literally nothing you've said in the above is accurate; word for word, Tricky Talent's full description reads: "Any vehicle the character pilots counts as having a silhouette one lower than normal when being attacked."

There's no stipulation as to who is counting it as such, nor are there any regarding how it's to apply the change in sil, nor how much of the calculations fall into the timing window of 'when being attacked'.

2 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

So with the back and forth in this thread, I'm reminded of something GM Chris of Order 66 podcast said with regards to interpreting some bit of rules back in the Saga Edition days:

There's Strict RAW, Greasy RAW, and finally RAI (Rules As intended). The first being the rules exactly as worded, with no room for personal interpretations. The second being using the rules as worded, but then re-interpreting specific words to say what you want them to say (also known as rules-lawyering, especially if done malaciously). And finally going not so much by the wording of the rules, but what was the intent of the rules.

With Tricky Target, strict RAW is that it only applies when the ship in question is being targeted by an attacker, and RAI is much the same, since it just says "when your ship is being attacked" with the suggested intent that once the difficulty pool for the attacker is set, then Tricky Target has done its bit and thus no longer applies once the results of the dice are determined. Under those two, it's pretty clear that Barrel Roll wouldn't be applicable, since at the stage in resolution that Barrel Roll would be applicable (calculating damage from a successful combat check), Tricky Target is no longer in effect as the defender is no longer "being attacked" but instead has "been attacked" (past tense).

Greasy RAW is interpreting the "when attacked" portion of Tricky Target to mean that the silhouette reduction takes place all through out the process of the attack, from declaration of intent, calculating the dice pool, and then finally through resolving the results and damage of the attack. That same sort of logic could then be applied to say that because Tricky Target makes my ship effectively smaller, that it means a Silhouette 5 ship that's being attacked in either the port or starboard zones where it has little to no defense would thus now count as Silhouette 4, and ships that size don't have port or starboard defenses, and thus the attacker is forced to use either the fore or aft defense zones, which probably offers a much better defense. Thus the term "greasy RAW" in that not only is the interpretation of the rules slippery in and of itself, but that's also a slippery slope to blatant exploits of the rules that were clearly never intended but yet are justified under the same rationale that was applied initially.

Exactly. It's three difference between sticking to the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law. I don't consider my proposition as being exploitative or "greasy," but simply as a hypothetical, 'GMs would you allow this or no, why or why not,' piece of discussion, particularly because this particular scenario involves a player who feels that two talents that have both a thematic and mechanical synergy. I'm sorry if you get the impression that you're dealing with an exercise in munchkin-ism.

And then there is willfully reading more i to something than intended. Which is what you are doing. And you have to keep in mind when they wrote Tricky Target Barrel Roll didnt exist.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

And  you have to keep in mind when they wrote Tricky Target  Barrel Roll didnt exist. 

Which is what I said...

42 minutes ago, StriderZessei said:

Which is what I said...

And yet you keep argueing after everyone here has explained it multiple times.