I have yet to encounter a single instance at 209 points during which jamming beams were EVER worth firing and I run THREE (two t-70s; 1 transport)

Even a closed s-foil t-70 putzing out two dice can at least get damage through!

The only time the damage loss can be compensated for is in the case of reinforce.

In epic, obviously the reinforce is a huge (heh) deal as are TLs assuming they don't have targeting battery on something you don't want to die

Triple Jamming List (for reference):

Coordination Formation (Nien B1)

(29) Finn [Resistance Transport Pod]
(8) Perceptive Copilot
(1) Heroic
(4) Advanced Optics
Points: 42

(36) Nodin Chavdri [Resistance Transport]
(2) R4 Astromech
(0) Jamming Beam
(6) Tactical Officer
Points: 44

(51) Jessika Pava [T-70 X-wing]
(0) Jamming Beam
(0) Integrated S-foils
Points: 51

(55) Nien Nunb [T-70 X-wing]
(0) Jamming Beam
(0) Integrated S-foils
(1) Heroic
(5) Pattern Analyzer
(2) Black One
Points: 63

Total points: 200

C-ROC with Corsair Refit and HLC. There’s no reason I can’t fire the HLC for my regular shot and also as a bonus attack, right?

Because it turns out that the C-ROC is at a great price point to just charge into wings and crash through them.

7 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

C-ROC with Corsair Refit and HLC. There’s no reason I can’t fire the HLC for my regular shot and also as a bonus attack, right?

Seems wrong to me, but at the moment I can't find any rules to support my position. Might be legal.

33 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

Seems wrong to me, but at the moment I can't find any rules to support my position. Might be legal.

Feels wrong doing it! But yea I can’t see why I wouldn’t be able to.

It's legit. You can use any equipped "normal" secondary weapon in place of your primary attack, plus any number of bonus attacks. So you can totally double HLC, in the same way that ship can also, say, double Ion Cannon Turret.

So does Targeting Battery being a 3 die range 5 attack, but only granting the lock a range 2-3 (range 2-4 on CR90) without the use of a cargo slot+energy, even out the balance between Raiders and CR90s? If the Tantive can use Turbolasers more efficently, that puts the super-offensive Raider as somethign that has to close the distance and make up for lost damage.

@Rakaydos I'm still of the opinion it gives you the lock regardless of range. My understanding is when the rules instruct you to 'acquire' a lock, not just perform an lock action, it falls under the 'unless instructed to do otherwise' part of the range check instruction. What with cards superceding rules to boot and all. Definitely going to need an FAQ on it I guess.

12 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

@Rakaydos I'm still of the opinion it gives you the lock regardless of range. My understanding is when the rules instruct you to 'acquire' a lock, not just perform an lock action, it falls under the 'unless instructed to do otherwise' part of the range check instruction. What with cards superceding rules to boot and all. Definitely going to need an FAQ on it I guess.

It doesn't need a FAQ. It is clearly stated in the last part of the Lock rules in the RR on page 13.

"◊ If a ship is instructed to acquire a lock, the object it locks must be at range 0–3 unless otherwise specified."

23 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

@Rakaydos I'm still of the opinion it gives you the lock regardless of range. My understanding is when the rules instruct you to 'acquire' a lock, not just perform an lock action, it falls under the 'unless instructed to do otherwise' part of the range check instruction. What with cards superceding rules to boot and all. Definitely going to need an FAQ on it I guess.

Grand Moff Tarken doesnt say it breaks the rule Heimfire posted, but Shuttle title ST-123 does.

Targeting battery doesnt let you break the range restrictions, but Sensor Experts (capital ship multilocking) does, for the extra locks.

Expirimental Scanners on the Ewing explicitly applies to aquiring locks. (" You can acquire locks beyond range 3. You cannot acquire locks at range 1. ")

The CR90's ability refers to aquiring locks, too. (" Broadside Batteries: You can acquire locks and perform primary attacks at range 1-4. ")

There's no card that says "aquire a lock, but only within range 3", because that's not how the game is written. Only the cards that SAY they break the range 3 restriction,break the range 3 restriction.

TLDR- If you want to have range 4-5 locks with a Raider, get Boosted Scanners. It's literally why it exists.

Back to my point, this also means the CR90's ship ability has a reason to exist. (or at least the range 4 locks portion, the range 4 broadside primary was already great)

24 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

It doesn't need a FAQ. It is clearly stated in the last part of the Lock rules in the RR on page 13.

"◊ If a ship is instructed to acquire a lock, the object it locks must be at range 0–3 unless otherwise specified."

Right, that 'otherwise specified' I think is what you follow here. The card instructs you to acquire a lock on a specific object, the defender, so I think you just get it.

I think it would function differently if it had a stated range requirement attached to the instruction. Like, if it said just you may acquire a lock (period), then you check for range 1-3 per the RRG. Or if it had a range check in the defender, I think it would check then.

Either way it works this question does come up a lot I've noticed. I don't think an FAQ is an extreme request.

@Rakaydos I think the better counterpoint would be Dutch. At least it does say 'ignoring range' on his card, right? It just seems to be a lapse in rule writing format where they wrote it with an error on accident that confuses the intent, y'know? It almost feels like the old 1.0 method of writing 'acquire' may have been used on accident. The card just doesn't seem to make much sense, nor does it's interaction with other cards, to my read on it if you follow the interpretation you're going with. I think everyone locally also read it this way, that it ignores range, further justifying a clarification from the designers. That's a lot of people all messing it up lol 😅

I mean guys, this is FFG we're talking about here. They're not exactly great when it comes to rules writing, and they're pretty bad at getting the first print correct... Especially with Epic lol (glares at stalwart Captain)😆😕

2 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

I think it would function differently if it had a stated range requirement attached to the instruction. Like, if it said just you may acquire a lock (period), then you check for range 1-3 per the RRG. Or if it had a range check in the defender, I think it would check then.

🤨

...

Nani? I'm confused. I would gather that Tarkin also ignores range. As it is a specified sequence of who gains locks on what. A design I rather like.

After all

... You may fire when ready 😎

2 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Right, that 'otherwise specified' I think is what you follow here. The card instructs you to acquire a lock on a specific object, the defender, so I think you just get it.

Tarken says otherwise.

You (and many others) are not thinking this through. Targeting battery has 4 range bands of effect, missing only the smallest and most insignificant. But it only grants locks for half that range... unless you have another card that says you can lock at longer range. (Jendon, or Boosted Scanners)

A free lock at range 2-3 isnt bad, especially on an ordnance ship... but it means you need to choose between

bombardment specialists+Boosted scanners, or Tibbana reserves/ordnance team.

For anyone reading along, the other important bit that I'm sure some of y'all have noticed is, and I'm sure our companions in the discussion just now also are aware, is the precedence of rules levels also in the RRG. Just so all have a mention of it to look at, and also I feel a point to my interpretation, is The first golden rule on the RRG.

"If a card contradicts the rulebook, the card takes precedence."

And my logic is:

Did the card tell you to do something?... Yes

Did it ask for a Range? ... No

Did it specify a Target of the effect, and still not ask about range?... Yes

Then follow the card and do what it says, it has precedence.

Okay, at that said. I'll leave that y'all have a legitimate point to a degree. I think @Rakaydos and I are in agreement that many others are confused on the rule. I for my part will wait for a official rules answer from FFG. Like, it's kinda what we pay them for amiright? It's not like we'll disrupt the galactic balance in our home group if we follow our groups own interpretation until then.

4 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Did the card tell you to do something?... Yes

Did it ask for a Range? ... No

Did it specify a Target of the effect, and still not ask about range?... Yes

Then follow the card and do what it says, it has precedence.

What has precedence is an ability like Dutch Vander’s, which does specify that it ignores range restrictions.

One can assume that text exists for a reason.

Right? My argument is that they may have gotten lazy on the writing, and forgot to put the line on the card. I guess you could say I'm arguing RAI vs RAW? Like, clearly we know how Dutch works. But that verbage is being confused by a ton of folks despite that. I just sent an email to Brooks, I don't know if he'll respond at all or maybe drop in the thread here, but it's worth a shot. Fingers crossed?🤘

Targeting battery does NOT ignore range restrictions on locks

You only get to do so when card text specifically overrides rules text

And trust me, you wouldn't want range 4-5 locks for free on something like a Tantive. Would be miserable to play against

Targeting Battery still strikes me as the "best", no-brainer hardpoint upgrade due to free action efficiency (except maybe ion on the gr-75 since it can't really fight anyway). It doesn't need to be even better.

Yea it definitely doesn’t specify that you can violate the usual range restrictions.

Does anyone know for sure how bumping works with wing leaders? I’m sure they skipped their action but does the wing line up and perform actions as usual?

20 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Right? My argument is that they may have gotten lazy on the writing, and forgot to put the line on the card. I guess you could say I'm arguing RAI vs RAW? Like, clearly we know how Dutch works. But that verbage is being confused by a ton of folks despite that. I just sent an email to Brooks, I don't know if he'll respond at all or maybe drop in the thread here, but it's worth a shot. Fingers crossed?🤘

So how should the card have been written, if you are wrong about RaI?

25 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

So how should the card have been written, if you are wrong about RaI?

If I'm wrong, very well possible and all, then realistically there should probably be an instruction to perform the TL action, since that doesn't have the same ambiguity. Alternatively, as a check against unintentional interaction, or future-proofing, they should have specified a range like 2-3 so it jives with exactly it's own attack. That way if you alter it's range with one effect, the lock would still occur only at the intended 2-3.

Side note, I also disagree with @ficklegreendice that it would be too strong with the lock out to the full attack range anyway. It's still had an arc restricted area. And in all reality we've locally been playing it this way and it hasn't been an issue. Usually you get the one lock at extreme, and then your just getting the other that everyone here doesn't question. I would argue that for balance sake, any ship, huge especially, should be generating roughly one solid attack and one action for every 50pts in cost. I think some of the intent here was that on ships that could spare the slot to get the Targeting Battery, to bring up their action/attack economy to that bandwidth. By and large, it's actually been one of the few things that has justified the more expensive huge ships.

20 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

If I'm wrong, very well possible and all, then realistically there should probably be an instruction to perform the TL action, since that doesn't have the same ambiguity. Alternatively, as a check against unintentional interaction, or future-proofing, they should have specified a range like 2-3 so it jives with exactly it's own attack. That way if you alter it's range with one effect, the lock would still occur only at the intended 2-3.

Except they intend the interaction with Boosted Sensors on the same ship, so locking it permanantly to 2-3 is just as problematic as ignoring the range restriction.

Whereas making RaW be the same as what you think is intended, would be as simple as adding the same standard phrase that is on many other cards- "(aquire a lock), ignoring range restrictions."

Saying "this one card has a typo that totally changes it's meaning, so I'm going to ignore what's on the card" is something that requires evidence, and you dont have any.

@ForceSensitive but if Targeting Battery said to take a lock action, it would be far weaker, as many of these ships want to take locks anyway. I originally thought like you; I want Targeting Battery to apply at more ranges, but the rules are clear. Cards don't say "follow the rules" because it is assumed that you are. They say when to break the rules, which is when the "cards > core rules" stipulation kicks in.

I mean, "maybe they forgot to put the text in" just isn't a great argument. You can only make "rules as intended" arguments if there are conflicting or contradicting examples to lean on. The opposite is true here: Dutch tells you how to do it when you're allowed to break the rules. Otherwise, follow the rules.

@ForceSensitive Running through your logic, you made an error at stage 2, "did it ask for a range". The thing is, locking has a default range band in which it happens. If rules don't specify particular values in cases where there are defaults, you use the defaults, not the values you'd like to use.

2 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

Does anyone know for sure how bumping works with wing leaders? I’m sure they skipped their action but does the wing line up and perform actions as usual?

The wingmates form up on the wing leader wherever he be, and they are treated as having fully executed their maneuver, whatever that happens to be.

2 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

And trust me, you wouldn't want range 4-5 locks for free on something like a Tantive. Would be miserable to play against

Funny thing is that you can get range 4 locks from targeting battery, and only on a CR-90.

You seem to have forgotten the ship ability.

Honestly I rather like it as-is. The Raider only needs R3 anyway for its ordnance, while the CR90 can sit back and TB/broadside comfortably from R4. It works well.

If you want longer range on either, you can get it if you’re willing to invest for it. I feel like the extra firepower you’re missing out on isn’t worth it though except in certain situations or builds.