**** ability reads if a friendly ship in your side arcs a range 1-2 defends aquire a lock on the attacking ship. Is this limited by range from jag?

Not sure why the forum censored your post. But i think you are referring to this pilot.

When acquiring a lock, JAG acquires the lock by following the steps for acquiring a lock, including checking range from himself.

Rules Reference pg 13

Quote

A locking ship is a ship that is attempting to acquire a lock by performing the following steps:

1. Measure range from the locking ship to any number of objects.
2. Choose another object at range 0–3.
3. Assign a lock token to it with the number matching the ID marker of the locking ship.

In short, yes. The attacker still need to be within JAG locking range. Only an ability that states "...ignoring range restrictions" would override step 2 of acquiring a lock.

Yes this the pilot I'm referring too and if like an explanation for the scensorship as well the word I typed was the possessive term of the pilot Jag

30 minutes ago, Skyworthy said:

Yes this the pilot I'm referring too and if like an explanation for the scensorship as well the word I typed was the possessive term of the pilot Jag

Jag's? I think you missed the apostrophe and it got hit with the censor. Probably a derogatory in some part of the world.

Ok

On 6/8/2020 at 9:45 AM, Lyianx said:

When acquiring a lock, the ship acquiring the lock follows the steps for acquiring a lock, including checking range from itself. Jag only allows them to acquire the lock. He doesnt alter any other aspect of it, including the range. Jag himself, does not need to be in range of the attacker for the friendly ship to lock, he only needs to be in range 1-2 of the defender.

Almost correct. There are two relevant measurements that need to be in place for Jag to function...

1. First, Jag needs a friendly ship at Range 1-2 in his own side arc. It doesn't matter who it is, or who is shooting at them, but as long as they're in that location and at that distance, you can use Jag's ability. Notable is that the friendly ship cannot be at Range 0 (or touching) Jag; if so, he can't trigger.
2. Second, Jag needs to be within Range 0-3 of the (enemy) attacker. This isn't a trigger requirement, persay, but without checking this, the ability would fail thanks to not having a viable target. Per your own rules link, in order to acquire a lock, you have to be in locking range of the enemy (zero to three)... if Jag is too far away, he can't gain that lock during the Aftermath step. Again, it's notable that while Jag does need to be in range, he doesn't care at all about being in the attack arc.

2 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Almost correct. There are two relevant measurements that need to be in place for Jag to function...

1. First, Jag needs a friendly ship at Range 1-2 in his own side arc. It doesn't matter who it is, or who is shooting at them, but as long as they're in that location and at that distance, you can use Jag's ability. Notable is that the friendly ship cannot be at Range 0 (or touching) Jag; if so, he can't trigger.
2. Second, Jag needs to be within Range 0-3 of the (enemy) attacker. This isn't a trigger requirement, persay, but without checking this, the ability would fail thanks to not having a viable target. Per your own rules link, in order to acquire a lock, you have to be in locking range of the enemy (zero to three)... if Jag is too far away, he can't gain that lock during the Aftermath step. Again, it's notable that while Jag does need to be in range, he doesn't care at all about being in the attack arc.

Dammit. I didnt see "YOU may acquire" I thought it said "IT".

**** my eyesight.

31 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Dammit. I didnt see "YOU may acquire" I thought it said "IT".

**** my eyesight.

Easy mistake, and not unreasonable for Republic ships (that tend to have some very oddly phrased abilities with unusual triggering conditions)

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Easy mistake, and not unreasonable for Republic ships (that tend to have some very oddly phrased abilities with unusual triggering conditions)

Well this is the first time I've encountered an argument about this particular pilot ability and I absolutely loathe being proved wrong. It is better though to be proved wrong and learn than to argue blindly for a slight convenience

It seems more and more, a lot of sites, are censoring out common words, such as Bravo, Uniform, Lima, Lima, as if they were curse words..

3 hours ago, LTuser said:

It seems more and more, a lot of sites, are censoring out common words, such as Bravo, Uniform, Lima, Lima, as if they were curse words..

Okay, so I get why Lima is on the list, but do they seriously censor Lima. I mean one is seriously messed up to say in society and the other is just a nasty type of bean.

1 minute ago, SwampyCr said:

Okay, so I get why Lima is on the list, but do they seriously censor Lima. I mean one is seriously messed up to say in society and the other is just a nasty type of bean.

Military phonetic alphabet... Combine the first letters.

11 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Military phonetic alphabet... Combine the first letters.

Well don't I feel dumb. Back to X-wing...

37 minutes ago, SwampyCr said:

Well don't I feel dumb. Back to X-wing...

I mean, they are one of the more mediocre beans. Like, name five beans, and I'm sure you will have named five beans better than lima beans.

13 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Military phonetic alphabet... Combine the first letters.

Guess i dont follow this. But even still, its a dumb thing to censor. We need to stop being afraid of words otherwise no one will be allowed to speak.

5 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Guess i dont follow this. But even still, its a dumb thing to censor. We need to stop being afraid of words otherwise no one will be allowed to speak.

😉

6 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Guess i dont follow this. But even still, its a dumb thing to censor. We need to stop being afraid of words otherwise no one will be allowed to speak.

Yea. One site even took to start censoring out the word Richard, as it was a "Euphamism for Delta, India, Charlie, Kilo".. Even though some folks using the site, Richard was their name. SO ANYONE trying to quote one of those guys, had to say it "Rick A Rick B"... Rather than their full name...

31 minutes ago, LTuser said:

Yea. One site even took to start censoring out the word Richard, as it was a "Euphamism for Delta, India, Charlie, Kilo".. Even though some folks using the site, Richard was their name. SO ANYONE trying to quote one of those guys, had to say it "Rick A Rick B"... Rather than their full name...

Ok thanks for the info but this has gotten way off topic

15 minutes ago, Skyworthy said:

Ok thanks for the info but this has gotten way off topic

wait for it