KarmikazeKidd said:

Yeah, that's the other reason that I'm leaning towards secondary weapons as a way to get around Biggs (though really only in a very limited set of circumstances… remember, Biggs only prevents from targeting ships range 1 from him so while there are plenty of theoretical situations where he's out of range/arc but the other ship is targetable, it might not actually happen often). It'll be interesting to see how FFG settles all of these ambiguities in the rules though… they really could use some tighter definitions and more exhaustive rules than the game shipped with.

ShadowJak said:

Yeah, assuming. It could happen 100% of the time in a tournament I suppose. I just meant from the point of view of testing, do you think they really tried out Y-wings vs. Biggs that much?

magadizer said:

It is hard to believe that it didn't come up at least a few times and there is also the issue someone brought up of using missiles while having someone other than biggs target locked.

True. It's rare enough though that I suspect if it did come up that the testers might have assumed the meaning was plain or obvious, even if it isn't. I think some of the other rules ambiguities like "double barrel roll" and "marksmanship/concussion missiles" would be much more common since they don't require a mirror match to set up. And how many tournaments have there been so far? not many right?

magadizer said:

Tournament organizers are like Judge Dredd: They are the Law. Without a FAQ being out, they are the final authority.

By the way, the new Judge Dredd movie is highly entertaining.

But, but, wasn't it said somewhere in the rulebook that card text overrides the general rules?

Surely Ion Cannon Turrets' "Attack one ship (even a ship outside your firing arc)" takes precedence over "the target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc and within range"?

ArcticSnake said:

Right, my point was that you'd have had to pick that you were using the ion cannon before step 1 (choosing target) in order to use that text.

What is the full text on Biggs' card

ScottieATF said:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/news/preview3-upgrades/biggs-darklighter.png

"other friendly ships at range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead"

If i do not use ion cannons, i cannot target Biggs outside my firing arc. If i use ion cannons, i could not target Biggs who is at range 3 but in my firing arc. so what happens now?

Duraham said:

1) choose target

2) if Biggs in within range 1 of the target you have to fire at Biggs

3) use whatever weapon you can to shoot at Biggs

Major Mishap said:

This is the interpretation our group has chosen to use until an official FAQ is released as well.

Jim

Seems very odd that his ability could make you choose what weapon to fire with. I hope it does not make a pilot chose a primary or secondary weapon, and that it only works once the weapon it picked.

It's not odd at all, its a case of "There's Biggs, shoot him" and that is what you have to do and that is what the card tells you to do.

El_Tonio said:

Wouldn't it be just as odd if you could ignore his ability by picking a certain weapon?

As his ability states if you have the ability to target him you must. Ion Cannons give you the ability to target ships in 360 within RNG 1 or 2.

This is incorrect. His ability states that you can't target someone within range 1 of Biggs if you could target Biggs instead. There's a very big difference there. The ability is not meant to simulate OH MY GOD THERES BIGGS, HE SLEPT WITH EVERYONES SISTER IN THE ENTIRE IMP FLEET…KILL HIIIIIIM!!! but rather simulate him getting in the way and protecting those nearby him.

The point is, if you are trying to make an attack that would target an opponent within Range 1 of Biggs, and you could make that attack against Biggs instead, you must do so. And I think it's clear there are a number of situations where you could hit one and not the other for various reasons.

KarmikazeKidd said:

ROTFL because I hadn't ever considered WHY every Imperial wants to shoot him down. He was at the Academy so maybe he did work his way through everyone's sister. He probably didn't even join the Rebels out of some sense of Imperial injustice…he did it to expand his dating pool….

Jim

KarmikazeKidd said:

Biggs' ability does not make any reference to needing to be a target of the same attack or same weapon system, and the rules spell out no timing sequence that force that caveat either. His ability only asks a simple question, can you target Biggs instead? If yes you must put an attack to Biggs instead. Reading it another way requires including language not in the rules or on the ability.

The point was that in your most recent post, along with several of the most recent, all that was stated was that "If you can target Biggs, you must". And that's simply not true. If you're trying to attack someone who is within range 1 of Biggs, and you could attack him instead, you must. These statements are not the same. The way it's been phrased (incorrectly) by a number of people makes it more powerful than it actually is. That's all I'm saying.

Anything beyond that is mere conjecture until they say otherwise. The argument that you can either choose to use missiles/torpedoes on X within range 1 of biggs because you have a lock on them and not him or choose to use an ion cannon that could target X but not Biggs is a real, valid argument. However, the argument against it is just as strong. We simply cannot say for certain at this point.

But Biggs is NOT a straight up attack magnet like some people seem to think. It doesn't function like Taunt or some such in other games. He merely absorbs targets in his vicinity.

KarmikazeKidd said:

Yes we can.

You can not remedy the portion in bold with the actual text of Biggs' ability. His ability reads

"Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead"

Notice the underlined word. If it said attack then you'd have a leg to stand on, because then you would be dealing with what type of attack were you attempting. But it doesn't. The ability has nothing to do with what kind of attack was being attempted, only if the attacker could target Biggs instead. The attacker is the ship attempting to fire, it is not the individual attack which has further limitations

You are left with a simple if-then statement. If the attacker (at all there are no qualifiers given) can target Biggs, then they cannot target other ships friendly to Biggs at range 1. You can never make any attack against those ships because you are not allowed to target them at that point. The ability does not read "If a friendly ship at Range 1 is targeted by an attack the attack is made against you instead, if the attack can target you". If it did then the above bolded portion would be correct. It just plain doesn't. That ability would be Biggs getting in the way, but as written Biggs just did sleep with everyone's sister.

ScottieATF said:

And you shouldn't discount others' lines of reasoning if you want yours given a fair shake as well. I've acknowledged that you have a point. But so do other people. The way Biggs is phrased leaves room for other interpretation, whether you read it that way or not. As we discussed earlier in the thread, it is not clear cut at what point you choose whether to use your primary or secondary attack. Granted, you say it doesn't matter. This is where we differ (except that I actually agree with you about the intent, I just believe there is room to say otherwise).

When it says 'cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead' you can make the case that the attack is chosen prior to an attempt to target, and since the attacker could not legally target Biggs with the chosen weapon, then you are able to make the attack against your desired target. The problem derives from the fact that choosing a primary or secondary weapon is not actually listed at all as part of the process in the rulebook. If you really want to understand the valid justification for thinking 'choose your attack' could come BEFORE the 'Combat Phase' please see my following post-quote. But the point is, regardless of whether or not you're probably right, there is still reasonable doubt and room to consider the opposing view.

And yes, the logic still works regardless of whether Biggs' text says 'attack' or 'attacker'. If the Attack is chosen before fulfilling the steps laid out in the Combat Phase, the attacker is already constrained to that particular attack. So let's not quibble over that particular wording all night.

KarmikazeKidd said:

Oh, now I get it. If we write in a completely non-existant clause into the rules about choosing an attack type before picking a target then your argument might make sense. But that clause doesn't exist and Biggs's ability doesn't read at all to support the inference of such a clause.

ScottieATF said:

FFG, please just give us an FAQ. Preferably before Wave 2.

ScottieATF said:

No, this does not seem at all odd to me. Seems like you should be able to pick a weapon and attack with it. If you can attack Biggs with it instead, you must do so. If you can't attack Biggs with the Weapon in question you continue with the attack as usual. I will be surprised if his ability also forces an opponent to chose what weapon to attack with.

ScottieATF said:

No, this does not seem at all odd to me. Seems like you should be able to pick a weapon and attack with it. If you can attack Biggs with it instead, you must do so. If you can't attack Biggs with the Weapon in question you continue with the attack as usual. I will be surprised if his ability also forces an opponent to chose what weapon to attack with.