Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: A couple questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Pontier
United States
Oak Forest
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gunner vs. Simultaneous attacks
Everyone knows that if ships of equal pilot skill are attacking each other, that if a ship dies from the first attack, it stays on the board until its gets an opportunity to attack. The rules say: “After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area.”

The gunner card now says: “After you perform an attack that does not hit, you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack.”

Are these two effects considered simultaneous also? They both have the word immediately. So if Mauler has initiative and attacks and kills Lando, Lando still gets to fire back. He attacks and misses. Is he removed from the game or does he get to use the gunner? Or do you as the player get to decide in which order these two events happen? Basically, is the gunner considered as part of your opportunity to attack.

I can see it both ways. An opportunity to attack can simply mean rolling the attack dice, allowing the defender to modify them, and then you modifying them. Attacking ends at step 3 of the combat phase. Thus, the dead ship could be removed before the defender even rolls his dice. If that is the case, the gunner doesn’t get to happen because, thematically speaking, he isn’t alive to see that he missed. This is different than cluster missiles where the attack is defined at the outset as being two separate attacks, and both need to be completed before the dead ship is removed. Though, I suppose the gunner could interrupt the middle of that attack if he chose. Not sure.

Next:
Captain Kagi: “When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship if able.”
It is clear to me that if you want to acquire a target lock, and Kagi is within range, then you have to target lock him. However, on the next turn, if I want to take the target lock action again, the FAQ says that I cannot reacquire a target lock on a ship I already have a target lock on, so that means I can now target lock a different ship, right? Kagi’s ability doesn’t say you may only have a target lock him, it says “if able.” Or does Kagi’s ability prevent me from taking the target lock action again?

Or how about the Weapons Engineer? I think it is clear that if you use the Weapons Engineer, that your first target lock has to be on Kagi, but since the rules clearly state that you cannot have 2 target locks on the same ship, the second TL can be on any ship you want. On the next turn I want to take the target lock action again. Assuming that I still have a lock on Kagi, the crew allows me to get 2 new target locks. Since I can’t target lock Kagi a second time, can I acquire 2 target locks and have neither of them be on Kagi?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lando
msg tools
Piqsid wrote:
Gunner vs. Simultaneous attacks
Everyone knows that if ships of equal pilot skill are attacking each other, that if a ship dies from the first attack, it stays on the board until its gets an opportunity to attack. The rules say: “After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area.”

The gunner card now says: “After you perform an attack that does not hit, you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack.”

Are these two effects considered simultaneous also? They both have the word immediately. So if Mauler has initiative and attacks and kills Lando, Lando still gets to fire back. He attacks and misses. Is he removed from the game or does he get to use the gunner? Or do you as the player get to decide in which order these two events happen? Basically, is the gunner considered as part of your opportunity to attack.

I can see it both ways. An opportunity to attack can simply mean rolling the attack dice, allowing the defender to modify them, and then you modifying them. Attacking ends at step 3 of the combat phase. Thus, the dead ship could be removed before the defender even rolls his dice. If that is the case, the gunner doesn’t get to happen because, thematically speaking, he isn’t alive to see that he missed. This is different than cluster missiles where the attack is defined at the outset as being two separate attacks, and both need to be completed before the dead ship is removed. Though, I suppose the gunner could interrupt the middle of that attack if he chose. Not sure.


Yes, both attacks since the card text overrules the core rulebook text of removing the model after it has attacked.

Quote:

Next:
Captain Kagi: “When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship if able.”
It is clear to me that if you want to acquire a target lock, and Kagi is within range, then you have to target lock him. However, on the next turn, if I want to take the target lock action again, the FAQ says that I cannot reacquire a target lock on a ship I already have a target lock on, so that means I can now target lock a different ship, right? Kagi’s ability doesn’t say you may only have a target lock him, it says “if able.” Or does Kagi’s ability prevent me from taking the target lock action again?

Or how about the Weapons Engineer? I think it is clear that if you use the Weapons Engineer, that your first target lock has to be on Kagi, but since the rules clearly state that you cannot have 2 target locks on the same ship, the second TL can be on any ship you want. On the next turn I want to take the target lock action again. Assuming that I still have a lock on Kagi, the crew allows me to get 2 new target locks. Since I can’t target lock Kagi a second time, can I acquire 2 target locks and have neither of them be on Kagi?


I believe this is you can target lock him, and since you cannot have two target locks on the same target,you will be able to target lock another ship since you are not able to maintain two target locks.

As for the next round after, yes, I would say you can target lock two different ships since you can keep the Kagi target lock, are unable to acquire a target lock on him again and target lock a different ship with the first lock. The second lock, since you can't target lock Kagi again since you already have a target lock, you may target lock a different ship, ditching the target lock on Kagi since you may only maintain two target locks total.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Test Candidate (sans Deadly Neurotoxin)
badge
Warming up the deadly neurotoxin...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gunner is part of your "opportunity to attack". That is not complete until the gunner has had a chance to function, so I don't see a conflict there.

I would say you could re-target a different target. At that point you are not able to lock him. Likewise with WE's second target. You are not able to target lock him in either case. It's not like it makes his ability worthless. In the first case, it takes two actions to get a lock on the intended target. In the second, with WE you only get one on the target you want.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I think that "its opportunity to attack" basically means its turn in the Combat Phase. This would include resolving any effects which were triggered but had yet to be resolved. A more interesting question would be something like Vader, which is an ability that's activated after the attack rather than being triggered by it. I tend to think the same would apply, that the ship's "opportunity to attack" covers its entire span of the Combat Phase, and it wouldn't be removed until activity passed to the next ship.

Piqsid wrote:
Attacking ends at step 3 of the combat phase. Thus, the dead ship could be removed before the defender even rolls his dice.

This isn't correct, though. "Attack" is all 7 steps, so you're not done attacking until damage has been resolved. This matters, too, because there are attacker abilities that take effect all the way up to damage dealing - Kath in Step 6, Maarek in Step 7, probably others - and if you remove the attacker from play before the end of the attack, those abilities would vanish.

I also agree on Kagi. If you have a lock on him already, through any means, you can't lock him again, so his ability won't apply.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
These are good questions. If you're collecting them, here's another that would be good to have an official statement on, though it's not immediately pressing but may become moreso with future upgrades that permit actions:


While ships can't perform the same action twice in the combat round, what about two "identical" actions from different sources outside the action bar?

As two examples:

Vader has two damaged sensor array critical hits. They each have the "Action:" header. Can Vader use his two actions to try and fix each one? Or is that action considered THE "Damaged Sensor Array" action and limited to once per turn.

Somewhat analogously, but a little different
:

An ORS has two Saboteurs as crew. During its activation it performs the action one the first one. Can a ship with Squad Leader then let it perform the action from the second Saboteur? Or are these considered to be "the same action" because their wording and effect are the same, even though their sources are different?

For actions stemming from upgrade and damage cards (ie, those not found on the Action Bar and defined in the rulebook), it's a little less clear. I suspect the answer to the Damaged Sensor Array question is YES, Vader can try each once while the answer to the latter is probably NO, you can't use two Saboteurs in the same turn. Though, the rulebook doesn't really cover this since when it talks about 'other actions' (not found on the action bar) it just notes that ships can perform actions on their upgrade cards.


So, are you performing "Saboteur A's" action or are you performing THE "Saboteur" action?




Additional bonus question: If a Falcon or Shuttle has two Recon Specialists, will they get three focus tokens when they perform the Focus action? Putting down one additional token satisfies both Recon Specialists instructions, though it could ambiguously be read as you assign it an additional token for each Recon Specialist. Deadeye + Cluster + Recon + Recon for pointlessly over-costed fun?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Pontier
United States
Oak Forest
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:

While ships can't perform the same action twice in the combat round, what about two "identical" actions from different sources outside the action bar?

As two examples:

Vader has two damaged sensor array critical hits. They each have the "Action:" header. Can Vader use his two actions to try and fix each one? Or is that action considered THE "Damaged Sensor Array" action and limited to once per turn.


I think that is very similar to the question: "Can Vader use Expert handling to barrel roll and then also use his action bar to barrel roll, and that has already been answered: "No."

As far as having two recon specialists, I assume that would give you three focus tokens. That crew is not an action, it only gives you a bonus for an action. Just like Soontir's ability will trigger every time you get a stress token. If soontir is attacked by Kath and cancels one critical and receives another and that critical is that you receive a stress token, then you will have gotten 2 stress tokens on that encounter and will receive 2 focus tokens. I don't know why you would want to fly with 2 recons on the falcon, since focus tokens don't help the falcon out that much on the defensive end of things. PTL+Falcon is cheaper and gives you better defense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M.
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Piqsid wrote:
Gunner vs. Simultaneous attacks...

Are these two effects considered simultaneous also?

At worst, you're resolving two immediate effects, so you can choose the order--and of course you'd choose to use the Gunner before removing the ship.

Piqsid wrote:
It is clear to me that if you want to acquire a target lock, and Kagi is within range, then you have to target lock him. However, on the next turn, if I want to take the target lock action again, the FAQ says that I cannot reacquire a target lock on a ship I already have a target lock on, so that means I can now target lock a different ship, right?

Right. You can't acquire a target lock on Kagi because you already have one, so you can acquire one on someone else. (Note that this basically means my opponent has to spend two actions to acquire a target lock on someone other than Kagi, which I'm okay with.)

Piqsid wrote:
Or how about the Weapons Engineer?

I think this also gets around Kagi's ability. You have to lock him first, but once you've already acquired a lock on him you can't acquire another one, so you can target at will.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Piqsid wrote:
RogueThirteen wrote:

While ships can't perform the same action twice in the combat round, what about two "identical" actions from different sources outside the action bar?

As two examples:

Vader has two damaged sensor array critical hits. They each have the "Action:" header. Can Vader use his two actions to try and fix each one? Or is that action considered THE "Damaged Sensor Array" action and limited to once per turn.


I think that is very similar to the question: "Can Vader use Expert handling to barrel roll and then also use his action bar to barrel roll, and that has already been answered: "No."[/b]


I'm sort of inclined to agree that the expert handling case is relevant, except that I draw the exact opposite conclusion. Because it was errata'd specifically to say you perform a free Barrel Roll action (and the Barrel Roll action is a well delineated, defined "rule book" action), that suggests that in its original wording you could do both the action found on expert handling and the Barrel Roll action. That's why it had to be tackled with an errata and not just an FAQ answer. The fact that it was errata'd is important, because it suggests that in the card's original form one could indeed perform two functionally identical versions of a barrel roll through two very different sources. The errata to Expert Handling (like the errata to Daredevil) was made to make a card function as intended, but in both cases the original wording played out very differently--hence the need for errata. This, I think, actually suggests that functionally identical actions from different sources are not necessarily the same action. Otherwise Expert Handling could have been addressed with an FAQ and not with an Errata. Or at least that's how one could interpret the situation.



And here's where it gets tricky. Even being found on a card with the same name doesn't mean something's the same action. The action to attempt to fix a Damaged Sensor array, while it's found on a card with the same name as a second damaged sensor array, actually says something different. Damaged Sensor array says that, if successful, you flip THIS card face down. That's potentially a very relevant little self-referential pronoun, because it means that the text on two damaged sensor arrays are actually different. If five different people say "Punch ME in the face," they are all uttering the same identical words but are saying very different things. One text instructs you to flip Card A face-down, one instructs you to flip Card B face-down. So, technically speaking, if I performed the action on Card A I'd have to flip Card A facedown, not Card B (based on what the card says to do, even though there's absolutely no practical difference in the game).

So there are some little oddities here that I think warrant FFG expounding upon just what makes two actions the "same":

(Original Expert Handling) and Barrel Roll icon: different in name, but have the same function

Damaged Sensor Array and Damaged Sensor Array: same in name, but different functions


Is designer intent that you can't try and fix each sensor array? I dunno. I could see them going either way about it. Is designer intent that you can't use two different saboteur's actions? I dunno, probably, but on the other hand you are spending three points and a crew slot on each one, it's not like you're trying to double-use a single R2-F2 twice or trying to double-perform one of the actually named and defined actions, which is obviously expressly forbidden.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:
And here's where it gets tricky. Even being found on a card with the same name doesn't mean something's the same action. The action to attempt to fix a Damaged Sensor array, while it's found on a card with the same name as a second damaged sensor array, actually says something different. Damaged Sensor array says that, if successful, you flip THIS card face down. That's potentially a very relevant little self-referential pronoun, because it means that the text on two damaged sensor arrays are actually different. If five different people say "Punch ME in the face," they are all uttering the same identical words but are saying very different things. One text instructs you to flip Card A face-down, one instructs you to flip Card B face-down. So, technically speaking, if I performed the action on Card A I'd have to flip Card A facedown, not Card B (based on what the card says to do, even though there's absolutely no practical difference in the game).

Just because the text refers to different elements does not make them different actions. Consider target lock - just because the action can affect two different things does not make it two different actions. If we consider Saboteur to be the same action, a second one doesn't suddenly become a different action because you pick a different target.

The Expert Handling errata was necessary because the barrel roll granted by Expert Handling was not an action, and therefore avoided the duplication. It had nothing to do with the text being identical. There is no such issue here - both cards are actions, they both have identical names (at least to the extent they can be given names) and the text is identical. Just as there is nothing to distinguish a barrel roll action granted by the action bar and a barrel roll action granted by Expert Handling, which makes them the same, there is nothing to distinguish between a Saboteur action taken from one card from a Saboteur action taking from another card. Hence, the same.

But we've already been over all this already, haven't we? Has something changed since the last time you brought this up and didn't like the answers?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Davis
United States
Nebraska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The FAQ already states that you can't Barrel Roll twice using Expert Handling. Page 5, 3rd column.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Buhallin wrote:

But we've already been over all this already, haven't we? Has something changed since the last time you brought this up and didn't like the answers?


You have an axe to grind or something? Jeez. I'm not completely satisfied with the answers previously given because there is still, in my opinion, a lack of explicit clarity within the rules as to what makes something "the same action." Not because I have any desire to make an award-winning power squad that stacks double Damaged Sensor Arrays, believe it or not. As to Saboteur, I don't ever see myself running one, let alone two. Since it costs an action, is limited in Range, fills a valuable upgrade slot, and requires rolling for success it will be relegated to the pile of rarely used cards like R5-D8, Proximity Mine, and R5-K6 (and K6 doesn't even require a separate action). Nevertheless, as we continue to see future upgrade cards that are non-unique and provide actions, I'd like the rules to tell us what makes something the same action for all those cases of actions that are unnamed and undefined.


I thought Piqsid was tossing out and collecting more standing questions regarding the rules as yet unclarified by the most recent FAQ, and I was adding additional ones to the list that I felt warranted inclusion. Perhaps I read too much into the "more questions" title.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
No axe to grind. I just wasn't sure what the point was of bringing it back up again. We didn't have any new information to affect anyone's beliefs, nothing anyone said before did anything to convince you, so there didn't seem to be any point in going around the same issue, with the same arguments, all over again.

I don't think compiling a question list was Piqsid's point, but if it was then by all means, feel free to toss it on the pile so we can glare at it for the next six months while we wait for the next FAQ.

(And just in case, that's ongoing annoyance directed at FFG, not you)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M.
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:
As to Saboteur, I don't ever see myself running one, let alone two. Since it costs an action, is limited in Range, fills a valuable upgrade slot, and requires rolling for success it will be relegated to the pile of rarely used cards...

I actually like the analogy to Expose: the devs seem to occasionally forget just how good Focus and Target Lock are. Anything that costs an action has to be evaluated against the other things you could do with that action, and with Saboteur in particular, it has to be evaluated against the value of Focus/TL to an attack at Range 1.

If Saboteur said "ACTION: Look at all the damage cards on a ship, flip it face up, and resolve it", I'd seriously consider using it. But as it stands, it's not even interesting.

RogueThirteen wrote:
I'd like the rules to tell us what makes something the same action for all those cases of actions that are unnamed and undefined.


I'm of the opinion that there's already an answer in the rules, but it's the sort of thing that could certainly cause confusion at the table--and on that basis, it definitely should go in the list of still-unanswered questions for the FAQ.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For the target lock and Kagi,
I believe that you can only have a limited number of target locks in place, normally 1 (possibly modified by upgrades)
which would mean that to reacquire a target lock, you have to lose the existing one and then you are again 'able'/forced to reacquire Kagi as its no longer "already acquired"

if you can have multiple locks, at least 1 lock thus needs to stay on Kagi.

otherwise you would have 2 target locks during a brief moment which doesnt sound correct.
it all depends on how the timing of acquiring new lock/losing existing lock is handled.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Angelsenior wrote:
For the target lock and Kagi,
I believe that you can only have a limited number of target locks in place, normally 1 (possibly modified by upgrades)
which would mean that to reacquire a target lock, you have to lose the existing one and then you are again 'able'/forced to reacquire Kagi as its no longer "already acquired"

if you can have multiple locks, at least 1 lock thus needs to stay on Kagi.

otherwise you would have 2 target locks during a brief moment which doesnt sound correct.
it all depends on how the timing of acquiring new lock/losing existing lock is handled.

The FAQ says that you can't acquire a lock on a ship you already have a lock on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.