Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

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

Subject: Kagi vs Fire Control System rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Lando
msg tools
When using Captain Kagi against a ship that has a Fire Control System, does the lock go to Kagi or to the defender? I would think defender, but I am not sure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Dunford
Canada
Kemptville
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nimdabew wrote:
When using Captain Kagi against a ship that has a Fire Control System, does the lock go to Kagi or to the defender? I would think defender, but I am not sure.


Reading the two cards, it sounds to me like Kagi redirects the target lock onto himself. Kagi doesn't seem to care how you are getting a target lock; he simply says "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship if able." (emphasis mine)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M.
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
iNano78 wrote:
Reading the two cards, it sounds to me like Kagi redirects the target lock onto himself. Kagi doesn't seem to care how you are getting a target lock; he simply says "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship if able." (emphasis mine)

FCS specifies a particular target for the free target lock, which (unless you attacked Kagi) can't be Captain Kagi.

I've considered a few possible ways to resolve that, but I think the most straightforward is that the FCS target requirement lands in the middle of the "if able" clause, and the FCS simply bypasses Kagi. That is, because the FCS specifically tells you who you have to lock on to, you're unable to lock onto Kagi.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Huhtala
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gotta love the need for a FAQ for a wave that isn't even out yet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M.
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Brian1981 wrote:
Gotta love the need for a FAQ for a wave that isn't even out yet.


Oh, that's nothing new. We've needed a FAQ for Wave 2 since December...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This really doesn't seem like an FAQ-worthy question.

You have to lock Kagi if you're able to. Can the FCS lock Kagi if you don't attack him? No. So you aren't able to, and don't have to lock him.

I'm all on board with the need for an updated FAQ, and we do already have some questions that I don't think we can resolve without FFG's input, such as the Fettigator. But there seems to be this major trend lately that any question that anyone might ask gets a "Why don't we have an FAQ?!?!"

At some point, we as players have to be capable of reading the cards and figuring out how they work. There really isn't any part of Kagi that's unclear - it might prompt a question, but I don't think there's really any other interpretation for it. We should be able to answer this one ourselves and move on without running to FFG for it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M.
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Buhallin wrote:
This really doesn't seem like an FAQ-worthy question.

You have to lock Kagi if you're able to. Can the FCS lock Kagi if you don't attack him? No. So you aren't able to, and don't have to lock him.

I'm all on board with the need for an updated FAQ, and we do already have some questions that I don't think we can resolve without FFG's input, such as the Fettigator. But there seems to be this major trend lately that any question that anyone might ask gets a "Why don't we have an FAQ?!?!"

At some point, we as players have to be capable of reading the cards and figuring out how they work. There really isn't any part of Kagi that's unclear - it might prompt a question, but I don't think there's really any other interpretation for it. We should be able to answer this one ourselves and move on without running to FFG for it.


I think there are two problems that are leading to what you're describing--an increasing frequency of requests for FAQ entries.

The first is that as I'm sure you're aware, a geometric increase in the number of rules elements in the game leads to an approximately exponential increase in the number of interactions between those little packets of rules. So there are just genuinely more interactions, and some of those will be confusing.

But there also decreasing level of trust in FFG's rules, at least as far as I can tell. I'm willing to ascribe this to their delay in releasing any official, broadly disseminated clarifications, in combination with individual/unofficial ones; it creates a situation where everyone begins to take for granted that the rules are murky everywhere, despite the fact that most interactions work just fine.

Anyway, you and I have previously discussed the fact that the last FAQ update neglected to address whether an R2 Astromech works for maneuvers outside the normal assignment framework, or what is actually meant by "make an attack", but did address the burning question of whether ion cannons bypass shields. So clearly I completely agree with you that there are some issues that simply don't need to be FAQed because they're really straightforward--but it's worth considering that addressing the genuinely confusing issues in a timely manner is the way to reduce all of the complaints that are starting to crop up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Vorpal Sword wrote:
So clearly I completely agree with you that there are some issues that simply don't need to be FAQed because they're really straightforward--but it's worth considering that addressing the genuinely confusing issues in a timely manner is the way to reduce all of the complaints that are starting to crop up.

I agree with this completely - believe me, I want clarifications as much as anyone.

But I don't think it's helpful to turn EVERYTHING into an FAQ issue. "How many dice does an Ion Cannon Turret roll at range 1?" should not be met with responses of "Goddamnit FFG, where's our FAQ?!?!"

Mostly just hoping to call for a bit of calm. We're all frustrated by some of the decisions FFG has made regarding support for this game, or lack thereof. That doesn't mean we should lose perspective on what we actually don't know.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Huhtala
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just a joke. Calm down.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Wilson
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Brian1981 wrote:
Just a joke. Calm down.


The rules forum is no place for a joke, sir.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Creed Buhallin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Didn't mean to pick on you, Brian - it was more a general comment.

I think it's easy to get wrapped around the few things we don't know, and the annoyance over FFG's decision to delay the FAQ, and forget that overall the game works pretty well. The few unknowns we do have are typically corner cases or not even released yet.

Just saying that the "Everything needs FAQ" is becoming a common - and, IMHO, unfounded - refrain around here of late.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MÃ¥rten Cederholm
Sweden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A little bump.
Latest FAQ

Q: If a ship acquires a target lock by using
Fire-Control System, and that ship is within
range of Captain Kagi, is the locking ship
required to lock onto Captain Kagi?

A: No. The target lock granted by Fire-Control System
must be acquired on the defender. If the attacker
acquires an additional target lock, such as from
Weapons Engineer, that target lock must be
acquired on Captain Kagi if possible.
1 
 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.