The removal of the "may" in Norra's ability can help that player in one way. If you forget a "may" ability it's a missed opportunity once you've signalled that you're done modifying the defence dice. With the removal of "may", forgetting it creates an illegal game state and therefore the opponent must recognise the additional evade result (if still possible). For a forgetful player like me this stuff can help. :)
Not a point I'd considered either, but then I tend to run internally complicated lists. I really like to make my opponent go "WTF" when I tell him what I'm flying.
I think it is actually really important the distinction between Stack and Queue. Queue is first in first out; Stack is first in last out. Which means knowledge of how the stack works may help understanding Xwing queue but its interactions are TOTALLY and completely different than anything going on in magic. In a queue we have a domino effect the first event triggers the following events. In the rules it is important the queue is created and then resolved in its order with a specific priority. And once the order of the queue is established it is not upset. (This is quite the opposite of magic as any blue/storm player knows) To clarify again Xwing is not a stack something totally different is happening. when a triggering event occurs the player with initiative (not the player won the bid the player given first rock placement) puts all of their events in the queue in an order of their choosing. Then the non initiative player's events all go in an order of their choosing after. Once this is done the queue is resolved in that declared order. However, if a branching trigger is discovered that branch is moved to the first spot in the queue then we proceed as normal. Then we can return to the main event queue and resolve it to completion. EXAMPLE: imagine we have four events occurring at the same time. Two from a Rebel first player and two from the Scum second player. The queue would be established 1R, 2R, 1S, 2S because players place their triggers in the stack by player order. We then begin to resolve the queue in that order. However, the first rebel event causes a discovered trigger from the scum player a 5th event. This is moved to the front of the queue and performed before we can continue. So the queue at this point would now be 3S, 2R, 1S, 2S. So if this resolved with no more triggers the order of events would have been 1R, 3S, 2R, 1S, 2S. *(this kind of awful queue could actually happen if a bomb destroys multiple ships carrying dead man's switches causing chain ship destruction and sometimes the order of that destruction may have ramifications).
Edit: after reading the RR again I don't think that failing a Lock is as easy as you say, in the subsection under the "Lock" heading it says: "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." Now nowhere does it say that choosing an object at range 0-3 is optional, which should be taken to mean that you MUST choose an object to lock if there is a legal one available if we're going by a strict reading of the rules. Further down, under "additionally" it states that "While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen." The only way this could possibly happen while adhering to steps 1-3 above would be if there are no other objects at range 0-3, which is extremely unlikely to happen in an average game. Extrapolating for Corran it would mean it can only fail if there are no other objects at range 0 or 2-infinity. This strict reading would make it virtually impossible for Corran to fail a Lock, unless all enemy ships AND all friendly ships AND all obstacles remaining are at range one of him.
I hope you're right, but I don't think its worded in the clearest way to indicate you must take a lock if you can. The wording "if not lock is chosen" is very suspect. Surely "if not object can be locked" would be a far clearer way to indicate that there is no option. I can't really see why they would choose to word it as such if it wasn't an option. Also, this doesn't really fix the issue with composure, as there are several ways to abuse it. I merely named the most broken one I could think of. Linked Barrel Rolls could, for example be very nasty.
As you say in an earlier video Nick. Just read the card (or the rules) and do not try to understand the designer point of view. It just say "chose", not "may chose". It is explained that all abililities must be used unless it is labeled "may". Current wording is sufficient to say you must chose an object. Anyway I learned something with this point, failing a lock is hard.
@@HairyNick I'm sure FFG will update the Rules Reference to make it more clear, but in the meantime the wording is sufficient to indicate that you must lock an object if able.
@@HairyNick Also, to your last point about failing linked barrel rolls (and boosts), the only ships that can link into those actions have to focus first in the link chain, meaning composure can't trigger because they already performed the focus action; so the "broken" combo does not exist in that regard. The only ships that could take advantage of it would be the TIE Interceptor and the A-Wing using their ship abilities, which doesn't seem very broken at all to me, given those ships' stat lines.
@@HairyNick From the Rules Reference: "The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” =》Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory,《= the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect" So, even though it does not specifically say that you "must" Lock an object, it is mandatory that you do so.
In the preview for the Scum Falcon, FFG specifically say that Qi'Ra and Han Solo work together. From the FFG article "Got It Where It Counts" (25 June 2018), it is stated: "Qi'ra in particular syncs well with Han Solo’s pilot ability. [...] Together, they let you fly right through any obstacles you're locking and gain the extra die from Han's ability when firing through those same obstacles-without also granting an extra defense die to your target." This indicates that Qi'Ra lets the attacker ignore all the negative things (like shooting on rocks, or granting the defender extra dice) while still granting Han Solo his extra attack dice. I know that this quote only comes from a preview, and is not an official rules reference, but when it's a quote from FFG's own website, it seems that's the way they always intended for it to work.
Thank you so much for elaborating on the veteran turret gunner. I have been wondering about that and man it would be such a great flavour match if you can double shoot out of the front with Y-wings.
Fair. I still find it curious its been key-worded. It seems like a deliberate attempt to leave the door open for future design, otherwise why not just explain the situation in the rules?
I have a question that im not sure has been adressed gor a build i have submitted. On a lambda i added Director Krenic which gives you the target action and Grand Moff Tarkin, which requires a target ... i know in 1.0 you can have Autothrusters if you put engive upgrade, does that logic transfer over to 2.0? Heres the list just the list just in case. (200) pts Lieutenant Sai (47) Director Krennic (5) Grand Moff Tarkin (10) ST-321 (6) Total: 68 Zertik Strom (45) Fire-Control System (3) Proton rockets (7) Afterburners (8) Total:63 Maarek Stele (50) Crack Shot (1) Fire-Control System (3) Proton Rockets (7) Afterburners (8) Total:69
Another version would be more like Tarkin aces". Lt sai work great with intercepters. If you coordinate a focuse to soontir fel, he can do a red barrel roll because of auto thrusters, then perform a "blue" movement and you can evade and do a red boost. Not to mention the title of the lamda will give lt sai a target lock and tarkin giving the vader and soontir a target lock. Your most likely gonna be rolling modded dice like crazy. Lieutenant Sai - Lambda-Class Shuttle 47 Fire-Control System 3 Director Krennic 5 Grand Moff Tarkin 10 ST-321 6 Ship Total: 71 Darth Vader - TIE Advanced 70 Fire-Control System 3 Ship Total: 73 Soontir Fel - TIE Interceptor 52 Juke 4 Ship Total: 56 Enjoy Justin, Long Live The Empire!!
The Qi'ra Obstruction question also applies to ships using collision detector. By my reading I think obstruction bonus still applies, but it definitely needs clarification.
1. Flanking: If a ship is flanking it is neither specifically in front of nor behind the ship it is flanking, so effects that require either would not trigger I suspect. 2. 7:15 The Vet turret gunner. Check the Turret Arcs section of the Rules Reference (pg 4), it should help a bit. 3. Cloaking on a Renegade U-Wing: +2 agility while cloaked, able to perform any action other than cloak while cloaked, cannot attack. Partisan Renegade with cloaking device and Tac Officer is agility 4 with a white coordinate action for 50 pts. 1/4th a list, but I can see its utility (if the cloak holds up) :) Also, cloaked ships can launch devices (dropping/launching a device isn't an attack so disarm tokens don't cover it). 4. 11:14 "Deathfire"'s (why the hell does that name have quotes around it?) ability triggers when they would be removed, so the device there is possibly dropped/launched outside the system phase, you also have Genius scum side. :)
Makes this evilly useable: Drea Renthal - Y-Wing 40 Expert Handling * Dorsal Turret 4 Skilled Bombardier 2 R4 Astromech 2 Proton Bombs 5 Cloaking Device 5 Stealth Device * Ship Total: 64 The Dorsal turret for arc expansion on her ability. Keeping it cheap to free up more for the rest of the squadron. :)
Under the “Arc” section: “The turret arc indicator points toward one of ship’s four standard arcs. The standard arc that the turret arc indicator is pointing toward is a [single turret] in addition to still being a standard arc. While a ship performs a [single turret] attack, it can attack a target that is in its [single turret] arc.” I think that clarifies that veteran turret gunner will not work if your turret is pointing towards the front arc since you already fired out of the turret arc. It doesn’t matter that you used a primary weapon and not a turret weapon - the arc you fired from is both a front arc and a turret arc.
Here's a question in relation to this part of the rules: "During an attack, the attack arc is the arc that corresponds to the weapon the attacker is using. During the Declare Defender step, the opposing ship needs to be in the attack arc." So has it been clarified that abilities like the ones on the Fang Fighter, which just list a picture of a forward arc, will that ability trigger from a turret? In other words, is the ability specifically triggered by forward facing arcs only? Or does the firing arc picture just indicate "your opponent's arc" which would then correspond to the weapon being used, as per the above statement?
The wedge symbol used on the Fang Fighters ship ability refers to the physical arc on the cardboard templates, and not necessarily the arc which your opponent is firing from. If it were whatever arc they were firing, it would use the term "attack arc".
Hmm. I think Corran cannot even attempt a Range 1 target lock because it is prohibited and thus never has the opportunity to fail. How do you fail to do something that is illegal to do? You just don't and cannot do it. To me, you can only fail an action that was legal for you to attempt to make in the first place. It is not legal for Corran to attempt a range 1 target lock.
But it's still legal for Corran to attempt a target lock and then to choose not to lock onto anything. It's an edge case by any stretch of the imagination, but it is possible. Given the cost of eating your EPT slot, it's a pricey option, but if you have to reposition to have a shot at all, using this to reposition and then have a focus is better than repositioning and then rolling naked dice.
@@michaelriley1118 That's not how the lock action works in 2nd edition. You start by declaring the lock action, then measuring range to objects (in this case you'd just measure to range 1 to see what objects can't be locked) and select an object in range and give it a lock token. You don't start out by declaring what object you're locking like in 1st ed, so no it would not be an "illegal" action.
Did you ever get round to watching MTG Goldfish? Seth (the guy who does %90 of the videos) said that "the problem with me playing Magic, is the amount of fun I have, is directly related to the amount of fun my opponent isn't having". I think you'd like this guy...
Seems the flanking bit was going to be a key word for Graz the hunter with his new ability. They probably decided to not use it as a key word on ships but rather add it as a phrase for players to use.
There is no way to fail a target lock on purpose. There is no may, you must target lock something. The clause that says the action fails if you don’t choose an object is only if you can’t. “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.”
Hmmm I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. There is no "may", but neither is there a "must". The next point "if no x is chosen" is what really solidifies this for me, as the clear wording of "if no x can be chosen" would be far more appropriate if it was designed that intentional failure wasn't an option.
Daniel Wochnick, there is some debate about “While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen.” That implies a voluntary action. Think about this scenario, if there are no enemy ships in Lock range, are you forced to Lock a friendly or an object?
For one you cannot elect to fail a Lock action and it is nigh impossible to fail under normal conditions (see other comments for explanation). And the other reason is that the only ship (TIE Advanced) that can take a linked action into a reposition (the only other actions that can fail) has to focus first in the linked action chain, meaning composure cannot trigger since the ship has already taken the focus action that turn.
A wings and TIE interceptors could potentially use composure if they fail the action from their ship abilities; but this is distinct from linked actions, & given those ships' stat lines I don't see it as being a particularly broken combo, especially since using composure would prohibit any kind of token stacking (you can't use it if you have any green tokens).
On the linked action text you highlighted. How does it work with adv sensor card? Is this clarified? I expect adv will not allow you to take the linked action but that seems to contradict the highlighted text. Thx.
Hmmm I'd say Adv sensors can't give you linked actions. I can't really see why it would be worded "1 action" as opposed to "an action" if that were the case. But agreed, clarification would be good in that instance.
When medium and large ships decloak do they use the wide or narrow side of the template. Everyone I've asked says it's the wide side based on the rules for ship sizes that state, medium and large ships barrel roll differently (including while decloaking). I still don't think it's clear
I have a specific question about Jyn (one of my favorite characters in star wars and I think a reeeeally promising card) and her interaction with linked actions. Let's assume we put her on a support ship and fill the rest of the list with b wings (a great concept I reckon and also one might put leia on the support ship, too). Could the b wings then get an evade token for their focus action and then link it into barrel roll? Jyn, if understand it correctly, only changes the token, not the action.... So TECHNICALLY the b wing would still link a focus into a barrel roll.... Right? What do you think, nick?
Doesn't "flanking" also have a function even if no card or pilot ever directly revers to it? If ship X or card X wants a ship - let's call it ship Y - to be "in front of" or "behind" then the effect doesn't trigger if ship Y is "flanking", right? Let's assume that a future Resistance pilot gets a buff for friendly ships being "behind" him or her (the ability could read something like "reroll a die for each friendly ship behind you at range 0-1" - very show-offy, very Resistance) then you would have to be very carful that your friendly ships are not actually "flanking" you, because then your pilot ability would not trigger.
When a ship is flanking it's neither infront or behind the other ship. So it blanks out reinforce and any other ability that cares about those states. What I'm curious about is the fact that FFG specifically key-worded it and didn't just explain the scenario in the rules.
A lot of people are going to get confused if you compare this to the stack in Magic because the stack in Magic is resolved first-in,last-out, and it looks like this system is a first-in,first-out. I'm guessing a lot of people are going to be doing this wrong now.
No not yet, sadly. Wave 2 is Resistance and First Order, Wave 3 (probably) is Republic and CIS. Hopefully we wont have to wait too long, but it looks like FFG are populating the core game first up.
About Coran Horn. If its something you cannot do are you failing that action? How can you fail at what you're unable to do? It's like saying you're going to barrel roll with a ship that doesnt have the barrel roll action. Or am I misunderstanding?
The wording on target locking is a tad ambiguous, and in my opinion is worded in such a way that leaves the door open to the player being able to elect to fail the action when attempting. "4. if no object is chosen" is particularly suspect. In any case, this is just one example I was able to refer to. Intentionally failing actions seems very easy to manufacture, especially when talking about barrel rolls or boosts.
@@HairyNick You mention failing a linked boost or barrel roll to trigger composure to get a stress free focus; but I don't think you stopped to realize that no ship can do that
E-wing says you cannot acquire TL at range one, you don't fail action, you can't even use that action, so scary combo with composure described here is invalid.
But sometimes you have to measure to see if the ship is range 1 or 2. If they're at range 1, it would fail. If you're a cheeky E-wing pilot, you can boost/barrel roll and "attempt" to lock something nearby for a focus. I don't think that's all that crazy except that it doesn't give you stress, as Nick was pointing out. Even then, cost of a talent slot might be high. Don't know if its *that* good
That's not how locking works in 2e. You declare a lock action, then measure to anything and everything, then choose an object to lock. The question is whether or not you can choose to fail a lock (i.e. elect to fail despite having at least 1 legal option for a lock); this is somewhat unclear
@@MauiWayfinder It's actually abundantly clear that you cannot choose to fail a lock action, reference: "Use of 'May,' 'Can,' and 'Must'" on pg 2 of the RRG.
I wouldn't call it "abundantly clear." My interpretation is the same is yours (you cannot opt to fail a lock if there is a valid target) but it's not 100% clear that this is the case because of the phrasing ("it fails if no object is chosen" as opposed to "it fails if there is no object in range")
I say no to composure into another action is invalid the card does not say you can continue your linked action it only says you may perform a focus action and only a focus action nothing else sorry. But what you can do is use afterburner to perform a free boost action and fail it then you may take a focus and since that was a free action you may then target lock for your action that's a legal move.
So yea, Composure. I know I brought this up 'way back' when FFG released the point costs documents and we first saw the card listed in there. And I spoke about how it could be used to PtL without the stress by linking into a barrel or boost that is purposely failed. At that time the RRG of course did not exist, so did not discuss linking into locks since general thought at the time required no viable objects in locking range in order for a lock to fail. I did read the RRG shortly after it released... but did not revisit this Composure issue. Given what we know now about how locks fail (by simply not choosing something), this makes triggering Composure far, far easier than trying to fail a boost or barrel. FFG will have to look at this very closely, if not already... and perhaps we see Composure get the 'Luke gunner' treatment where it is costed very high. But presently at 2 pts it is a very potent card on ships that have particular linked combos, such as the E-wing. Possibly an auto-include on those ships?
You cannot choose to target lock nothing. You have to choose an object unless you can’t. There is no may. Period. If you can find yourself in a position out of range of all ships and obstacles, and still have a shot this round, props to you and you should get a free focus.
@@jacen6386 But you left out the three step instructions above the "additionally" clause you quoted where you are instructed to assign a lock token to an object at range 0-3. The lack of the word "may" here means that it is a mandatory instruction; therefore, the clause you referenced can only exist to cover the extreme edge cases where there are no objects in range to lock.
"And I spoke about how it could be used to PtL without the stress by linking into a barrel or boost that is purposely failed." Except there's only one ship in the game that can linked action into a boost or barrel roll, and it has to focus first in the chain; therefore, the broken combo you describe doesn't exist in the game.
The removal of the "may" in Norra's ability can help that player in one way. If you forget a "may" ability it's a missed opportunity once you've signalled that you're done modifying the defence dice. With the removal of "may", forgetting it creates an illegal game state and therefore the opponent must recognise the additional evade result (if still possible). For a forgetful player like me this stuff can help. :)
Very good point!
Not a point I'd considered either, but then I tend to run internally complicated lists. I really like to make my opponent go "WTF" when I tell him what I'm flying.
I think it is actually really important the distinction between Stack and Queue. Queue is first in first out; Stack is first in last out. Which means knowledge of how the stack works may help understanding Xwing queue but its interactions are TOTALLY and completely different than anything going on in magic.
In a queue we have a domino effect the first event triggers the following events. In the rules it is important the queue is created and then resolved in its order with a specific priority. And once the order of the queue is established it is not upset. (This is quite the opposite of magic as any blue/storm player knows)
To clarify again Xwing is not a stack something totally different is happening. when a triggering event occurs the player with initiative (not the player won the bid the player given first rock placement) puts all of their events in the queue in an order of their choosing. Then the non initiative player's events all go in an order of their choosing after. Once this is done the queue is resolved in that declared order. However, if a branching trigger is discovered that branch is moved to the first spot in the queue then we proceed as normal. Then we can return to the main event queue and resolve it to completion.
EXAMPLE: imagine we have four events occurring at the same time. Two from a Rebel first player and two from the Scum second player. The queue would be established 1R, 2R, 1S, 2S because players place their triggers in the stack by player order. We then begin to resolve the queue in that order. However, the first rebel event causes a discovered trigger from the scum player a 5th event. This is moved to the front of the queue and performed before we can continue. So the queue at this point would now be 3S, 2R, 1S, 2S. So if this resolved with no more triggers the order of events would have been 1R, 3S, 2R, 1S, 2S. *(this kind of awful queue could actually happen if a bomb destroys multiple ships carrying dead man's switches causing chain ship destruction and sometimes the order of that destruction may have ramifications).
Edit: after reading the RR again I don't think that failing a Lock is as easy as you say, in the subsection under the "Lock" heading it says:
"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."
Now nowhere does it say that choosing an object at range 0-3 is optional, which should be taken to mean that you MUST choose an object to lock if there is a legal one available if we're going by a strict reading of the rules.
Further down, under "additionally" it states that "While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen." The only way this could possibly happen while adhering to steps 1-3 above would be if there are no other objects at range 0-3, which is extremely unlikely to happen in an average game.
Extrapolating for Corran it would mean it can only fail if there are no other objects at range 0 or 2-infinity. This strict reading would make it virtually impossible for Corran to fail a Lock, unless all enemy ships AND all friendly ships AND all obstacles remaining are at range one of him.
I hope you're right, but I don't think its worded in the clearest way to indicate you must take a lock if you can.
The wording "if not lock is chosen" is very suspect. Surely "if not object can be locked" would be a far clearer way to indicate that there is no option. I can't really see why they would choose to word it as such if it wasn't an option.
Also, this doesn't really fix the issue with composure, as there are several ways to abuse it. I merely named the most broken one I could think of. Linked Barrel Rolls could, for example be very nasty.
As you say in an earlier video Nick. Just read the card (or the rules) and do not try to understand the designer point of view. It just say "chose", not "may chose". It is explained that all abililities must be used unless it is labeled "may". Current wording is sufficient to say you must chose an object. Anyway I learned something with this point, failing a lock is hard.
@@HairyNick I'm sure FFG will update the Rules Reference to make it more clear, but in the meantime the wording is sufficient to indicate that you must lock an object if able.
@@HairyNick Also, to your last point about failing linked barrel rolls (and boosts), the only ships that can link into those actions have to focus first in the link chain, meaning composure can't trigger because they already performed the focus action; so the "broken" combo does not exist in that regard. The only ships that could take advantage of it would be the TIE Interceptor and the A-Wing using their ship abilities, which doesn't seem very broken at all to me, given those ships' stat lines.
@@HairyNick
From the Rules Reference:
"The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” =》Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory,《= the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect"
So, even though it does not specifically say that you "must" Lock an object, it is mandatory that you do so.
In the preview for the Scum Falcon, FFG specifically say that Qi'Ra and Han Solo work together. From the FFG article "Got It Where It Counts" (25 June 2018), it is stated: "Qi'ra in particular syncs well with Han Solo’s pilot ability. [...] Together, they let you fly right through any obstacles you're locking and gain the extra die from Han's ability when firing through those same obstacles-without also granting an extra defense die to your target."
This indicates that Qi'Ra lets the attacker ignore all the negative things (like shooting on rocks, or granting the defender extra dice) while still granting Han Solo his extra attack dice. I know that this quote only comes from a preview, and is not an official rules reference, but when it's a quote from FFG's own website, it seems that's the way they always intended for it to work.
Yup too true, but unfortunately FFG has made errors like this in the past and not properly communicated with the teams that write the articles. :/
Thank you so much for elaborating on the veteran turret gunner. I have been wondering about that and man it would be such a great flavour match if you can double shoot out of the front with Y-wings.
The flanking is important for reinforce, as the ship has to be wholly within either the front or back, reinforce doesn't work against a flanking ship
Fair. I still find it curious its been key-worded. It seems like a deliberate attempt to leave the door open for future design, otherwise why not just explain the situation in the rules?
Hairy Nick, might be a bit of both. Explains the situation with Reinforce, but leaves a door open for further ideas.
I have a question that im not sure has been adressed gor a build i have submitted. On a lambda i added Director Krenic which gives you the target action and Grand Moff Tarkin, which requires a target ... i know in 1.0 you can have Autothrusters if you put engive upgrade, does that logic transfer over to 2.0?
Heres the list just the list just in case.
(200) pts
Lieutenant Sai (47)
Director Krennic (5)
Grand Moff Tarkin (10)
ST-321 (6)
Total: 68
Zertik Strom (45)
Fire-Control System (3)
Proton rockets (7)
Afterburners (8)
Total:63
Maarek Stele (50)
Crack Shot (1)
Fire-Control System (3)
Proton Rockets (7)
Afterburners (8)
Total:69
That should be fine. :) There is currently nothing to indicate that rule has changed.
Another version would be more like Tarkin aces". Lt sai work great with intercepters. If you coordinate a focuse to soontir fel, he can do a red barrel roll because of auto thrusters, then perform a "blue" movement and you can evade and do a red boost. Not to mention the title of the lamda will give lt sai a target lock and tarkin giving the vader and soontir a target lock. Your most likely gonna be rolling modded dice like crazy.
Lieutenant Sai - Lambda-Class Shuttle 47
Fire-Control System 3
Director Krennic 5
Grand Moff Tarkin 10
ST-321 6
Ship Total: 71
Darth Vader - TIE Advanced 70
Fire-Control System 3
Ship Total: 73
Soontir Fel - TIE Interceptor 52
Juke 4
Ship Total: 56
Enjoy Justin, Long Live The Empire!!
The Qi'ra Obstruction question also applies to ships using collision detector. By my reading I think obstruction bonus still applies, but it definitely needs clarification.
1. Flanking: If a ship is flanking it is neither specifically in front of nor behind the ship it is flanking, so effects that require either would not trigger I suspect.
2. 7:15 The Vet turret gunner. Check the Turret Arcs section of the Rules Reference (pg 4), it should help a bit.
3. Cloaking on a Renegade U-Wing: +2 agility while cloaked, able to perform any action other than cloak while cloaked, cannot attack. Partisan Renegade with cloaking device and Tac Officer is agility 4 with a white coordinate action for 50 pts. 1/4th a list, but I can see its utility (if the cloak holds up) :) Also, cloaked ships can launch devices (dropping/launching a device isn't an attack so disarm tokens don't cover it).
4. 11:14 "Deathfire"'s (why the hell does that name have quotes around it?) ability triggers when they would be removed, so the device there is possibly dropped/launched outside the system phase, you also have Genius scum side. :)
I believe it says cloaked ships cannot drop or launch devices.
During the phase that it decloaks. Pg 8 of the rules reference. Really only benefits Scum Y-Wings and HWK-290s, but cloaked bombing is possible. :)
Makes this evilly useable:
Drea Renthal - Y-Wing 40
Expert Handling *
Dorsal Turret 4
Skilled Bombardier 2
R4 Astromech 2
Proton Bombs 5
Cloaking Device 5
Stealth Device *
Ship Total: 64
The Dorsal turret for arc expansion on her ability. Keeping it cheap to free up more for the rest of the squadron. :)
Under the “Arc” section:
“The turret arc indicator points toward one of ship’s four standard arcs. The standard arc that the turret arc indicator is pointing toward is a [single turret] in addition to still being a standard arc. While a ship performs a [single turret] attack, it can attack a target that is in its [single turret] arc.”
I think that clarifies that veteran turret gunner will not work if your turret is pointing towards the front arc since you already fired out of the turret arc. It doesn’t matter that you used a primary weapon and not a turret weapon - the arc you fired from is both a front arc and a turret arc.
Ahhh that's a shame. Thanks for spotting that.
Device is an upgrade type. Cargo Chute is an Illicit, not a Device
If I have a Lock, then fo the Lock action, but choose notarget, does that break your old Lock?
Hmmm.. I would assume not.
I believe Flanking is referenced by the Reinforce action.
Not by name but in effect by reinforce excluding ships that over lap front and rear sections from the reinforce effect.
the ** on limited card could be for something like attani mindlink, so they don't have to put in wording the limit 2 per squad
Here's a question in relation to this part of the rules:
"During an attack, the attack arc is the arc that corresponds to the weapon the attacker is using. During the Declare Defender step, the opposing ship needs to be in the attack arc."
So has it been clarified that abilities like the ones on the Fang Fighter, which just list a picture of a forward arc, will that ability trigger from a turret? In other words, is the ability specifically triggered by forward facing arcs only? Or does the firing arc picture just indicate "your opponent's arc" which would then correspond to the weapon being used, as per the above statement?
The wedge symbol used on the Fang Fighters ship ability refers to the physical arc on the cardboard templates, and not necessarily the arc which your opponent is firing from. If it were whatever arc they were firing, it would use the term "attack arc".
Ok, I didn't see that specifically mentioned so I wasn't sure how it worked. I may have overlooked it though, thanks
Pretty sure the composure combo is just FFG trying to guarantee Nathan Eide a win at the next World's ;)
Hmm. I think Corran cannot even attempt a Range 1 target lock because it is prohibited and thus never has the opportunity to fail. How do you fail to do something that is illegal to do? You just don't and cannot do it. To me, you can only fail an action that was legal for you to attempt to make in the first place. It is not legal for Corran to attempt a range 1 target lock.
But it's still legal for Corran to attempt a target lock and then to choose not to lock onto anything. It's an edge case by any stretch of the imagination, but it is possible. Given the cost of eating your EPT slot, it's a pricey option, but if you have to reposition to have a shot at all, using this to reposition and then have a focus is better than repositioning and then rolling naked dice.
@@michaelriley1118 That's not how the lock action works in 2nd edition. You start by declaring the lock action, then measuring range to objects (in this case you'd just measure to range 1 to see what objects can't be locked) and select an object in range and give it a lock token. You don't start out by declaring what object you're locking like in 1st ed, so no it would not be an "illegal" action.
Nick! your giving away my v2 list plans!
Corran Boosting to R1 and choosing to fail his lock for a focus gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling
Did you ever get round to watching MTG Goldfish? Seth (the guy who does %90 of the videos) said that "the problem with me playing Magic, is the amount of fun I have, is directly related to the amount of fun my opponent isn't having". I think you'd like this guy...
@@HairyNick yep that's where I got my modern deck 😎
jack farrel is also broken with composure because he can stack multiple tokens by failing his red boost.
I do not believe that his ability will trigger when he fails the action, nor would he be allowed to take 2 focus actions a turn anyway.
Seems the flanking bit was going to be a key word for Graz the hunter with his new ability. They probably decided to not use it as a key word on ships but rather add it as a phrase for players to use.
There is no way to fail a target lock on purpose. There is no may, you must target lock something. The clause that says the action fails if you don’t choose an object is only if you can’t. “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.”
Hmmm I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there.
There is no "may", but neither is there a "must". The next point "if no x is chosen" is what really solidifies this for me, as the clear wording of "if no x can be chosen" would be far more appropriate if it was designed that intentional failure wasn't an option.
I’m thinking they intended to prevent forcing a lock on a friendly or an object by allowing you to say none.
There is nowhere it says you can choose no object
Daniel Wochnick, there is some debate about “While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen.” That implies a voluntary action. Think about this scenario, if there are no enemy ships in Lock range, are you forced to Lock a friendly or an object?
Donovan Willett Yeah that’s what I’m saying
Ghost with "old" shuttle, turret and VTG can do 3 attacks.
"A ship can only perform 1 Bonus Attack per round." is on Page 6. There's a hard cap to prevent those sorts of shenanigans.
I think composure will be FAQ'ed into not working with failed linked actions.
Agreed.
FAQ not necessary, it effectively doesn't already.
Can you elaborate? I'd like this to be true, but I'm not sure that I see anything in the rules which would indicate that.
For one you cannot elect to fail a Lock action and it is nigh impossible to fail under normal conditions (see other comments for explanation). And the other reason is that the only ship (TIE Advanced) that can take a linked action into a reposition (the only other actions that can fail) has to focus first in the linked action chain, meaning composure cannot trigger since the ship has already taken the focus action that turn.
A wings and TIE interceptors could potentially use composure if they fail the action from their ship abilities; but this is distinct from linked actions, & given those ships' stat lines I don't see it as being a particularly broken combo, especially since using composure would prohibit any kind of token stacking (you can't use it if you have any green tokens).
On the linked action text you highlighted. How does it work with adv sensor card? Is this clarified? I expect adv will not allow you to take the linked action but that seems to contradict the highlighted text. Thx.
Hmmm I'd say Adv sensors can't give you linked actions. I can't really see why it would be worded "1 action" as opposed to "an action" if that were the case. But agreed, clarification would be good in that instance.
When medium and large ships decloak do they use the wide or narrow side of the template. Everyone I've asked says it's the wide side based on the rules for ship sizes that state, medium and large ships barrel roll differently (including while decloaking). I still don't think it's clear
Wide side, yes. But its a 1 speed instead of the 2 speed small ships use.
I have a specific question about Jyn (one of my favorite characters in star wars and I think a reeeeally promising card) and her interaction with linked actions. Let's assume we put her on a support ship and fill the rest of the list with b wings (a great concept I reckon and also one might put leia on the support ship, too). Could the b wings then get an evade token for their focus action and then link it into barrel roll? Jyn, if understand it correctly, only changes the token, not the action.... So TECHNICALLY the b wing would still link a focus into a barrel roll.... Right? What do you think, nick?
Yes that sounds correct to me.
Oh man I will totally build a list around that. Awesome!
Doesn't "flanking" also have a function even if no card or pilot ever directly revers to it? If ship X or card X wants a ship - let's call it ship Y - to be "in front of" or "behind" then the effect doesn't trigger if ship Y is "flanking", right? Let's assume that a future Resistance pilot gets a buff for friendly ships being "behind" him or her (the ability could read something like "reroll a die for each friendly ship behind you at range 0-1" - very show-offy, very Resistance) then you would have to be very carful that your friendly ships are not actually "flanking" you, because then your pilot ability would not trigger.
When a ship is flanking it's neither infront or behind the other ship. So it blanks out reinforce and any other ability that cares about those states. What I'm curious about is the fact that FFG specifically key-worded it and didn't just explain the scenario in the rules.
@@HairyNick yes exactly what I thought, sorry, my Comment was too convoluted :D exciting stuff!
Limited 2 would be the equivalent to the nerf on Atani Mindlink.
Good point, although I don't think we will see a return to Atani Minlink.
Hairy Nick, but, now the mechanic is there for future use.
As I read it, is it possible to not be in front or behind a ship? (instead be in some kind of limbo zone?)
Yup, that's flanking.
A lot of people are going to get confused if you compare this to the stack in Magic because the stack in Magic is resolved first-in,last-out, and it looks like this system is a first-in,first-out. I'm guessing a lot of people are going to be doing this wrong now.
If Corran can't lock on range 1,I think he just can't do it.
I don't think it means he can try but the action fails just like a barrel roll.
Has there been any confirmation that epic ships will be coming to 2.0?
No not yet, sadly. Wave 2 is Resistance and First Order, Wave 3 (probably) is Republic and CIS. Hopefully we wont have to wait too long, but it looks like FFG are populating the core game first up.
About Coran Horn. If its something you cannot do are you failing that action? How can you fail at what you're unable to do? It's like saying you're going to barrel roll with a ship that doesnt have the barrel roll action. Or am I misunderstanding?
The wording on target locking is a tad ambiguous, and in my opinion is worded in such a way that leaves the door open to the player being able to elect to fail the action when attempting. "4. if no object is chosen" is particularly suspect.
In any case, this is just one example I was able to refer to. Intentionally failing actions seems very easy to manufacture, especially when talking about barrel rolls or boosts.
@@HairyNick You mention failing a linked boost or barrel roll to trigger composure to get a stress free focus; but I don't think you stopped to realize that no ship can do that
you can not acquire lock at range one,,,,so trying to do so is an illegal move...so i would say the combo does not work
E-wing says you cannot acquire TL at range one, you don't fail action, you can't even use that action, so scary combo with composure described here is invalid.
But sometimes you have to measure to see if the ship is range 1 or 2. If they're at range 1, it would fail. If you're a cheeky E-wing pilot, you can boost/barrel roll and "attempt" to lock something nearby for a focus. I don't think that's all that crazy except that it doesn't give you stress, as Nick was pointing out. Even then, cost of a talent slot might be high. Don't know if its *that* good
I am wondering if a linked action is different than a standard action? If they are different than composure is invalid. composure is not that bad.
That's not how locking works in 2e. You declare a lock action, then measure to anything and everything, then choose an object to lock. The question is whether or not you can choose to fail a lock (i.e. elect to fail despite having at least 1 legal option for a lock); this is somewhat unclear
@@MauiWayfinder It's actually abundantly clear that you cannot choose to fail a lock action, reference: "Use of 'May,' 'Can,' and 'Must'" on pg 2 of the RRG.
I wouldn't call it "abundantly clear." My interpretation is the same is yours (you cannot opt to fail a lock if there is a valid target) but it's not 100% clear that this is the case because of the phrasing ("it fails if no object is chosen" as opposed to "it fails if there is no object in range")
I say no to composure into another action is invalid the card does not say you can continue your linked action it only says you may perform a focus action and only a focus action nothing else sorry. But what you can do is use afterburner to perform a free boost action and fail it then you may take a focus and since that was a free action you may then target lock for your action that's a legal move.
So yea, Composure. I know I brought this up 'way back' when FFG released the point costs documents and we first saw the card listed in there. And I spoke about how it could be used to PtL without the stress by linking into a barrel or boost that is purposely failed. At that time the RRG of course did not exist, so did not discuss linking into locks since general thought at the time required no viable objects in locking range in order for a lock to fail. I did read the RRG shortly after it released... but did not revisit this Composure issue. Given what we know now about how locks fail (by simply not choosing something), this makes triggering Composure far, far easier than trying to fail a boost or barrel. FFG will have to look at this very closely, if not already... and perhaps we see Composure get the 'Luke gunner' treatment where it is costed very high. But presently at 2 pts it is a very potent card on ships that have particular linked combos, such as the E-wing. Possibly an auto-include on those ships?
You cannot choose to target lock nothing. You have to choose an object unless you can’t. There is no may. Period. If you can find yourself in a position out of range of all ships and obstacles, and still have a shot this round, props to you and you should get a free focus.
Daniel Wochnick, actually in the “Lock” section, it does say you can choose no target, triggering a fail.
Donovan Willett Check the rules reference, it doesn’t say that
@@jacen6386 But you left out the three step instructions above the "additionally" clause you quoted where you are instructed to assign a lock token to an object at range 0-3. The lack of the word "may" here means that it is a mandatory instruction; therefore, the clause you referenced can only exist to cover the extreme edge cases where there are no objects in range to lock.
"And I spoke about how it could be used to PtL without the stress by linking into a barrel or boost that is purposely failed."
Except there's only one ship in the game that can linked action into a boost or barrel roll, and it has to focus first in the chain; therefore, the broken combo you describe doesn't exist in the game.