Executor Update re: Target Lock/Chaff
Am I missing something here? From today's update notes:
However, according to Ebon Hawk's kit, ships with Chaff are immune from Target Lock.
This isn't resisting, evading or dispelling. They are immune to it. So where was the "issue"?
However, according to Ebon Hawk's kit, ships with Chaff are immune from Target Lock.
This isn't resisting, evading or dispelling. They are immune to it. So where was the "issue"?
1
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
The issue was on reinforcements. They were not having the TL permanently applied as they should have done.
Ok, so the first part of that is not being changed? The basic attacks aren't going to inflict Target Lock on anyone with Chaff? I still don't really see how the other part of that is any different though. If you are immune to Target Lock, then it shouldn't be inflicted on you...there's nothing there that says it would override immunity. It only says can't be dispelled, evaded or resisted. Being immune is none of those 3 things.
Immunity effectively means they resist the attempt when a BH uses their basic. It might not say that, but that’s what’s happening.
The 20 TL payout Breach and Target Lock debuffs are not resistible, so chaff won’t prevent it being applied.
Gotcha. Glad this means it's not being changed on the basic. But I'd say it's a little more than semantics though when we have over 200 characters and over 50 ships, all with unique kits and dozens and dozens of various buffs and debuffs in the game. Ability descriptions should mean what they say and not be paraphrased descriptions. It's hard enough for players to keep track of what all these kits say without having to be aware of unstated meanings. That's not semantics, that's just plain laziness in terms of how it was written.
Can the TIE Advanced inflict Target Lock through Chaff? Because his TL is not resistable and I don’t think he can.
I think the problem was, reinforcements were technically being inflicted with TL + Breach at the same time as they were gaining Chaff + Breach Immunity in Executor mirrors. Breach was beating Breach Immunity but Target Lock wasn’t beating Chaff (or in other words, the Order of Operations was Inflict Breach -> Gain Chaff + Breach Immunity -> fail to Inflict TL due to Chaff). Now at least it’s consistent.
The problem was someone decided to add the "target_lock" tag to the special target lock. This made chaff prevent it and allowed carth ship to cleanse it
SEE’s still immune to JKR’s Locked Mark or DR’s Locked Deathmark. GLs and Guarded units are still immune to SLKR’s Locked Stun. Locked Debuffs don’t imply that they’re not Preventable.
How that works for more “unique” Locked debuffs like Fracture or Isolate, I don’t know. Only character I can think of who’d be immune to them is Ult Rey, and I’ve never felt a need to Fracture an Ult Rey.
… huh. Okay, maybe I’m wrong about OoA.
Still, it being labeled as “can’t be Prevented” would clear things up.
The one thing that they are consistent at is being inconsistent.
I had no issues with chaff blocking that target lock, because as you said it doesn't say it can't be prevented, and figured with the update that made that start happing they just forgot to put that in the notes. Then I saw carth ship dispelling it and looked further and saw what someone did.
Can you remember the circumstances?
Also, I've noticed that the AI often will stick both breach and mark with the mass assist (7* exec). My 6* exec will never stick breach (XanaduBlood basic) or mark (which is expected if XB doesn't stick breach). But there is also no "resisted" indicated that breach was even attempted.
Maybe I'm just missing something in the walls of text though for all the specials, and uniques in play.
0/2 for this…
You’re probably onto something there - RC’s breach is resistible. If you’re trying it vs. a ship with tenacity up, your RC won’t apply breach so won’t cleanse. If their’s is trying it vs. a ship without tenacity up, it most likely will apply so they will cleanse.
If I were you I wouldn’t apply the mark on their RC until it has used its special.
When I read "can't be ___", I assume that it will always land. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. Playing Executor in particular, there's a HUGE learning curve with that ship bc of all the little hidden aspects of the fleet. I think some slight wording changes, or broad explanation of the can't be resisted but can be evaded (or vice versa) would make those issues much less murky.
I had another thought for why this was a “bug” - Chaff must make it so that target lock can’t be “re-applied”, but they are still Target Locked. A good example of where this is significant is with Boba Fett’s ship - first special inflicts damage on target and all those with Target Lock - Chaff was previously dispelling the indispellable Target Lock, making it something that wouldn’t allow that attack to work properly. Now it should be hitting all ships because they all have Target Lock, even if they can’t have Target Lock re-applied and count towards the ult.