Profile photo of Kevin By Kevin On July 23, 2013 Posted In X-Wing Miniatures Game

New FAQ: The Good, the Bad, and the WTF?

User profile picture
July 23, 2013

“Always in motion the future is.”
— Yoda

I should probably post “We need answers!!” rants more often.  I’m relatively sure that last week’s post was the final straw for FFG and made them say “Whoa, we need to get this thing out there!”  I’m therefore claiming at least 80% of the credit for the release 😉

And a solid release it is.  It may not be the full advanced rules set or preemptive Wave 3 answers I’d dreamed of, but it’s not another puff-piece update like the one we got around the Wave 2 release.  It’s full of meat, and I can only think of one outstanding question that didn’t get resolved.  It’s not all roses, however.  A few of the rulings directly contradict cards as printed, and some actually confused murky issues further, or took solidly-established rulings and introduced some uncertainty.

I’m not going to go through every single ruling, but let’s hit some highlights and look at issues that I think are worth a deeper read.

The Good
Measurement: Let’s deal with the elephant in the room first.  For all the contentious debate on the topics, measurement has been very solidly clarified.  Range measurement can only be done when an ability lets you, actions must have a target or direction and must be completed if possible, and “It doesn’t say I can’t” has hopefully taken the bullet to the head that it deserves, at least for now.  There’s already a little grumbling about how they chose to present it, with the “Competitive Addendum”, but I think people should be careful not to read too much into that.  In the news article, Kniffen writes “A Competitive Play section, which includes an in-depth explanation of action resolution, is also present for players who have requested more detailed rules.”  I think that makes it clear that this is the way the rules work, not some optional version that only applies in tournaments.  Play friendly, loose and fast when possible, but these are the rules.

Simple clarifications: There are a lot of new clarifications which weren’t really in question for those of us who were serious rulemongers, but certainly fit the definition of “frequent”.  Stealth devices, obstacle flybys and whether you hit it if you start on it, simultaneous fire and ability effects, etc.

Boost and Barrel Roll: The movement actions get errata to fix the oddity of them crossing other ships and obstacles without hitting them, and Boost formally picks up the “Don’t lose your action if you can’t fit” premeasure wording it was lacking.

Attack: We finally have a definition of “attack”, which is good.  Sorta (see The Ugly).

Parallel Ships: I like this one not for the ruling itself, but for the nod to Vassal players.  Parallel ships is a extremely rare case in tabletop play, far more common in Vassal, so I really like that they addressed it.

Acquire a Target Lock While Stressed: Not so much for the ruling itself, but for the confirmation of the distinction between something like barrel roll or target lock as a process vs. an action.

Daredevil: Fixes the problem with Daredevil not generating stress, while leaving the reading in place which led to R2 making it green in the first place.  This one gets a big thumbs up.  I may not throw a fit over whether they call something a ruling or errata, but this is the right way to do it.

Kath+Ion Cannon: The timeline is safe.  ‘Nuff said.

The Bad
Boosting onto a Proximity Mine: This one directly contradicts the text as printed on the Proximity Mine card, which indicates that it only detonates following a maneuver.

Heavy Laser Cannon modification: The text for this one was solid, but the answer actually makes it less clear what it does and doesn’t do.  I originally read it as allowing the HLC to keep rerolls, but I’m slowly coming around to Robert’s view that it doesn’t actually change anything.  I don’t necessarily trust myself on that, though, because “reroll” not being a “roll” makes my head hurt so bad I’d say there were five lights just to make it stop. (Yeah, cross-universe reference there)

Cluster Missile and Gunner: Most of this makes sense, except for the “Miss, Gunner, Second Cluster” ruling.  Honestly, it’s so baffling I may need a completely separate post to sort it out.  The short version is that the last line of Gunner says “You may not perform another attack this round”, but the ruling tells you to perform another attack.  I have no idea why the Cluster might bypass that restriction, and hence what else might.  For now, I’m punting on it.  As I posted in another comment, I’m considering this our Bush v Gore moment – it says what it says, but it generates no precedent for any other interpretations.
UPDATE: FFG has stated that this ruling was an error, and posted a new FAQ.  If you use the Gunner after missing your first attack, you do NOT get the second.  Huzzah!

Veteran Instincts vs. Damaged Cockpit: This is the only outstanding rules issue that I can think of that didn’t make it in.

The Ugly: Dark Curse vs. Blaster Turret/Deadeye
This one gets a section all its own.

As I said above, it’s certainly good that we now know that an attack covers all 7 combat phase steps.  That clarifies a lot.  And if it weren’t for this particular ruling, I’d be jumping for joy…  but this one takes all the good that might come out of clarifying what an attack is, and makes secondary weapons inherently paradoxical.

I’m probably going to spin this into its own full post later this week, but the short version is this: When do you declare and pay costs for secondary weapons?  There is no single, consistent answer to that timing which will handle all the cards as we now know them.  This ruling on Dark Curse says it has to be after he is defending, so it must be after target selection.  But the special targeting options for other secondary weapons, especially turrets, must come into play before target selection if they’re going to work.  The standard missile text: Spend your target lock to perform this attack is also rather problematic, since general understanding of cost-paying in game systems like this is that you have to pay costs before getting any effects; meaning the text should be equivalent to Spend your target lock before selecting a target…  but it’s not.

Overall I’m pretty happy with the FAQ update.  Even if there are some problems and I might have hoped for more on a few issues, it did answer almost all of our unknowns, and they didn’t shy away from the truly contentious issues (such as measurement).

  1. What the Force, right?

    I don’t like the Luke / Clusters ruling but only because it makes the Falcon even stronger which this game definitely did not need. I can’t tell you how many Falcon builds there were at the London Regionals – it was extremely dull in that regard. I’m also starting to think that Luke may be underpriced but in terms of narrative, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I think it makes sense.

    It seems that a lot of people are caught up on the last line of Luke’s card but I don’t see this as an issue – it’s one cluster missile attack split into two volleys. I’ve always argued for this and am starting to feel more justified being on this forum with all you clever clogs now. I know that messes up the whole “What is an attack?” question but the pilot only attacks once with the missiles by pressing one Fire button once. I know, I know – the card clearly says “…to perform this attack twice” but the problem is that most people read that as two attacks. I never have – “this attack” means it’s one attack only just divided into two volleys. Poor card wording? Definitely. But is the new rule in the FAQ bad or ugly? No, it’s spot on….just annoying for those of us who tire of Han and Luke in the Falcon.

    Report user
    1. Let me throw in a little substitution that might help illustrate the problem…

      Q: If a ship using Cluster Missiles misses with the first attack then triggers an ability that says it cannot perform another attack this round, can it still perform the remaining attack granted by Cluster Missiles?

      Gunner says “You can’t perform an attack” but the ruling says “Go ahead and perform an attack”. I’m not against the idea that this is possible, but I’d very much like to know why. I expect it might have something to do with “perform an attack” being the start of an attack, and since you’re in the middle of the Cluster Missile the second attack has already “been performed” as it were. But the wording on the question doesn’t seem to point to that, so…

      1. That’s how I read it. You can’t start an “additional” attack, but the ones already in the processing queue are a-ok.

      2. But that wording doesn’t match up with other uses of “perform an attack” and what it impacts, such as Dark Curse.

        For example, Blaster Turret says “Spend 1 focus token to perform this attack”. We know that Dark Curse can block that, but only once he’s a target. So we have to start the attack, declare the target, then try to spend the focus token.

        I’m at a loss. I really feel like the FAQ gave us more specific answers while eroding our broader understanding of the rules framework.

      3. Declaring a target is the first step of combat, so it makes Dark Curse a target before you even choose the method of attack, right away.

      4. The problem is that this then conflicts with other secondaries, especially turrets.

        The DC ruling points to secondaries chosen after target selection. But if you don’t activate the turret until after target selection, how can you select a target that’s out of your arc? And if we read “perform an attack” to mean start an attack, how do we activate “perform an attack” in Step 2?

      5. So here’s a fun thought that just hit me on the “Cluster missiles are already in the air” line of thinking…

        Say I have a Firespray with 1 hull point left, carrying Cluster Missiles and Vader. I fire the Clusters, then use Vader, thereby destroying my ship.

        Do I get the second Cluster attack?

      6. I agree cluster missiles could have used a rewrite but I don’t have a problem with the ruling, insofar as I do see it as “one attack, done twice,” rather than “two attacks.”

        The bigger question that raises for me, though, is does Gunner fire *twice* if each iteration of the attack misses, or only once, after the entirety of cluster missiles has resolved?

        I guess it’s unclear to me if you miss, then gunner still gets to shoot at the END, or if you miss, gunner shoots, then you resolve the rest of the CM attack.

      7. Kevin: what if the process of declaring a target has to be united with the weapon selection (so, all in phase 1), because you have to check for a valid firing range? Also, during that step, you have to pay activation costs if present and are forced to undo all that if something like a Dark Curse “interdiction” occurs? Armed with that decision from phase 1, phase 2’s selection of dice only becomes a formality.

        So, phase 1 would be renamed:
        1. Declare a *valid* (legal range and angle) target *and your choice of weapon that can hit it*.

      8. That looks like it would mostly work, but it has an awful lot of simultaneous events and/or doubling back for my comfort. If the process is “Pay your focus, declare your target, oops, DC can’t be targeted so undo the declaration and get your focus back” that’s… messy, at best.

        Honestly, I think the cleanest solution would be for weapon declaration to be during attack declaration, before Step 1, with costs paid prior to the attack. That makes all the secondaries work fine, and DC’s ability would at least be strongly defined, if not as effective. And I’ll enthusiastically nerf a single pilot into absolute nonexistence if it means a stable rule set.

      9. That’s what I was thinking, while I wrote my last reply. You do want a new detached phase, numbered 0, in the list.

        It might be because I’m following a bachelor level course of SQL RIGHT NOW and I’m dead center into the chapter for integrity rules checking for databases 😀 I see no problem without allowing for a SELECT if you’ve properely prepared this:
        CREATE TRIGGER react_to_dark_curse
        INSTEAD OF INSERT new attack ON attack_queue
        (WHEN weaponspendcost = focus);

      10. Ah, but what if you have other triggers on performing an attack? :) If we start getting into rules that back things up, the potential for unintended consequences and confusion goes up fast. Let’s say you do go back and declare a new attack, as your flow above suggests – what happens if I declare DC while I have a Blinded Pilot crit? I had an attack, and now I’m declaring a new one, so would Blinded Pilot go away after the fizzled attack?

        I truly, honestly don’t care when you declare secondaries. I do think that if it’s not before target selection you create problems with turrets, but even those would be repairable with some wording changes. I just want to know when it is, and I want a set of rulings which all respect that timing.

  2. Cluster Missiles is a single attack that is performed twice, which is why it’s the exception. If we get another card later that says to perform the same attack multiple times, it would join Cluster Missiles as an exception.

    The language here is still poor, as written. We know only intent, because what is legal and what is not is explicitly stated. I’m going to raise a question concerning order of operations here that has not been answered in the FAQ, though.

    Although you declare Gunner after missing with the first attack roll, when do you actually make the Gunner attack?

    The FAQ leaves the word “immediately” in place, but it also says that the “You cannot perform another attack this round” doesn’t apply to Cluster Missile’s second attack roll. This makes me think that “immediately” is either not needed or is in place as a catch-all that doesn’t yet apply to anything.

    Is it possible that the attack roll order is this?

    — Cluster Missile roll #1 (miss). Declare Gunner.
    — Cluster Missile roll #2 completes the first attack.
    — Gunner’s main gun attack.

    This seems to correspond to the FAQ ruling more soundly. If we treat Cluster Missiles as a single “make 2 attacks as subroutine” attack, things make full sense.

    The word “immediately” becomes “immediately after completing your first attack” — which with Cluster Missiles seems to mean both attack rolls, otherwise the second roll would be stopped by Gunner’s second sentence. The FAQ says it’s not.

    Concerning Dark Curse vs Deadeye or the Blaster Turret — this feels like a -HORRIBLE- judgement mistake by FFG, to create a ship that is flatly immune to the Blaster Turret. That it also ruins the already lackluster Deadeye card is collateral damage.

    Easily they could have said that DC is not defending until an attack roll has been made against it, which would have been fine. No problems would have raised from that. They went the other way, and I don’t understand why at all. Bad call, needs reversed.

    Concerning the “Action Resolution” addendum:

    The first word to jump out at me is the word REQUEST, as opposed to the word REQUIRE — the addendum section is unenforceable. Your opponent, if they think you are being unsporting with the way you are performing TL/roll/boost, may REQUEST that you operate within the stricter addendum guidelines. You may then decline and continue to operate within the less stringent core rulebook guideline if you so choose.

    Effectively, this section only applies when both players wish to adhere to it. If either player wishes to ignore it, they may. That’s fine for casual play and for people who have a certain definition of “sporting”, but I really don’t see how a TO can disqualify a player for declining when the FAQ itself says that it’s only a request.

    Let’s look at the opposite side of that coin. What if honoring the “request” -IS- required, on penalty of an unsportsmanlike conduct DQ? There is going to be a portion of players who will, upon sitting down or seeing the very first TL/roll/boost, immediately request that you adhere to the stricter addendum rules. They will do this to every opponent, in every game. And they’ll not care at all that the addendum says only to do it if you feel the opponent is abusing the core rules — it’s an advantage to make the rules more strict, and they’ll take it unless called on it. It’s easy to say that they feel not following the addendum is abusing the core rules.

    I really don’t like dealing with this sort of person as a rule, and I don’t like the thought of handing them something to annoy everyone with. It might not be a problem at a local store, but you never know and certainly larger tournaments (like regionals or worlds) will see a much higher degree of advantage-scrounging.

    This leaves any TO with just one choice, really — adhere to the addendum, no exceptions. Announce it at the start of tournament, and it’s in force in all games. It’s the only way to avoid players denying requests or making them as gamesmanship.

    So what we have is FFG acting like it’s just a recommendation, leaving local TOs to take the heat for what does need to be a mandatory change. So I make this request to all players — if your TO calls this mandatory, don’t give them a hard time. It’s the best solution given to them.

    Report user
    1. My interpretation on it is that these are not optional rules, but optional processes. The rules conform to what we saw in the original email – declare, complete if possible. But that can be time consuming, so it’s OK to generally play it fast and loose, but you can go back to the strict process if you think there’s a problem.

      I wouldn’t read too much into “request” as being optional. They also use the word in the tournament rules for using third party rulers: “any player may request that a single range ruler or set of maneuver templates be shared for the duration of the match.” That’s there specifically in reference to rulers being printed differently. If that’s optional and I can refuse, you’re basically saying that I can force you to let me use my short-printed range ruler (or over-warped turn template) while you use the stock, longer-printed one.

      I agree that it’s poorly-phrased on FFG’s part. I think they’re still trying to walk a tightrope between casual and competitive play, and it made this particular answer way uglier than it had to be.

      1. I only raise the possibilities here… I’m not yet sure precisely where my opinions on what things “should be” or “are currently” stand. Coming to a rapid conclusion before it all really sinks in strikes me as the largest possible mistake.

      2. I completely disagree. As Theorist says, the more strict action resolution is couched in so many maybes that it may as well not exist. It’s in an addendum, like an afterthought. It’s contained in a section that’s intended to be used for tournament level play. And it’s something that a player may request their opponent do. Short of the TO or a judge enforcing it, it’s toothless.

        So no, I disagree, it’s not stating what the rules say. The FAQ had a chance to do that, and FFG declined. Kniffen clearly wants it to be this way, but the best he could get his managers to agree to in an official publication was this. It’s something that I’m sure that TOs and event managers would be wise to state up front at the beginning of the event, i.e. “we’re (not) going to be using the more strict action resolution process contained in the FAQ.”

        The FAQ does clear one thing up for me: The standard, non-tournament rules for the game allow the active player to check all his options when it comes to action declaration and execution. Only in certain tournament settings do players face the chance that the more strict action resolution will be enforced, and then only when the TO declares, either on a case-by-case, or event wide basis, that such optional rules are in play.

  3. I largely agree with you–on the whole, there’s a lot to like here and I really do appreciate FFG’s work in getting it out before GenCon. A few additional comments and/or nitpicks:

    1) It had never occurred to me that barrel rolling on a Proximity Mine wouldn’t cause it to detonate. I can see why–the trigger is contingent upon executing a maneuver–but this is a case where the FAQ ruling actually makes more sense than the card itself.

    2) HLC: As I’ve said elsewhere, I think a lot of people’s initial reactions to it were reasonable but incorrect. FFG’s language appears to have been slightly careless (“when first rolled”), but I think this ruling merely emphasizes the fact that the HLC effect triggers only when dice are rolled, rather than at any time when a crit result appears on the attack dice.

    3) OMG, Clusters. Just… go away already, would you?

    Contra Theorist and others, the FAQ both implies (Focus tokens, etc.) and now states directly that “Each attack granted by Cluster Missiles is distinct”. And then in the very next entry it completely ignores the precedent set by every other ruling.

    (The ruling on the Cluster/Gunner interaction is actually a good thing, as far as game balance is concerned–it gives them a definite niche. It’s just not worth trampling all over the rules to get there.)

    4) The Attack step still isn’t resolved. You (Kevin) have talked about this before, and if you’re going to write another post I won’t discuss it at length here, but at least it didn’t take a page out of the Cluster Missiles’ playbook and get even more messed up…

    Report user
    1. I agree entirely about the proximity mine – I just wish they’d changed the text on the proximity mine itself to change the detonation conditions, rather than winging something out there that directly contradicted the text on the card.

      1. What was under debate was whether, for instance, Marksmanship or the Merc Co-pilot can apply to the HLC–and this ruling makes clear that they can. What people still have a difference of opinion about, though, is whether rerolling ought to re-trigger the HLC text. I think it does–try re-rolling dice without actually rolling them.

        I’m starting to think it’s worth submitting a new question to FFG on that basis, just so that I don’t have to fight with someone about it if I run Krassis at GenCon.

      2. Again, though, why the use of the word “first”? It *literally* has no reason to exist if it doesn’t actually mean “first rolled.”

        If it means “first rolled,” then you can use the rules for “modifying,” which include re-rolls.

        If it doesn’t mean “first rolled,” then you *can’t* use the rules for “modifying” dice without excluding part of those rules (namely re-rolls) … and the word “first” is both redundant and obfuscatory.

        I understand your argument, and I agree that this is murky, but it seems like your reading requires two assumptions to work, whereas mine requires none … unless “they didn’t just willy-nilly use the word first without meaning first” counts as an assumption.

      3. In the frame I prefer, “first” reiterates “immediately”, and reinforces the idea that it’s a triggered effect rather than a continuous one. “…after they are first rolled” means “right after they’re rolled, but not in response to events that don’t involve rolling”.

        Also consider that if re-rolls are treated differently from rolls, there’s also no reason to have “first” in there–because you’d only be able to “roll” dice once. It’s a careless (i.e., redundant and obfuscatory) addition either way.

      4. Agreed, first was a poor choice of words, but I think is a clumsy attempt to specify that rerolls are excepted and only the initial roll of the dice changes crit results.

      5. I agree with you, crookedwookie, but Robert is a perfectly reasonable guy, and he disagrees. So clearly it’s not clear, and because it *was* reasonably clear (albeit in the other direction) before the FAQ, they actually made things worse.

        Pre-FAQ, almost everybody agreed that Merc Copilot could make an HLC crit. It didn’t really need FAQing. Post-FAQ, that hasn’t been changed.

        Pre-FAQ, almost everybody agreed that re-rolls of the HLC would be subject to “uncritting” just like the initial roll. (Even I agreed, though early on I insisted that it was possible they intended otherwise.) Post-FAQ, that water is muddied again.

        I personally think, like you, they intend re-rolls to be modifications, and thus not “uncritted.” I’m not convinced by Robert’s extreme verbal gymnastics on behalf of FFG.

        But I do agree it’s not perfectly clear, and that annoys me. Creating a coherent rules-set is difficult … clearing THIS up should have been easy.

        I would be willing to be someone $50 that when this gets answered, it will come down that re-rolls are not subject to the “uncritting” effect, though. Robert, you wanna fade that action?

      6. No, for two reasons:

        1) Just because it makes sense to me doesn’t mean FFG will agree (c.f. the Clusters/Gunner ruling).

        2) My tolerance for risking money is very low, probably because I grew up envying people who were merely dirt poor. (I do play poker these days, but even so we play with just a $10 buy-in, and the night’s winner buys the next week’s beer.)

        …now if you want to set up some non-monetary stakes, that’s a different thing. (c:

  4. “I’m relatively sure that last week’s post was the final straw for FFG and made them say “Whoa, we need to get this thing out there!” ”

    About this…. I’m fairly certain that it was, in fact, my stingingly sarcastic assessment of FFG in my very recent “An Anthropology of the Star Wars X-Wing Community,” in which I describe FFG as a distant Deity who likes to leave its followers in a deliberate state of confusion.

    I’m also sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the imminent Gencon tournament.

    Report user
    1. FFS!!! I know from a gaming perspective that this makes complete sense and I know it stops the Falcon + Luke from being ridiculously powerful. But in terms of narrative it makes absolutely no sense. Now, you can say, “Grow up… it’s a game, not real life” but I really enjoyed the way that the game made narrative sense…. until now. Even the new Wave 3 cards made sense in terms of narrative. But this doesn’t. Where do the missiles go? Do they just change their mind once they see that Luke’s beena bit of a good shot?
      I think I’m going to have to write an article about game play versus consistent narrative.

      Always in motion the FFG ruling is.

      Report user
      1. A lost Cluster attack is what demolishes your immersion? Really?

        Why does a Gunner only fire once you miss in the first place? Why can’t the Falcon pick two targets, since it has two turrets? Standard proton torpedo loadout on an X-wing is 6, why can I only carry one? How exactly does Biggs get six different TIE fighters from all sorts of different angles to only shoot at him? I mean, I know that mustache is obnoxious, but is it THAT bad?

        X-wing is relatively tight thematically, as tabletop games go. This seems like a really strange issue to hand your discontent on, but I suppose it’s different for everyone.

  5. So, and I’m not trying to be facetious, as long as my ship has the Target Lock icon in it’s action bar, I can measure Range before taking my action, right? All I have to say is,”Are we in Target Lock range?…” The way I’m reading the first bullet point in that question, I think I can do that, and I don’t have to commit to taking the Acquire a Target Lock action afterwards.

    I mean, I measure Range at many times during the game, and I don’t want to piss someone off by doing so. So I want to be clear as to when I can. I’ve never really understood all of the hubbub about it, but I suppose I should know for sure when I can and can’t measure Range before Gencon.

    Report user
    1. Not that I’m an authority, but here in Bournemouth, England, we’ve also said “I’m just checking to see if I’m in Target Lock range.” If it’s REALLY obvious then we don’t let it because then they’re measuring to see what range they’re at in terms of dice modifiers but simple in and out of Target Lock? Always.

      Report user
    2. Setting aside the “Competitive Play Addendum”, I think the answer is yes–you can measure range from any ship with Target Lock to any enemy ship during its Perform Action step.

      But I think it will be good practice for competitive players to go by the Addendum–it more or less says “it’s not binding, but here’s what we consider good sportsmanship for actions and measuring”.

      Or, to put it another way, I plan to get in the habit of (e.g.) stating to which ship I’m measuring range, and acquiring a TL on that ship if possible.

      Report user
      1. I don’t really like when people set aside the parts of the rules that don’t fit. I could make an argument that I can use my missile without having a target lock, if you set aside the whole “spend a target lock” part.

        For me the Competitive Play Addendum is the way the game should work, but FFG knows that it goes against the way the game has been played so far and they don’t want to upset their customers so instead of updating the manual they just add it as “competitive play”

        But I think sooner or later everybody will play like is described in the addendum because it’s the most correct way of playing the game.

      2. The true way to play with the force is blindfolded and with your back to the game. You then issue commands about what to do to an aide. Trust the force!

      3. Correct way based on what? The main rules, or an addendum added by a guy that wasn’t the main designer of the game?

        It’s a game about space ships flying like warbirds, where space is 2D, scale is something you don’t worry about, and people make “pew pew” sounds routinely during play. Yes there’s debate about whether a high-tech space fighter would have lower tech radar and targeting systems than a fighter aircraft built 30 years ago.

      4. I think the ship has sailed on bashing anything Kniffen’s says because of his role, or arguing that anything that comes out now is somehow invalid because he wasn’t the original designer.

        We’ve been a bit fuzzy on his actual position, but the news article announcing the new FAQ lists him as the lead developer. Like it or not, he is pretty much the voice of authority on the game now.

      5. The schizophrenia is ever present. Kniffen’s text does suggest that the addendum is just more details. But the fact remains that their presentation and their construction are still at odds with the rules, without any clarifying statement that the RAW are incorrect. So it’s not more details, it’s different details, and still doesn’t help paint a picture of what casual play is intended to be. Or even what tournament play is intended to be, because the addendum is presented about as toothless as you could write it.

        From any angle, it’s not a very authoritative voice, and that’s very different from what players are asking for. Better to just decide one way or another, firmly, rather than trying to cater to both sides at once. Heck, they even could come out and just state that casual play differs from organized events in this regard, but they don’t even go that far.

      6. I don’t disagree with that. What actually came out of it seems to pretty much be a Rorschach Test of the rules.

        But my point was directed at the “added by a guy that wasn’t the main designer” comment. I don’t know Kniffen at all, but I find it troubling that so many people would rather attack him personally or try to de-legitimize his rulings, rather than dealing with those rulings. Since the measurement ruling I’ve seen people seriously suggesting that he was lazy and dishonest, letting random interns do his work for him, literally drunk or stoned, irrelevant because he was only a playtester, and now somehow ignorable because he wasn’t the ORIGINAL designer.

        It’s honestly one of the more shameful displays I’ve seen from a player base in a while.

    3. It’s becoming more and more obvious that we really don’t have a clue what the “Competitive Addendum” actually means, or at the very least when it should be used. For me, if you were using your target lock to measure range to everything before picking what you wanted to lock, or even worse deciding not to lock anything, that’s exactly the sort of thing I’d consider abusing the rule for an unfair advantage.

      But who the hell knows at this point? I think Robert has it right – for competitive play, you’re at the mercy of your opponent invoking it so we’re better off treating that as the baseline, if only to be prepared for it.

  6. I don’t know if its the first wave 3 clarification that we have gotten, but James just emailed me a response to the multiple ships with apl question. He said we should go with the faq ruling on obstacles interpretation. So, for those wondering, the question was,”if a ship executes a maneuver that causes it to overlap multiple ships with apl, do they each get attacks or just the one touching the ships final position?” So, his ruling is the one touching the final position gets an apl attack, but not the rest.

    I asked this question to some of the wave 3 playtesters and they thought the same way.

    Report user
    1. Score one for consistency :)

      And, honestly, sanity. Being able to potentially take 3 damage in a turn per ship, just from collisions, is the sort of fun-destroying build that leeches at a game. I won’t quite say it would be the Odds decks of X-wing, but it would be close.

      Honestly, it’s going to be bad enough if you can only hit one of them.

  7. I just realized the new wording for Daredevil makes it work a lot better on Tycho Celchu. Even Tycho couldn’t do a red maneuver while stressed, but now that it’s white he can pull hard turns all day long. I mean it’s probably still less useful than Push The Limit or even Expert Handling, but I’m more inclined to at least give it a shot.

    Report user

We Want You To Join Us

Create an account to engage with our content, start your own blog,
and improve your shopping experience.

Unless Explicitly Stated Within This Copyright Information, Copyright © 2016 Covenant TCG Inc.