The simplest resolution to this is to ask FFG

Ok you do realize what Lando's ability actually says is, and I quote:
"choose 1 other friendly ship..."

Now two things I think you're overlooking in your snark.

1. It's pretty clear you can't choose Lando himself, because it says OTHER SHIP.
2. If it says "OTHER SHIP at range 1," that would imply a ship at range 1, other than Lando himself, correct?

Which would seem to make a pretty strong argument that Lando is in fact at range1 to himself, since his ability says quite specifically that he has to pick another ship at range 1 to use it on.

Wait a minute, what's that, Biggs?
"Other friendly ships at Range 1," you say? Well that would once more seem to imply that you can't use your ability on yourself, and that, if there are other friendly ships at range 1, you must be a friendly ship at range 1 to yourself.

Crazy.

No, Howlrunner, not you too....??
"When another friendly ship at Range 1 is attacking..."

Sonuva, it's almost like all of these abilities are worded to make it clear that they work on friendly ships, at range one, other than yourself. But if you weren't then considered a friendly ship at range 1 to yourself as well, why would they all specify that? Weird.

I'm tempted to go into a deep treatise about effects, their presence and duration, the difference in attacking between an instant effect like changing a die and an ongoing effect like modifying a pilot skill, and how nothing just happens without an effect.

But it seems pretty clear that nobody pursuing this actually cares about understanding what's really going on, given idiocy like treating Krassis and Bonus as competing effects and smashing of without reading even one of the dozen cards that use"other".

So, screw it.

I haven't seen this much rules lawyering since the last time I browsed Bolter&Chainsword. Yikes.

That said, everybody seems obsessed with the idea of 'the worst takes precedence' and how it carries over from maneuvers to pilot skill. Aside from the fact that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to infer grand sweeping precedents from a single example, you're not quoting the rule properly.

An effect that increases the difficulty of a maneuver

takes priority over an effect that decreases the

difficulty.

It's right there in black and white. "An effect that increases...takes priority over an effect that decreases..."
So clearly, in the case of damaged ship with 0 PS being Swarmed, the Swarm Tactics takes priority. So, by extension, a larger increase takes priority over a smaller increase, since mathematically a decrease is just an increase by a value so much smaller that it happens to be less than zero.

You can choose to interpret that as seriously or as sarcasticly as you would like.

That said, everybody seems obsessed with the idea of 'the worst takes precedence' and how it carries over from maneuvers to pilot skill.

I would not call it an obsession.

One point of view is to use the FAQ about damaged engine and R2, derive a principle from it, and apply that principle to the question at hand. What happens if you do it is pretty much settled. The question if doing it is the correct way is not.

The other point of view is what Jehan Menasis describes as "overwriting" in post 24. It is based on the fact that you can chain ST.

Personally I cannot decide between the two. Some scenarios look odd with the first interpretation, others with the second. Scenarios I am considering include not only damaged cockpit and using ST several times on the same ship but also building a circle and combining all of it.

A completely unrelated question is whether or not you can use ST on yourself. I strongly feel you can because of what CrookedWookie describes is posts 27 and 28.

nevermind.

That said, everybody seems obsessed with the idea of 'the worst takes precedence'

That said, I can see his argument. I don't agree with it, but I can see how he is coming to his conclusion.

I definitely think it needs a FAQ, and possibly errata. I think that errata should be to change swarm tactics to "you MAY choose a friendly ship..." And then clarify whether ST can up a ship effected by damaged cockpit, but it definitely needs a ruling.

Well, I have sent this question off to FFG, we'll see if they answer and what they say.

Swarm Tactics is probably the only similar effect that doesn't say other. So, I guess it will require a FAQ entry. I think it's inherently unfair to double penalise by forcing another ship to PS0

In response to your questions

Rule Question:

If a ship takes a critical hit and its  Damaged Cockpit which reduces its pilot skill to zero and then another ship, uses Swarm Tactics on the zero pilot skill ship does the new skill via swarm tactics takes piroity?

Yes. The "last" effect takes precedent.

If vader has swarm tactics and draws a damage cockpit does that mean swarm tactics pulls another pilots ability to zero?

Yes.

Thanks for playing!Frank BrooksAssociate Creative Content DeveloperFantasy Flight

Well thats simple logical and to the point.

Just saw this on the UK x-Wing FaceBook page:

To Duncan

In response to your questions:Rule Question:

If a ship takes a critical hit and its  Damaged Cockpit which reduces its pilot skill to zero and then another ship, uses Swarm Tactics on the zero pilot skill ship does the new skill via swarm tactics takes piroity?

Yes. The "last" effect takes precedent.

If vader has swarm tactics and draws a damage cockpit does that mean swarm tactics pulls another pilots ability to zero?

Yes.

Thanks for playing!Frank BrooksAssociate Creative director FFG

To which my response is:

All it will mean is ST being weighed against the risk, and having to remove ships from play in the worst case. We are in danger of so many exceptions to rules that common sense is sacrificed in favour or knee jerk attempts to retain balance. With so many rules lawyering situations it could really poison the well.

My problem isn't the second yes, assuming this answers the choose yourself question, it's the first one. I can live with the silliness of a damaged ship "causing havoc" to a near neighbour as much as giving them tactical advantage beforehand. It's the mutually exclusive damaged cockpit being magically cured!

Also, the "worst effect takes precedence rule" seems to have been thrown out the window. I wouldn't say these were that strong as answers

Once again we learn that FFG has no actual low-level rules structure for this game. There are so many contradictions, one-offs, and inconsistencies that I don't know why we even bother any more.

If you have two effects that change maneuver difficulty, it's the worst. If you have two that change Pilot Skill, it's the most recent. Anyone want to take bets on how the next conflicting effect will fall out?

Once again we learn that FFG has no actual low-level rules structure for this game. There are so many contradictions, one-offs, and inconsistencies that I don't know why we even bother any more.

If you have two effects that change maneuver difficulty, it's the worst. If you have two that change Pilot Skill, it's the most recent. Anyone want to take bets on how the next conflicting effect will fall out?

Whichever one has the most letters?

Thinking about it, ST MUST be elective. Otherwise, Black Squad pilot (PS4 with ST) flying next to Vader (PS9 with no ST) now HAS to make him PS4? This has potentially happened millions of times in games since launch. The upgrade would be ridiculous otherwise, being a two edged sword, given the intent for ST to be beneficial. I'll put this to FFG today

Thinking about it, ST MUST be elective. Otherwise, Black Squad pilot (PS4 with ST) flying next to Vader (PS9 with no ST) now HAS to make him PS4? This has potentially happened millions of times in games since launch. The upgrade would be ridiculous otherwise, being a two edged sword, given the intent for ST to be beneficial. I'll put this to FFG today

No its called why didn't you build or fly your squad better.

This is not a new ruling its just people around here wanted to make up strange rules rather than submit a question.

Just to drop in my 2c worth. I have no problem with Swarm Tactics helping a pilot with damaged cockpit get better pilot skill. Swarm tactics is pilot saying to another, "You fly on my wing and shoot when I do".

I can also see why it would pull a pilot down to PS0. The wingman follows his leader whatever happens. Imperial force structure was quite strict right?

Here's my question to FFG rules query:

"Recently, there has been discussion regarding interaction between Swarm Tactics and Damaged Cockpit, to which FFG's response was PS0 from the critical hit could be corrected temporarily by ST, but that a ST upgraded pilot with the critical hit MUST transfer the PS0 to a nearby friendly ship if in range 1. I am unhappy with your ruling and wish to seek further clarification:

1) ST does not state "another" or "other" regarding ships as most if not all other upgrades or pilot abilities do, so it should be possible to choose yourself - as a ship within range 1 by default - under the ST wording, in the same way that omission allows some missiles not to spend target lock. For unambiguous interpretation, ST MUST either be compulsory, which causes problems in itself (see below), or is elective. In which case, passing PS0 is not required.

2) ST's intent was/is to improve the PS of a ship for firing purposes, temporarily, and has been played as an elective for thousands/millions of games. Again, see below for an example.

3) The rules state that an effect that worsens the situation has priority over ones that improve things, so a pilot with a damaged cockpit - taking the real world idea as the basis for discussion - surely should not be improved by another ship.

Here is a thought experiment that comes from the idea that ST is compulsory, and must apply to another ship:

A Black Squadron TIE pilot (PS4 with ST) is flying next to Vader (PS9 with no ST), with no near neighbours. Neither are injured in any way. Under your previous ruling, he now HAS to make Vader PS4 for the combat? This has potentially happened millions of times in games since launch. The upgrade would be ridiculous otherwise, being a two edged sword, given the intent for ST to be beneficial.

Clearly, the idea of improving a damaged ship with ST is separate from a damaged ship with ST affecting others. The former could be argued either way, and I would have no objection, provided that the "worse applies" vs the "last applies" is definitively decided upon; the alternative is incompatible precedents being set. As to whether ST being required, I would argue that interpreting this as an elective action better fits the spirit and intent of the upgrade, and is fairer. It also would be consistent with either interpretation of 'fixing' another ship's damaged cockpit critical hit, so long as they fly in range.

Therefore, I would like you to reconsider BOTH the potential incompatibility of precedence (worst vs last) and whether ST (as worded and interpreted by many outside of the critical hit situation) is optional or compulsory. The currently proposed position from FFG is inherently unstable and needs addressing.

Thank you, and now to more important matters, such as Russia's invasion of the Ukraine!

Dr. Mike Reddy"

3) The rules state that an effect that worsens the situation has priority over ones that improve things, so a pilot with a damaged cockpit - taking the real world idea as the basis for discussion - surely should not be improved by another ship.

Ehm, no... Rules don't say anything like that.

Rules say that if an ability allows one effect an another forbids it, the effect is forbidden.

Swarm tactics or damaged cockpit don't forbid nor allow anything. They only change a numeric value (pilot Skill).

Time to refocus. With Frank Brooks response on the Swarm Tactics question, we have a better basis to understand precedent: "The 'last' effect takes precendent".

Consider for a moment the example that certain people are choosing to interperet as "Worst takes precedent". An R2 is assigned to a ship. That ship later takes a 'Damaged Engine' crit. The Damaged Engine takes priority. This is consistent with the 'last effect' ruling, as R2 was assigned at the begining of the game, and Damaged Engine came into play at some point after that during the game making it the 'last effect'.

I can't think of any examples which contradict this interpretation, but I'm far from all knowing. Can anyone come up with a counter example?

Does it maybe work within the context of something like this?

1. Last effect takes precedence

2. If the effects are simultaneous, they resolve in the order of your choice, UNLESS

3. If one or more of the effects are negative, they resolve after any positive effects

Or something along those lines? Last thing to happen, happens. If multiple things happen, they resolve in the order you want, unless one of them is a Bad Thing, in which case it happens last.

Does it maybe work within the context of something like this?

1. Last effect takes precedence

2. If the effects are simultaneous, they resolve in the order of your choice, UNLESS

3. If one or more of the effects are negative, they resolve after any positive effects

Or something along those lines? Last thing to happen, happens. If multiple things happen, they resolve in the order you want, unless one of them is a Bad Thing, in which case it happens last.

That sounds like the direction FFG is heading.

Swarm tactics will be updated next FAQ according to an email I got today from Frank who confirms the correct ruling has been given.

Ohhhh new FAQ? YAH!

Ohhhh new FAQ? YAH!

Heh you know they update that with every new release right?