Are you allowed to pre-measure to make sure a Barrel Roll puts you outside a firing arc? After all, you might choose a different action if it didn't.

Same logic applies to Saboteur.

EDIT: I would hope his opponent is playing Imperial. Otherwise, he's really cheating with that Shuttle.

EDIT: I would hope his opponent is playing Imperial. Otherwise, he's really cheating with that Shuttle.

Yeah, but of a newby mistake there, but this does raise a subject. Why isn't there rules for the Rebels to use the shuttle as in ROTJ?

Because the shuttle in ROTJ was a stolen shuttle so hardly something the rebels used on a daily basis.

FFG could still make a title for it to use with OGP, or release a few pilots that use the shuttle. That same pack may then add Crix Madine as a crew member (both factions, before and after defection).

Likewise they could make some imperial pilots for the HWK (Imperial Infiltrator?), perhaps giving it some upgrades to boost durability, stuff like that.

Give'em some repaints, put them together in a Traitors and Defectors pack. Add some crew and upgrades and missions.

I'll take two.

Just to stir the pot, was your "opponent" by any chance an Imperial Slug, as it sounds like their style?

Rebel Scum who's very existence is a violation of galactic law should stop throwing bricks from their glass houses.

Are you allowed to pre-measure to make sure a Barrel Roll puts you outside a firing arc? After all, you might choose a different action if it didn't.

Same logic applies to Saboteur.

EDIT: I would hope his opponent is playing Imperial. Otherwise, he's really cheating with that Shuttle.

Yeah, but of a newby mistake there, but this does raise a subject. Why isn't there rules for the Rebels to use the shuttle as in ROTJ?

Thematically, shuttles were primarily used by the Empire. Tiderium was an exception, and a stolen Imperial one at that.

It's an image thing, really. Keeps both factions easily recognizable.

Before calling this guy a cheater, perhaps he didn't know and it was a friendly game. I've messed up before and the rule was even in bold in the rulebook. Looking at it subjectively? Very much so, but I doubt it was personally sinister... well as little sinister as a saboteur can be.

Just to stir the pot, was your "opponent" by any chance an Imperial Slug, as it sounds like their style?

Rebel Scum who's very existence is a violation of galactic law should stop throwing bricks from their glass houses.

Are you allowed to pre-measure to make sure a Barrel Roll puts you outside a firing arc? After all, you might choose a different action if it didn't.

Same logic applies to Saboteur.

EDIT: I would hope his opponent is playing Imperial. Otherwise, he's really cheating with that Shuttle.

Yeah, but of a newby mistake there, but this does raise a subject. Why isn't there rules for the Rebels to use the shuttle as in ROTJ?

Thematically, shuttles were primarily used by the Empire. Tiderium was an exception, and a stolen Imperial one at that.

It's an image thing, really. Keeps both factions easily recognizable.

I just love the banter on here, especially that from Imperial slime, I should of recognised their fowl stench when I jumped on board lol

Hi [my name],

> 2) saboteur

>

> Saboteur says to choose a random facedown damage card. Does this mean that i should not be picking the same damage card, or is that a legal play? Also, if random, does the order of the damage card matter? (So that we can shuffle the facedown cards for a random selection)

The Damage card should be randomly chosen; the order that they've been dealt doesn't matter, so they can be shuffled together to allow random choice.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Associate Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

I completely agree with the person on the first page who said the OP should have asked if he or she could see the opponent's face-down dials before planning maneuvers. Face-down dials and face-down cards are both hidden information; you can tell because they're literally hidden information.

I suppose it would be nice to have an e-mail from FFG confirming it, because it would be nice to have an e-mail from FFG confirming every rules question that comes up, but the OP's question really does strike me as open-and-shut.

Before calling this guy a cheater, perhaps he didn't know and it was a friendly game. I've messed up before and the rule was even in bold in the rulebook. Looking at it subjectively? Very much so, but I doubt it was personally sinister... well as little sinister as a saboteur can be.

Look at the way the OP's phrased:

My opponent had a saboteur on a shuttle and insisted that he had the right to look at my face-down damage cards

Generally friendly games are friendly and people who don't know the rules well are pretty open to question and correction. But the fact that the OP backed down rather than checking and described his opponent like this suggests his opponent was being less than sportsmanlike about it.

Are you allowed to pre-measure to make sure a Barrel Roll puts you outside a firing arc?

No.

Can't you check firing arcs at any time though?

If he looks at the cards then there goes the "RANDOM" part of Saboteur.

On the other hand: the same is true for the other player as well.

If you know about the facedown card on your own ships, you can protect the worst ones from the saboteur (or: let him turn those without any real effect).

Either both players know about all the facedown cards, or none of them.

Before calling this guy a cheater, perhaps he didn't know and it was a friendly game. I've messed up before and the rule was even in bold in the rulebook. Looking at it subjectively? Very much so, but I doubt it was personally sinister... well as little sinister as a saboteur can be.

So if you don't know a law it is impossible to violate that law and become a criminal? Ignorance does not change the violation although it could be used when determining the punishment. Here it looks like we have someone INSISTING they are right when just about everyone recognizes there is something wrong going on.

As for things being a "friendly game" I know I'd be extremely upset if my opponent suddenly started playing by his own rule and expects me to play along.

Either both players know about all the facedown cards, or none of them.

Yes...? And clearly his opponent thought they both did.

Hi [my name],

> 2) saboteur

>

> Saboteur says to choose a random facedown damage card. Does this mean that i should not be picking the same damage card, or is that a legal play? Also, if random, does the order of the damage card matter? (So that we can shuffle the facedown cards for a random selection)

The Damage card should be randomly chosen; the order that they've been dealt doesn't matter, so they can be shuffled together to allow random choice.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Associate Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

So if you don't know a law it is impossible to violate that law and become a criminal?

Cheating means deliberate, malicious intent. If you violate a game rule out of ignorance you just made a mistake, it is not cheating.

I love all this "its naughty but maybe he isnt a cheater just making a mistake" stuff.

It's one thing to say "I think I can look at them" Its quite another to insist that you can..

Some people are very manipulative and overbearing. I heard on the radio that gut reaction is correct MOST of the time (theres been redearch on it!). If you felt like he was being a ******, chance are he WAS.

"Sorry to bother, but can you just show me where in the rules you can look at face-down cards..." would have been my response. My second response would have been to think twice before playing him again.

Are you allowed to pre-measure to make sure a Barrel Roll puts you outside a firing arc?

No.

You may measure before committing to a boost action or barrel roll to ensure that you can actually perform that action.

Rules text:

A ship cannot perform a barrel roll if this would cause its base to overlap another ship or obstacle token. The

player may measure to see if his ship can perform a barrel roll before committing to this action.

FAQ text:

Q: When a player wishes to perform a boost action, can he measure to see if his ship can perform a boost before committing to this action (similar to a barrel roll)?

A: Yes.

The rules do not allow for you to measure to see if it puts someone in or out of arc.

Pretty sure that was rhetorical...

Well.

Yes.

Obviously.

Ehrm.

Derp?

I believe there is a difference between cheating and being a cheater. Was he cheating? Probably. Is there a person alive that in a game ( or heck in real life) who has never cheated? I tend to drive a few miles an hour over the posted speed limit. I have crossed streets outside of cross walks. I do not do it to be mean, to hurt anyone, or to take advantage of another person.

I was not there, I do not know the tone the conversation took. But I also didn't know the first time I tried playing Vader that I couldn't double barrel roll. The rule was found upon closer inspection, and I continue to play the game I love. I cheated once. I am not a cheater that is undeserving of trust that I am playing by rules.

I love all this "its naughty but maybe he isnt a cheater just making a mistake" stuff.

It's one thing to say "I think I can look at them" Its quite another to insist that you can..

Some people are very manipulative and overbearing. I heard on the radio that gut reaction is correct MOST of the time (theres been redearch on it!). If you felt like he was being a ******, chance are he WAS.

"Sorry to bother, but can you just show me where in the rules you can look at face-down cards..." would have been my response. My second response would have been to think twice before playing him again.

A favorite expression of some people around here is 'never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' I think this scenario amply demonstrates the fallibility of blindly adhering to such aphorisms.

Intentional cheating or stupidity, there is only one punishment:

As the OP, I suppose I will weigh in on a few of the things that have been mentioned.

I do not mean to demonize my opponent's actions as he is not here to defend himself. I do not believe his intent was to cheat. I have known him for some time and do not believe him to be a dishonest player. That being said, he is one to look for interesting loop-holes in the rules. By loop-holes, I mean actions which are legal, but may not be immediately obvious unless one were to search for fringe cases that may not be clearly covered by the rules.

My use of the word "insisted" may have also been an overstatement which was used for expediency to get past the story of the situation and get to the rules question about looking at face-down damage cards. A more correct and lengthy explanation would be that my opponent said he was quite sure that the identity of damage cards isn't meant to be secret and any player can therefore look at them at any time. He backed up this claim by noting that the rule book does not cover the topic. He also made the assertion that the face-up or face-down state of the card is nothing more than a game-play mechanic to distinguish between critical and non-critical damage. The rule book doesn't state anything to suggest that the face-down cards are meant to be secret.

Being reasonably familiar with the rulebook, I couldn't come up with a black and white reason to contradict his claims. I felt that his reasoning made sense and we needed to make a judgment call about the rule and get on with the game. We also mutually noted that at the time the basic rulebook was printed, there really weren't any cards that could make use of information about the identity of damage cards, so why bother making a rule about looking at them. That's what lead me here to probe the minds of the community and find out what everybody else thinks.

Edit: We don't have many players locally. For all I knew, this topic might be common knowledge to the greater community and either everybody already looks at the damage cards, or everybody already knows not to.

I do not mean to demonize my opponent's actions as he is not here to defend himself. I do not believe his intent was to cheat. I have known him for some time and do not believe him to be a dishonest player. That being said, he is one to look for interesting loop-holes in the rules. By loop-holes, I mean actions which are legal, but may not be immediately obvious unless one were to search for fringe cases that may not be clearly covered by the rules.

My use of the word "insisted" may have also been an overstatement which was used for expediency to get past the story of the situation and get to the rules question about looking at face-down damage cards. A more correct and lengthy explanation would be that my opponent said he was quite sure that the identity of damage cards isn't meant to be secret and any player can therefore look at them at any time. He backed up this claim by noting that the rule book does not cover the topic. He also made the assertion that the face-up or face-down state of the card is nothing more than a game-play mechanic to distinguish between critical and non-critical damage. The rule book doesn't state anything to suggest that the face-down cards are meant to be secret.

Many would say that someone who goes out looking for "loop holes" is a "cheater" although the cheating he wants to do may be legal until someone realizes the oversight and shuts that loop hole down. Cheating can be "against the rules" but in a bigger sense it can also cover doing something that is "unethical" or even immoral. If this were a roleplaying game I'd be tempted to use the term "munchkin" to describe his actions.

As for the identity of cards being known I'll point out the last of the "Component Limitations" section on pg 21 of the rulebook. If the damage deck gets used up here it mentions using "a suitable replacement to track additional damage" which obviously have no "face-up" side to be known.

You only flip damage cards when instructed by card text or the rules. There is no mechanism in this game for flipping over cards that are facedown, and then flipping them back. If you could arbitrarily look at face down damage cards, then it would be legal to look at the top damage card on the deck before it is dealt. Clearly this is not the case. This player is 100% in the wrong.

I saw some posts in here making a comparison between "looking at facedown cards" and "pre-measuring actions." This is slightly off-topic, but I wanted to clarify something here.

The basic game rules allow for pre-measuring of actions such as Target Lock, Barrel Roll, and Boost to determine if they're legal before committing to the action. However, in an officially sanctioned FFG X-wing event, there are special rules regarding these kinds of actions. You must commit to taking the action before measuring to see if that action is legal. If it is legal, you must continue with that action. If not, you may select a different action.

Further clarification, if the action requires you to choose a direction (such as Boost or Barrel Roll), you commit to the action and direction before measuring. If the action cannot be performed in the direction specified, you may select another action entirely; you are not obligated to perform the same action in a different direction.

Just to add another twist, if your opponent was flying the YT-1300 with the R2-D2 crew card (not the droid card), as this is going to affect him directly, would you allow him to look at his facedown cards before "randomly" flipping one over?

You've got to take a lot of things into consideration when presented with a situation like this. The cost of the card is only two points, but it doesn't get discarded once used. So it's an ability that can be used as often as possible. But, if it allowed you to preview the options before choosing, I would assume it would be worth more than just two points. If you could inspect the cards before committing, it would say so. But that would remove the random part, wouldn't it?

I personally HATE those types that play to loop holes and when you you say "it doesn't say you can", they invariably reply with "it doesn't say I can't either". You end up with an endless looping argument that kills the game. FFG has already set a precedent with Maarek Stele's ability. That's the only card I've seen that allows a player to look at Damage cards before choosing one. The cards are facedown for a reason. No player should be allowed to inspect them, unless they are flipped during gameplay. " Choose 1 random facedown Damage card... " means take your chances.

No matter how you look at it, no matter what the logic behind it was, it was cheating - plain and simple.

Just to add another twist, if your opponent was flying the YT-1300 with the R2-D2 crew card (not the droid card), as this is going to affect him directly, would you allow him to look at his facedown cards before "randomly" flipping one over?

It would not remove the random part. Knowing that the y-wing has a direct hit, a stunned pilot, and a munitions failure does not allow you to choose which of those get flipped, you would presumably shuffle or roll a die to determine the flipped card. The same as if a critical like console fire is later flipped down. Looking at the cards merely gives you foreknowledge of if the action is likely to be worth the effort. It is still against the rules and unfair to do, but it does not alter the randomness of the actual effect at all. Sorry to quote this post in particular but it is the most recent one that either states or implies that the reason not to look is that it makes the choice non-random.

Oh, you can randomise the selection process however you like, but by knowing what's likely to come up removes the fun surprise of it all. The best way to randomise it, is by not looking at the cards to start with. Then, nobody knows what's going to come up.

The email from FFG stated you could shuffle the cards around to randomise the draw, but I still don't think anyone should be able to check out damage cards before committing to an action. It's just plain wrong.

Isn't this usually the time where someone says "It's a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not permit an action that action is not allowed."