No need to panic, I already called the Spanish Inquisition; they're on their way.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

What you are suggesting is:

1) resolve [condition]

2) check to see if [effect] changes anything.

3) if [effect] doesn't change anything, then go back to step 1 and un-do resolving the condition.

This "interpretation" or "conviction" makes absolutely no sense.

To be fair to Sekec, this is not an uncommon rule in CCG-style rules. The recent Star Wars LCG FAQ added clarifications to require exactly this - you can't pay a cost just to pay a cost, you have to be able to complete at least some part of the result.

That's a good point, I was only considering the X-wing mechanics. My main (implied) point was that his intepretation of the rules would arguably create a paradox. I guess CCGs get around this by explicitly stating general condition checks. I.e. if [A] and are possible, then resolve both, otherwise resolve neither.

And from a strictly lore perspective, I have a serious gripe regarding Maarek Stele And Keyan's Farlander. Both are the iconic heroes of the X-wing vs TIE Fighter series of games. As the incarnation of the player, both should be the equivalent of each other in heroism, power, feats and skills. However, I feel that this has not been properly reflected in this game. Maarek has been given a pretty lackluster ship, with poor customization, and a pretty limited ability... While Keyan has been given a powerful ship, filled with customization options, and a borderline overpowered ability.

It is just not fair.

You know, I've been thinking about this and I think I'm going to flip their abilities, Maarek's seems better suited to a B-Wing and Keyan's better to Maarek with stress inducing EPT. see how that works out for a bit.

I wonder if there will be a pilot someday that is able to make a good use of expose ^^

Fair enough. You guys want to panic, feel free.

I'm gonna play it as it reads. I'm 100% positive FFG will FAQ it the opposite way. I'd rather not make every victory I get when using him from now till then a hollow one.

It takes two people to play a game, so you better hope your opponent is as oblivious as you are.

Fair enough. You guys want to panic, feel free.

I'm gonna play it as it reads. I'm 100% positive FFG will FAQ it the opposite way. I'd rather not make every victory I get when using him from now till then a hollow one.

It takes two people to play a game, so you better hope your opponent is as oblivious as you are.

He didn't define how many victories he would get, so "every" could be anywhere from 0 to the number of games that he plays. As long as you can still remove stress Fly Casual even without rolling any eyeballs winning any games, it's all good.

I was just reflecting on his interpretation of the rules. He can read it 'literally' if he wants, but that won't do him any good if his opponent isn't of the same mind.

He could always insist to play it his way as long as it imposes restrictions. Nobody ever said you HAD to take actions, right?

Or play the game at all, for that matter. What will he do, I wonder, if (or when) the eventual ruling contradicts his position?

Nobody ever said you HAD to take actions, right?

I believe in the Rulebook it says you can elect to pass on the Perform Action Step (though why you would do so IDK).

Or play the game at all, for that matter. What will he do, I wonder, if (or when) the eventual ruling contradicts his position?

Probably attack people and make judgements about them. It seems to be very popular around here.

Or play the game at all, for that matter. What will he do, I wonder, if (or when) the eventual ruling contradicts his position?

Probably attack people and make judgements about them. It seems to be very popular around here.

I don't think anybody is attacking you, at least not on a personal level. People have demonstrated a fair amount of evidence to support their claims, both in terms of rules precedent and the language of the card itself. Your response has been tantamount to "whatever, I'll just do what I want because I know I'm right," rather than acknowledging the arguments of others. Did you really expect to be taken seriously after that?

Look, you couldn't really wrap your mind around Wes either, but you handled that thread a bit more gracefully. We're not trying to pick on you here, we just want you to open your mind a little more.

'But with the blast shield down, how am I supposed to fight?'

I'm pretty sure you ONLY know how to attack people. Calling them "oblivious" is an attack. Saying I can't "wrap my head around" a concept is an attack. Just because I don't like a pilot, doesn't mean I don't understand the rules. I've seen you level attacks at numerous people in numerous threads and every time somebody calls you on it, your defense is that THEY misunderstood. I've yet to see you actually take responsibility for it, and I'm sure I never will.

I've made my stance on the rules clear, would you like me to restate it in every post? The tokens they address are specific: focus , evade , and TL . That is the entire list given. Just because using stress was not an option at the time the rulebook was written, doesn't mean they intend for it to be an option now. Also, the latest version of the FAQ was printed AFTER that card was revealed. Are they unable to clarify a FAQ in anticipation of an unreleased card? Your stance assumes: yes.

Or with regards to the "language of the card" argument, it MIGHT mean that the first part is not conditional to the second, but you can't know that. If a cop pulled you over, had you at gunpoint, and said "You may remove your hands from the steering wheel to reach out the window and open the door from the outside." Would you assume that it is okay to remove your hands from the steering wheel and NOT follow the rest of the instruction?

No matter how many different ways it is phrased, or how many times it is pointed out that using stress didn't exist then, it still boils down to an assumption. We know for a FACT that at least works the way I read it. Anything beyond that is an assumption.

So, no, I will not be playing that way until FFG tells me to. If my opponent insists that he gets to play it that way, I'll insist that we use only released cards. I don't expect it to be a problem.

To be fair to Sekec, this is not an uncommon rule in CCG-style rules. The recent Star Wars LCG FAQ added clarifications to require exactly this - you can't pay a cost just to pay a cost, you have to be able to complete at least some part of the result.

But you're not paying a cost without completing the ability, you're just completing the ability in a way that has no real impact on the game. To give a CCG example, in MTG Wrath of God says "destroy all creatures", but you're free to cast it when there are no creatures in play (it will of course be a waste of mana and a card unless something really odd is happening). The spell will be cast as normal, and when it resolves all creatures in play will be destroyed. It doesn't matter if there are zero creatures in play, or a thousand creatures in play, they all go to the graveyard.

Farlander's ability works the same way: you activate the ability, remove the stress token, and change all {eye} results to {hit} results. It doesn't matter if there are zero {eye} results or a thousand {eye} results, they all turn into {hit}s.

Nobody ever said you HAD to take actions, right?

I believe in the Rulebook it says you can elect to pass on the Perform Action Step (though why you would do so IDK).

On the first turn when you know you're not going to be anywhere close to your opponent? We've hand-waved actions plenty of times when it's obvious there's no point.

I believe in the Rulebook it says you can elect to pass on the Perform Action Step (though why you would do so IDK).

Probably so that it's clearly not breaking the game if you forget to take your action. You didn't skip a mandatory step and create an illegal game state, you just opted to make a stupid decision.

Sekac, you're making rules claims that have absolutely no basis in the rules. You're claiming that because stress isn't explicitly listed in the FAQ, the precedent doesn't apply to it and it could work differently.

And you're right - it could, theoretically, work differently. But do we have any reason to think so? Is there any other precedent in the game where something works the way you think Farlander will?

You're getting all huffy about being attacked, but you've offered zero support for your view. "Stress is different" really doesn't cut it. Please, give us some precedent, somewhere - anything - to support your view. I've tried to engage you on the actual rules front and tease out some support for the way you think it works, but you've refused to even address it.

On another note - no, FFG does not release clarifications for cards which have not yet been released. Honestly, they don't release clarifications for cards which ARE released - when the Wave 2 ships were available for several months due to Kessel Run, the FAQ update that accompanied the release still did nothing to address the questions which had come up from that. It's just the way they do things. If you're trying to use the fact that the recent FAQ didn't address Farlander as support, there's really nothing there for you.

I've offered my reasoning over and over (and over) again. You don't have to agree, but pretending I'm not doing it does nothing for the discussion.

I am making no assumptions, I am following the text. You are making assumptions about the text and about "precedents." You assume "spending a token" and "removing a token" are the same thing. There is no precedent for that.

I've made amends to two people on this very page for past conversations. They don't have to vouch for me, but they could if they wanted.

"Sell me on Wes Janson... I just don't see it." Your language very much indicates that you couldn't wrap your mind around Wes, or why people would want to use him. That doesn't have to be a negative thing unless you choose to perceive it that way. You asked for help, and help was offered, but you clearly started the conversation from a position of ignorance. Similarly, calling you oblivious was merely an observation, but you attached some ulterior, pejorative meaning to it. That was not my intention, and if you feel insulted then I apologize. Having said that, I could think of few words more appropriate (or more civil) to describe your outright dismissal of so many salient points.

---

On the subject at hand: several months back I was involved in a heated debate over a recently spoiled Magic card. The game rules, as written at the time, offered only one possible interpretation of the card. Many people felt that the card was too powerful that way, and that the designers must have intended a different interpretation of the rules, one which better reflected this scenario that had never existed before. Well, the card was spoiled some weeks in advance of the sets release, and accompanying that release came a revision of the game rules as well. I had been advocating a strict interpretation of the previous rules, and ended up being on the wrong side of the debate. The moral of the story? We're still months away from the release of wave 4, so FFG has plenty of time to make their position clear. A lack of specific rules referring to a previously unseen scenario does not mean that the ship will only function as you presently think it does.

So we're going to continue to pretend I haven't stated my case?

You assume "spending a token" and "removing a token" are the same thing. There is no precedent for that.

Sigh. "Spending" vs. "removing" is irrelevant, unless you can provide some explanation for why they should be treated differently. The relevant fact here is that FFG has clearly ruled that "change all X to Y" means "change all X, if any , to Y", and having no X does not prevent the use of an ability which modifies all X. There's really no debate here, you can activate Farlader's ability any time he attacks and has a stress token to satisfy the requirement. If you do you will remove a stress token and turn all {eye} results to {hit} results, regardless of whether there are zero {eye} results or a thousand {eye} results.

And the simple fact is that you haven't offered any argument besides "they're not the same". Even if they aren't the same there's no reason to believe that Farlander's ability should work differently, other than your apparent belief that it's too overpowered if it works the way everyone else expects it to work.

FFG is obviously going to make a specific ruling on this in the next FAQ. Why don't we just table it until then? Loser can buy winner a beer at Worlds. Happy?

Let's solve this the Jedi way!

I edited my last post, for anyone inclined to read it.

I am making no assumptions, I am following the text. You are making assumptions about the text and about "precedents." You assume "spending a token" and "removing a token" are the same thing. There is no precedent for that.

Hey, at least we're making progress! You admit there's no precedent for your view. That's good.

The effects of the two are identical. I pointed that out above. So you're saying that how you pay for the ability makes identical text resolve in two different ways?

Stop and consider that for a minute. You're saying that identical game text resolves differently based on how it's paid for or initiated or, at the very least, because of differences in another part of the text. Even if there is a difference between "spending" and "removing" the token, the rest of the text is the same.

We do have examples of this, where different ways of initiating an ability lead to identical results. Consider Dutch and R5-K6 - by your logic they could/would resolve differently, because Dutch triggers from gaining a lock and R5-K6 triggers from spending one.

So, do you really think that identical resolution text should be interpreted differently due to different initiation conditions/costs? And if you do, how do you tell which is which just from looking at the text? If you remove your evaluation of Farlander's power level, how do you tell which can change zero eyeballs and which can't?