Whether or not there's a check is the only thing that might have beeen debatable before, but now that FFG has made their ruling we might as well consider it a fait accompli.

Inventing a check is a very big deal. It's a completely unstated concept in the rules even before you get to the timing, it breaks the atomic nature of abilities, and the nature of the check is completely undefined. What says whether I can succeed or not? Having a token seems to qualify... What about room to complete the move? That's an equally important condition, does that one need to be precleared?

And I'm not even going to touch how the check interacts with failed attempts to decloak.

"A ship may..." there's your check, with no other requisite beyond spending the token. When do you check it? "... immediately before revealing its maneuver dial."

Can I do X? I don't know, let me check to see if Y condition exists. I / the game state / the rules / the ship have checked to see if Y condition exists, and verified that it does. Therefor I may do X.

Since there seems to be some confusion as to how to handle a situation in which you have no room to complete the maneuver, I will draw your attention to another trigger: If you are unable to complete a chosen action (or the decloak), the game rules permit you to take another action instead.

"A ship may..." there's your check. When do you check it? "... immediately before revealing its maneuver dial."

You're suggesting hat things are interleaved. That every ability does some undefined part of it to figure out if it's possible, then stops so they can decide what order to go in, then they all complete.

So when do I spend the token? Before I use Advanced Sensors, or after?

The ruling for Advanced Sensors/Decloaking has been cleaned up.

Before revealing the dial, if the ship was not cloaked, then the decloak trigger does not exist. The only existing trigger is Advanced Sensors.

Simple, easy and it works.

I'm suggesting that there is a definable game state going on in the background at all times, one that we simply ignore until there is a trigger that interrupts the normal flow of the game. Almost every element of the game has or can be said to have a binary status: focused/unfocused, evading / not evading, cloaked/uncloaked, etcetera and ad infinitum. The game rules simply assume that one of these is always the case until such time as a specific triggering event has the potential to change that element's status. Advanced Sensors imposes just such an event, as does the presence of a cloak token.

In this particular instance, there wouldn't normally be a "stop" prior to revealing the dial because there would be no triggering event. Since there is a triggering event, the game does stop until the active player makes a conscious decision one way or another. That player's choices are limited to the abilities in question and how they interact with the game rules, so there isn't anything "undefined" going on at that point.

So, when do you spend the token? At the same time that you execute the decloak, I imagine. The game rules seem to imply that you do so beforehand, in a cost: reward manner, but that poses some issues with regard to retrieving the spent token in the event that you cannot complete the decloak. If you're asking me how barrel roll and decloak interact with Advanced Sensors, I think I already addressed that in my previous post. If I wasn't clear: you, as the active player, get to choose which order to execute both of your triggered effects. You may either barrel roll first and decloak after, or decloak first and barrel roll after. Whichever order you choose to do them in, assuming you choose to do either or both, spending the token will be part of the decloaking effect. Remember, you do not have to commit to an action simply because a triggering event occurs. Executing an action/decloak, and all of the associated costs, occurs as part of the resolution of the triggered effect itself, not the triggering event. If you pass on the "may" clause, then obviously there is no need to concern yourself with when a cost is paid.

Edit: as an afterthought, pre-measuring the decloak is a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the "when do I spend the token?" issue. The active player declares that he is attempting the decloak, pre-measures, and is thus committed if the decloak is possible. He then spends the token and executes the decloak. This is all one completely encapsulated trigger effect, independent of the other trigger effects occurring simultaneously.

I think the Advanced Sensors/Decloak actually does match things we have seen before. Specifically the ruling on Vader crew/Gunner and self destruction.

In this case when you go to reveal your dial there is a point at which you are immediately before revealing it. At that point you get to decloak if you have a clock token, if you have Advanced Sensors you get to take an action at this point as well. The order you perform these effects is up to you. But if at that point you have no cloak token you cannot decloak even if after using AS you do have one.

Similarly for the Vader crew ruling, Vader and Gunner both trigger off the initial attack being complete. Then you get to activate Vader, if that destroys the ship you still get to use the attack provided by Gunner. You don't check that the ship is destroyed before executing Gunner.

Another reversal: epic matches now start the huge ships with full energy.

Another reversal: epic matches now start the huge ships with full energy.

Large ships have to go slow to gain enough energy to power their weapons before combat. This means that they can now rush in and engage the enemy.

It was like trying to engage the enemy on a 6x3 table when you start on the 6" edge. Many a turn going 4-5 straight before you engage your opponent.

Full energy makes it now more like the 3" edge. One turn to see how it will develop and next turn you start blasting.

I thought for sure Buhallin would have responded to my last post by now. Does his silence mean agreement, or a carefully planned rebuttal?

It means it's not worth it. It was a very nice post which had absolutely nothing to do with the actual rules of X-wing, so I decided to just move on.

There are rules, and then there are implied interactions. Either X-Wing is a game of ad hoc, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless connections - in which case anything you or I say here isn't "worth it" - or there's a discernible method to the madness. For a guy who spends as much time contemplating the rules as you do, I'd think you'd be able to see beyond the 28 page core rulebook.

What we're trying to do here, I believe, is connect the dots for questionable interactions that aren't explicitly defined. There are only so many ways to do that, and if you want to shrug your shoulders because there isn't a 900 section comprehensive rulebook to draw from, be my guest.

There's reverse engineering, and there's inventing from whole cloth. We obviously have to reverse engineer things with this system, but your last went way over the line into invention.

The same thing happened with the Dark Curse/Blaster Turret ruling. I pointed out a contradiction in the rules, a few people bent themselves into very impressive knots trying to make it all work, I developed a borderline cyberstalker who tracked down everything I said everywhere on the subject to try and prove me wrong... and at Gencon the devs basically admitted it was broken.

You've gone down the same road (the knots, not the cyberstalking). Nothing in your last post is really in the rules. It's not even broad reverse engineering. It's basically invented entirely to make this particular ruling work. But it doesn't, any more than stopping short of obstacles or turrets or The Ruling Formerly Known as WTF Proximity Mine Maneuvers?

If you want to continue rabbiting down that hole, be my guest. It's a free board. But after a long time digging into this ruleset I've learned to recognize "Because we said so" rulings, and trying to justify them is not only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to our ability to understand the rules. So press on if you feel the need, but I'm done with this one.

You can't invent logic from whole cloth. What you call "impressive knots" are actually basic concepts in other games with more precise rule sets.

Come to think of it, I liked it better when you decided to move on, so I'll accept your concession. Personally, I don't have any double standards that permit me to declare some rulings as being "because we said so" while trying to interpret others.

For what it's worth, I answered your question in a way that was at least semi-unrelated to my "impressive knots." I thought you might at least deign to respond to that.

You can't invent logic from whole cloth. What you call "impressive knots" are actually basic concepts in other games with more precise rule sets.

Come to think of it, I liked it better when you decided to move on, so I'll accept your concession. Personally, I don't have any double standards that permit me to declare some rulings as being "because we said so" while trying to interpret others.

Except we're not talking about basic logic or other games, are we? We're talking rules, which frequently defy basic logic, and specifically about X-wing. Would a concept of cost or "can complete" checks help explain this ruling? Sure. But they don't exist here, and there's no other rules, rulings, or abilities in the game that need it. That's the important key, as I tried to allude to earlier - there are certainly cases where we need to reverse engineer rules. The "once per opportunity" rule is a good example. It's not stated, but the game simply fails to function without it, so I tended to cite it long before it appeared in the FAQ.

That's not a double standard - it's simply the reality of this rule set. They've cleaned a few up lately, but there are still a number of rulings which simply contradict the rules as written. FFG rules for special cases as they see fit, not according to some unifying rules model that they just refuse to share with us. It's really impossible to look at many of the rulings and come to any other conclusion.

So much for being done... twice now, I believe. It's okay Buhallin, I have no problem being the bigger man. You needn't worry about me cyberstalking you either, though I'll very much have to question any future interpretations you render in a game that's clearly impossible to make any conclusions about. I'll even keep my skepticism to myself. You're welcome.

You can tell the difference between discussing the Advanced Sensors/Decloak ruling (which we haven't done since your initial troll post) and discussing the broader state of the rules and how we interpret them, right?

P.S. And you do realize that the guy who declares himself the bigger man proves that he's not, right?

You haven't posted anything meaningful about the topic at hand since before your initial cop out, so I really have no problem with you calling me a troll, regardless of the dubiousness of that statement.

P.S. And you do realize that you don't get to keep leaving the topic and get the last word in, right? I know you don't like to lose an argument, but you can't have it both ways.

Another reversal: epic matches now start the huge ships with full energy.

Aaanyway

I haven't had a chance yet to actually sit down and read the PDFs, but from what I gather, huge ships only start with their ship card charged, upgrades like secondary weapons still need energy allocated to them.

Is that correct, or is the internet just abbreviating the concept?

Step 8 in the Epic Dogfight Squadron Deployment Procedure:

Players assign Energy tokens to each of their Huge ships up to its energy limit.

I like the Energy change. The Corvette is stronger with full energy than without, so I always started with a 1 forward maneuver.

My opponent knows the Corvette is stronger with full energy, so he immediately rushes to engage it as fast as possible.

At least now I can broadside him with everything I've got if he does that, and the game in general is ON much faster.

Which is exactly why I don't like the change. Flying Huge ships is a constant balance between how mucj energy you need and how much you need to move. Now this is no longer true for turn 1.

Stupid Magic and the premise of Using the stack.

Not really a fan of the Advanced Sensors and Decloaking Reversal because it makes Stygian Particle Accelerator from a minor card into a dead card, but so be it. Guess its a Good time to be Rebels.

The huge ships ruling is interesting. There are two ways to read it. Either you assign N energy tokens to the ship during setup or you assign N energy tokens to the ship but can place these on any systems/upgrades or on the ship itself.

In the first case it means in the first turn you can do whatever manoeuvre you want without worrying about energy. You don't get to assign energy from the ship to systems before you add energy in the Energy phase. So any energy generated in the first turn is wasted.

In the second case you can place the available energy where you want which makes the first turn a bit more tactical.

I wonder if they thought this through fully? Which do you think they meant?

or you assign N energy tokens to the ship but can place these on any systems/upgrades or on the ship itself.

How do you manage to get that interpretation?

I can see someone trying to argue that you charge up all of the ships cards, but I don't see how someone could suggest that you only get enough energy for the ship card, but can distribute it how you like.

Players assign Energy tokens to each of their Huge ships up to its energy limit.

The ambiguity is around the assign statement. The number of tokens to assign is clearly the energy limit of the ship. But you could, in theory, assign the tokens however you want to any upgrade on the ship.