Read the thread intently. Cooling down the old grey matter. You guy's seem the best to clear this up. Back to a normal, non turret attack. Those are still measured closest to closest point including arc right? Is it just with turrets that the actual corner is used?
Turrets, Outmaneuver, and Tactician
Read the thread intently. Cooling down the old grey matter. You guy's seem the best to clear this up. Back to a normal, non turret attack. Those are still measured closest to closest point including arc right? Is it just with turrets that the actual corner is used?
Correct.
Someone previously pointed out that "may" was included in the rules for using turrets. I submitted a question to look at if a player could choose to not use the turret rules but instead opt for the normal firing arc rules. Also, the Dash Rendar ability thread is arguing around the word "may" in his ability as well so it would be good add more information to how that clause works. Here is what Frank sent me in response.
In response to your rules question:
Rule Question:
Turreted ships have the "may" clause when it comes to their ability. For card abilities that require an in-arc check, could the player choose to not fire outside of his firing arc and follow all the rules that pertain to a normal firing arc shot?
No. This is due to a common confusion around the use of “may.” In the core rules of X-Wing, sometimes the word “may” is used instead of the more clear “can” which usually function the same, but are subtly different. “Can” means roughly “you have the capacity to do so” while “may” means more like “you have the choice to do so.” In this case, both work, but “may” seems to imply that there is something you can gain by choosing to not target a ship not inside your firing arc; this is not the case.
The relevant part of the rules is specifically:
“When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship i nside or outside its firing arc .”
This does not actually say that you can choose to fire inside or outside of your firing arc, but specifically that the target of your attack can exist either inside or outside of your firing arc. When measuring range, it is measured from closest point to closest point (more specifically on pg 10 of the core rulebook):
“To measure range, place the Range 1 end of the range ruler so that it touches the closest part of the attacker’s base. Then point the rulers towards the closest part of the target ship’s base that is inside the attacker’s firing arc."
These rules were written specifically for ships that can only target ships that are inside of the their firing arc (which is most ships). In order for Ion Cannon Turret, Blaster Turret, and turret primary weapons to function as intended, the last part of the phrase “closest part of the target ship’s base that is inside the attacker’s firing arc ” must be ignored, otherwise a ship with a turret weapon could not actual attack a ship outside of its firing arc.
So, instead of these effects not working, merely whenever a ship attacks with a turret weapon, it is always measured from closest point to closest point. Whether a ship is inside of your arc (or not), is simply a property that can be checked as needed.
Thanks for asking!
Edited by SergovanThat's... very interesting. There's going to be a lot of potential headache around whether a "may" means "may" or "can".
Hopefully this means they'll be paying more attention to choice of words in the future, especially with regard to the FAQ. If they aren't open-minded enough to make turreted ships a true "may" ability, then they can at least change it to "can." That's certainly more preferable to "never mind that contradictory bit of text, what you really need to look at is this part over here."
Thanks for doing the legwork, Sergovan.
Edited by WonderWAAAGHI submitted one for the Dash Rendar ability and how it would work with the "may" clause at the same time but, since the Yt-2400 isn't released yet, Frank hasn't responded to it. I'll have to wait on that one.
@WW: I do what I can. So many threads go crazy overboard with disagreements when two sides get entrenched and no one submits a rules query.
I just want to know how it works, with the least amount of headaches.
I think the rules sub-forum works better if we use it as a think tank. There's a lot of ambiguity in the rules floating around of late, and saying "it's totally clear to me , so this is exactly how it works!" doesn't advance the debate very much. The best we can do is share our perspectives - with open minds - and hope to come to a consensus on how something should be played. And, hopefully, the developers pay enough attention to cherry pick the very best ideas and incorporate them into the game.
Edited by WonderWAAAGHI think the rules sub-forum works better if we use it as a think tank. There's a lot of ambiguity in the rules floating around of late, and saying "it's totally clear to me , so this is exactly how it works!" doesn't advance the debate very much. The best we can do is share our perspectives - with open minds - and hope to come to a consensus on how something should be played. And, hopefully, the developers pay enough attention to cherry pick the very best ideas and incorporate them into the game.
I'm all for the think tank aspect. When it becomes a shark tank is when I start writing an e-mail...
As a retired Magic:TG player, it is very exciting to be this close to the primal stages of rule/mechanic evolution of a relatively young game. It's like getting to see the dawn of a new age play out. :3 So happy, Such WOW. It's been so cool to find this think tank stew pot(kinda what it is, bring idea, simmer over medium troll) for reasons I can not explain.
The shortest line or the closest point on the attacking ship are not relevant for firing arc.
Which is what the rules actually indicate. But then franks first email on this (I think unintentionally) indicated otherwise and the we spent a whole day arguing about it and that caused some people to get it stuck in their minds that whether a target was in arc or not depended on how range was measured. Then franks second reply came in and he fixed his mistake and went back to what the book says, but in trying to explain how the mistake happened in the first place he wasn't super clear on what was actually supposed to happen.
A simple statement of "whether or not a target is within a ship's firing arc is independent of determining the range to the target" covers the entire matter and is, I think, what we have all concluded frank's latest email was saying. Yes?
And this is one of the reasons why emailed responses aren't a valid method for determining rules queries.
If he had put the flawed response in the FAQ, would you still abide by it?
The nature of the e-mails is to try and understand how some rules foundations work, something we don't have any access to. When we have a discussion over a rules interaction, we are trying to understand from written sources, be it cards, the rule book, the FAQ, or an e-mail. The goal is to gain as much information about the rules mechanincs so that we can understand how the interactions are supposed to work and advise the correct resolution to it. Some effects have no clear or good resolution (look at DTF and Ion) but we explore the rules and all information available to come to an understanding of how it works.
E-mails are usualy done when two or more camps form with valid or unmovable stances and the information present to determine the correct path is not clear enough. An e-mail helps to clarify a rules debates for this reason. It is from the game designer, who has access to information that none of us have.
We get stuff wrong sometimes, Frank gets some things wrong some times. That's called being human. Disregarding e-mails for this fact would not be wise if the answer is in fact correct. And an answer can still be correct with all the available information pointing to it, yet still be wrong.
Be part of the discussion but be clear that what you thought was the right mechanic and rule applied in the right way may change, for other factors, some of which may be an e-mail, but dont simply discount them because they may be wrong or aren't the official source. Treat it like any other source you reference and give it the weight you want.
Edited by SergovanI still don't get why a potentially-unreliable email response from the devs is somehow worse than not having a clue and leaving it to random chance. But whatever.
As Sergovan pointed out, quite often we can have a different interpretation of how something works. The ability to be able to ask one of the game's developers is a HUGE help. After playing so many different games over the last 35+ years, this is actually the first game that I've played where an email to the developer is an option. And I think it's terrific!
There are some grey areas within the game, I'm not going to deny that. But when I can ask FFG how this bit works and get an answer back (usually the next day), I'm not about to dismiss it just because it's not in the FAQ (yet).
The support for this game is immense, and I would hate to see it fade. We have the ability to be able to ask the question, and the ability to ask the follow-up question if need be. That in itself is pure gaming gold.
I agree that emails are handy to have. However they have zero weighting when trying to determining how something should be ruled for competitive play.
- They can be falsified.
- The person answering probably isn't as focused as they would be if they were writing an FaQ update, therefore they are more likely to make a mistake themselves in providing their answer.
- They can't be verified by anyone.
It's like me saying that I have a magic piece of paper that tells us how to handle a specific rules query. In competitive play they are 100% useless.
To reiterate
I still don't get why a potentially-unreliable email response from the devs is somehow worse than not having a clue and leaving it to random chance. But whatever.
I think Eltnot's point is that you can't bring the email to an event and claim it proves your point. Which is a good point, really. The emails work fine for weekly game nights and such, but as a TO at an official event I wouldn't put much faith in them for exactly the reasons Eltnot lists. And since the TO has final authority on rules disputes you must live with whatever call (s)he makes.
As a TO I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in a print out of an email that one of the participants brought in themselves and that I had never seen before. I would consider an email I personally received to a rules question as definitive and one that was reported on this board by a regular poster such as sergovan as reliable unless there was contradictory evidence.
I also make the assumption (incorrectly, based on the stories I have occasionally heard here) that TOs are reasonably conversant in any significant rules quandaries in the current meta and that they have made some effort to look into them prior to running an event.
I also make the assumption (incorrectly, based on the stories I have occasionally heard here) that TOs are reasonably conversant in any significant rules quandaries in the current meta and that they have made some effort to look into them prior to running an event.
Yeah, not all TO's are created equally. Often it's just the store owner who may not even play the game system, or only have a cursory knowledge. Actual tournament players make the best TO's since they are usually abreast of the rules issues and can provide an event specific FaQ ahead of time for players so that they know how things will be ruled on the day if they're not already covered (Cluster Missiles and Munitions Failsafe was a good example of this).
Me personally I honestly don't care too much how something is ruled, so long as it has been decided on prior to the event so that I can prepare for it/exclude it from my list.
Why don't we consider the absolute worst case scenario: someone just outright fakes an email and posts it up. What happens if we treat that as valid, and play by it?
Well, we have a 50/50 chance of playing wrong. So for whatever period of time elapses until we all figure it out and correct it, we've all got a 50/50 chance of being wrong. Quelle horror !!
But what does that actually mean? It means that we're all playing the same (wrong) way. Informed TOs know about the "decision" and pass it on. When you're playing with an opponent who knows, he pulls out his phone and does a quick google to the forum and shows you the copy, and you go "Ah, okay, that's fine then, let's move on." And you do. Then a few months later the FAQ hits, you see the answer was wrong, and change how you play it.
And what do we compare it to? A scenario where everybody has their own opinion on it. When it comes up in games people go around in circles, and then eventually probably just dice it off with whoever loses the roll knowing they got gipped. People get surprised by the ruling in the middle of tournaments because the TO comes down on the opposite side of the issue. Then a few months later the FAQ hits, you see the answer, and stop deciding randomly how to play it every game.
Let's look at an actual case that spawned a lot of the current angst - the reversal on Rexlar. If we consider a world where we never had that, but had it and then saw it reversed, which is better? How is having a consistent answer for a month or two, then seeing that answer change, worse than going into every event and even game wondering how your TO/opponent is going to want to play it?
When I say I don't get it, this is why - even in the absolute worst-case scenario, it's still a better environment for the game . Seriously. Not that I'm suggesting we'd be better off if everyone just started faking emails, but come on... you really can't look at the way things play based on emails, and the way things would play in an absence (or disregarding) of them and think it's actually a better situation.
And just to answer the obvious response, since we've seen it already - yes, other game companies have made it a disaster. If we develop those sorts of constant problems with X-wing I'll be the first to jump on them for it, but we haven't had anywhere near that level of difficulty.
Edited by BuhallinI agree with Buhallin. We've had the luxury of a terrific email service. Long may it last.
There is also the idea that more than one person can ask the same question and get the same answer in their e-mail.
I have seen posts declaring my e-mail posting completely invalid because nobody knows me from a rock on the path, but if other people ask the same question and posted their responses, then it wouldn't be an e-mail on the subject but a collection of e-mails, from the same source (Frank), saying the same thing. E-mail credibility wouldn't be so much an issue.
Buhallin makes a good point above, so what happens with a worst case scenario? Well, a T.O. now has to verify the validity of an e-mails contents and how it impacts the game. Coming to the right decision is often harder to do with less information, not more. And a T.O. has the ability to completely disregard the e-mail, even the FAQ, if they feel there is a rules interaction that warrants it. I'm less worried about fake e-mails than I am about Ad Hoc T.O.'ing.
Let's look at an actual case that spawned a lot of the current angst - the reversal on Rexlar.
I hate to do this, but....
What reversal on rexlar? I don't even see a rules question with his ability, or remember anyone arguing about it, much less remember ruling that reverses something.
The only recent hiccup I recall with rules emails lately was with turrets and tacticians.
Let's look at an actual case that spawned a lot of the current angst - the reversal on Rexlar.
I hate to do this, but....
What reversal on rexlar? I don't even see a rules question with his ability, or remember anyone arguing about it, much less remember ruling that reverses something.
Situation was if you take a Minor Explosion during damage resolution, whether Rexlar gets to flip that one. Original answer from Frank was no, FAQ changed that to say yes.
Ah, yes. Now I remember.
I also thought you were talking about 2 emails, not an email and a subsequent FAQ
I received a response from Frank today and it is an interesting one.
Hello Sergovan,
In response to your rules question:
Rule Question:
How does a YT-1300, with a ship in arc at range 2 and out of arc at range 1 (with closest point to closest point being at range 1) resolve Tactician and Outmaneuver.
Please see thread "Turrets, Outmaneuver, and Tactician".
The issue arrises from Tactician itself since the initial clause is a bit ambiguous (“After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2”). It is unclear whether the attack needed to be inside of your firing arc, whether the attack needed to be at Range 2, simply the ship attacked needs to be both at Range 2 and inside your firing arc, or something else entirely. The intention is that the attack performed was a not at Range 1 or Range 3 but explicitly Range 2 and that that ship was inside of the attacker’s firing arc.
Therefore, to answer your question: if a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver is attacks an enemy ship at Range 2 (when measured inside of the firing arc) and at Range 1 (when measured closest point to closest point, not inside the firing arc), Tactician would not trigger and Outmaneuver could trigger (so long as the YT-1300 is outside of the defender’s firing arc).
You may treat Tactician as though it said “After you perform an attack against an enemy ship at Range 2, if that ship was inside your firing arc, it receives 1 stress token."
This is reverting my previous reasoning for my answer to Tactician although keeps mostly the same resolution. In fact, it removes an artifact from the previous ruling. This means that for a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver that is attacking a ship that is at Range 2 and straddling the firing arc, Tactician would still trigger (even if the closest point to closest point is drawn outside of the firing arc) and Outmaneuver could still trigger. With the previous ruling, it actually “punished” turret primary weapon ships for having this setup since another ship in the exact same situation would have been able to use both abilities.
Thanks for asking,
Frank Brooks
Associate Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
And, no, I did not make this up myself.
I'm also not sure it addresses the target being at range 3 in arc but range 2 out of arc.
I guess FFG would just err on the side of letting effects from upgrades trigger, hence going with the card text over the rule book text (hence breaking the rules). According to the upgrade card the ship is at range 2 in arc so it triggers, according to turret primary weapon the ship is at range 1 out of arc which arcs don't matter from primary weapons.
It is not an unfair ruling, for one it allows those who spend points on upgrades to not lose the value of those points on small technicalities, also it removes the "inch pinching" seen often in competitive play or numerous miniature games where a single millimeter can mean the difference between the game being won or lost. With the movement templates over simple ruler measurements that is less of a problem in X-wing.
Edited by Marinealver