but those are mostly confusing and/or ambiguous due to the core rule book being inadequate.
I would love to see a fairly hardcore rewrite of the X-Wing core rules, one that includes much of the FAQ's and such, one that clearly defines timing and terms and such.
FFG really needs to hire some new game designers. The only thing consistent about their cards at this point is the consistently terrible wording.
You realize that this is the third set of game designers working on this game, currently, right?
And that most of the problems you encounter, even on newer content, actually stem back to the core rulebook, and not to the expansions. Most of the wordings on most of the cards is actually fine. There are a few confusing or ambiguous ones, but those are mostly confusing and/or ambiguous due to the core rule book being inadequate.
I was going to let this one go because it was pretty much ignored, but Magadizer is right. It is pretty clear that the developers take great care to maintain the balanced, competitive environment that all of the players love. There are more than a couple of quirks, but they almost exclusively derive from the original rules, which were written when nobody could have predicted the competitive popularity of the game. Those issues that exist have been addressed in ways that keep the game playable and enjoyable.
but those are mostly confusing and/or ambiguous due to the core rule book being inadequate.
I would love to see a fairly hardcore rewrite of the X-Wing core rules, one that includes much of the FAQ's and such, one that clearly defines timing and terms and such.
So would I.
That's another valid interpretation, I had not thought of it that way. If you declare the barrel roll direction, then with Dash you HAVE to take it unless you wuld overlap a ship. In other words "may" in this case is not a conditional choice on the player's part, it is simply stating that it is possible. Under that reading, it nerfs his ability even more. And technically he can't choose to take damage from landing on a rock after completing a maneuver, although I don't know why you would ever want to do that.
It's not really that bad a nerf is it? It's tricky with boosts sometimes, but is it that hard to predict where a big ship would be after a barrel roll? Harder than with small ships I suppose. At least it's only a 2.5 movement now instead of a 3, easier to picture maybe.
Well, compared to the extreme example as the OP explained his interpretation of Dash, it certainly changes the gameplay. I think he's fine even if he has to take the barrel roll. It puts more of an emphasis on smart maneuvering and barrel rolling, which is good. The pilot ability is still fantastic, and is practically made for HLC Outrider.
A very (kinda) enlightening ruling concerning the optional-ness of turrets provides some interesting details on "may":
Short version: Some times "may" means optional, and some times "may" is just 3rd-Grade-English-Teacher-Obnoxious for "can".
There doesn't seem to be any real way to tell them apart, but given the wording of the response in regards to turning off turrets to try and gain an advantage, I'd lay money on Dash coming down on the "may really means can and isn't optional" side of things.
In terms of shooting someone in arc who is range 1 of Biggs. I think she would not have to shoot Biggs with the torp. She could fail the "may" check on her ability if he is out of her arc. Since unlike turrets her ability is a "may". As a note turret upgrades specifically state "Attack: Attack 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc)." and turret primaries state "When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside its firing arc.". So neither allow a choice to target inside or outside of firing arc. Thus she can decide to just use her APT on her original choice of target.
I'm confused. You say that turrets are not a "may," then quote a block of text that specifically says "may."
FFG really needs to hire some new game designers. The only thing consistent about their cards at this point is the consistently terrible wording.
You realize that this is the third set of game designers working on this game, currently, right?
And that most of the problems you encounter, even on newer content, actually stem back to the core rulebook, and not to the expansions. Most of the wordings on most of the cards is actually fine. There are a few confusing or ambiguous ones, but those are mostly confusing and/or ambiguous due to the core rule book being inadequate.
No, the cards are confusing and/or ambiguous because of the increasing number of complex interactions. A well defined set of rules would serve as an enabler for better worded cards, which was very much my point (albeit in a subsequent post). Better written rules do nothing for cards that don't make clear use of keywords and timing windows.
Edited by WonderWAAAGHA very (kinda) enlightening ruling concerning the optional-ness of turrets provides some interesting details on "may":
Short version: Some times "may" means optional, and some times "may" is just 3rd-Grade-English-Teacher-Obnoxious for "can".
There doesn't seem to be any real way to tell them apart, but given the wording of the response in regards to turning off turrets to try and gain an advantage, I'd lay money on Dash coming down on the "may really means can and isn't optional" side of things.
Well that's good to hear something from FFG, even if it is just related. So it sounds like Dash has to always use his ability, and ignore obstacles. So you have to be even more careful when barrel rolling with him than with a regular ship, because you can lose your shot. But his ability is still really good, so the burden is on you to pilot him well. I like this.
The guys running the upcoming VASSAL tournament should be aware of this.
Better written rules do nothing for cards that don't make clear use of keywords and timing windows,
But half the reason the cards have issues is because there were so few terms and keywords defined in the rules to start with. So a lot of what they had to do, is make cards work in the existing framwork.
But half the reason the cards have issues is because there were so few terms and keywords defined in the rules to start with. So a lot of what they had to do, is make cards work in the existing framwork.
That's not in dispute.
The game is evolving. I'm certainly not pushing for these changes to take place right now, though that would be nice. The situation is what it is, and we have to live with the ad hoc rulings that FFG issues to sort out these peculiar situations that are materializing with more frequency. Consider my posts musings on the potential future of X-Wing's rules.
Edited by WonderWAAAGH
No, the cards are confusing and/or ambiguous because of the increasing number of complex interactions. A well defined set of rules would serve as an enabler for better worded cards, which was very much my point (albeit in a subsequent post). Better written rules do nothing for cards that don't make clear use of keywords and timing windows.
There simply aren't timing windows in X-wing, at least not clearly defined in the way that they are in a game like the Star Wars LCG. How are cards from the expansions supposed to interact in a precise fashion with the timing vagueries that are intractably present in the core rule book?
If the FAQ (or a theoretical second edition rulebook) were to come out and tighten up the core timing issues, then we could talk about criticizing the expansions more.
You are still missing the point that the core rulebook and the cards in the expansions are not written by the same people. It's in the third generation of developers now. The current group of designers are working within the framework they inherited from the first two sets of designers. And given (as you point out) the increasing complexity, I will go ahead and say they are doing a very good job, and an increasingly good job, but are building on a shaky foundation for ironclad rules arguments.
Again, the fault lies in the foundations of the game (the core rule book) primarily. The rules on what constitutes an Attack are probably the most egregious example, but there are many more.
Uh, we're pretty much in agreement that the core rules need to be changed. What is it about my posts that gives you the impression that I'm saying something else?
A very (kinda) enlightening ruling concerning the optional-ness of turrets provides some interesting details on "may":
Short version: Some times "may" means optional, and some times "may" is just 3rd-Grade-English-Teacher-Obnoxious for "can".
There doesn't seem to be any real way to tell them apart, but given the wording of the response in regards to turning off turrets to try and gain an advantage, I'd lay money on Dash coming down on the "may really means can and isn't optional" side of things.
Boy, if that makes things clear to you, your a better man than I. May = Can, and Can=Not optional. So we will find out if it is a "May" like Howlrunner as you may certainly not choose to use it when a ship if firing at range 1. Or, if it is a "May" as in the use of the turrets described in the response from FFG.
It prevents scenarios where you would want to overlap things, like ships. For example, if you have a higher PS and make a bad maneuver, you could potentially barrel roll into an enemy ship to prevent it from firing at you. That's clearly not the intent of the action, so while it may not fit thematically, it works mechanically.I never liked that you could cancel a Barrel roll if it caused you to land on an Asteroid. I mean, just watch where you're flying, if you crash, too bad for you. If you do a turn and slam into a rock, you don't get to switch to a straight to avoid overlapping either.
I already pasted the barrel roll related paragraph from the FAQ in this thread. How I read it is you may do the template premeasure before committing as stated in the rulebook, then if you decide to follow through an take the BR action you do so in the way described on the competitive play FAQ.
Then you're reading it wrong. The rules don't permit you to "decide to follow through" after you measure. You declare the action, at which point you're committed. Then you measure, and if it's legal you can complete the maneuver. It's very straightforward. At no point in the game are you permitted to use your templates to measure something without having made a declaration first.
Edited by ShadoIt prevents scenarios where you would want to overlap things, like ships. For example, if you have a higher PS and make a bad maneuver, you could potentially barrel roll into an enemy ship to prevent it from firing at you. That's clearly not the intent of the action, so while it may not fit thematically, it works mechanically.I never liked that you could cancel a Barrel roll if it caused you to land on an Asteroid. I mean, just watch where you're flying, if you crash, too bad for you. If you do a turn and slam into a rock, you don't get to switch to a straight to avoid overlapping either.
I already pasted the barrel roll related paragraph from the FAQ in this thread. How I read it is you may do the template premeasure before committing as stated in the rulebook, then if you decide to follow through an take the BR action you do so in the way described on the competitive play FAQ.
Then you're reading it wrong. The rules don't permit you to "decide to follow through" after you measure. You declare the action, at which point you're committed. Then you measure, and if it's legal you can complete the maneuver. It's very straightforward. At no point in the game are you permitted to use your templates to measure something without having made a declaration first.
A very (kinda) enlightening ruling concerning the optional-ness of turrets provides some interesting details on "may":
Short version: Some times "may" means optional, and some times "may" is just 3rd-Grade-English-Teacher-Obnoxious for "can".
There doesn't seem to be any real way to tell them apart, but given the wording of the response in regards to turning off turrets to try and gain an advantage, I'd lay money on Dash coming down on the "may really means can and isn't optional" side of things.
Boy, if that makes things clear to you, your a better man than I. May = Can, and Can=Not optional. So we will find out if it is a "May" like Howlrunner as you may certainly not choose to use it when a ship if firing at range 1. Or, if it is a "May" as in the use of the turrets described in the response from FFG.
It's all clear as mud to me! 
Uh, we're pretty much in agreement that the core rules need to be changed. What is it about my posts that gives you the impression that I'm saying something else?
Actually I may have misread one of your posts slightly. Still, it was the impression left by the earlier post in the thread, where you seemed to be laying blame on the design of the cards, which I feel is misplaced, given the state of the core rules, as I explained/
If Dash is not allowed the option to ignore the obstacle he lands on with a barrel roll because of his ability, then he is being denied an option that is available to all other pilots in the game. His ability is meant to express his skill as a pilot. So why on earth would FFG give him an ability that allows him a unique skill but only at the cost of an ability any generic no name pilot can make? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
If Dash is not allowed the option to ignore the obstacle he lands on with a barrel roll because of his ability, then he is being denied an option that is available to all other pilots in the game. His ability is meant to express his skill as a pilot. So why on earth would FFG give him an ability that allows him a unique skill but only at the cost of an ability any generic no name pilot can make? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
It's high skill, high reward.
The facts that the word "may" does mean its optional, that his ability can only be triggered during the action (not initiated during the non-action committed measurement, and the unlikely event that FFG would give Dash an ability for being an excellent pilot at the expense of a benefit that any other pilot can make, is all pretty strong evidence that he should be able to choose whether or not to ignore the obstacle.
Actually I may have misread one of your posts slightly. Still, it was the impression left by the earlier post in the thread, where you seemed to be laying blame on the design of the cards, which I feel is misplaced, given the state of the core rules, as I explained/Uh, we're pretty much in agreement that the core rules need to be changed. What is it about my posts that gives you the impression that I'm saying something else?
That's fair. I am blaming the cards, but not only the cards. The rules and the cards have to interact together, and they're not really jibing very well at the moment. It would be putting the cart before the horse to fix the cards first, that much I'll freely admit. But that doesn't mean both aren't in desperate need of some revision, and if they can't be bothered to fix the rules, they could at least make the cards that much more clear. This ad hoc business is getting tiresome.
Edited by WonderWAAAGHThe facts that the word "may" does mean its optional, that his ability can only be triggered during the action (not initiated during the non-action committed measurement, and the unlikely event that FFG would give Dash an ability for being an excellent pilot at the expense of a benefit that any other pilot can make, is all pretty strong evidence that he should be able to choose whether or not to ignore the obstacle.
You're reading an AWFUL lot of assumption into this.
First, you assume that not being able to cross/land on an asteroid is a benefit. It's not. It's a limitation.
Second, you're assuming that every ability is guaranteed to be a benefit 100% of the time. It's not.
Third, you're assuming that the developers agree with your interpretations of these things despite the complete lack of evidence.
This is RAI at its absolute worst - "It works like this because I think the developers would agree with me!"
Edit: One other important point that's worth considering here is that there is absolutely nothing in the system that guarantees you a good position at the end of the barrel roll. At the very least you can make a bad move that puts you into an arc you don't want to be in, and you're stuck with it. At worst you successfully complete the barrel roll right off the edge of the board and destroy yourself. Dash being able to potentially roll himself into a bad position is most certainly NOT unique to him in any way.
Edited by BuhallinBoy, if that makes things clear to you, your a better man than I. May = Can, and Can=Not optional. So we will find out if it is a "May" like Howlrunner as you may certainly not choose to use it when a ship if firing at range 1. Or, if it is a "May" as in the use of the turrets described in the response from FFG.
I think it's clear in that it actually explains a lot of why some of the rules are the way they are, not that it's necessarily conclusive on this particular question. And I found the exposition surrounding the answer - which we almost never get from FFG - very enlightening. That's why I'm expecting it to come down as a "can" rather than a "true may". Given the actual cited example of trying to turn off a turret in order to game the system, this feels almost identical to me.
The real takeaway here is that the stupid grammar teacher "Can I go to the bathroom?" response has scarred our entire society to the point where we use "may" even when we should actually use "can" 
After you commit to your action you can. Throwing down your template at any other time is cheating.According to the rules, you CAN throw down the 1 template to measure, you just cant move your model.Can you just measure without taking the action? Try throwing down the 1-straight template at a tournament and see where that gets you.
"What are you doing?"
"Seeing if I can make this barrel roll."
"Are you taking a barrel roll action?"
"I don't know, I'm thinking about it."
"Then I repeat, what the hell are you doing?"
Now for tournaments I can understand the need for more precise order and don't allow for things that would be allowed in a casual game. However in this case I would call the official who would more likely side on the word "may" saying Dash doesn't have to land on the Asteroid even if his ability allowed him to and then the TO will tell you to continue to play the game as you only have so many minutes before you have to go to the next round.
Pre-measuring is not illegal as this is not 4th or 5th edition 40K and it has been clarified in official matches when it is allowed. Using the template to see if the action can be done is the procedure. Not using an ability that has the word "may" is listed in the rule book if you read it. The above in not cheating, also what advantage did Dash gain other than to avoid not being able to attack because of obstacles? That's what Dash was designed to do is use obstacles to his advantage. That's what the extra point cost is for. Cheating would be something like Barrel Roll Creep but that's another topic.
No one is confused here unless this is another one of your jokes then you are confusing everyone dear Confused Confuser.
Either way point here is casual games are for fun. Official games are on a time schedule. Arguing over rules is counterproductive to both. Call the TO who will take the word "may" heavily on his/her judgment and then play on it whatever the call was.
Edited by Marinealver
The facts that the word "may" does mean its optional, that his ability can only be triggered during the action (not initiated during the non-action committed measurement, and the unlikely event that FFG would give Dash an ability for being an excellent pilot at the expense of a benefit that any other pilot can make, is all pretty strong evidence that he should be able to choose whether or not to ignore the obstacle.
You're reading an AWFUL lot of assumption into this.
First, you assume that not being able to cross/land on an asteroid is a benefit. It's not. It's a limitation.
Second, you're assuming that every ability is guaranteed to be a benefit 100% of the time. It's not.
Third, you're assuming that the developers agree with your interpretations of these things despite the complete lack of evidence.
This is RAI at its absolute worst - "It works like this because I think the developers would agree with me!"
Edit: One other important point that's worth considering here is that there is absolutely nothing in the system that guarantees you a good position at the end of the barrel roll. At the very least you can make a bad move that puts you into an arc you don't want to be in, and you're stuck with it. At worst you successfully complete the barrel roll right off the edge of the board and destroy yourself. Dash being able to potentially roll himself into a bad position is most certainly NOT unique to him in any way.
I'm not reading any assumption, I'm reading how the rules are clearly written and would be interpreted as per the English language. I can admit that I might be wrong, but then so is the use of wording in the rules.
And in no way did I say the developers would agree with me, I simply said that it wouldn't make sense for them to make the rules as such. Even if the rules do mean as you suggest, it still doesn't make my opinion of them making it that way not make sense invalid. Even if your right, I will still think that it doesn't make sense. Am I not entitled to my own opinion?
Perhaps I'm not the one making the assumptions here.
The facts that the word "may" does mean its optional, that his ability can only be triggered during the action (not initiated during the non-action committed measurement, and the unlikely event that FFG would give Dash an ability for being an excellent pilot at the expense of a benefit that any other pilot can make, is all pretty strong evidence that he should be able to choose whether or not to ignore the obstacle.
You're reading an AWFUL lot of assumption into this.
First, you assume that not being able to cross/land on an asteroid is a benefit. It's not. It's a limitation.
Second, you're assuming that every ability is guaranteed to be a benefit 100% of the time. It's not.
Third, you're assuming that the developers agree with your interpretations of these things despite the complete lack of evidence.
This is RAI at its absolute worst - "It works like this because I think the developers would agree with me!"
Edit: One other important point that's worth considering here is that there is absolutely nothing in the system that guarantees you a good position at the end of the barrel roll. At the very least you can make a bad move that puts you into an arc you don't want to be in, and you're stuck with it. At worst you successfully complete the barrel roll right off the edge of the board and destroy yourself. Dash being able to potentially roll himself into a bad position is most certainly NOT unique to him in any way.
And maybe not for you, but for myself, the ability to avoid having to barrel roll onto an obstacle has proven more positive then negative. It depends on the situation and different persons opinions and experiences. You just assumed that for everyone else out there that not being able to barrel roll onto obstacle at all times is a negative thing.
The rulebook says a lot of things that don't pertain to competitive play. Unless we're talking kitchen table scenarios, you need to read the FAQ. It's on page 9.
****, I could go for a blue milk and kahlua right about now.