To expand a bit on mazz0's post:

I'm cool with being wrong. At least I'm not behaving in an aggressive way for no reason.If the FAQ or some official article says it, that's fine with me.Obviously I stepped into the wrong chat thread. Some unresolved emotions floating about here.

I suspect that the reason people aren't being receptive to your contribution to the thread is due to your implied assertion that the designers of the game are wrong about the design of the game, without providing any justification for why you feel that way.If you'd lead off with "I think that the game works better when..." or "I am going to house-rule it so that..." then people could engage with you; "Why do you think that," etc.Instead, you just flatly assert something that runs directly counter to both precedent and the designers stated intent, phrased in such an authoritative way that, absent context or justification, it comes across as incredibly dismissive.People get upset when they're treated dismissively.

I was pretty much about to say exactly this. Thanks!

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...

Speak for yourself. The box that came in the post this morning says otherwise

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...

They're still likely to hit the UK before iTunes Radio...

I suspect that the reason people aren't being receptive to your contribution to the thread is due to your implied assertion that the designers of the game are wrong about the design of the game, without providing any justification for why you feel that way.

A little bit more than that. The statement is either saying that the rules designers are wrong, or that the people posting the email responses are lying. I think the implied accusation of lying is more what is prompting whatever aggression and I'll will may be unconsciously surfacing.

I think we can all agree that FFG needs to pay more attention to card wording. Here, the card should read "you may remove 1 stress AND change all of you 'eyes' to 'hits'". This way, people can apply basic boolean knowledge and understand what the card is actually saying.

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...

They're still likely to hit the UK before iTunes Radio...

Do people still use iTunes? I thought only hipsters used Apple products these days.

I suspect that the reason people aren't being receptive to your contribution to the thread is due to your implied assertion that the designers of the game are wrong about the design of the game, without providing any justification for why you feel that way.

A little bit more than that. The statement is either saying that the rules designers are wrong, or that the people posting the email responses are lying. I think the implied accusation of lying is more what is prompting whatever aggression and I'll will may be unconsciously surfacing.

The initial post made was also pretty dang aggressive if I do say so myself. Don't turn up the heat and then complain it's too hot ;-)

Yeah I don't think anyone was trying to be aggressive. I suspect some of us are, however, frustrated by people who refuse to acknowledge anything short of an FAQ update as correct. Frank has obviously put up replies a couple of places, clarifying this and acknowledging the Garven precedent. I have it straight from Alex's keyboard in response to my own query that this is how it works.

So I think mainly we're a little confused, if the two game designers have both unequivocally stated that "Keyan may remove a stress to change 0 eyes to 0 hits" why you, or anyone, would have the slightest reason to believe that isn't how it works, or doubt that it will absolutely show up when the next update to the FAQ is released.

They're the lead designers, and this is how they have publicly stated they want his ability to work. So it's not like someone is going to randomly sneak around behind their backs and release an FAQ update that says the opposite. They write it themselves. I know. I'm part of the team that helps them make sure that things which need clarified get clarified.

So when I tell you "this is how it works. They have both said so. It is going to be in the next FAQ" you can believe me or not, but it's just silly to say "I care about FAQ, not letters," when the letters in question are written by the same two guys who are writing the FAQ. Just sayin'.

Is there a good place to go and find such public statements? Are they typically made on the Rules forum? I'm trying to get X-Wing going at my FLGS, and when questions outside of the official FAQ like this arise I would like to have a better answer than, "I remember reading that a guy on the forums said that the devs have publicly stated it works like this.."

I think we can all agree that FFG needs to pay more attention to card wording. Here, the card should read "you may remove 1 stress AND change all of you 'eyes' to 'hits'". This way, people can apply basic boolean knowledge and understand what the card is actually saying.

Do I still have to attack? Well you could probably fix that part as well. The wording they used is right though. They have cards predating with the same text that have been clarified. Wording on small cards is hard and while they might have used your text, it could be bad for other things they have to consider. To me it was clear from the start, even with Dreis his ability. I'm used to cardgame as and the way they write things and this is almost the same.

Yeah I don't think anyone was trying to be aggressive. I suspect some of us are, however, frustrated by people who refuse to acknowledge anything short of an FAQ update as correct. Frank has obviously put up replies a couple of places, clarifying this and acknowledging the Garven precedent. I have it straight from Alex's keyboard in response to my own query that this is how it works.

So I think mainly we're a little confused, if the two game designers have both unequivocally stated that "Keyan may remove a stress to change 0 eyes to 0 hits" why you, or anyone, would have the slightest reason to believe that isn't how it works, or doubt that it will absolutely show up when the next update to the FAQ is released.

They're the lead designers, and this is how they have publicly stated they want his ability to work. So it's not like someone is going to randomly sneak around behind their backs and release an FAQ update that says the opposite. They write it themselves. I know. I'm part of the team that helps them make sure that things which need clarified get clarified.

So when I tell you "this is how it works. They have both said so. It is going to be in the next FAQ" you can believe me or not, but it's just silly to say "I care about FAQ, not letters," when the letters in question are written by the same two guys who are writing the FAQ. Just sayin'.

Is there a good place to go and find such public statements? Are they typically made on the Rules forum? I'm trying to get X-Wing going at my FLGS, and when questions outside of the official FAQ like this arise I would like to have a better answer than, "I remember reading that a guy on the forums said that the devs have publicly stated it works like this.."

Yeah go to the support tab next to message board tab on the X-Wing page and the documents are available for download there. The one you'd want is the FAQ and the tournament rules as well if you wanna run one.

Yeah I don't think anyone was trying to be aggressive. I suspect some of us are, however, frustrated by people who refuse to acknowledge anything short of an FAQ update as correct. Frank has obviously put up replies a couple of places, clarifying this and acknowledging the Garven precedent. I have it straight from Alex's keyboard in response to my own query that this is how it works.

So I think mainly we're a little confused, if the two game designers have both unequivocally stated that "Keyan may remove a stress to change 0 eyes to 0 hits" why you, or anyone, would have the slightest reason to believe that isn't how it works, or doubt that it will absolutely show up when the next update to the FAQ is released.

They're the lead designers, and this is how they have publicly stated they want his ability to work. So it's not like someone is going to randomly sneak around behind their backs and release an FAQ update that says the opposite. They write it themselves. I know. I'm part of the team that helps them make sure that things which need clarified get clarified.

So when I tell you "this is how it works. They have both said so. It is going to be in the next FAQ" you can believe me or not, but it's just silly to say "I care about FAQ, not letters," when the letters in question are written by the same two guys who are writing the FAQ. Just sayin'.

Is there a good place to go and find such public statements? Are they typically made on the Rules forum? I'm trying to get X-Wing going at my FLGS, and when questions outside of the official FAQ like this arise I would like to have a better answer than, "I remember reading that a guy on the forums said that the devs have publicly stated it works like this.."

Yeah go to the support tab next to message board tab on the X-Wing page and the documents are available for download there. The one you'd want is the FAQ and the tournament rules as well if you wanna run one.

Thanks for your reply. I plan on having a print out of both those documents readily available once we get things going as well as asking everyone to be familiar with them prior to tournaments. My biggest concern is for questions outside the official FAQ that the devs have commented on. Are their comments archived in an easy to find location?

Unfortunately they aren't. What you could try doing is searching for them at the top of the page. The search bar is notoriously inconspicuous but look at the very top and you'll find it. Other than that, if you do need some outside help you can always post here or on the NOVA squadron fb page too and you'll find people to help you. If it's time sensitive, like during a tournament, and a question comes up though it's up to the TO to rule on it. Generally use any precedents set by previous examples or existing rules to generate a ruling and, if the wording is unclear and it could go either way, go with what the design intent most likely was. If something seems convoluted or silly chances are it's probably not the design intent.

If any of your players are planning on utilizing any tricky synergistic effects, have them clear it with the TO prior to the tournament at least a few days beforehand. That way you can consult with others if you need to and give a ruling before anyone sets their ships on the table. That's how I run my tournaments at any rate.

Is there a good place to go and find such public statements? Are they typically made on the Rules forum? I'm trying to get X-Wing going at my FLGS, and when questions outside of the official FAQ like this arise I would like to have a better answer than, "I remember reading that a guy on the forums said that the devs have publicly stated it works like this.."

Sadly, no. There are, however, a pretty solid group who tries to keep track of these things, and we're pretty good about finding and linking existent rulings when someone posts them. If you can't find the rulings, just ask the question and if we have one, someone will probably link to it.

Methinks it's a troll.

Keyan removes stress when shooting those as well.

Oh, don't we all.

I sense more head-canon getting in the way of opinion-truths.

No, email responses aren't archived anywhere (publicly, at least). But they do get posted in threads in the rules questions section. If you are reading those threads regularly, you could "follow" any threads that have an official response from frank, then you can get back to them without too much difficulty. Or just print out the responses when they get posted. If you are looking for the official reply to a specific question, feel free to ask. Someone has probably saved it somewhere, or remembers how to find it.

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...

They're still likely to hit the UK before iTunes Radio...

Do people still use iTunes? I thought only hipsters used Apple products these days.

I'm not entirely sure what a hipster is, you know. Is it a super cool dude who's a fan of plastic Star Wars toys?

Well when we outside the USA eventually get our hands on them it'll matter, which at this rate may be Xmas...

They're still likely to hit the UK before iTunes Radio...

Do people still use iTunes? I thought only hipsters used Apple products these days.

I'm not entirely sure what a hipster is, you know. Is it a super cool dude who's a fan of plastic Star Wars toys?

No its someone that was into something cool before you were

Basically its no different from punks or goth's, people who want attention but claim they don't.

Back to the question suppose Keyan has 10 stress tokens, can he clear all 10 stress tokens in the same attack (like Garven), or can he only clear 1 stress token, leaving 9?

Back to the question suppose Keyan has 10 stress tokens, can he clear all 10 stress tokens in the same attack (like Garven), or can he only clear 1 stress token, leaving 9?

Any ability can only be used once per Opportunity. I would assume that one attack=one opportunity.

No its someone that was into something cool before you were

Basically its no different from punks or goth's, people who want attention but claim they don't.

Back to the question suppose Keyan has 10 stress tokens, can he clear all 10 stress tokens in the same attack (like Garven), or can he only clear 1 stress token, leaving 9?

Back to the question suppose Keyan has 10 stress tokens, can he clear all 10 stress tokens in the same attack (like Garven), or can he only clear 1 stress token, leaving 9?

One attack, one opportunity to use the ability, one stress.