This is exactly the point I'm making with the turret issue.

No not really. The turrets work because a basic understanding of the rules makes it clear how they should work. It's only when you start to parse the rules at a very high level do you see where it falls apart.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of just how tightly you hold to RAW.

Then this whole argument is moot, as the idea that Castling is legal because the rules make it legal has just as much validity as saying turrets don't work because the rules don't support them properly. Don't go from RAW for one argument to RAI for another and claim they have equal merit.

It's a bud that's been around for a good long while, and the only reason it's getting so much attention now is because we're making a big deal out of it, not because of its impact at Worlds.

If your point is "why are we discussing this utterly minor issue?", you're here discussing it as much as anyone else.

I'm the only one allowed to have a double standard.

Truly a god among mortals.

Consider me blessed by Gork 'n Mork.

Don't go from RAW for one argument to RAI for another and claim they have equal merit.

FFG lays out how Turrets should work in the FAQ. So regardless of any issues with target choice vs weapon choice. It's clear how turrets should work. That is simple RAW. Likewise, castling is also allowed by the rules, for the same reason. Because FFG said so.

Bhuallin is correct the rules shouldn't allow turrets to work like they should. But that's an issue of how the rules are written, and FFG's not updating the rules to account for a mistake they made, and addressed in the FAQ.

I think I'm done with this debate for a while... Until the next time it comes up anyway. Bottom line for me is this.

Fly Casual and Play to Win are not mutually exclusive concepts.

There's a rule in the core book that says if a card disagrees with the rules, the card wins. That's enough to solve this issue without going into the nebulous realm of rules interpretation, which isn't as open and shut as a certain poster would have us believe. Suffice it to say, turrets are perfectly fine within the framework of X-Wing's current rules, even if some things aren't defined as well as they could (or should) be.

Now that we've gotten past that bit of specious argumentation, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand.

So then if someone were to pull that out in say the Top 16, and shut down his opponent's turrets, it would be acceptable for them to do so? And you'd defend their right to do so, and call them a good sportsman and competitor for doing so, since FFG hasn't fixed it yet?

Wouldn't it kind of be fantastic though if somebody tried that - kind of a 'some people just want to watch the world burn' move but would certainly be one way to force FFG's hand on making a fix.

Fly Casual and Play to Win are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Nobody has suggested they are exclusive.

What the people disagreeing with you are saying is that you can "Play to Win" without adopting the "Anything (technically) legal goes" mentality.

There's a rule in the core book that says if a card disagrees with the rules, the card wins. That's enough to solve this issue without going into the nebulous realm of rules interpretation, which isn't as open and shut as a certain poster would have us believe. Suffice it to say, turrets are perfectly fine within the framework of X-Wing's current rules, even if some things aren't defined as well as they could (or should) be.

Now that we've gotten past that bit of specious argumentation, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand.

That rule should come with a little picture of Palpatine: "I will make it legal"

RAW...

RAI....

/facepalm

There is only RAW. RAI doesn't exist except if the rules don't cover something, and since we are lucky to have a game that covers most of the stuff, including the "auto bumping", you can't come up with RAI. If you see a rule that is written in such fashion, that it seems counter intuitive to you, it doesn't mean it is not working as intended, it only means it doesn't work like you think it should be intended to work. I still don't understand why people keep bringing the missused 40k terms into this.

Fly Casual and Play to Win are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Nobody has suggested they are exclusive.

What the people disagreeing with you are saying is that you can "Play to Win" without adopting the "Anything (technically) legal goes" mentality.

Is exactly the same. If you are playing to win you are adopting anything that is legal. Anytime you don't, you are already handicapping yourself by your own choice and not playing to win.

I don't know what else could you consider as a play to win mentality from a pure form perspective.

And yes, it has been worded in several threads, several times as being mutually exclusive. If you want quotes, i will do in my next post. But we can just ignore them, and continue because that's rather pointless.

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

You can explain it to them, but you'd be wrong.

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

You can explain it to them, but you'd be wrong.

Using your own RAI.

There is only RAW. RAI doesn't exist except if the rules don't cover something

With physics or computer code sure, but rules written in language are inherently ambigious. Given how FFG actually change rules by exploiting this very ambiguity (see proxmines and autoblaster) the rules do require intepretation. That intepretation is done by FFG's tournament organisers but it does happen.

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

You can explain it to them, but you'd be wrong.

Using your own RAI.

I'd be careful about whose interpretation of the rules you choose to endorse; not everyone here is as savvy as they think they are.

So you're saying that since RAI doesn't exist then there should never be any errata changes?

Look at it this way: Rule says: When blah blah targets blah then blah blah. After being used for awhile, it be comes apparent that somethings wrong with said rule and it might need to be fixed. You then ask what is this rule intended to do? You then change rule to say When blah blah targets blah then blah blah if blah is blah. Bam! New RAW! And the problem is fixed! But you have to examine RAI before you can even change the RAW to begin with.

RAW vs RAI came into such prominence because 40K had such poor RAW in the first place you had to look at RAI to see how some of the rules were supposed to work in the first place, thus opening its own can of worms since RAI can be highly subjective.

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

So as 'there is no such thing as RAI', Everyone can stop complaining about Fat Han. All we need to do is stop play for 5 minutes while we explain the exact rules of the combat mechanics, and how you can't shoot at me outside of your firing arc.

And am I 'deliberately handicapping' myself by not being a member of the Pedantic Rule Brigade?

The problem with turret targeting only exists for secondary weapons. The rules for primary turrets work just fine.

Some might say that such a problem exists only in your head. My interpretation of the rules solves the matter quite nicely, I think.

The way I see it, it's a game first, competition second. It's only worth my time if it's fun, as my free time is extremely valuable as well as limited.

VandorDM says:

That's fine, you could go to a tournament even one as high end as Worlds, and have a fun time.But what you can not do is expect everyone else to have the same [unwritten ideals]. It is the epitome of not flying casual to expect someone else to abide by your unwritten rules and opinions on how the game is meant to be played.

There's no problem with someone wiping the floor with an opponent because they can't hang.

The problem is when you refuse to play the game because you're trying to skirt the responsibility of flying the list you brought. "Hey, instead of playing the game, let's just reduce the game to one dice roll and see what happens."

That's the "fun" I'm talking about. If you're afraid of losing, then take responsibility and fight your uphill battle. Don't sacrifice game mechanics until you get a more favorable match up.

There is no problem with playing to win, but there is a problem with *not* playing to win. It's selfish and damaging to the game and player base. We're all playing because it's fun (because why bother if you hate it?), so anyone who puts their own success over the health of the game doesn't deserve the win.

EDIT: Screwed up the quote edit...tried to fix it, but only got my phone.

...the game is more enjoyable to me than the win. The two are nice together, and not mutually exclusive

Good, sounds like you are on a good path, stay focused. I don't think you understood my Rome burning. The game focus and "meta" had definitely changed in the last few years.

As for the rest, enjoy the competition and tournament scene. A friend recently told me he is dumping all of his x wing stuff after a few years of play now. I thought he was cracked for a while there. Now I'm thinking my historical interests are a far better investment of my hobby dollar.

Adios

The way I see it, it's a game first, competition second. It's only worth my time if it's fun, as my free time is extremely valuable as well as limited.

VandorDM says:

That's fine, you could go to a tournament even one as high end as Worlds, and have a fun time.But what you can not do is expect everyone else to have the same [unwritten ideals]. It is the epitome of not flying casual to expect someone else to abide by your unwritten rules and opinions on how the game is meant to be played.

Sure, if I was crying about Fat Han's, ACD's, not killing ships with ion cannons, etc, then I'd agree with you.

There's no problem with someone wiping the floor with an opponent because they can't hang.

The problem is when you refuse to play the game because you're trying to skirt the responsibility of flying the list you brought. "Hey, instead of playing the game, let's just reduce the game to one dice roll and see what happens."

That's the "fun" I'm talking about. If you're afraid of losing, then take responsibility and fight your uphill battle. Don't sacrifice game mechanics until you get a more favorable match up.

There is no problem with playing to win, but there is a problem with *not* playing to win. It's selfish and damaging to the game and player base. We're all playing because it's fun (because why bother if you hate it?), so anyone who puts their own success over the health of the game doesn't deserve the win.

EDIT: Screwed up the quote edit...tried to fix it, but only got my phone.

This is a tough sell to me, as on the other end of the spectrum, your opponent refusing to play against your Fortress formation is no different than you refusing to move from the corner of the board. Both are players refusing to fall into the opponent's trap (though in the most recent case at World's, I am pretty certain Ties have the advantage on the edge of the board. 1 Turns, variable K Turn choices, barrel rolls. It was very possible to come up with a tactic to work around that, instead of saying "I'm choosing not to fly against that")

It's like being mad at your opponent for NOT jousting with your 7 Tie Swarm, and instead flying that ship away, waiting until the asteroids break apart the Swarm.

It's clearly an aspect and strategy in the game, just like ANY other strategy, such as NOT flying directly at your opponent who clearly has the better position.

And HONESTLY GUYS, can't ships in the Star Wars Universe just "HOVER" in space and not move if they pack the right reverse thrusters or use some way to stop their momentum? I swear I've seen it depicted this way in SOME movie, possibly a prequel. I could be wrong though...

And HONESTLY GUYS, can't ships in the Star Wars Universe just "HOVER" in space and not move if they pack the right reverse thrusters or use some way to stop their momentum? I swear I've seen it depicted this way in SOME movie, possibly a prequel. I could be wrong though...

Of course they can! They just need to have other ships to bump themselves into to kill their momentum. I actually read that this was a major reason behind the Y-wing's design - the ships are shaped so they'll lock together nicely in a big chain.

I also heard that while it was eventually beaten out by "May the Force be with you" the original tag line was intended to be Biggs yelling "And I'll form the head!"

And HONESTLY GUYS, can't ships in the Star Wars Universe just "HOVER" in space and not move if they pack the right reverse thrusters or use some way to stop their momentum? I swear I've seen it depicted this way in SOME movie, possibly a prequel. I could be wrong though...

Then why can't they do that normally?

If FFG intended you to dock your ships together, your ships would have had some white or green 0 maneuvers on their dials. But they don't, do they? They intended the ships to move, not crash together in a cluster-F.

This is nothing but a rules exploit and "winning at all cost" mentality. You can claim it is anything else but any reasonable common person sees it for what it is. The infamous lipstick on a pig line comes to mind here...

You might as well go nuke your dice also.

If the game is so centered around competition that this is what it has devolved to, then FFG can keep it. I won't be alone in that assessment. Take note FFG.

If FFG intended you to dock your ships together, your ships would have had some white or green 0 maneuvers on their dials. But they don't, do they? They intended the ships to move, not crash together in a cluster-F.

This is nothing but a rules exploit and "winning at all cost" mentality. You can claim it is anything else but any reasonable common person sees it for what it is. The infamous lipstick on a pig line comes to mind here...

You might as well go nuke your dice also.

If the game is so centered around competition that this is what it has devolved to, then FFG can keep it. I won't be alone in that assessment. Take note FFG.

Of course, those concerned with winning at all costs will realize this is a bad strategy, soooo....

Contra Vorpal's assertion that I don't see the problems with my position, I do. But I see the problems on the other side, too. X-wing simply is not a game with a tight enough rules set to survive this sort of absolute "If it's legal it's fine" mindset.

You know I agree with you on the silliness of the target selection and weapons selection rules. But!

First, we haven't seen people adopt strategies that rely on overly technical readings of the rules to cripple an opponent's squad by removing the Falcon's turret, nor have we seen people bringing Advanced Proton Torpedoes or Proton Rockets and claiming it's legal to use them against someone at Range 3. So arguing over whether they can be supported under the "Play to Win (and also Fly Casual)" mindset is moot at the moment.

Rabbit trail, but wait, what?

Are you saying that there is some interpretation of the rules that a) makes turrets never work, and b) removes the range restriction on all secondary weapons?

From the Core Rulebook:

Secondary Weapons

Several ships may equip secondary weapons, such as

proton torpedoes. This section explains a few rules

related to secondary weapons.

Ships may perform only one attack during the

Combat phase. Secondary weapon cards show the

header “Attack:” as a reminder that a ship attacks

with either its primary weapon or one of its

secondary weapons.

In addition to being inside the attacker’s firing arc,

the closest point of the target ship’s base must fall

within the weapon range shown on the card (see

“Upgrade Card Anatomy” below). If both of these

conditions are met, then the player rolls the number

of attack dice equal to this card’s attack value

(instead of the ship’s primary weapon value).

Example: Proton torpedoes can only be used to

attack an enemy ship that is at Range 2–3. They

cannot be used to target ships at Range 1 or

beyond Range 3.

Some secondary weapons specify other requirements

in parentheses after the word “Attack.”

Example: The “Proton Torpedoes” card specifies

“Attack (Target Lock):” In order to attack with

this secondary weapon, the attacker must have

already acquired a target lock on the defender.

I'm not seeing it. Likewise if I read the rules for turret weapons (primary or secondary).