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.

What rulings do you refer to ? There are some, and those are FAQ'ed or expected to be FAQ'ed, you don't use RAI, you still use RAW while you wait for FFG to address it, but there are rules that are completely specific which leaves no room for interpretation, yet, you will find people trying to enforce what they think is the spirit of the game (no fortresses allowed) as if it wasn't intended, when the rule is written and hasn't been FAQ'ed since... well... the game was released, hinting you that autobumping your own ships is an intended feature of the game.

But if you can refer to me to a regular/commonly used rule, that you could give a different interpretation, please be my guest and give me an example.

But if you are trying to tell me that when i read "pick a maneuver and place it right next to your ship" i could give it a different interpretation, you may have some explaining because is till don't see the how it is "inherently ambigious".

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.

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.

Pretty much.

@Cody he is playing the game (choosing not to fight =/= not playing the game). Choosing where, when and how to fight is part of the tactics involved in the game. If you would tell me that it is impossible to break a fortress, that it is an overpowered mechanich that is being played every single game, that it is so efficient that it has won many major tournaments, you may have a point, but not about rules, but a flaw in game design which makes the game too passive. The ones to blame would be FFG, and a hotfix would be required.

But it is not. And putting blame on the players is just... wrong, pointless and you won't get anything constructive about it.

But if you can refer to me to a regular/commonly used rule, that you could give a different interpretation, please be my guest and give me an example.

Rules as Written isn't the same as Rules As Intepreted by FFG.

Proximity Mines and Autoblaster's card text is ambigious. FFG has used this change how they work without changing the card text.

Language is all intepretation, you'd need a sort of codelike syntax to make RAW absolute. If it's possible for two people to read one rule differently then one intepretation is correct and the other is not, no?

That being said, it is kind of moot because FFG have explicitly said fortressing is currently legal.

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?

Depends on how you want to parse the rules...

Here's the issue. You pick a target before you pick what weapon you will be using, primary or what secondary if you have more than one. You can only pick a target that is in your Firing Arc, and within range. So you can't actually pick something outside of your arc, because the rules don't let you pick your weapon first.

But the FAQ clearly states that if you use a turret weapon you can pick a target outside your arc. The issue is that FFG effectively said "Even though the rules don't allow it, this is how it works." and slapped a bandaid on it rather than fixing the issue.

It becomes a question of if the FAQ over rules the core rules or not. Which I think in this case a simple matter of RAW says it does.

All of these threads merge into one after a while.

Page 10:

Quote:

Combat Phase

During this phase, each ship may perform one attack against one enemy ship that is inside its firing arc and within range. Starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill, players resolve the following combat steps in order:

1. Declare Target: the attacker chooses which enemy ship he wishes to attack

Also on page 10:

Declare Target

During this step, the attacker (the active ship) must declare it's target (the ship it wishes to attack). The target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc and within range.

Edit because I was initially incorrect:

The Falcon rules modify the core book rule to state:

"When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside it's firing arc"

To me - the way I read the RAW, the whole 'turret's don't technically work thing' isn't true. #twocents

Page 10:

Quote:

Combat Phase

During this phase, each ship may perform one attack against one enemy ship that is inside its firing arc and within range. Starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill, players resolve the following combat steps in order:

1. Declare Target: the attacker chooses which enemy ship he wishes to attack

Also on page 10:

Declare Target

During this step, the attacker (the active ship) must declare it's target (the ship it wishes to attack). The target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc and within range.

Notice it doesn't say anything about Primary firing arc - which a turreted ship still does have, but it ALSO has a 360 degree firing arc which in the case of the Falcon is also a primary weapon (but still not technically it's primary arc - but again, the RAW does not say anything about primary arc - just Firing Arc)

To me - the way I read the RAW, the whole turret's don't technically work thing isn't true. #twocents

It doesn't talk about a primary arc because one doesn't exist. We have (so far) firing arcs and auxiliary firing arcs. Turret weapons do not have an arc at all (the primaries have a circular arrow and the secondaries simply say 'outside your firing arc'). Hence the discussion. jus sayin

which a turreted ship still does have, but it ALSO has a 360 degree firing arc

Actually no it doesn't. A turret simply lets it fire outside the printed firing arc, but it doesn't change the size or shape of the arc itself. There is no such thing as a primary weapon arc, there is only the Firing Arc, and in the case of the Firespray a secondary firing arc.

When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside its firing arc.

This IMO puts the whole debate to rest, because the FAQ entry trumps the standard rules, the same way a upgrade card does when the rules conflict with another statement.

So while you're correct in how things work, it's not for the reason you stated.

The Slave 1 "New Rules" insert, on page 1 says:

"standard or auxiliary firing arc"

The Millennium Falcon "New Rules" insert, on page 1 says:

"When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside it's firing arc"

So - point taken on the 360 thing, but I'll go edit my previous post and replace 'primary' with 'standard' and still feel mildly correct

So - point taken on the 360 thing, but I'll go edit my previous post and replace 'primary' with 'standard' and still feel mildly correct

Yeah you're right with how it works. But it's best to a bit technical when you're dealing with the rules or else you might find your 'rule of thumb' stops working in some situations.

For example, the GR-75 which doesn't have a printed arc, is considered to not have one, or else a 360 arc, depending on how you look at it. So someone like Backstabber never gets a bonus against it.

Page 10:

Quote:

Combat Phase

During this phase, each ship may perform one attack against one enemy ship that is inside its firing arc and within range. Starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill, players resolve the following combat steps in order:

1. Declare Target: the attacker chooses which enemy ship he wishes to attack

Also on page 10:

Declare Target

During this step, the attacker (the active ship) must declare it's target (the ship it wishes to attack). The target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc and within range.

Edit because I was initially incorrect:

The Falcon rules modify the core book rule to state:

"When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside it's firing arc"

To me - the way I read the RAW, the whole 'turret's don't technically work thing' isn't true. #twocents

This is correct for primary weapon turrets, which is what the rule explicitly references. The problem is with secondary turret upgrades, which are selected in Step 2 - after the target has been selected.

This ordering is why Blaster Turrets don't work on Dark Curse - you pick the target, THEN the turret, so by the time you activate the turret Curse is the defender, and you can't spend the focus. So if you don't activate the turret until after you've picked the target, how can you use the turret to hit something outside your arc?

@Vanor: The primary/secondary split is why the incidental "The FAQ refers to picking targets outside arc so obviously it works" doesn't hold up. When you're relying on incidental information there needs to be a lack of other cases it could refer to. Since primary turrets do work, there's nothing conclusive in the incidental. And even if you want to say the incidental is conclusive for secondary turrets, that simply makes the FAQ contradict itself, since it doesn't work with the Dark Curse ruling. The choices here are not "Turrets are broken" or "Everything's awesome". The choices are "Turrets are broken" or "Everything is a contradictory mess." That was my initial point when we first got the Dark Curse ruling, and absolutely nothing has changed.

Regardless, the actual nuts and bolts of the turret functionality are incidental. The point I'm making is that this is the world you want to play in, with players digging for every loophole they can get. That's going to include rules loopholes, and X-wing simply can't support the level of abuse which will come from that. The rules aren't tight enough. Sure, it'll probably be fine at Worlds, and GenCon, where FFG has the game designer on hand to step in and say "No, it works like THIS" and do so with authority. It's going to be a far messier thing at pretty much every other event, anywhere.

If you want to convince yourself that this isn't how it's actually going to go, that's up to you. But there are plenty of case studies in how this develops, and none of them combine a fuzzy rule set and win at all costs mentality to arrive at a good environment.

I don't think the problem with Ion Canon Turret is really comparable to a fortress. The fortress is done using rules interpretations that everyone agrees are correct and intended, that are being used to an unexpected effect. That a ship can be blocked in such a manner that it doesn't move isn't disputed by anyone.

If you want to convince yourself that this isn't how it's actually going to go, that's up to you. But there are plenty of case studies in how this develops, and none of them combine a fuzzy rule set and win at all costs mentality to arrive at a good environment.

And I think FFG is beginning to realize this. FFG is beginning to see the importance of official play. It has exploded. Look at how much it has increased with the introduction of X-wing and Netrunner, while other games continue to grow. AGOT is getting a second edition because of the issues caused by the previous "loose" rules writing (look up "moribund") and the CCG era, instead of just jumping into rotation. I would not be surprised to see a revised rulebook to tighten up things, as I get the impression that the original designer was not too concerned with tournament play.

They even seem to be tightening up the rules for their boardgames, with the two different rulebooks now.

That's going to include rules loopholes, and X-wing simply can't support the level of abuse which will come from that.

And so our options are what?

We can either play RAW to the best of our understanding, and go to the TO when there is a disagreement. Or we play with the "I call cheese rule" where as soon as someone calls something cheap or cheesy the other person has to stop doing it.

Just because someone considers a given tactic cheap or not keeping within the spirit of the game doesn't mean they're right. Not unless they can get FFG to back them up, or perhaps the TO. The rules already give the TO a fair amount of latitude in dealing with things, so if you think a given tactic isn't fair or not how the game is meant to be played, you can already go to the TO/FFG for a ruling.

Ideally I think that FFG should rewrite the whole rule book and make sure it's much tighter, as you well know I do. I'd also much prefer that they get rid of the whole Competitive Play rules, and make the standard rules match the competitive ones. But until we live in that world, and even then there will still be issues... We have what we have.

But no matter what, you will have to have someone who gets to decide these types of issues, the question is who. Is it the TO or FFG, or the person you're playing against?

Depends.

In a sanctioned tournament, FFG. If you don't follow their rules you're disqualified.

In an unofficial tournament, the TO. If you don't follow their rules you're disqualified.

In casual, the person you're playing against. If you don't follow their rules they'll scoop up their ships and leave.

If you don't follow their rules they'll scoop up their ships and leave.

I don't agree completely. In that case it's up to both people to decide, otherwise there isn't a game. Which may mean both sides lose out.

If I sit down across the table from you and pull out Fat Han or Whisper Swarm and you tell me you won't play against those lists, but that's the list I want to play. We've reached an impasse where either no game happens so it doesn't matter what either of us think, or we work out some sort of compromise.

And so our options are what?

Honestly, there aren't really any good ones.

Which is as much my point here as anything. The "Playing to win" position seems to be "If we don't do this it's a nightmare, but as long as everyone accepts that anything goes it'll be fine." But that's not the least bit realistic either. You can SAY all you want that everyone should be fine with it, but people aren't going to like cheap plays. You can try to go pure RAW all you want, but without rules tight enough to support that, it's going to turn into a field day for rules lawyers.

Neither extreme is workable, and neither is going to be pure enough to avoid disagreement. It's just not, and any suggestion otherwise is just burying your head in the sand. Personally, I think you play to win but realize that some things that are technically legal are going to cross a line and be bad - for my opponent, for the event, and for the game. No, that's not absolute. Yes, people will disagree on it. That's kinda life, and the hazard of interacting with humans.

Don't get me wrong - I'd much rather have an environment where we could go pure RAW, and everything that could be done should be done. It's a big part of why I liked Warmachine. But that's not the environment that we've got, and growing competitive scene or not, it's not one I expect we're going to get from FFG any time soon.

Neither extreme is workable, and neither is going to be pure enough to avoid disagreement.

I agree. But I also think that's the whole point of having a judge, to deal with cases where the two sides can't agree and so a 3rd party has to step in and break the impasse.

But given the two options, play RAW to the best of our ability and let the TO deal with disagreements or else the "I call cheese" rule... I think RAW is clearly the prefered method.

Also, it's not like we're speaking pure RAW here, like what I saw often in 40k or Flames of War*, we're talking about RAW with touch of 3rd party RAI. Because FFG does give the TO the authority to make ruling on the spot... Even if those ruling don't agree with FFG for that matter.

Lets take the turret issue you pointed out. You could try to make that argument, but if the TO over rules you, then that's that. No matter how technically correct you are, the TO has ruled and that's the end of it. You either abide by the decision or leave the event. So it's not really either extreme honestly. But perhaps FFG needs to make that clearer or something.

If I were a TO and I saw something that I felt was not keeping with the spirit of the game, and one person asked for a ruling, I'd have no issue with telling someone that despite how they twisted the rules, they can't do that.

* I got into a rather heated discussion on the Flames of War boards over an issue like that. I don't remember the whole thing, but effectively with how the rules were written, if you park an commander with in 1" of an cannon, and wish to shoot at the unit with a tank, the cannons, the commanders, ect... were all part of a Unit in that game. You had to target the commander with the tank's main gun, rather than the cannon, which was much less effective. If however the commander was 1 1/16" away, then you could target the gun instead...

You can try to go pure RAW all you want, but without rules tight enough to support that, it's going to turn into a field day for rules lawyers.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullsh*t here. If that were true it would have started long before now, not in some dystopian future where fortressing has become the norm. I, for one, am not worried about the few rules lawyers who can't figure out how turrets work.

[i don't like fortressing and don't think it's a valid tactic. I have an issue with players that do so]

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.

Pretty much.

@Cody he is playing the game (choosing not to fight =/= not playing the game). Choosing where, when and how to fight is part of the tactics involved in the game. If you would tell me that it is impossible to break a fortress, that it is an overpowered mechanich that is being played every single game, that it is so efficient that it has won many major tournaments, you may have a point, but not about rules, but a flaw in game design which makes the game too passive. The ones to blame would be FFG, and a hotfix would be required.

But it is not. And putting blame on the players is just... wrong, pointless and you won't get anything constructive about it.

I can understand these points of view, guys, but I'd respectfully disagree.

RE: the tie swarm tactic, I don't have an issue with that, as the player can "pilot (operative word here)" those ships anyway he or she pleases, using the abilities they possess. Or a falcon, or an outrider, etc. I couldn't find it to re-quote it, but someone brought up the lack of 0 maneuver on x-wings, which I see as evidence of FFG's intentions. I think the fortress is an exploit and an oversight on FFG's part. No one has had an issue with it until now because this is the first time it's use has been effective They can make mistakes...much like the Lone Wolf errata card. You can't argue that FFG intended Lone Wolf to be unusable...they made a mistake and fixed it. That would mean, either the lack of 0's on most ships is an oversight, or the ability to fortress is an oversight.

RE: player responsibility. I disagree with this also...the success of the game is dependent on the community. FFG does not create the community, the players do. Players have a responsibility to play with common sense, like the Lone Wolf example above. I'd agree, if FFG doesn't want you to play a certain way, they need to nerf it. However, they aren't forcing players to castle and they aren't forcing players to run lists that have specific weaknesses. I understand the attitude of not accepting defeat and grabbing every advantage you can. However, if a player is going to do something that's clearly outside the scope of the game, that player needs to take responsibility for it.

Define effective

By all accounts, the guy flew this tactic once and only won thanks to green dice going cold

Effective: no

Highly visible because of two threads: yes

I think KO has made a good case for why the rules are fine as-is. Firsthand insight into their application at the highest levels of the game will always mean more to me than the misguided ramblings of any self-important rules interpreter.

And the thing is, it isn't new. The Falcon Fortress was talked about a bit during last years Regionals (Store Championship level), yet didn't become the go to tactic of double Falcons, which were the squad to beat last year. Heck, the formation used be Richard has been possible since Wave 1. While there can be a bit of a learning curve to certain things in this game, I don't think it would be that hard to figure out.

Plus the devs have already said that fortressing is legal and they don't 'see it as a problem' but they were 'keeping an eye on it'.

On the topic of playing to win...

As a child, I played Pokemon and Street Fighter. They were fun games, but I mostly played solo. I got bored of 1v1 quite quickly because the game was always the same. I was only playing what I wanted to play and felt like I should have as good a chance of winning with those characters as anyone else. But I didn't do well. I lost a lot, so I got bored.

Fast forward to 2012, FFG releases these amazing Star Wars games and they have formal competitions. I began studying these games and really enjoyed the depth. A year later, I picked up the new Pokemon game and Street Fighter, for nostalgia's sake. But having been exposed to tournament environments from FFG's Star Wars games, I decided to watch championship matches in these new games. I learned all sorts of neat stuff. I learned about Pokemon IVs and EVs, and how to build a proper core for a team. I learned about frame data for Street Fighter and how "fireball spamming" is a valid technique called "zoning." In both games, my enjoyment skyrocketed as I started understanding the nuances and deeper tactics of these games. I think that is what the article is talking about. Games open up if you learn more about it, and in most cases you will only learn that stuff if you're playing to win.

So after reading this article, I find I'm much more open to Fat Han lists and strange strategies. Yes, I find castling thematically jarring, but this is a game and not a flight simulator. And I believe counters will be discovered if we freely play against such lists.

But there is huge difference between Street Fighter and X-Wing: time. In Street Fighter, you may face Akuma and get a sound beating, but at most that match will take 5 minutes. Then you can try again or face somebody else. In X-Wing, it is a grueling 90 minutes as you face a squad you are predisposed to dislike from a thematic perspective and are being told to act like you are enjoying it as you get destroyed. How many more hours will it take for you to learn how to beat it? I'm betting a lot of people don't value winning enough to make that worth their while and I can't blame them. If X-Wing games lasted 30 minutes, I'd echo the article and ask people to quit being scrubs, but I can't honestly expect people to spend this kind of time on a matchup they disagree with on so many levels. I think what really makes a scrub, though, is when a scrub tells others what they can and can't do.

TL;DR: Playing to win will undoubtedly open this game up as new territory is explored, but the time requirement for a play-to-win mentality that embraces difficult builds is potentially prohibitive.

If someone doesn't find it worth their time developing counters to controversial builds, that's well within their rights to have that opinion. But they must not deny that competitive experience to others. Only after such builds and strategies have been thoroughly explored should any move be made to restrict them.