What's more likely: that FFG forgot a tiny little icon on the pilot card that plenty of people never realized was on the Imperial version to begin with, or that they misprinted thousands of Scum Firespray pilot tiles with an auxiliary firing arc on them?

Seriously, this "FAQ OR IT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET IT" crowd really needs to get a dose of common sense.

We all KNOW what the FFG response will be. I've submitted the question just to protect us casual flyers from the MTG players that got lost along the way to their game and decided to come play with (torture) us.

It is because of this these types of rules arguments that we have an FAQ like we do now... It will only get worse.

[Edited]

If I was the TO, I would not only allow the Firespray to shoot with his Rear-Arc as it is obviously intended, but I would also warn the player bringing this topic for unsportmanship: Don't be a *****.

Please let me know what area you TO so I can be sure to avoid it completely. I understand following the letter of the rules, but this is just insane. You clearly state you understand the intent, yet you still rule against it. As stated in another post, make it know ahead of time if you really foresee issues. Personally, I would walk out of your tournament the minute that ruling was made, never return, and be sure to spread the word that it is NOT a fly casual environment.

It is honestly sad that people are even claiming the firespray cannot fire out of the rear-arc. I have always said the x-wing community is one of the greatest and most friendly group I have met, but these discussions make me think otherwise.

And RedCastle, I am not attacking you personally, just disappointed you would make that ruling and disappointed this is even disputed

Edit: And this is what I get for quickly reading through everything. Well stated Red Castle. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my end. No excuse

If I was the TO, I would not only allow the Firespray to shoot with his Rear-Arc as it is obviously intended, but I would also warn the player bringing this topic for unsportmanship: Don't be a *****.

Please let me know what area you TO so I can be sure to avoid it completely. I understand following the letter of the rules, but this is just insane. You clearly state you understand the intent, yet you still rule against it. As stated in another post, make it know ahead of time if you really foresee issues. Personally, I would walk out of your tournament the minute that ruling was made, never return, and be sure to spread the word that it is NOT a fly casual environment.

It is honestly sad that people are even claiming the firespray cannot fire out of the rear-arc. I have always said the x-wing community is one of the greatest and most friendly group I have met, but these discussions make me think otherwise.

And RedCastle, I am not attacking you personally, just disappointed you would make that ruling and disappointed this is even disputed

Uh, look at what you quoted again:

If I was the TO, I would not only allow the Firespray to shoot with his Rear-Arc as it is obviously intended, but I would also warn the player bringing this topic for unsportmanship: Don't be a *****.

"Not only" is an intensifier, and the second clause is irrelevant to his point. Again, literally no one in the thread is saying that Scum Firesprays should be restricted to their front arc.

It is because of this these types of rules arguments that we have an FAQ like we do now... It will only get worse.

This is not a rules argument; it's a request for FFG to identify a misprint as a misprint. We have an FAQ because there are rules that are genuinely counterintuitive and interactions that aren't easy to interpret.

I know you're disappointed that the game is getting more complicated, but wishing isn't going to make those corner cases go away, so we need official answers.

We are all violently agreeing here! Everyone is looking out for each other really - we ALL know how it is supposed to be, and we ALL want to ensure that we are prepared in case someone gets it wrong.

This thread is actually an example of why this community is pretty awesome.

It is because of this these types of rules arguments that we have an FAQ like we do now... It will only get worse.

[Edited]

I think the FAQ isn't that big....go look at Attack Wing for a FAQ that's a mess.

(i.e. count your blessings this game is so well designed and playtested)

Someone owes someone else an apology...

It is because of this these types of rules arguments that we have an FAQ like we do now... It will only get worse.

[Edited]

I think the FAQ isn't that big....go look at Attack Wing for a FAQ that's a mess.

(i.e. count your blessings this game is so well designed and playtested)

Comparing ourselves to a worse offender doesn't mean we are not guilty of the same thing.

Do the scum base-templates come with the auxillary arc? Yes? Then it has an auxillary arc.

They do. And the ship has an auxiliary arc. However, RAW, the primary weapon cannot use that arc.

Rule against him anyway. The tournament rules state that the TO is the final authority and can override the FAQ if (s)he believes a mistake has been made. I think this would qualify.

That rule allows overruling the FAQ but nothing else. The TO cannot overrule the rules that come in the firespray box, just like he cannot overrule the rulebook. The TO cannot overrule the ship card, which is the item that includes the mistake.

I suspect this is a tempest in a teacup. Sure, the rules will need to be fixed, but I've not met an X-wing player thus far who would try to use something like this to gain an unfair advantage. Maybe I've been incredibly lucky with the players I've met, but I suspect not. Most people are looking to play fairly, and would prefer to beat an opponent's build on its best day, when it is well-flown, than winning by unfairly handicapping it.

That rule allows overruling the FAQ but nothing else.

That's not true. Here's the rule from the latest Tournament document.

The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final authority for all card interpretations, and may overrule the FAQ when, in the TO’s opinion, a mistake or error is discovered.

So since the TO has the final authority on all card interpretations, that means the TO can in fact overrule just about anything.

You can clearly make an argument based on RAI, that the cards are misprinted, so it would be up to the TO to decide.

It would probably be better to bring it to the attention of the TO if you are going to use the ship so they can make a ruling on it pre-game. Then you could choose a different line-up if you wanted.

This is along the same lines, in my opinion, as the people who were argueing last week that Scum wouldn't be legal for store champs here in the U.S. I understand that some people just seem to want to argue about rules as written and hope that I never encounter anyone who would actually make this case in a tourney I'm playing in or that I'm the T.O. for. Yes I run the game nights at my local store and would have no problem siding with rules as intended for issues like this. If the player who presented this argument had a problem with the ruling then I would have no problem disqualifying him. Especially considering that most of us wouldn't want to play against someone so determined to win that he wants to find loopholes to insure a victory. I mean come on people, it's a game, you are supposed to enjoy playing, not be a major **** and ruin everyone else's experience.

I mean come on people, it's a game, you are supposed to enjoy playing, not be a major **** and ruin everyone else's experience.

While I agree with most of what you said. I don't think anyone has actually said they'd try to enforce this rule, just that rules as written are clearly a mistake, and need to be fixed.

The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final authority for all card interpretations, and may overrule the FAQ when, in the TO’s opinion, a mistake or error is discovered.

So since the TO has the final authority on all card interpretations, that means the TO can in fact overrule just about anything.

I must have missed those card interpretations.

I mean come on people, it's a game, you are supposed to enjoy playing, not be a major **** and ruin everyone else's experience.

While I agree with most of what you said. I don't think anyone has actually said they'd try to enforce this rule, just that rules as written are clearly a mistake, and need to be fixed.

Agreed, but last week there were people stating they would say scum weren't going to be legal. It will probably take a little while for FFG to address this unlike the tournament rules that were updated before the weekend championships. Someone somewhere will try to pull this. I just hope for thier benefit that it's not in my local store. Luckily no championships coming up so unlikely I'll have to deal with it. It just amazes me that it's even an issue. Who actually thinks a Firespray can't shoot from it's rear arc? Someone thinks the rules as written don't allow it. And they will try to use it to thier advantage. Which is quite sad that they have to rely on loopholes in the rules to secre a victory.

Fantasy flight support has confirmed that the scum firespray has an auxiliary arc.

If I was the TO, I would not only allow the Firespray to shoot with his Rear-Arc as it is obviously intended, but I would also warn the player bringing this topic for unsportmanship: Don't be a *****.

Please let me know what area you TO so I can be sure to avoid it completely. I understand following the letter of the rules, but this is just insane. You clearly state you understand the intent, yet you still rule against it. As stated in another post, make it know ahead of time if you really foresee issues. Personally, I would walk out of your tournament the minute that ruling was made, never return, and be sure to spread the word that it is NOT a fly casual environment.

It is honestly sad that people are even claiming the firespray cannot fire out of the rear-arc. I have always said the x-wing community is one of the greatest and most friendly group I have met, but these discussions make me think otherwise.

And RedCastle, I am not attacking you personally, just disappointed you would make that ruling and disappointed this is even disputed

Please reread what I wrote.

I said that:

1- I would allow the player with the Firespray to shoot with his rear-arc.

2- I would go as far as give a warning for unsportmanship to the player trying to abuse from the misprint because this is not the kind of behavior I would like to encourage.

As far as I know, I think this would be the way to go to KEEP a Fly Casual environment: give a message to those trying to exploit a misprint that they are not welcome in your tournament.

Fantasy flight support has confirmed that the scum firespray has an auxiliary arc.

I wonder how much time they spend having to address issues like this. Also wonder how long thy laugh and try to figure out what is funnier, that they slipped up and left a icon off a card or that someone would argue that a ship that has basically been here since wave two no longer works the same.

Agreed, but last week there were people stating they would say scum weren't going to be legal.

But again in that case I don't know anyone was actually saying that S&V couldn't be used, only that RAW you could argue they wouldn't be allowed and again it was something that FFG needed to address.

It's possible that FFG didn't even realized that this happened, and if no one brought it up, then they may not fix it. Same with S&V in tournaments.

So it gets brought up so FFG can fix it before some rules lawyering tool tries to ruin an event by trying to enforce something like this.

From Alex Davey at FFG:

"Yes, it’s a misprint. The Scum Firespray has the auxiliary arc printed on its ship token. "

This matter is settled gentle-people. I know you are all shocked by the outcome.

From Alex Davey at FFG:

"Yes, it’s a misprint. The Scum Firespray has the auxiliary arc printed on its ship token. "

This matter is settled gentle-people. I know you are all shocked by the outcome.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of this thread was to point out that this was an oversight by FFG. I haven't seen anyone actually say in this thread they would try to use this oversight to claim that Scum Firesprays can't shoot out the back.

Kind of wondering why Alex doesn't just post his response as himself here in the forums, anyone can post bold text and claim it's a quote from Alex Davey.

Kind of wondering why Alex doesn't just post his response as himself here in the forums, anyone can post bold text and claim it's a quote from Alex Davey.

Because FFG doesn't want anyone who works there posting on these forms. Besides, if someone was going to really push it and claim the S&V Firesprays can't use the aux arc for primary attacks, aren't going to accept a post on these boards as proof in the the first place.

So Alex or Fank posting here wouldn't actually accomplish anything. This kind of thing needs to be covered in the official FAQ.

You'd have to get a TO to go along with it, and most TO's I know would sooner punch you in the neck for suggesting such a thing.

As a TO, I'd just as soon punch someone in the neck for suggesting it, too.

However, as a TO, I also have to play 'rules as written' a LOT more than I ever would as a player. Which...puts me in an awkward spot at the moment.

Kath Scarlet's ability references the rear arc. Therefore it's an oversight.

If someone pulls extreme Rules as Written slam them with the Turrets Don't Work RAW, then if they're flying a Falcon DQ them.

Even the old oversized promo card was missing the icons:

It's not really a big deal.