I agree on both points

thou shalt hold up thy holy maneuver dial

not thy focus token nor thy target lock...

the maneuver dial shalt be the cardboard thou shalt hold up

and the cardboard of the holding up shalt be the maneuver dial

the range ruler shalt thou not touch

nor either the maneuver templates, excepting that thou hafth proceedth from the maneuver dial

Instructions unclear.

I find it pretty humorous how many people have done the "guys it's OBVIOUS what FFG intends so why the debate?" Question. Because... You know... This debate was never about what FFG intends. It's about what the RAW say and why FFG isn't more careful about how they word things.

For the record I don't have any question as to how it will work. I'm 100% sure it will be FAQ ed to make it so that bombs can in fact be dropped.

However. AS WRITTEN you simply can't drop bombs. nowhere on the card or rules does it say to reveal which dropping a bomb requires!!!

For those who point out that it's "obvious" you have to reveal or bring up dictionary definitions and synonyms... That doesn't matter. Rules for a game must be clear and concise. There shouldn't have to be "well it's OBVIOUS that..." Discussion going on because the rules should spell out in unambiguous terms how things work. This is one thing I LOVE about MTG. In magic they do a **** good job making sure things say EXACTLY what they mean. There is rarely, if ever, a question over how something works unless it's with a really crazy complicated rule interaction... And even then, once explained it is clear in the rules why that works.

So in short I have to agree it's WW and other who say this is bad rule writing. Yes it is OBVIOUS now how they intend it to work. However, without making assumptions or ambiguous leaps you simply can't drop a bomb as of RAW. (And again a well made rule system should not have any need of assumptions or leaps of logic. Everything should be spelled out concisely... Like a legal document)

The only thing that is obvious here is that FFG must stop caressly wording their cards. It is becoming ridiculous that almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores.

...almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores^{[citation needed]}.

Fixed that for you.

...almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores^{[citation needed]}.

Fixed that for you.

Oh come on, Vorpal. Sure, it was a bit hyperbolic to go to "almost all", but are you really going to argue the actual point?

X-wing has an FAQ density around 10x anything else FFG makes, and it's only getting worse. The number of rulings which actively contradict even the most fundamental rules is on the rise once again. Are you actually arguing that things are good, or just sniping at the choice of phrase?

Imagine it though, the K-wing leading a flight of Wishbones. A Lancaster leading SBDs (if both were made by the same company). You have to admit, that flying a K-wing next to Y-wings is going to be pretty boss.

That's it, I'm painting up my K- as a 617 Squadron Lanc!

As for Y-wings being the alpha hunter dealing death.... Carry on.

Don't mind if we do!

...almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores^{[citation needed]}.

Fixed that for you.

Oh come on, Vorpal. Sure, it was a bit hyperbolic to go to "almost all", but are you really going to argue the actual point?

X-wing has an FAQ density around 10x anything else FFG makes, and it's only getting worse. The number of rulings which actively contradict even the most fundamental rules is on the rise once again. Are you actually arguing that things are good, or just sniping at the choice of phrase?

X-wing is no where near the level of SWLCG is in terms of rules issues. A lot of the ambiguities in this game are answered with common sense. Now, that isn't a good basis for a rules set, I agree. But there are some real weird issues in the LCG.

2nd edition ruleset anyone?

2nd edition ruleset anyone?

Most massive trollpost yet!!

.

.

.

.

...or just the honest truth.

Yeah they could update all the rules and then release them in a series of codexes for each faction. Maybe charge $50-$60 a pop.

X-wing is no where near the level of SWLCG is in terms of rules issues. A lot of the ambiguities in this game are answered with common sense. Now, that isn't a good basis for a rules set, I agree. But there are some real weird issues in the LCG.

This is only true until you normalize for the number of abilities. SWLCG currently shows just over 1000 cards. X-wing has what, 130 abilities now? 150? X-wing's total pool right now is about the size of the initial release for the LCGs, but it's already running to 16+ pages of FAQ. The SWLCG is running at 12.

So it has 15% of the pool size, but 33% MORE FAQ. And that doesn't even touch the multitude of issues that they just never bother to actually address, like my ever-favorite secondary weapons.

So yeah, you're exactly right - it's nowhere near the level of the SWLCG... just not in the favorable direction you imply.

Well as We pointed out, the "reveal" dial is the step where you find and place the maneuver template... So if you skip this step, it kinda makes it impossible to actually execute the maneuver...

Thereby forming a black hole on the game Mat.

Coming soon, to your Faq!

"in the slam reference card, where it says "choose a maneuver on your dial" it should actually say "choose and reveal a maneuver on your dial"

Fixed.

"Before executing a SLAM manuver, you may drop one bomb. You can only drop one bomb per turn." From the way the article talked up dropping bombs before SLAMMing, I think that would clean it up well enough, and not leave any loopholes for unintended rules about revealing manuver dials.

Can anyone translate what she's writing?

First line: ....sial

Second line: del...

I can't make out the first few symbols and the end of the second line looks like gibberish to me.

Spe"s"ial Delivery?

She's a Bombardier, not a spelling bee champ...

That would be a different EPT.

Imagine it though, the K-wing leading a flight of Wishbones. A Lancaster leading SBDs (if both were made by the same company). You have to admit, that flying a K-wing next to Y-wings is going to be pretty boss.

That's it, I'm painting up my K- as a 617 Squadron Lanc!

As for Y-wings being the alpha hunter dealing death.... Carry on.

Don't mind if we do!

...almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores^{[citation needed]}.

Fixed that for you.

Okay, that was hyperbolic. But let's have a look at some of the new cards that come in wave 7 and their instant controversies that will need to be dealt with in the FAQ:

Juno Eclipse - Speed 4 and 6 maneuvers.

Emperor Palpatine - "die result" means "result of a single die" or "results of a dice roll"?

Bossk crew - This card's wording it ambiguous and murky. Only jurisprudence of the FAQ regarding to cards with similar wording allows an interpretation that might be close to what the devs intended.

Nashtah Pup Pilot - Does the Pup need to be destroyed to defeat this player? Does the Pup pilot keep his pilot talents? Does the Pup give any points if destroyed?

Lats Razzi - Agility math shenanigans.

Lightning reflexes - Can be used after performing a maneuver that is on your dial, even when you have not revealed such maneuver? (ionized, daredevil, boost, decloak forward, inertial dampeners on YV-666, etc)

SLAM action - Do you get to dial your maneuver on your dial and reveal it as indicated in the first step of the movement phase? Or you just choose one available maneuver and perform it without using the dial or following the steps in the Movement phase? Do you perform the whole movement phase, including Place template, Clear template and Check pilot stress?

Conner Net - If a lower PS ship deploys this token under a higher PS ship, does it detonate immediately? In that case, does the ionization prevent the higher PS ship from revealing its already chosen maneuver dial?

Extra Munitions - Does Extra Munitions get its own Munitions Token? Does the critical damage effect Munitions Failure discard a ordnance card or just a token?

Twin Laser Turret - The first step of the attack is Declare Target. In that case, can the second attack of TLT target a different ship? Does R3-A2, Tactician and others trigger twice with this turret?

...and more I cannot remember right now.

Even when common sense could be used to solve some of these ambiguities, the Rules Lawyer is not a mythological creature. It exists and, in a game like this, it thrives. This game has a really simple set of basic rules, so it shouldn't be too hard to write these cards in a way that they don't go against the rules while the behavior that the devs intended for them is clear for everyone.

Instead, every single new card introduces more doubts and contradictions, some of them can only be solved by asking the devs directly. And at least in one occasion I have seen one answer from a dev contradicting the jurisprudence of the FAQ with cards with identical wording.

I know one of the main assets of this game is that the Rules are 10 pages long and come in the Core Set (as compared to Warhammer 40K). But the FAQ has become virtually the Other Rules Book, and that is mainly because FFG puts too little effort on making the new additions crystal clear, as they should be.

About 50% of those require neutron-star density to wilfully misread.

Coming soon, to your Faq!

"in the slam reference card, where it says "choose a maneuver on your dial" it should actually say "choose and reveal a maneuver on your dial"

Fixed.

"Before executing a SLAM manuver, you may drop one bomb. You can only drop one bomb per turn." From the way the article talked up dropping bombs before SLAMMing, I think that would clean it up well enough, and not leave any loopholes for unintended rules about revealing manuver dials.

Not to start the discussion again, but the website articles cannot be used as rules reference. Otherwise, during a match, if my rival considers that I cannot drop a bomb because I have not actually revealed any maneuver (because there has not been a previous Planning phase, where I get to secretly choose a maneuver and hide it face down on the table, so that the verb "reveal" makes sense at all), I will refer him to an online article at a particular URL, and he will hit me with the core set Rules Book, the Boost and Decloak Reference cards, and the wave 6 FAQ.

I know that FFG meant to let us do that. But that is not what we are discussing here.

About 50% of those require neutron-star density to wilfully misread.

Do not mistake malice for dumbness, when the "misreading" benefits someone.

About 50% of those require neutron-star density to wilfully misread.

"Even when common sense could be used to solve some of these ambiguities, the Rules Lawyer is not a mythological creature. It exists and, in a game like this, it thrives."

This should be the epilogue for the 2.0 rule book that will come out next year (if they have any sense).

About 50% of those require neutron-star density to wilfully misread.

Oh please. Three at most. Every other card mentioned in that list is a poster-child for everything that is wrong with FFG's rules management. It's not even about dodging "Rules Lawyers", it's about making sure that common sense (which is both not as common as people think and varies from person to person) isn't needed to make the game play the way the devs want it to.

I mean, for God's sake, I've seen player committees for dead games that are orders of magnitude better at rules management than FFG are. If a bunch of unpaid volunteers can do it, what on earth is FFG's excuse?

Does this happen often? Only been playing X-Wing for just over a month and hadn't expected to see such confusion and annoyance from a new action.

I've found the rules to be fairly easy to follow compared with my previous minatures game 40K.

Then again the FAQ booklet handed out at the Adelaide Regional was pretty big, at least they do have clarifications.

it's about making sure that common sense (which is both not as common as people think and varies from person to person) isn't needed to make the game play the way the devs want it to.

As a relative tangent, I've always hated when people declare "common sense". It's nothing but an ad hominem to declare themselves right. "This is common sense - so if you don't agree with me then you obviously lack any common sense". That is, you're an idiot.

"Common sense" is nothing but a shorthand for "What I happen to think, and I'm too dumb to come up with any actual logic to support my point!"

Does this happen often? Only been playing X-Wing for just over a month and hadn't expected to see such confusion and annoyance from a new action.

Discussions happen often. This one won't matter much, since it's pretty obvious what we'll be able to do once the K-Wing is actually available. It's more about how ambiguous the rules documents can or should be.