"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!"
The most useful logic is a kind of 'ampliative' logic, that is based on reasonable assumptions. Like those dictated by common sense.
Common sense also tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth.
They could also put little (I said little) QR codes in the cards that link to an official online reference for each. If they complain that there is not enough room in the cards to explain them in depth, they can do that in that online reference.
Common sense also tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth.
They could also put little (I said little) QR codes in the cards that link to an official online reference for each. If they complain that there is not enough room in the cards to explain them in depth, they can do that in that online reference.
Nope... Not everyone has the software for on their mobile phones, the network coverage (both where they live and where they play) or data plans for this to be a valid solution
Common sense also tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth.
And logic doesn't tell us that the earth moves around the sun. That's the problem.
And logic doesn't tell us that the earth moves around the sun. That's the problem.Common sense also tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth.
Copernicus would like to have a word with you.
logicalAnd logic doesn't tell us that the earth moves around the sun. That's the problem.Common sense also tell us that the Sun moves around the Earth.
Copernicus would like to have a word with you.
The card in question (SLAM reference) does not state you set or reveal a maneuver on the dial, it states you can use a maneuver from the dial. The little slip of paper that comes in the expansion explicitly states a player can reference it in the game (even if the opponent is using that particular ship), which means a dial is not required to move the ship.
The article stating that a bomb can be dropped before the SLAM action is very suspect by comparison. If FFG intended for proton bombs ect. to be dropped before the SLAM they should have made it VERY clear in the reference card. As it stands this needs a FAQ to state bombs can drop but other actions and cards won't activate, despite the SLAM supposedly counting as a 'revealed maneuver. I suppose this topic is in another post by now so maybe I should go look over there.
Why are we arguing whether you can drop a bomb mid-maneuver? FFG says the article that you can, which means that they want you to be able to. If the rules allow that then they allow it, and if they don't FFG will FAQ the rules so that they do allow it, as they have done in the past.
Why are we arguing whether you can drop a bomb mid-maneuver? FFG says the article that you can, which means that they want you to be able to. If the rules allow that then they allow it, and if they don't FFG will FAQ the rules so that they do allow it, as they have done in the past.
We are bemoaning the fact that FFG are having to FAQ things so often that it is beginning to border on incompetence.
All games do that. The text is pretty clear in intention and to the point and most importantly fits on the cards. They then provide supplementary glossary material that goes into a mechanic in depth that would not fit on the card. Imperial Assault comes with a whole book of them called the Rules Reference Guide, the Wizards SWM had a similar glossary and inserts for new mechanics, MTG lives off keywords like Lifelink, Haste and Deathtouch as shorthand for rules text you just have to know, Warhammer doesn't even have references, it just has a big rulebook.
We haven't got those FAQs now because the stuff isn't out.
They can't go into exhaustive detail on the cards. The choice is either write the rules on the card and provide easily accessible FAQ material to look up specific rulings once per wave, or write no rules on the cards and you need to keep hold of all the blister inserts to read pilot and card abilities. I know which I'd prefer.
The choice is either write the rules on the card and provide easily accessible FAQ material to look up specific rulings once per wave, or write no rules on the cards and you need to keep hold of all the blister inserts to read pilot and card abilities. I know which I'd prefer.
No, there is only one choice, and that is for FFG to finally get good at writing the rules for their own game. The vast, vast majority of FAQ entries are not because FFG ran out of space on the card; they are because the designers, quite frankly, suck at keeping the rules of their game internally consistent. We've seen the reference material for SLAM, and nowhere does it even imply that you could use it to trigger a bomb drop. It's not like it would have been hard to make it so; a number of posters in this very thread have even suggested ways it could have been done. But FFG just refuse to put the effort in, for some reason.
Edited by DR4CO"To SLAM, choose and execute a Maneuvering on the ship's dial."
"Performing a SLAM counts as executing a maneuver."
Sounds to me almost like they assumed we'd think a SLAM was a proper manoeuvre or something. Weird.
Honestly they didn't have a lot of extra space on the SLAM reference card, and when coming up with the text figured what they chose would be good enough to indicate what they wanted. But the problem is always that when you're the ones designing the game you've been talking about these concepts for so long you might overlook certain interpretations of phrasing.
All games do that. The text is pretty clear in intention and to the point and most importantly fits on the cards. They then provide supplementary glossary material that goes into a mechanic in depth that would not fit on the card. Imperial Assault comes with a whole book of them called the Rules Reference Guide, the Wizards SWM had a similar glossary and inserts for new mechanics, MTG lives off keywords like Lifelink, Haste and Deathtouch as shorthand for rules text you just have to know, Warhammer doesn't even have references, it just has a big rulebook.
We haven't got those FAQs now because the stuff isn't out.
They can't go into exhaustive detail on the cards. The choice is either write the rules on the card and provide easily accessible FAQ material to look up specific rulings once per wave, or write no rules on the cards and you need to keep hold of all the blister inserts to read pilot and card abilities. I know which I'd prefer.
Or, you know, write a set of rules that doesn't need a FAQ. Write a ruleset well enough and players should be able to figure things out for themselves, without need of more inconsistent band-aids.
When you say 'the text is pretty clear in intention,' are you referring to the reference card or the article?
not that this is any excuse for poor quality, but I'm just happy I'm not playing 40k anymore 
To make my position clear at the outset, I absolutely think FFG should do a better job than they have in the past keeping rules (a) clear, and (b) internally consistent.
Also, you know... wall of text ahead. Don't say I didn't warn y'all.
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?
...almost all released cards need a FAQ entry before even reaching the stores[citation needed].
Fixed that for you.
If the actual point is "it's frustrating that any number of cards get day-one FAQ entries," I don't dispute that at all. But I think the hyperbole here is important: "almost all" isn't true, and it isn't even almost true.
As an example (I only worked it out for ship cards), there are currently 122 ship cards in the game, and 35 of those have FAQ entries. I'm not claiming that's a good ratio, or that FFG shouldn't do something to bring it down, but "less than 30%" is a long way from "almost all".
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?
So out of your set of nine rules issues, two will definitely be in the FAQ, and one other might make it. Again, I'm not saying that's good--but it's a far cry from "almost all".
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.
First, there's an increasing trend (on this board and elsewhere) in which people assume FFG is bad at rules and look for ways to fulfill that belief, rather than looking at the rules and concluding that FFG hasn't historically done a good job of keeping things clear and consistent for this game.
And the problem with that approach is that it leads to confusing things that aren't actually alike, misinterpreting things that already have clear definitions in the rules, and generally trying to find ambiguity where it doesn't exist. As an example, there was some silliness a while back over whether or not Palpatine counts as a crew upgrade, complete with someone claiming it could go either way and FFG would have to settle things with a FAQ entry.
Again, I'm not claiming that FFG has always done their due diligence with the rules or that there are no problems. There are real and fundamental problems with the rules in X-wing, which no one including the designers seriously contests. But I am getting frustrated with the chorus of "rules issues" that--setting aside notions of common sense--already have explicitly clear solutions.
Second, one of those fundamental problems is that the rules as currently written are too simple. A good set of rules should function like a set of... er, functions, as they're defined in an object-oriented programming language. There are objects or keywords, and operations to perform on those objects, with defined outputs for each input. X-wing doesn't do that because it was initially conceived as a casual kitchen-table game, rather than what it's become.
And that simplicity makes it harder to add on good rules, not easier. As an example, Buhallin and I agree (and have for a long time) that the attack rules are fundamentally busted in that they don't play nicely with almost any secondary weapon. It's clear there was no initial consistency on what "execute a maneuver" meant, and as a result Night Beast was already broken when he was printed. There was no initial consistency on what "perform an attack" meant, and as a result Cluster Missiles were broken when they were printed (and we're still getting a strong echo of that with Twin Laser Turret, years later). There's actually no definition for "Attack (Target Lock)", except in a play example, and there's no definition of "Attack (Focus)" at all.
And that's part of the reason I take exception to the idea that "almost all" cards are broken at release: it's a miracle, or more precisely a testament to a lot of hard work by a lot of people, that the game works as well as it does.
Again, what the game needs is an extensible set of deterministic operations on an extensible set of objects and keywords. It wasn't conceived that way, and as a result the ruleset is almost entirely ad-hoc. If you have a good solution short of rewriting the rules from the ground up and issuing a second edition, I'm all ears--and that's not sarcasm or irony, but just a statement that I've thought about this problem seriously and at length, and I haven't come up with a good solution that fits within the constraints FFG has adopted.
Edited by Vorpal SwordAll games do that. The text is pretty clear in intention and to the point and most importantly fits on the cards. They then provide supplementary glossary material that goes into a mechanic in depth that would not fit on the card. Imperial Assault comes with a whole book of them called the Rules Reference Guide, the Wizards SWM had a similar glossary and inserts for new mechanics, MTG lives off keywords like Lifelink, Haste and Deathtouch as shorthand for rules text you just have to know, Warhammer doesn't even have references, it just has a big rulebook.
We haven't got those FAQs now because the stuff isn't out.
They can't go into exhaustive detail on the cards. The choice is either write the rules on the card and provide easily accessible FAQ material to look up specific rulings once per wave, or write no rules on the cards and you need to keep hold of all the blister inserts to read pilot and card abilities. I know which I'd prefer.
Or, you know, write a set of rules that doesn't need a FAQ. Write a ruleset well enough and players should be able to figure things out for themselves, without need of more inconsistent band-aids.
When you say 'the text is pretty clear in intention,' are you referring to the reference card or the article?
If they wanted the ability to drop bombs on a SLAM like a revealed maneuver, then FFG should have put 'treat this action as a revealed maneuver', or to avoid opening that can of worms, simply say 'can drop bombs as if it was a revealed maneuver'. It would have been easy to word it unambiguously. If you are running out of room on the card simply adjust the font size.
FFG just didn't care. Or they are a bunch of fan boys that don't know how to write precise rules.
As an example (I only worked it out for ship cards), there are currently 122 ship cards in the game, and 35 of those have FAQ entries. I'm not claiming that's a good ratio, or that FFG shouldn't do something to bring it down, but "less than 30%" is a long way from "almost all".
But this includes all ship cards, right? Even generics, who have no abilities that could possibly earn an FAQ entry?
If we limit it to unique pilots who actually have abilities, there are 77 of them. Of which 35 have errata, just shy of HALF. You can quibble on "almost all", but that really is a pretty massive proportion. What would that be for something like the SWLCG with 1,000 cards, or LOTR with 1400? (Disclaimer: I haven't counted the dupe or simplistic element for either, but I play LOTR actively and there aren't many "just numbers" cards). Honestly, the only thing saving this disaster of a rule set is the slow release rate. We're still just barely breaching the numbers that the other LCGs hit in their initial box set.
I generally agree with the rest of what you're saying (we've have enough previous discussions about it that it's not surprising). But I don't think FFG gets off the hook. Yes, writing good rules in the fundamental mess that is this system is hard, but they also continue to be pretty sloppy, especially when they try to do something interesting. To the extent that things work as well as they do, it's not because FFG is good at writing abilities in a hard environment, it's that they write easy abilities. Whenever we get an ability that tries to get tricky - R7-T1, IG-88A, etc - they demonstrate an inability to make things work in the system they've got, and we end up with "Sure this is nowhere near the actual rules, but this is what we want it to do" rulings.
But also, fundamentally, they also could take steps to tighten up the rules. It wouldn't take much to define "Execute a Maneuver" and make the stress check trigger on that. We talked to them about secondary weapons at GenCon almost two years ago, and they've still done nothing to even try and address it. So even if we wanted to cut them some slack for the bad environment, we have to remember that they control the environment. They're like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles holding himself hostage.
Writing a rule set that makes it easy for concepts you won't think about for another 3 years to fit into 1-2 sentences isn't that easy. The game is great, the rules are overall easy to follow and errata are straightforward. Why are people so up in arms over this?
I work in pharmaceuticals. This complaining reminds me of the customers back when I worked in pharmacy that were like, "Just put the drugs it says in the bottle it'll only take like 30 seconds. What's wrong with you people?!?!?!"
Edited by TasteTheRainbowYes, writing good rules in the fundamental mess that is this system is hard, but they also continue to be pretty sloppy, especially when they try to do something interesting. To the extent that things work as well as they do, it's not because FFG is good at writing abilities in a hard environment, it's that they write easy abilities. Whenever we get an ability that tries to get tricky - R7-T1, IG-88A, etc - they demonstrate an inability to make things work in the system they've got, and we end up with "Sure this is nowhere near the actual rules, but this is what we want it to do" rulings.
This is the major gripe. It stems from having to put all the fine print for a new ability on a single (and tiny) card. The game could use a standardized lexicon of verbiage that means stuff (i.e. USRs).
I think it's crazy that for the amount of cash they're raking in, they can't devote more resources to development and playtest...there's a public out there that would crawl over broken glass to get that opportunity. They could at least hire someone to proofread the web articles! We spoil the hell out of them for all the copy edit and errata that's sent into them from the forums. It's a billion dollar franchise, it can afford the expense of polish.
Edited by RadzapBut this includes all ship cards, right? Even generics, who have no abilities that could possibly earn an FAQ entry?As an example (I only worked it out for ship cards), there are currently 122 ship cards in the game, and 35 of those have FAQ entries. I'm not claiming that's a good ratio, or that FFG shouldn't do something to bring it down, but "less than 30%" is a long way from "almost all".
If we limit it to unique pilots who actually have abilities, there are 77 of them. Of which 35 have errata, just shy of HALF. You can quibble on "almost all", but that really is a pretty massive proportion.
You're right that half is a bad proportion. But if you want to start digging into things further, how many of the FAQ entries are the result of bad/weak rules text, how many represent bad drafting of a new element, and how many have inherited bad or fuzzy drafting from the original rules? There are at least some entries (Captain Jonus and Chewbacca are two that stick out for me) that I think could have gone unstated.
Yes, they could have avoided a large proportion of the current FAQ issues with better drafting and/or better foresight with the core rules. But it's still a long way from "almost all" cards, and I think it's an important distinction to draw.
...I don't think FFG gets off the hook. Yes, writing good rules in the fundamental mess that is this system is hard, but they also continue to be pretty sloppy, especially when they try to do something interesting.
It's not just hard, it's getting harder. As the design space gets more full, there's less low-hanging fruit--fewer unambiguous effects. When you add that to the ad-hoc nature of most of the ruleset--that is, the residue of those initial design decisions--we should probably expect the proportion of cards that could use some clarification to rise.
But also, fundamentally, they also could take steps to tighten up the rules. It wouldn't take much to define "Execute a Maneuver" and make the stress check trigger on that. We talked to them about secondary weapons at GenCon almost two years ago, and they've still done nothing to even try and address it. So even if we wanted to cut them some slack for the bad environment, we have to remember that they control the environment. They're like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles holding himself hostage.
I'm not trying to cut them slack--or, at least, not exactly. What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to sit on the sidelines and say "They should be doing a better job!" It's literally the least anyone can do about it, although admittedly it's also the most almost anyone can do.
But any effort to revise or tighten the rules would be under at least three major constraints (among probably dozens of minor ones):
(1) It has to remain consistent with all the cards released so far. That is, any rules revision for attacking can't require any changes in the card text for Proton Torpedoes.
(2) It should remain substantially consistent with the rulings in the current FAQ. It's far easier to change these than to change card text, but you can't just throw the thing out wholesale.
(3) There has to be a way to publish it widely. FFG has used the FAQ to make substantial additions and even one or two major changes to the rules, but a sweeping change to the game as a whole should probably have a wider distribution than online.
Again! I'm not saying it's not possible, or that they shouldn't explore ways to do it. And I don't think we should let them off the hook... but if I'm going to hold their feet to the fire (especially in person or without the semi-anonymity of the "Vorpal Sword" identity), I'd like to do it on behalf of changes that are actually within their power to affect.
This is the major gripe. It stems from having to put all the fine print for a new ability on a single (and tiny) card. The game could use a standardized lexicon of verbiage that means stuff (i.e. USRs).
As I said upthread, I completely agree that the ideal situation is well-defined operations with well-defined keywords and object classes as arguments.
I think it's crazy that for the amount of cash they're raking in, they can't devote more resources to development and playtest...there's a public out there that would crawl over broken glass to get that opportunity. They could at least hire someone to proofread the web articles! We spoil the hell out of them for all the copy edit and errata that's sent into them from the forums. It's a billion dollar franchise, it can afford the expense of polish.
Where are you getting their sales numbers? I've wondered for a while what they look like, even in round numbers, and have been politely stonewalled.
Edited by Vorpal SwordNumber 2 to WH40k. Not bad I'd say. Star Wars is still the more valuable IP, but 40K has always been the giant in the hobby bizz. Looks like that might change soon.
http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/30953/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-holiday-2014
I can't seem to find a reference, but if I remember right, Christian Peterson said at Gencon or GAMA that X-wing was their most profitable game ever.
I think we're on the same page with the source of the problems, Vorpal, but at the end of the day whether it was past sins or present, they're still FFG's sins. I'm a software guy, believe me, I fully comprehend technical debt. That's basically what this is - bad decisions that make things difficult going forward. I also agree that this is going to get worse going forward, because the easy abilities are running out. There just aren't that many dimensions to X-wing's system, and they're running out of knobs to turn.
But I also maintain that many of the new issues aren't all technical debt. IG-88A is obviously a case where they just couldn't be bothered to write it the way they wanted to. Even the people here who think SLAM doesn't reveal the dial agree that with a slightly different wording on the card, it would have worked as they intended.
If I believed that we were seeing serious efforts from FFG to actually deal with the rules system, I'd be far more sympathetic to them. But we keep getting rulings like IG-88A where the card actually worked fine, just not quite how they wanted it to, so they make rulings that break what are otherwise perfectly clear rules. That, to me, says they're not fundamentally serious about their rules issues, and really don't care about them.
If I thought they were seriously trying to address any of the rules issues, I'd agree with everything you're saying. But they don't seem to be, so all the excuses about how hard it is don't really matter.
I can't seem to find a reference, but if I remember right, Christian Peterson said at Gencon or GAMA that X-wing was their most profitable game ever.
I think we're on the same page with the source of the problems, Vorpal, but at the end of the day whether it was past sins or present, they're still FFG's sins. I'm a software guy, believe me, I fully comprehend technical debt. That's basically what this is - bad decisions that make things difficult going forward. I also agree that this is going to get worse going forward, because the easy abilities are running out. There just aren't that many dimensions to X-wing's system, and they're running out of knobs to turn.
But I also maintain that many of the new issues aren't all technical debt. IG-88A is obviously a case where they just couldn't be bothered to write it the way they wanted to. Even the people here who think SLAM doesn't reveal the dial agree that with a slightly different wording on the card, it would have worked as they intended.
If I believed that we were seeing serious efforts from FFG to actually deal with the rules system, I'd be far more sympathetic to them. But we keep getting rulings like IG-88A where the card actually worked fine, just not quite how they wanted it to, so they make rulings that break what are otherwise perfectly clear rules. That, to me, says they're not fundamentally serious about their rules issues, and really don't care about them.
If I thought they were seriously trying to address any of the rules issues, I'd agree with everything you're saying. But they don't seem to be, so all the excuses about how hard it is don't really matter.
<3
I'm a software+game guy.
All games do that. The text is pretty clear in intention and to the point and most importantly fits on the cards. They then provide supplementary glossary material that goes into a mechanic in depth that would not fit on the card. Imperial Assault comes with a whole book of them called the Rules Reference Guide, the Wizards SWM had a similar glossary and inserts for new mechanics, MTG lives off keywords like Lifelink, Haste and Deathtouch as shorthand for rules text you just have to know, Warhammer doesn't even have references, it just has a big rulebook.
We haven't got those FAQs now because the stuff isn't out.
They can't go into exhaustive detail on the cards. The choice is either write the rules on the card and provide easily accessible FAQ material to look up specific rulings once per wave, or write no rules on the cards and you need to keep hold of all the blister inserts to read pilot and card abilities. I know which I'd prefer.
Or, you know, write a set of rules that doesn't need a FAQ. Write a ruleset well enough and players should be able to figure things out for themselves, without need of more inconsistent band-aids.
When you say 'the text is pretty clear in intention,' are you referring to the reference card or the article?
Fair I guess: if the core ruleset was completely watertight and clear in every situation then card text should be sufficient and you wouldn't get uninitutive cases like Night Beast happening. Problem is, the main ruleset already exists and was made when they had no idea X-Wing was going to undergo tournament level scrutiny. In a casual setting you can resolve pretty much every issue with common sense and make a ruling then and there where it's truly ambigious (the core rules even have dispute resolution rules) but that doesn't work in a tournament setting.
That, and the designers have changed several times. Short of rewriting the core rules (which I guess they could do, given they've changed a few rules like initiative for tournaments anyway), clarifying cards at least works, and the ambiguity also doubles as a useful balance patching tool (see Proximity Mines). It may be annoying for people who don't like reading the FAQ once in a while, but it's hardly disasterous.
The now quite frequent preview article mistakes are a little alarming though. You'd expect FFG themselves to know how the rules work.
Ultimately, X-Wing is a casual game being played competitively: it's doing something it wasn't originally built to do and it's not going to be perfect: that's something you've just to got to accept if you play this competitively. It was also FFG's first Star Wars foray and they didn't even begin to anticipate its success. I'd imagine IA and Armada have much tighter rulesets with respect to competitive play.
oh oops I thought this was a K-wing preview discussion...I'll let myself out
Edited by TheycamefromBEHIND