It's not slightly ambiguous at all; the card tells you exactly what to do, and nowhere in there is revealing a dial involved. Make whatever assumptions you like, they still have nothing to do with the actual rules of the game, nor the interactions currently possible.

If it was as ambiguously worded as some of you think, there would have been discussions about this issue MONTHS ago when we first saw the rules card for the slam action. There wasn't. Until today there was universal consensus that you were not going to be able to drop a bomb before the slam maneuver. The only discussion then was an occasional new player asking the question and someone answering "no, because you don't reveal a dial".

Everyone who is saying it isn't clear, or that it IS clear that you CAN drop a bomb RAW, where were you 2 months ago?

The reason this is being argued is because it was crystal clear how the rules worked and then today FFG contradicted that.

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...

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...

Maybe it's the GalBase equivalent of the English/American thing?

or she's Agamarian

So there's a feeling I've had for a long time now, but it was difficult to express, why I dislike newer ordnance cards (except for Proton Rockets): They're not owning up to making a mistake with the initial ordnance cards.

"Hey man, Proton Torpedoes isn't overcosted and badly designed! Here, for 2pts extra, I'll let you take two instead!"

"Proton Torpedoes aren't bad! But here, I'll give you a discount on a same-same version"

This way, we'll have regular ordnance appearing in matches by wave 20.

This is true, but also in keeping with their positioning on other "issues." The closest we've ever come is Alex Davy saying that given the chance to do-over the HWK he'd make it Attack 2.

To be fair - under Davy and Brooks there has been a concerted effort to patch the incongruencies in the game ...

I would love for these guys to be given a clean slate to "re-imagine" X-Wing from the ground up for a 2.0

Ok, Blaster Turret out, Twin Laser Turret in!

T/Interceptor out, again.

Plasma Torpedoes = alpha strike weapon.

The first torpedoes ever, that I'll fit on a X or E-Wing.

3 Points for 5 damages on range 3?! Deal!

Well, the K-Wing looks fun! Though, I'll be honest, I'm more interested in the upgrades that come with it, than the ship itself.

Come, my pretty Wishbones! We have death to deal! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*ahem* Sorry, got a little carried away...

Ok, I'll admit it, I skipped 9 pages, what's the big war in this thread about?

Nothing productive. Same arguments going back and forth, with neither side giving... Wait, isn't this how World War I started...?

War...war never changes.

EDIT: Deleted double post

Can not wait to get this bad boy!!!

Plasma Torpedoes still seem to be generally weak, but could be useful in epic games against capital ships. Unless you're shooting with a focus token against ships that have lots of shielding, it seems like a regular Proton Torpedo would probably do more damage, with the chance of pushing a crit through.

I dunno, anything with 4+ shields is a pretty good early game target for this torpedo to strip a high number of shields ... B-wings, Decimators, YTs, Firesprays, the new YV-666. Though I think this is more like what proton torpedoes should have been.

The bomb craziness from this wave is going to be fun, though!

But ... I wish ... the bomb upgrade cards would say what the bomb actually does.

And TLT is a nice HWK fix for a support ship.

Ok, I'll admit it, I skipped 9 pages, what's the big war in this thread about?

SLAM reference card is worded badly and says that to do a SLAM action, you execute a maneuver on your dial, but doesn't say that you choose that maneuver on your dial and reveal your dial.

to make matters worse, FFG's article says that you can drop a bomb before performing the SLAM maneuver because it's totally a maneuver you guys, even though the rules for dropping bombs state that you must reveal a dial to drop a bomb and, again, the SLAM reference card says nothing about revealing a dial.

so people are fighting about "follow the rules as written, even if they make no sense" versus "use common sense and assume that everyone has read the article to learn the developers' intent"

Actually, the card absolutely DOES say you choose a maneuver on your dial. In fact, it uses exactly that wording. I admit, FFG skipped the statement that after choosing and before executing, you will have to reveal that dial. Perhaps it is unclear, or perhaps they assumed too much by believing "reveal", "choose template" etc. could go without saying.

Considering how much space the current wording takes, further wording explaining that you actually have to reveal the maneuver you picked before you execute it seems like an unnecessary waste of space. For it to skip the reveal step, it would probably just say "execute a maneuver on your dial as if it were assigned" in the same vein as "as if it were assigned a white 1 straight".

Regardless, the level of hand wringing involved when slightly ambiguous wording is clarified in the SAME article is amazing. You are choosing a maneuver on the dial, revealing it, and executing the maneuver despite the fact that the card doesn't explicitly state the requirements of "revealing" and "choosing templates" that occur in the middle between the two steps actually stated.

It's cool, it makes bombers work, there is no doubt about what happens, why do we need 9 pages of angst over it?

It seems pretty straight forward.

It says choose a maneuver that is the same speed as the revealed maneuver you performed in the movement part of the phase..

So, you set your dial for a 2 straight.. then to perform the slam, you choose another 2 range maneuver then do it...

Why is that so hard to understand.. rwad it and you cant help but see it that way unless you have other motives in mind.. then take your token for disabled weapons.

In all of the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people cant see it for what it is. Why must you read more into it than is necessary, it just makes no sense to me..

Something I have not seen anyone bring up is walking large ships off the table with these new bombs.

With Extra Munitions a K-Wing or a Punisher can have 4 of them. No to-hit rolls, no need for multiples in order to ion the large ship. If it can get a large ship on its tail it can drop a bomb every turn and guarantee continuous ion-ing (assuming it doesn't die). I just pulled out some bases and templates and it looks like a large ship can be forced to move 24" in a straight line like this.

I don't know how difficult it would be to set up the proper positioning, but sacrificing a 40 point K-Wing to drive a 60 point Fat Han off the table seems worth it to me.

Maybe even try to sit a small based ship on the outside edge for a bump that gets it turned more sharply to the edge even.. it would take some super flying to set it up and make it work, but that would be impressive to watch happen..

Wouldn't even need to keep in front of it, drop it on the side, it would do fine there ...

Wouldn't even need to keep in front of it, drop it on the side, it would do fine there ...

Depends on what your using. I was envisioning Conner Nets for the action denial since if your doing this the turret is going to be unloading everything it has into you.

Something I have not seen anyone bring up is walking large ships off the table with these new bombs.

With Extra Munitions a K-Wing or a Punisher can have 4 of them. No to-hit rolls, no need for multiples in order to ion the large ship. If it can get a large ship on its tail it can drop a bomb every turn and guarantee continuous ion-ing (assuming it doesn't die). I just pulled out some bases and templates and it looks like a large ship can be forced to move 24" in a straight line like this.

I don't know how difficult it would be to set up the proper positioning, but sacrificing a 40 point K-Wing to drive a 60 point Fat Han off the table seems worth it to me.

Edit: I checked the numbers. 6 points for 4 ion bombs. If you can't control Han with that yer doin' it rong!

Edit again: I thought about it another 30 seconds and I'm now very optimistic about the demise of large-base ships.

Ok, I'll admit it, I skipped 9 pages, what's the big war in this thread about?

SLAM reference card is worded badly and says that to do a SLAM action, you execute a maneuver on your dial, but doesn't say that you choose that maneuver on your dial and reveal your dial.

to make matters worse, FFG's article says that you can drop a bomb before performing the SLAM maneuver because it's totally a maneuver you guys, even though the rules for dropping bombs state that you must reveal a dial to drop a bomb and, again, the SLAM reference card says nothing about revealing a dial.

so people are fighting about "follow the rules as written, even if they make no sense" versus "use common sense and assume that everyone has read the article to learn the developers' intent"

Actually, the card absolutely DOES say you choose a maneuver on your dial. In fact, it uses exactly that wording. I admit, FFG skipped the statement that after choosing and before executing, you will have to reveal that dial. Perhaps it is unclear, or perhaps they assumed too much by believing "reveal", "choose template" etc. could go without saying.

Considering how much space the current wording takes, further wording explaining that you actually have to reveal the maneuver you picked before you execute it seems like an unnecessary waste of space. For it to skip the reveal step, it would probably just say "execute a maneuver on your dial as if it were assigned" in the same vein as "as if it were assigned a white 1 straight".

Regardless, the level of hand wringing involved when slightly ambiguous wording is clarified in the SAME article is amazing. You are choosing a maneuver on the dial, revealing it, and executing the maneuver despite the fact that the card doesn't explicitly state the requirements of "revealing" and "choosing templates" that occur in the middle between the two steps actually stated.

It's cool, it makes bombers work, there is no doubt about what happens, why do we need 9 pages of angst over it?

It seems pretty straight forward.

It says choose a maneuver that is the same speed as the revealed maneuver you performed in the movement part of the phase..

So, you set your dial for a 2 straight.. then to perform the slam, you choose another 2 range maneuver then do it...

Why is that so hard to understand.. rwad it and you cant help but see it that way unless you have other motives in mind.. then take your token for disabled weapons.

In all of the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people cant see it for what it is. Why must you read more into it than is necessary, it just makes no sense to me..

I agree, it seems pretty straight forward.

You execute a manuever, then you pick up your dial, choose a maneuver on it, and reveal it to your opponent so they know what it is, then perform that maneuver. You can clearly drop a bomb at this point since it's an action on a heavy bomber than then cannot attack for the turn and the developers of the game discussed this exact sequence in their preview article.

In all the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people can't read with comprehension and context, and purely read words on the page as though they exist in a vaccuum with no extra value or meaning. It makes no sense to me.

In all the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people can't read with comprehension and context, and purely read words on the page as though they exist in a vaccuum with no extra value or meaning. It makes no sense to me.

I agree. I don't see how anyone can think the text on the card says there is a dial reveal, all the card instructs you to do is pick a maneuver from a list of options. People keep reading into it that, because that list is derived from the information on the dial, you must rotate the dial to a maneuver, conceal it (for some reason), and then reveal it, but all of that is just projecting their own rationalizations and has nothing to do with the actual text.

In all the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people can't read with comprehension and context, and purely read words on the page as though they exist in a vaccuum with no extra value or meaning. It makes no sense to me.

I agree. I don't see how anyone can think the text on the card says there is a dial reveal, all the card instructs you to do is pick a maneuver from a list of options. People keep reading into it that, because that list is derived from the information on the dial, you must rotate the dial to a maneuver, conceal it (for some reason), and then reveal it, but all of that is just projecting their own rationalizations and has nothing to do with the actual text.

I think the mistake here is assuming there must be concealment to reveal something. While often used that way, it can also mean to just let something be known. A synonym could easily be "show", as in "show your opponent the maneuver you have selected". While many players know what maneuevers all of the ships have, not everyone will, so the easiest way to "choose another maneuver on the dial of the same speed" will be to literally choose the manever and show it to your opponent.

Additionally, while I'm glad you agree with me, I think that you may have shown a lack of that "comprehension and context" bit I was speaking of, since you agreed and then argued precisely the opposite of what you quoted, by taking the words on the page in a literal precise vaccuum and ignoring context and comprehension for what the ship is, what the designers want from the ship, and even what the designers said the ship can do in the article.

You execute a manuever, then you pick up your dial, choose a maneuver on it, and reveal it to your opponent so they know what it is, then perform that maneuver.

I don't see any of that on the reference card, an upgrade card, or the rules themselves. In fact, people are inserting needless steps in order to do something really, really simple; just do what the card says to do. That's all you have to worry about it in this instance, because unlike a lot of other scenarios, the interaction between the rules and the ability are very clear. Nothing is broken here by following the rules.

I think the mistake here is assuming there must be concealment to reveal something.

No, the mistake is assuming that anything needs to be revealed at all. It doesn't.

Wouldn't even need to keep in front of it, drop it on the side, it would do fine there ...

Depends on what your using. I was envisioning Conner Nets for the action denial since if your doing this the turret is going to be unloading everything it has into you.

Depending on the actual K-wing dial, a Sidewinder tactic might do it:

(1) Cross large ship's path perpendicular, drop Connor Net.

(2) Execute 2 turn in direction of large ship movement, SLAM, another 2 turn..

(3) Cross large ship's path perpendicular, drop Connor Net.

(4) Execute 2 turn in direction of large ship movement, SLAM, another 2 turn.

...etc. Takes a while, though. I haven't measured to see if the spacing is correct. Alternating 2 banks might also work using the Ion Bomb (again, need to check spacing).

Synonyms have no place in concise and unambiguous rule-sets.

In all the crazy arguments like this, I never understand why so many people can't read with comprehension and context, and purely read words on the page as though they exist in a vaccuum with no extra value or meaning. It makes no sense to me.

I agree. I don't see how anyone can think the text on the card says there is a dial reveal, all the card instructs you to do is pick a maneuver from a list of options. People keep reading into it that, because that list is derived from the information on the dial, you must rotate the dial to a maneuver, conceal it (for some reason), and then reveal it, but all of that is just projecting their own rationalizations and has nothing to do with the actual text.

Revealing a maneuver doesn't require a dial either. At some point you show or tell your opponent the maneuver you are using as your slam. That act of diseminating information counts as a reveal. Bombs away.

Synonyms have no place in concise and unambiguous rule-sets.

That sounds nice. Where can I get one of those?

Revealing a maneuver doesn't require a dial either. At some point you show or tell your opponent the maneuver you are using as your slam. That act of diseminating information counts as a reveal. Bombs away.

Can you quote rules text to back that up?

Synonyms have no place in concise and unambiguous rule-sets.

That sounds nice. Where can I get one of those?

X-wing's not bad on this front, this thread is just kind of exhibiting the standard degenerative traits of any official forum ecosystem.

I was specifically pointing at this post (since it's trying to claim validity without any rule evidence):

I think the mistake here is assuming there must be concealment to reveal something. While often used that way, it can also mean to just let something be known. A synonym could easily be "show", as in "show your opponent the maneuver you have selected". While many players know what maneuevers all of the ships have, not everyone will, so the easiest way to "choose another maneuver on the dial of the same speed" will be to literally choose the manever and show it to your opponent.

but I guess quickreply sucks