Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

If you haven't revealed a maneuver, you can't SLAM since the speed you need to match is null. (Theoretically this might mean you could stall if it was on the dial, but why you'd spend an action to prevent yourself from shooting and to move zero before moving I beyond me. Maybe you really wanted to bump something?)

Its a loop hole in the wording of the card (this is not posssible as the k does NOT have a systems slot to begin with...

It says that the slams move must be of the same speed of they manuver that is exectued this turn. meaning I could theoretically advanced sensor slam with aslam and drop the bomb before revealing my dial showing my actual move. the card doesnt specifically say "slam movement only after a movement this turn" just "same speed of the manuver executed this round" that menuver is stilll being executed this round, even if it hasnt yet been executed.

Its a phrasing loop hole, but a loop hole none the less.

At least you can use SLAM to get out of your own bomb's radius. I imagine that was one main intent when designing it.

I think this was a case of them trying to fit a piece of well established lore into the game only to be painted in by already established rules.

For those of you who don't know the age of Windows 95-98, the SLAM system came from the expansion for the epic game TIE Fighter.

The system drew off of your laser power to boost you past ludicrous speed so that you could sit still (thus the no weapons token), launch some adv. missiles at an approaching band of Zaarin's TIE Defenders, then turn around and SLAM away to keep their distance and evade missiles before stopping, turning, and repeating the process.

One other great usage for the SLAM was to make Space Bombs into high speed projectiles. These warheads originally went quite a bit slower than your craft and had minimal course correction and no propulsion. You pretty much had to be on top of the enemy capital ship, going full speed, pointing straight at it, in order to not have your warheads picked off by anti-warhead systems. You could use SLAM to make these bombs travel faster than the missiles launched to destroy them.

Here's my theory:

The SLAM card was originally made to mimic the tech from the TIE Fighter game. This probably included dropping mines and bombs and whatnot while the ship was utililizing SLAM. An article was created to cause hype for this ability.

After the announcement of the K-Wing, cue an 'oh poop' moment when the devs realize that doing this would break the core rules in order to keep to the fluff. The K-Wing and SLAM system has already been announced, so they rewrite the system. Article is kept up for reasons unknown.

Considering the size of the FAQ and the tendancy of other more aged table top games to do massive rewrites on how things are done, I doubt that every ruling put out will have the same effect as the US Supreme Court. Devs come and devs go, metas change, and if they cock an eyebrow at the decisions of the old guard, they will change them. Hopefully for the game's benefit of course.

You know what, I was wrong earlier when I said:

"I mean, I guess you could wave the paper insert with the maneuver chart at your opponent and just announce it, and sure, rules as written requires nothing more to execute a SLAM."

You CAN'T just use a maneuver chart. The SLAM rules card very explicitly says "choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial." And we're obviously in very finely split hair territory with this whole ruling (false advertising) which is all about doing what the card says, not what the card doesn't say. So by rule, you have to choose it on the dial. Does it really have to say in the rule "and reveal it"? Isn't that implicit in the whole process of choosing and executing? Like all the ship and upgrade cards that say "spend a focus token"...it doesn't say whose focus token! So I can spend any one I choose, right?

This whole business has me infuriated and feeling gipped.

Oh, and lied to. Lied to for the purposes of taking my money on promised goods that are now denied.

Midnight ranting... I should probably just give up. But I play this game for the joy of it, the thrill, the awesome community it fosters, the infinite diversity in infinite combinations afforded by the squad building process...the way it challenges my mind and provides a cool thing I can share with my kids... It's a hobby I love, and that's why I've spent so much money on this game in the past year that it needs a comma in the number. But I will not stand for charlatans' tricks posing as rules and outright lies posing as advertising copy.

You CAN'T just use a maneuver chart. The SLAM rules card very explicitly says "choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial." And we're obviously in very finely split hair territory with this whole ruling (false advertising) which is all about doing what the card says, not what the card doesn't say. So by rule, you have to choose it on the dial.

No, that isn't what that means. You just have to have a list of what maneuvers are on the dial.

The new rulebook actually makes the distinction between executing a maneuver and revealing a dial even more explicit than it was before.

FFG f#%^ed up with the article. Which was why everyone was constantly saying "what's up with the article, the rules don't say you can do that?!

Now, to be fair, I think they should errata SLAM in some fashion to enable bomb dropping, but I am not going to get upset that frank's email followed the RAW instead of making another "do it this way because we say so" ruling.

I have also noticed that email rulings from the developers tend to be much stricter and more literal in their RAW interpretation than the published FAQs. There have been multiple instances before when an email said one thing because that us what the rules said, but a short time later we got a new FAQ that reversed the email ruling.

I think if there is anything to take away from this confusion its to always wait for the official ruling before committing to a purchase, especially if you are playing to tournament rules.

Nothing is stopping anyone from house ruling differently for casual play. In the case of the mid slam bomb drop I think it would prove to be too effective and therefore unbalancing to the game.

I will still buy 2 K wings if only for the TLT turrets and the option of squad list variation.

@Forgottenlore: Examples?

And another forum has talked me off the ledge so to speak, with an interesting distinction drawn between assigning rules significance to physical acts that resemble the rules steps. Hmmm. I am pondering.

I think this was a case of them trying to fit a piece of well established lore into the game only to be painted in by already established rules.

While I agree this was probably the case, I don't think they did a great job of replicating the SLAM anyway. Since yes, using the SLAM basically doubled your speed in exchange for using up all of the power from the Missile Boats useless single laser. But since the whole point of the Missile Boat was that it carried, like, 80 missiles, you didn't NEED the laser.

It's really weird that the SLAM in this game disables all your weapons. Not just your primary lasers, but your missiles, torpedoes, turrets etc. as well. You can still drop bombs, but if the ship that the SLAM was invented for, the Missile Boat ever makes it into the game, it won't be able to SLAM and fire missiles, which was kinda the whole point.

@Forgottenlore: Examples?

The one I can remember was whether or not swarm tactics was optional. The card used to say

"At the start of the Combat phase, choose 1 friendly ship at Range 1..."

Someone emailed FFG and the answer we got was that it was NOT optional, if the ST ship had its PS reduced to zero by a crit, he still had to pass that zero PS onto a buddy. A few weeks later a new FAQ came out that errata'd Swarm Tactics to say

"At the start of the Combat phase, you may choose 1 friendly ship at Range 1."

I know there have been one or two other situations like that, but I can't recall them at the moment.

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

Still wouldn't work, advanced sensors gives you a free action, so does Squad Leader. Airen Cracken and Lando Calrissian can't grant you a SLAM either.

Daredevil's here in case anyone wanted to argue that executing a maneuver means revealing a dial.

Just for reference in case some visitors haven't read the faq, Daredevil has received errata. You execute a white maneuver, and then receive a stress token. The maneuver is always white even if you have some other ability or upgrade that would make speed 1 maneuvers green.

You could still intercept the stress token with Captain Yorr.

And since it is a white maneuver, a certain HAX A-wing pilot *cough* Tycho *cough* can continue to use it even while stressed without fear of his opponent deciding he flies into an asteroid.

No, but you should have looked at the actual rules text, which has never supported the interpretation the article used. The rules and the article couldn't both have been right.

Well, since people that work at FFG interpreted it that way, obviously that interpretation was supported.

I really hope Fantasy Flight realizes this looks like they lied to make us go out and buy more K-Wings, which I did. I bought three of them the moment they were available. Now I wish I had not. I realize carelessness is more likely than malice here, but that doesn't change the fact that I now have three ships that don't do what I was told they did and wish I had not purchased them. If this ends up in the FAQ, I shall be leery of buying future X-Wing ships.

Well, since people that work at FFG interpreted it that way, obviously that interpretation was supported.

And is cloaking Howlrunner and putting EPTs on Graz the Hunter supported too?

I don't know the process used to write and check the articles, but they're throughouly unreliable for rules accuracy nowadays.

Midnight ranting... I should probably just give up. But I play this game for the joy of it, the thrill, the awesome community it fosters, the infinite diversity in infinite combinations afforded by the squad building process...the way it challenges my mind and provides a cool thing I can share with my kids... It's a hobby I love, and that's why I've spent so much money on this game in the past year that it needs a comma in the number. But I will not stand for charlatans' tricks posing as rules and outright lies posing as advertising copy.

It's quite clearly a further example of incompetence/neglect/whatever in the article department. I very much doubt it was deliberate.

Look, Frank's ruling is the correct interpretation of the explicit wording on the rules card. It's just such a half-a**ed way of doing it that it BEGS for misinterpretation, because you are both CHOOSING and EXECUTING a MANEUVER on the DIAL. Yet you don't REVEAL it? Come on, man.

No, you don't reveal it. You declare it. No reason to fiddle with the dial at all, you just say "3 bank to the left" and do it. It's phrased just like Daredevil and just like Inertial Dampeners, and you can't drop bombs off of those.

If they wanted it to work with bombs, they'd have phrased it "set a maneuver on the ship's dial and reveal it". The designers know what they're doing and they know their ruleset.

This isn't reneging on design intent at all, it's whoever's writing the articles having a less than stellar grasp of the rules and an apparent great lack of proofreading of those articles. If the designers wanted SLAM to drop bombs mid-maneuver, they'd write the SLAM card so that it did, and they would not be ambigious about it.

little worried that X-wing is reaching the point that ST:AW did many months ago...so many interactions that the rules start breaking down.

Right now all this meta shaking stuff is still not as strong as a super-Dash that can easily get out of arc/range every turn. Nerfing 2 of the things in wave 7 just means we won't see super-Dash go away anytime soon.

It's not at that point, and the problem with ST:AW is that Wizkids cares more about shoving product out the door than they do about development.

Also, there have been no nerfs in Wave 7.

I think we should perhaps use this very large consensus of negative feedback on the ruling in order to kindly ask (aka petition) FFG to maybe reconsider this ruling a second time. They seemed hesitating on it for sone days now, and maybe they would be willing to overlook the case one more time if we all agree on pulling at the sane end of the rope.

The sane end of the rope? SLAM doesn't reveal a dial. There's no reason to believe it reveals a dial. There's never been a reason to believe it, except for the article. And when the article was published, several people at every X-wing fan site I'm aware of pointed out, almost immediately, that it broke the same rules it cited.

I am aghast at the community's response. It's not a nerf, it's a reiteration that the rules work exactly the way everyone who looks carefully at the rules has said they work since the day SLAM was made public. It's not a step back in the power of bombs, it's a clarification of the intent of the design. And it's not a personal attack in any way.

And I'm left wondering, how many of the people complaining in this thread have had the K-wing on the table with the correct rules more than once? SLAM is incredibly powerful. In terms of speed and complexity of maneuvering, there's nothing in the game to compare it to except a Phantom. No K-wing is ever caught in a spot it doesn't want to be in, unless it's blocked. No K-wing should ever be in a position to be fired upon unless it wants to.

Get it on the table. Test it out. Work with it.

Everyone expected FFG to rule it so the maneuver works since they advertised their ship with it, which many of us bought. This was extremely misleading at the bare minimum. We could talk about deceiving customers here, but i don't want to say it was intended.

So the sane thing to to was very very clear. Allow it! Even if it was not intended. They would not have disappointed anyone that way nor broken the game. A powerful mechanic for the K-Wing? Yes, but no problem for game balance. So why the hell not.

Concerning the slam action, yes it's powerful. But we will see Doni or Esege with TLT and hardly any ordnance making apparitions. If they ruled differently we finally would have seen Bombs see at least some competitive play. Maybe Deathrain is playable with them... Maybe!

So it is what it is. Disappointing and a missed opportunity.

The sane end of the rope? Well it was either a mistake on the card or one in the article. And it's not as if the cards would have been worded 100% correct up to this point in time. I agree that reading the cards notging indicates the possibility of the mid Slam drop of bombs. But the article does so crystal clear!

Right, which is why is was clear that one of the two was wrong.

Everyone expected FFG to rule it so the maneuver works...

That's not true. Many people expected it. But the odds were never that good, because (after people had ships in hand at GenCon) it was clear to me that it would require errata, which they're fairly reluctant to issue, rather than merely making a call on an ambiguous rule.

This was extremely misleading at the bare minimum.

I would lean on how embarrassing the issue is for FFG, rather than on how they misled their customers--but I'm certainly sympathetic. What confuses and frustrates me is the idea several people have put forward: that without that extra timing window, the K-wing is boring and worthless.

So the sane thing to to was very very clear. Allow it! Even if it was not intended. They would not have disappointed anyone that way nor broken the game. A powerful mechanic for the K-Wing? Yes, but no problem for game balance. So why the hell not.

How do you know it's not a problem for game balance? If the extra timing window wasn't intended, it seems likely that no one knows--since nothing in the rules indicates the extra window exists, why would it have been playtested? You're assuming it would be just fine, but if I were a developer I'd want to see the results of dozens of games before I came to a firm conclusion.

Concerning the slam action, yes it's powerful. But we will see Doni or Esege with TLT and hardly any ordnance making apparitions. If they ruled differently we finally would have seen Bombs see at least some competitive play. Maybe Deathrain is playable with them... Maybe!

So it is what it is. Disappointing and a missed opportunity.

First, and again, it's not really a ruling because it wasn't at all ambiguous. It's a clarification that the rules say exactly what they clearly say, and it's only required because the preview article made (and still makes) a whopping error.

Second, this is what I mean when I question whether people have actually played the K-wing before jumping on this particular bandwagon. Seismic Charges have been the strongest bomb in the game since their introduction. And Proton Bombs may be cheap enough now, at 2 for 7 points, to start seeing some real play. The bombs that needed help were the action-to-drop family, and those are the ones that got a shot in the arm... at a cost of +2 for Advanced SLAM.

The K-wing is pretty powerful even with this clarification of the rules. I'm sorry people feel misled, and I do get it. But really, try to set aside your disappointment and just get the ship on the table. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how functional it is.

Rules are subject to change. It's not as heinous as anything Gamesworkshop does, such as slightly changing the $100 rulebook only a year after it came out because not enough people were buying the expensive forgeworld models that were not tournament legal.

The new rulebook made the ridiculous forgeworld stuff legal for tournaments, and so stupidly overpowered, you had to spend $1000 bucks on their special-order only products to compete.

Anyway, people of a mind can still take Experimental Interface on one Punisher or K-wing if they want to Boost/Slam and drop a bomb.

Just throwing in my two cents, to all FFG fanboys here.

I suppose I am an FFG fanboy myself, at least my shelf with tons of models says so. But here they have clearly messed up.

Forum warriors or very advanced players probably thought or supposed that the article was incorrect. But hey, for the majority of X-Wing players that article was a reliablie official source of information. And let's not forget that the preorders for that shiny beautiful K-Wings were up for quite a long time. And let's not forget that we're not talking about some typo here - there was a clear statement in the article. It's not like they confused one word. They have constructed a product USP (unique selling point) and then, according to the quote in this topic, they diched it. This is bad.

By no means I think that here we have some sort of deliberate fraud - of course not. But as a person who is responsible for the same type of articles in another project (MMO PC game) I certainly recommend the following obvious changes to workflow:

1. Always get an approval of responsible game designers before publishing anything.

2. If you are not sure about the feature, do not cover it in your preview.

And as another unhappy owner of two K-Wings, I really hope they will address this and allow bomb-SLAM sequence. Otherwise, I don't see adequate use of anything other than mines/nets here.

P.S. Guys who protect FFG on this one...really, your argument seem invalid. "They always mess up the article", "that was obvious" and "K-Wing is still good" - nothing like this is an excuse. We love FFG for this wonderful game, but let's not idolize them. This scenario is bad for anyone and it should not become a tendency.

Cheers.

The sane end of the rope? Well it was either a mistake on the card or one in the article. And it's not as if the cards would have been worded 100% correct up to this point in time. I agree that reading the cards notging indicates the possibility of the mid Slam drop of bombs. But the article does so crystal clear!

Right, which is why is was clear that one of the two was wrong.

Everyone expected FFG to rule it so the maneuver works...

That's not true. Many people expected it. But the odds were never that good, because (after people had ships in hand at GenCon) it was clear to me that it would require errata, which they're fairly reluctant to issue, rather than merely making a call on an ambiguous rule.

This was extremely misleading at the bare minimum.

I would lean on how embarrassing the issue is for FFG, rather than on how they misled their customers--but I'm certainly sympathetic. What confuses and frustrates me is the idea several people have put forward: that without that extra timing window, the K-wing is boring and worthless.

So the sane thing to to was very very clear. Allow it! Even if it was not intended. They would not have disappointed anyone that way nor broken the game. A powerful mechanic for the K-Wing? Yes, but no problem for game balance. So why the hell not.

How do you know it's not a problem for game balance? If the extra timing window wasn't intended, it seems likely that no one knows--since nothing in the rules indicates the extra window exists, why would it have been playtested? You're assuming it would be just fine, but if I were a developer I'd want to see the results of dozens of games before I came to a firm conclusion.

Concerning the slam action, yes it's powerful. But we will see Doni or Esege with TLT and hardly any ordnance making apparitions. If they ruled differently we finally would have seen Bombs see at least some competitive play. Maybe Deathrain is playable with them... Maybe!

So it is what it is. Disappointing and a missed opportunity.

First, and again, it's not really a ruling because it wasn't at all ambiguous. It's a clarification that the rules say exactly what they clearly say, and it's only required because the preview article made (and still makes) a whopping error.

Second, this is what I mean when I question whether people have actually played the K-wing before jumping on this particular bandwagon. Seismic Charges have been the strongest bomb in the game since their introduction. And Proton Bombs may be cheap enough now, at 2 for 7 points, to start seeing some real play. The bombs that needed help were the action-to-drop family, and those are the ones that got a shot in the arm... at a cost of +2 for Advanced SLAM.

The K-wing is pretty powerful even with this clarification of the rules. I'm sorry people feel misled, and I do get it. But really, try to set aside your disappointment and just get the ship on the table. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how functional it is.

You say one of the two was wrong between the article and the card (obviously true). But as i read you, you assume its clear that it was the article. Well to me it was not at all clear which one until the "clarification". This could very well have gone both ways so i still see it as a ruling.

The question is if the K-Wing would have been too strong being able to drop a maximum of 4 seismics/protons/ions mid movement. Well in my opinion, clearly not. But that could be subject to discussion.

I actually agree with most you say, but no need to be that clement towards FFG. And i really see a pretty large majority at least on this forum that does not like the clarification. Customers, exert your power! Just anyone that feels this was not the right decision, tell them. Make them know so they might reconsider or at least prevent such confusion next time. This is all i suggest! No need to be rude but make FFG notice!

yeah but now Maranda plays better as a "Fighter" not the Bomber she was meant to be...

Meh, the one time I've used a K-Wing so far, I think I slammed once in 2 games. And I was using it as a bomber. But then i was using Tuketu and so i wanted my RecSpec focus tokens for the rest of the squad.

I'm fine with the ruling.

yeah but now Maranda plays better as a "Fighter" not the Bomber she was meant to be...

Miranda always plays as a fighter due to her ability. You can still use bombs with her since you don't want to slam unless necessary

Only ESE really gets ****** here. Slam and his ability work well since he's not attacking, and bombs were his thing because mines = no focus action

So no more fly in front of swarm, drop bomb, slam away, aslam focus, bad guys go boom

Yeah, I think FFG needs to correct the SLAM action language so you have to set & reveal a dial for SLAM, thus enabling a bomb to be dropped. Thematically, then, the K-wing can accomplish its mission.

Just throwing in my two cents, to all FFG fanboys here.

I suppose I am an FFG fanboy myself, at least my shelf with tons of models says so. But here they have clearly messed up.

Forum warriors or very advanced players probably thought or supposed that the article was incorrect. But hey, for the majority of X-Wing players that article was a reliablie official source of information. And let's not forget that the preorders for that shiny beautiful K-Wings were up for quite a long time. And let's not forget that we're not talking about some typo here - there was a clear statement in the article. It's not like they confused one word. They have constructed a product USP (unique selling point) and then, according to the quote in this topic, they diched it. This is bad.

By no means I think that here we have some sort of deliberate fraud - of course not. But as a person who is responsible for the same type of articles in another project (MMO PC game) I certainly recommend the following obvious changes to workflow:

1. Always get an approval of responsible game designers before publishing anything.

2. If you are not sure about the feature, do not cover it in your preview.

And as another unhappy owner of two K-Wings, I really hope they will address this and allow bomb-SLAM sequence. Otherwise, I don't see adequate use of anything other than mines/nets here.

P.S. Guys who protect FFG on this one...really, your argument seem invalid. "They always mess up the article", "that was obvious" and "K-Wing is still good" - nothing like this is an excuse. We love FFG for this wonderful game, but let's not idolize them. This scenario is bad for anyone and it should not become a tendency.

Cheers.

Well written!! And I agree, the vast majority of players will take the articles as a valid source of info BEFORE dissecting the individual rules themselves. The articles should already be summarizing those rules!

So, can I expect to see a bunch of k-wings for sale on eBay now?

P.S. Guys who protect FFG on this one...really, your argument seem invalid. "They always mess up the article", "that was obvious" and "K-Wing is still good" - nothing like this is an excuse. We love FFG for this wonderful game, but let's not idolize them. This scenario is bad for anyone and it should not become a tendency.

Cheers.

Nobody's saying the constant article errors are a bad thing, we're saying the article contradicted the rules: it's not a case of reversing a ruling because SLAM was never designed to drop bombs mid-activation in the first place.