One thing I find funny is all the "it's illegal" crowd trying to say the article is just one error among many that happen all too frequently.

No it's not.

The other errors generally fall in the category of a graphics designer clicking on the wrong file to insert into the final composite. A cloaking Howlrunner? Oops. That was supposed to be 1124.tif, not 1125.tif. Easy enough to fix. Now it's Whisper.

A 3-bank versus a 3-turn? Oops. I was referencing the draft version 0.3 dial graphic. Lemme swap that out.

This is an error in a whole different league.

I think some of the folks in this crowd are referring to other FFG articles for other FFG games -- not just X-Wing. I can't remember where exactly, but I've seen this happen in other forums for other games like Star Wars: The Card Game. Somebody reads the article and goes to the forum to ask, "Is this legal?" and the rules-savvy forumites say, "No, it's a mistake."

@Blue Five: I'm curious. Was your statement in this post 10 days ago sarcastic? Seems you were on the side of, it's clearly a rules text error.

https://community.fa...slam/?p=1762730

Not sarcastic at all. If you dig deeper you'll probably find a few more similar posts from me.

Back then it had never occured to me that the scenarios in the articles were thought up by anyone other than people directly involved in the design. They put a pre-SLAM bomb in the article twice so surely that's what they had to mean, right? The rules wording, as pointed out by Vorpal, suggested strongly that you could not. Without that picture it never would have occured to me it was possible. But it was in the official article. I never thought for a moment that such an extreme error would make it into an official, published preview article. It was there, so it was either possible or it would be clarified to be po

There was a lot of disagreement on the issue and Vorpal made a good case, so I figured I'd email Rules Questions for an answer and (ironically) maybe stop a forum argument before it started. I still was fairly sure I was right and the answer I would get was that pulling a Genius was possible right up until I read that email.

"The original article was incorrect."

Straight from the mouth of one of the Head Designers himself. An explicit statement that the article is wrong.

Only an FAQ errata (also written by the designers) trumps that.

@Blue Five:

Well despite my strong distaste for the ruling, I definitely appreciate your effort to get us a ruling and provide it to the community.

Glad it is sort of officially clarified, would REALLY like to see it in a FAQ so that it does NOT rely on a rumor/e-mail network to get the word out to have everyone playing the same game... Like many others, seeing the company put out what would seem to be an official "this is how it works" article I just assumed that of course coming from the company, it couldn't be THAT wrong... Especially with the wording of "choose a maneuver on the dial" vs "reveal a maneuver on the dial"... Seems pretty close to me, but I'm just an Engineer, what would I know apparently... As the owner of 2 of them now, REALLY disappointing. Miranda is good, with the current ruling though? The rest are looking very sub standard at best. Nothing really new or unique about how they deploy bombs from what I can see, but I might be missing something...

I'm going to pull a "one last question" here. Just for academic purposes, and to close a loop on one thing I'm not sure of. Hopefully this doesn't trigger ten more pages of ulcer inducing stress.

Aside from the slam rules card, which omits the explicit language of "revealing" a dial, is there any OTHER rule in the game that would also be violated by the mid-slam seismic/proton/ion bomb deployment mechanic? Upon reflection, I'm just wondering if our whole arguing positions for the last several pages were based on just one of multiple rules tensions.

I'm going to pull a "one last question" here. Just for academic purposes, and to close a loop on one thing I'm not sure of. Hopefully this doesn't trigger ten more pages of ulcer inducing stress.

Aside from the slam rules card, which omits the explicit language of "revealing" a dial, is there any OTHER rule in the game that would also be violated by the mid-slam seismic/proton/ion bomb deployment mechanic? Upon reflection, I'm just wondering if our whole arguing positions for the last several pages were based on just one of multiple rules tensions.

There's the rules on order during the activation phase, but those are used to determine when a player "reveals his dial." I suppose you could count the bombs themselves since dropping them at any point other than their written trigger condition would be breaking their timing rules.

But no, the whole argument is about if you reveal a dial. Oh and some guy made a mistake on an article.

The article bears no sign of being a scribner's error.

Except that it directly contradicted the rules quoted in the article, and we have a the statement from Frank saying it's in error.

It shows every sign of being a deliberately constructed set of examples generated by actual players of the game (whether play testers or developers) to show an intentionally designed, cool new ability introduced to the game. This is not the work of ignorant public relations majors cranking away on the hype-machine. It shows all the signs of being Original Intent.

Okay, suppose for a moment that the article was the work of a marketing person, and the designers, playtesters, etc. all saw it at the same time as the general public. What would distinguish that article, in your mind, from the one we have now? How could you tell?

Aside from the slam rules card, which omits the explicit language of "revealing" a dial, is there any OTHER rule in the game that would also be violated by the mid-slam seismic/proton/ion bomb deployment mechanic? Upon reflection, I'm just wondering if our whole arguing positions for the last several pages were based on just one of multiple rules tensions.

It wouldn't violate any rules, no. If it were available to lots of ships, it would have a lot of interactions to worry about (Advanced Sensors, particularly, creates a migraine-inducing loop in the rules). As long as the K-wing is the only ship that can SLAM, the interaction to consider is Navigator. SLAM lets you choose any maneuver at the same speed as the one you executed, and Navigator lets you change a revealed maneuver to any maneuver at the same bearing. So the combination would give you access to most or all of your dial, depending on what maneuver you originally executed for the round.

The article bears no sign of being a scribner's error.

Except that it directly contradicted the rules quoted in the article, and we have a the statement from Frank saying it's in error.

A scrivener's error (I made one of my own by believing the word to be "scribner") means some kind of glaring fact error that amounts to a typographic error greater than just a misspelling.

For example, a complaint alleging product liability regarding a tire failure glaringly cites the wrong tire size, brand and model. This is basically a copy-and-paste error, or a "scrivener" referring to notes from a different case when generating the complaint.

In this context, the type of error we see in "SLAM and Bomb" would be like the scrivener going beyond just citing the wrong tire specs, but then proceeding to invent an entire legal theory of manufacturing defect based on known manufacturing deficiencies in the plant of the tire's origin. That is, the scrivener has gone beyond being a mere scrivener and elevated himself to a practicioner of law and forensic evidence evaluation.

In other words, the errors in the article are an original invention of the author(s) out of whole cloth, not scrivener's errors of mismatching facts.

Picking the wrong pilot graphic to associate with a cloak upgrade card (Howlrunner vs Whisper) is a scrivener's error.

It shows every sign of being a deliberately constructed set of examples generated by actual players of the game (whether play testers or developers) to show an intentionally designed, cool new ability introduced to the game. This is not the work of ignorant public relations majors cranking away on the hype-machine. It shows all the signs of being Original Intent.

Okay, suppose for a moment that the article was the work of a marketing person, and the designers, playtesters, etc. all saw it at the same time as the general public. What would distinguish that article, in your mind, from the one we have now? How could you tell?

An article generated by a marketing person with only minimal involvement in actual game playing would not invent a new maneuver/weapon mechanic. They would simply regurgitate the notes they were handed by the developers/playtesters, while adding some hype boilerplate.

And I find it unfathomable that such a dramatic invention of new capability went unpoliced for two months, until Frank responded to someone's rules email.

Has the article been amended yet? Or is it still showing the K-Wing performing the impossible?

Aside from the slam rules card, which omits the explicit language of "revealing" a dial, is there any OTHER rule in the game that would also be violated by the mid-slam seismic/proton/ion bomb deployment mechanic? Upon reflection, I'm just wondering if our whole arguing positions for the last several pages were based on just one of multiple rules tensions.

It wouldn't violate any rules, no. If it were available to lots of ships, it would have a lot of interactions to worry about (Advanced Sensors, particularly, creates a migraine-inducing loop in the rules). As long as the K-wing is the only ship that can SLAM, the interaction to consider is Navigator. SLAM lets you choose any maneuver at the same speed as the one you executed, and Navigator lets you change a revealed maneuver to any maneuver at the same bearing. So the combination would give you access to most or all of your dial, depending on what maneuver you originally executed for the round.

The Navigator interaction sounds interesting. I'm assuming you are saying this card doesn't work off the SLAM action, given the RAW and Frank's ruling as a precedent?

I think this could explain any last-minute reversal of the mid-SLAM bombing option. They had the SLAM card written as a reveal, then they realized that would be overpowered with Navigator, then at the last minute they removed the reveal wording from the SLAM card. I could actually buy that. The article was already designed, the new capabilities already explored in text and graphics, then a last-minute change to the final card was given to the webmaster and voila, we have the tension of rules card vs. article content.

Has the article been amended yet? Or is it still showing the K-Wing performing the impossible?

It still does as of 30 minutes ago.

some things we all might agree on?

1. the article is seriously flawed, with 2 illustrations of the K-wing doing something the game designer says it cannot do. This is not a new problem for FFG, but it is one that should have been fixed a long time ago, and one that should not happen in the future. (is it really that hard to get davy or someone to read the article first?)

2. Perhaps we should all wait for the FAQ.

I think that the original intent was for the K-wing to do what they show it doing in the article, but because of the word "reveal" being omitted from the card, they found themselves in a quandary.

I find it much easier to think that a single word got left off of a rules card than the whole article being this egregiously wrong. Yes, they have made mistakes in the past in their articles, more often than not, but not usually to this degree.

There is language in the slam card that says this counts as a maneuver. Why else would this language be present on the card if it were not to facilitate the dropping of bombs?

I almost look for them to errata the slam card to include the word reveal, and allow what is described in the article. (this seems to be the original intent as best we can ascertain.)

I for one, will await the FAQ with great anticipation.

One more thing I think we could all agree on: Take the article down already!!!

There is language in the slam card that says this counts as a maneuver. Why else would this language be present on the card if it were not to facilitate the dropping of bombs?

It means the SLAM action, once declared, must be performed even if the K-wing ends up overlapping another ship or obstacle. If it weren't considered a maneuver, and were more like boost or barrel roll, then colliding with something causes the action to be illegal, and the player gets to choose a different action.

This can actually be beneficial, as you can SLAM, overlap, then do the free action from Advanced SLAM to drop your mine in even more places.

Edit: Disregard my memory FAIL.

Doesn't Advanced SLAM say that you can't perform the free action if you overlap?

Over ten pages of butt-hurt, I love it.

I hope this teaches everyone a valuable lesson that we should NEVER confuse early preview articles with actual reality. Even the new core set articles this week are full of errors.

There is language in the slam card that says this counts as a maneuver. Why else would this language be present on the card if it were not to facilitate the dropping of bombs?

It means the SLAM action, once declared, must be performed even if the K-wing ends up overlapping another ship or obstacle. If it weren't considered a maneuver, and were more like boost or barrel roll, then colliding with something causes the action to be illegal, and the player gets to choose a different action.

This can actually be beneficial, as you can SLAM, overlap, then do the free action from Advanced SLAM to drop your mine in even more places.

It also now means that the SLAM can clear or generate stress. While performing the SLAM action wouldn't be possible while stressed (unless Tycho somehow gets the option to use it) there are a couple of crits that would have certain maneuvers result in stress.

Aside from the slam rules card, which omits the explicit language of "revealing" a dial, is there any OTHER rule in the game that would also be violated by the mid-slam seismic/proton/ion bomb deployment mechanic? Upon reflection, I'm just wondering if our whole arguing positions for the last several pages were based on just one of multiple rules tensions.

It wouldn't violate any rules, no. If it were available to lots of ships, it would have a lot of interactions to worry about (Advanced Sensors, particularly, creates a migraine-inducing loop in the rules). As long as the K-wing is the only ship that can SLAM, the interaction to consider is Navigator. SLAM lets you choose any maneuver at the same speed as the one you executed, and Navigator lets you change a revealed maneuver to any maneuver at the same bearing. So the combination would give you access to most or all of your dial, depending on what maneuver you originally executed for the round.

The Navigator interaction sounds interesting. I'm assuming you are saying this card doesn't work off the SLAM action, given the RAW and Frank's ruling as a precedent?

I think this could explain any last-minute reversal of the mid-SLAM bombing option. They had the SLAM card written as a reveal, then they realized that would be overpowered with Navigator, then at the last minute they removed the reveal wording from the SLAM card. I could actually buy that. The article was already designed, the new capabilities already explored in text and graphics, then a last-minute change to the final card was given to the webmaster and voila, we have the tension of rules card vs. article content.

The big problem with your theory is the lead time on design and playtesting. Alex Davy gave an interview at a South Dakota store championship in February of this year, IIRC, that indicated that Wave 7 was done and they'd moved on to Wave 8.

But the infamous web article was released in June.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a last-minute change, of course. But the K-wing was actually available at GenCon, almost exactly a month after the web article was put up. I don't know how long the lead time is for FFG's manufacturers, but if you subtract four weeks from whatever you think is reasonable, the result is how long the author(s) of the web article would have had the as-sent-to-the-printer reference card available.

Doesn't Advanced SLAM say that you can't perform the free action if you overlap?

OOPS! My bad. You're right.

I blame the scrivener who typed my dictated forum warrioring.

EDIT: I have fired the scrivener and hired a scribner to fix the above post.

One more thing I think we could all agree on: Take the article down already!!!

Making an article, with its art and its graphs, and its nice text and all of that is something that probably takes some resources from FFG (at least an artist, a writer, an editor). Not everyone is gifted with wordsmithing skills, and so even if a designer is great at designing games and gathering ideas for an article, he doesn't necessarily has to know how to write with the nice style and hype that most quality articles usualy contain. So I guess this article has passed thru several hands to reach its final state (and at every step, minor mistakes might sneak in). My point is: this article has costed money to FFG to make. It has been done after some lead-whatever told Mr A, Mr B, and Mr C to make it. And they have spent X man/hours to carry it out.

Had it been totally written by a nobody during a night drunk, FFG would have removed it as soon as someone detected that what the article was saying was absolute nonsense.

The reason why it is still there, after almost two months since publication, tells me that FFG doesn't see the need to remove it because... reasons.

Which reasons could they be? Well...

- You said "Choose and execute"! I have it in the mail you sent to me!

- Well, I meant "Select, reveal and execute", I was thinking on Wave 8 stuff when you asked me about that text.

- Now what? The Rules Card is being printed with the wrong text in China and there is no time to call for a reprint with all that mess with the new core set and the delayed raider.

- We fix it in the Errata.

- We remove the preview article? Mr Scrooge won't be happy.

- Nevermind, let the wrong rules apply until the errata, and after the errata the article will be right again, so no resources have been wasted.

I tend to believe a whole lot more thought went into the article than a response to a private email. It will be interesting to see how the FAQ it. I bought k-wings partially on the basis of what they said they could do in the previews. I'll be a little annoyed if they end up being worse.

Yeah I haven't bought one yet and will wait to hear what the actual ruling is before deciding one way or the other. Kind of disappointed that they seem to not even know what they meant for it to do.

Wouldn't you expect that if the Article was incorrect, that a correction would have been made by now?

How long did it take them to fix the 3 bank vs 3 turn error?

How about the rule that says you cannot perform the same action twice in a round. By allowing the mid slam bomb drop it would also encourage players to do a double action. Once on movement and once on slam if they have an ability to gain a second action.

How about the rule that says you cannot perform the same action twice in a round. By allowing the mid slam bomb drop it would also encourage players to do a double action. Once on movement and once on slam if they have an ability to gain a second action.

But there's another group of bombs you drop when you reveal your dial. That's what this conversation is about--the rules say you can't drop them when you SLAM (because SLAM doesn't tell you to reveal a dial), but FFG published a web article that said you could. Now they've clarified by email that the rules are right and the article is wrong, and lots of people are frustrated because they were relying on the information in the article.