When Imperial Boba, or Navigator, or Stay on Target trigger (just quickly throwing out a few potential examples off the top of my head), there's no great philosophical rules debate regarding whether or not you're revealing, or whether or not you're revealing then modifying then revealing a second time ...

... or is there?

The closest parallel that exists is Daredevil, which also requires you to choose and execute a maneuver from a predefined pool: in this case either 1-turn left or 1-turn right. While it doesn't refer to the dial, it does serve as an example of a case where you choose and execute a maneuver without one, demonstrating that no dial is necessary for SLAM's rules text to work, just knowledge of what maneuvers are on it.

Well it's not actually clear no dial is needed is it? The card does not say 'choose and execute a maneuver *from* the dial' it says 'choose and execute a maneuver *on* the dial' which is semantics but that's the whole confusion anyway. The usage of 'on' rather than 'from' to me implies you are physically picking one maneuver on the actual dial, hence the need to reveal your physical choice to your opponent thus giving the trigger window.

@Blue Five:

You correctly noticed something I did not a few pages back, which is that Daredevil does, in fact, also involve choosing a maneuver (from one of two legal options). I would still argue that this is not an effective rules precedent to cite when debating the merits of SLAM interpretations, for the simple reason that the legal options for Daredevil do not have to be available as ordinary maneuvers on the dial for the equipping ship. So, it's similar, but I think fails to be a clear and unambiguous precedent.

-- EDIT: Ninja'd by Gecko!

@nigeltastic:

I very much agree that there is significance to "on" versus "from", and is probably the most immediate source of ambiguity in the RAW.

The crux of the matter (leaving aside the ruling from Frank for the moment) regarding the rules card is whether revealing your dial is reasonably implied by the RAW.

I guess the broader question is, is implied text common to the game? I would argue that every card that follows the formula, "When you X, you may spend a focus token to Y" has the implied text "a focus token [assigned or available to your ship]". In other words, it goes without saying that you can't just grab a focus token from another ship in the squad (unless it's Esege obviously).

So, do we routinely apply non-explicit, implied text to rules interpretations? If so, why is it wrong to interpret the SLAM card in light of implied text? And following that, then why isn't it reasonable to just chalk up Frank's ruling to frustrating arbitrariness? (SLAM already has the seemingly arbitrary restriction that it cannot be triggered as a free action.)

I did not read the 14 pages of discussion.

I did read the OP. My interpretation is this - I perform a SLAM Maneuver in one round, then, in the next round, if I do not elect to use SLAM, I can drop a bomb. It seems to me SLAM is an exaggerated evade maneuver. Considering the K-Wing has one of the lowest agility numbers for small ships, the SLAM is a life line for the K-Wing, and should be treated as a last resort. This pattern can be altered if the player modifies the ship with an Advanced Slam Upgrade card, which in that case, the player can deploy a Conner Net. Well, this is my interpretation, anyway. If it is wrong, let me know.

"Yes, see here is the book, if it doesn't say you reveal a dial, you can't reveal a dial."

I'm legitimately asking this, not trying to be obtuse or flagrantly ignorant.

What book rule are you citing to make this point?

I don't think you're being deliberately obtuse, but it's a situation that's outside the rules, so it's at least an odd question. If I can reveal a dial any time I want to (rather than when the rules specifically indicate I should do so), thereby triggering effects, then what's to stop a ship with Advanced Sensors from getting multiple free actions any time I decide I want one?

I don't understand how your Advanced Sensors example sheds light on the question. Maybe I'm just drawing a blank.

As I'm sitting here, I can't think of a single mechanic in the game, other than SLAM, that explicitly refers to selecting a maneuver (a non-specified one from a range of legal options) on a dial, and is also reasonably interpreted as NOT revealing that maneuver on the dial. Am I missing anything obvious here?

When Imperial Boba, or Navigator, or Stay on Target trigger (just quickly throwing out a few potential examples off the top of my head), there's no great philosophical rules debate regarding whether or not you're revealing, or whether or not you're revealing then modifying then revealing a second time ...

... or is there?

Is this what causes the rules to collapse if the SLAM card is interpreted as implicitly requiring a "reveal"?

I mean, otherwise the ruling that SLAM doesn't count as revealing a dial is just arbitrary say-so by the game's designers, or the my-cat-sat-on-the-backspace-key kind of typo on the rules card.

I'm genuinely open to understanding if there's some deeper rules implication to a wider set of game mechanics here.

Someone else said that you can't reveal a maneuver if the game doesn't say you can reveal a maneuver, and you said you didn't understand. The Advanced Sensors example was meant to clarify the kind of consequences you can expect if you start allowing people to decide they want a trigger to come into play, even when the rules don't indicate that it happens.

What you seem to be missing about the game mechanics is that upgrade cards come in two flavors: passive and triggered. Triggers ought to be (although not all of them are) well defined events: revealing a maneuver dial is actually pretty common in the rules, and it's among the game's better defined ones.

So when you start expanding the definition of triggering events, you need to be really careful. (That is, for me, the conservative thing to do is to interpret things that could be triggers narrowly.) Here's a completely different example that also coincidentally involves Advanced Sensors: suppose a K-wing could take AS, or that a ship with the system slot could gain the ability to SLAM. If SLAM counted as revealing a maneuver dial, you end up with a fun sequence of events:

(0) I execute my maneuver as normal, and start my Perform Action step.

(1) I declare I'm using the SLAM action, and start doing the stuff its rules text says I should do.

(2) I get to "choose and execute a maneuver...", reveal my dial, and trigger Advanced Sensors.

(3) Now we have a headache: due to the nesting-actions rule in the FAQ, it's clear that I get my free action now, before I reveal my dial. BUT Advanced Sensors says I have to skip my Perform Action step, which I'm in the middle of. And I haven't actually done anything but use my dial to select a maneuver, so it's weirdly feasible to back out of the step entirely.

(4) I probably shouldn't back out, though, because I already started it. So now I'm abusing Advanced Sensors to get an extra action with no stress. If I also have Advanced SLAM, I get two extra actions with no stress and no limitation at all on what I can do with them.

It's really dangerous to start moving triggers around in time.

I see you left out the part where one would actually use the rule book and the card's printed text. Please reprogram your holodeck.

I would look at the rules, look at the printed text on the card, pick up my dial, rotate it to what I want to execute, then drop my bomb, then reveal to you the maneuver that is on my dial, then execute my maneuver on the dial.

Note that part of picking and executing a maneuver on the dial logically is part of the action sequences. How else should it be worded? 'Pick, reveal, then execute a maneuver on your dial'? That seems like clunky wording for a process that seems pretty straight forward.

As PewPewPew also noted in reply, SLAM isn't worded in a way that allows you to do what you'd like to do with it. You're interpreting that as evidence that the designers intended to let you do what you want, and worded it badly, which seems like a stretch.

It's entirely possible they want SLAM to work exactly the way the reference card says it does: you pick a maneuver from the set of maneuvers you can normally perform at that speed, and then you execute it.

Well it's not actually clear no dial is needed is it? The card does not say 'choose and execute a maneuver *from* the dial' it says 'choose and execute a maneuver *on* the dial' which is semantics but that's the whole confusion anyway.

But as I've said before, that requires you to interpret "choose" in a very arbitrary way. If I did a 2-bank as my maneuver I can SLAM 2-straight. Every dial has a 2-straight, so there's no question whether it's on my dial. So I have now fulfilled the conditions set by the rules card: I chose a maneuver, and that maneuver is on my dial. And I satisfied the conditions on the SLAM reference card without ever touching the dial, let alone rotating the dial so that the chosen maneuver is in the window and then immediately revealing it to my opponent.

The title of this thread is becoming more and more ironic by the minute.

Honestly, I totally get why people can argue "the current rule will get FAQ'd out". I don't understand how anyone can argue what the current rule IS.

The ruling is not confusing. It is dumb and bad smells of poo... I hope they change their mind.

The title of this thread is becoming more and more ironic by the minute.

Honestly, I totally get why people can argue "the current rule will get FAQ'd out". I don't understand how anyone can argue what the current rule IS.

There is different stances in this discussion:

In a Tournament:

• You can't and you shouldn't.
• You can't but you should. <- I'm here.
• You can and you should.

In Casual play:

• You can't but you should.
• You can but you shouldn't.
• You can and you should. <- I'm here.

The title of this thread is becoming more and more ironic by the minute.

Honestly, I totally get why people can argue "the current rule will get FAQ'd out". I don't understand how anyone can argue what the current rule IS.

There is different stances in this discussion:

In a Tournament:

• You can't and you shouldn't.
• You can't but you should. <- I'm here.
• You can and you should.

In Casual play:

• You can't but you should.
• You can but you shouldn't.
• You can and you should. <- I'm here.

This is a good way to list it. This is where I am at and I think where most people who are 'against' the email are at.

Well, that's entirely fair enough. I probably wouldn't in casual play either, but that's just because I'm a big idiot who can't be trusted to learn it one way and play it another.

(SLAM already has the seemingly arbitrary restriction that it cannot be triggered as a free action.)

Because if it did then you could trigger it using Cracken after you've fired your weapon, evading the Weapons Disabled entirely.

(SLAM already has the seemingly arbitrary restriction that it cannot be triggered as a free action.)

Because if it did then you could trigger it using Cracken after you've fired your weapon, evading the Weapons Disabled entirely.

That would be cool. I don't see how that would be more broken than other uses of Cracken.

Or more ironic than the clarification on Conner Net that allows some situations to evade the ion effect entirely.

(SLAM already has the seemingly arbitrary restriction that it cannot be triggered as a free action.)

Because if it did then you could trigger it using Cracken after you've fired your weapon, evading the Weapons Disabled entirely.

That would be cool. I don't see how that would be more broken than other uses of Cracken.

Or more ironic than the clarification on Conner Net that allows some situations to evade the ion effect entirely.

The only time you can "evade the ion effect entirely" is if you are already ionized when you hit the Conner Net. And that's exactly how things work any time you add additional ion tokens to a ship that's already ionized, so I'm not sure what makes it either unexpected or ironic.

(SLAM already has the seemingly arbitrary restriction that it cannot be triggered as a free action.)

Because if it did then you could trigger it using Cracken after you've fired your weapon, evading the Weapons Disabled entirely.

That would be cool. I don't see how that would be more broken than other uses of Cracken.

Or more ironic than the clarification on Conner Net that allows some situations to evade the ion effect entirely.

The only time you can "evade the ion effect entirely" is if you are already ionized when you hit the Conner Net. And that's exactly how things work any time you add additional ion tokens to a ship that's already ionized, so I'm not sure what makes it either unexpected or ironic.

True. I just now checked Forgottenlore's handy thread and I see I was remembering things incorrectly.

Although I'm halfway right. You drop Conner Net on a ship that has not activated yet, and it still gets to execute its chosen maneuver that round. I've only encountered that scenario once in actual play, and that was before the Conner Net clarification. So in my halfwit memory, I was thinking of that as an ironic "evade the ion effect entirely" ... when it's really just getting postponed to the next maneuver.

Which isn't a bad thing. And now that I've thought about it, it makes thematic sense.

But there ARE situations where you evade the "skip action" effect entirely. (Right?.... Right? .... Scribner???)

(Off Topic. If you drop a conner directly on a ship that has already activated the target will receive the damage and the ion tokens but the skip action effect is simply missed. This is the only way to make the conner net work in the current rules as there is no token to denote loss of action next round. If you want to avoid this, drop the net in front of said ship and not on it... problem solved.)

On Topic: C'mon FFG! Easiest errata ever and most folks would never notice choose and reveal!

(Off Topic. If you drop a conner directly on a ship that has already activated the target will receive the damage and the ion tokens but the skip action effect is simply missed. This is the only way to make the conner net work in the current rules as there is no token to denote loss of action next round. If you want to avoid this, drop the net in front of said ship and not on it... problem solved.)

(I know! That changes the way I think about deploying CN's entirely. In fact, I've been eschewing them for Prox Mines because my thinking wasn't optimized, and regretting it every time the dice come up blank-focus-focus.)

As far as I'm concerned there is a hierarchy in terms of "officialness" for rules.

1) Actual printed rules. If unclear or there is an argument you look for additional sources. (FWIW FFG has a habit of ruling against RAW every once in awhile.)

2) official FAQ. This is really the only completely official way of changing or clarifying rules as far as I'm concerned.

3) official articles (like the one here) This is theoretically the company view on how its played. Sure its not an official rules communication, but its public and from the people who made the game. I seem to remember an argument (locally at least) about Lt Blount when he was first released and the web article made it clear what it was supposed to do.

4) Forum consensus/Community FAQs Again, this is public. and that is extremely important. Not official, but way more responsive that #2.

5) Private email clarifications. The only real effect of these is how they affect #4. If some random guy at tournament showed up with a printout of what he said was an email from the devs I'd probably tell him to GFO. There is no way to verify this stuff and so should be considered unreliable until it changes #4.

As far as I'm concerned there is a hierarchy in terms of "officialness" for rules.

1) Actual printed rules. If unclear or there is an argument you look for additional sources. (FWIW FFG has a habit of ruling against RAW every once in awhile.)

2) official FAQ. This is really the only completely official way of changing or clarifying rules as far as I'm concerned.

3) official articles (like the one here) This is theoretically the company view on how its played. Sure its not an official rules communication, but its public and from the people who made the game. I seem to remember an argument (locally at least) about Lt Blount when he was first released and the web article made it clear what it was supposed to do.

4) Forum consensus/Community FAQs Again, this is public. and that is extremely important. Not official, but way more responsive that #2.

5) Private email clarifications. The only real effect of these is how they affect #4. If some random guy at tournament showed up with a printout of what he said was an email from the devs I'd probably tell him to GFO. There is no way to verify this stuff and so should be considered unreliable until it changes #4.

While there is definitely a hierarchy of authoritative sources, I don't see how you can list the printed rules as being the most definitive. When something is FAQed to work a certain way that should always take precedence over the written rules.

The article being authoritative when it is being used to support one particular interpretation of unclear rules makes some sense but when what is presented in an article contradicts the rules it really has zero value.

3) official articles (like the one here) This is theoretically the company view on how its played. Sure its not an official rules communication, but its public and from the people who made the game. I seem to remember an argument (locally at least) about Lt Blount when he was first released and the web article made it clear what it was supposed to do.

I wouldn't take the articles as an authority. They're very frequently wrong on many details.

1) Actual printed rules. If unclear or there is an argument you look for additional sources. (FWIW FFG has a habit of ruling against RAW every once in awhile.)

The printed SLAM reference card rules against Genius drops.

The printed SLAM reference card rules against Genius drops.

I really hate to be such a nag...

But I think it's more correct to say the SLAM reference card does not expressly permit Genius drops.

That's a different thing than saying it rules against them.

(Which is why this debate exists in the first place.)

The SLAM reference card "does not expressly permit" dropping bombs in the same way the rules for attacking don't expressly permit dropping bombs. Neither involves revealing a dial and thus the text on the bombs themselves are what prohibit using them pre-SLAM.

The printed SLAM reference card rules against Genius drops.

I really hate to be such a nag...

But I think it's more correct to say the SLAM reference card does not expressly permit Genius drops.

That's a different thing than saying it rules against them.

(Which is why this debate exists in the first place.)

It's the heart of my frustration with the thread, and with the article.

If the article didn't exist, there would be no presumption that the SLAM reference card allows "Genius drops". It doesn't tell you to reveal a dial anywhere, and it would be a very clear case of "do what the rules tell you to do, and don't do anything the rules don't tell you to do."

The article does exist of course, which introduces confusion. (And it also still exists in its broken state, which adds insult to injury.) But critically, that confusion isn't reflected in the rules. The rules have plodded along since the first public information about SLAM was released, saying exactly the same thing, which is that SLAM does not reveal a dial and therefore does not trigger effects that happen when you reveal a dial.

The article does exist of course, which introduces confusion. (And it also still exists in its broken state, which adds insult to injury.)

I think the unfortunate situation is that the entire focus of the article was on the thing that they got wrong. There's really no easy way to correct the error without completely rewriting it or pulling it down.

Having written guest articles (for SWLCG), articles are approved by LFL. That may be enough to keep them from being able to easily fix the mistake in the article.

If the article didn't exist, there would be no presumption that the SLAM reference card allows "Genius drops". It doesn't tell you to reveal a dial anywhere, and it would be a very clear case of "do what the rules tell you to do, and don't do anything the rules don't tell you to do."

I'm not so sure of that. If I had never seen the article, and someone, during play, had asked me "can I drop a bomb now?" right before a SLAM maneuver, I might have concluded either way. And the article makes me suspect that this is something that is in the rulecard, not just my inability to read plain english. It does look like there is some ambiguity in the text that might make you think that a SLAM is a normal maneuver and allows the stuff connected with maneuvers. Or rather: misinterpretation of this text might be very likely (not that this means it could still be concise).

The printed SLAM reference card rules against Genius drops.

I really hate to be such a nag...

But I think it's more correct to say the SLAM reference card does not expressly permit Genius drops.

That's a different thing than saying it rules against them.

(Which is why this debate exists in the first place.)

In a permissive rule system "does not expressly permit" is the same thing as "against the rules."

If the article didn't exist, there would be no presumption that the SLAM reference card allows "Genius drops". It doesn't tell you to reveal a dial anywhere, and it would be a very clear case of "do what the rules tell you to do, and don't do anything the rules don't tell you to do."

I'm not so sure of that. If I had never seen the article, and someone, during play, had asked me "can I drop a bomb now?" right before a SLAM maneuver, I might have concluded either way. And the article makes me suspect that this is something that is in the rulecard, not just my inability to read plain english. It does look like there is some ambiguity in the text that might make you think that a SLAM is a normal maneuver and allows the stuff connected with maneuvers. Or rather: misinterpretation of this text might be very likely (not that this means it could still be concise).

Especially since they seem to go out of their way to call out this is a maneuver, not just a move like a boost. Had that bit not been in there I'd figure, "oh its just a special version of boost."