To illustrate: some of my fellow players thought they could not lose Keyan Farlander's stress when he did not roll any eyes on his attack. Looking at the card, that idea is not borne out by the text. It's not open to much interpretation. But it still needed a clarification: Farlander can lose his stress even if he did not roll eyes. This looks like a similar case.

Farlander did not "need a clarification"...What it needed was a statement from someone authoritative...

A rose is a rose by any name.

It got mentioned in the FAQ, and I think that was necessary - for any reason.

A rose may be a rose by any other name, but that doesn't mean every stinkweed is a rose. Something included in the FAQ is not automatically a clarification. A clarification implies that there was a lack of clarity in the first place. There was not, and calling an entry aimed entirely at people who intentionally misinterpret the rules because they don't like them a "clarification" papers over that intransigence.

To illustrate: some of my fellow players thought they could not lose Keyan Farlander's stress when he did not roll any eyes on his attack. Looking at the card, that idea is not borne out by the text. It's not open to much interpretation. But it still needed a clarification: Farlander can lose his stress even if he did not roll eyes. This looks like a similar case.

Farlander did not "need a clarification"...What it needed was a statement from someone authoritative...

A rose is a rose by any name.

It got mentioned in the FAQ, and I think that was necessary - for any reason.

A rose may be a rose by any other name, but that doesn't mean every stinkweed is a rose. Something included in the FAQ is not automatically a clarification. A clarification implies that there was a lack of clarity in the first place. There was not, and calling an entry aimed entirely at people who intentionally misinterpret the rules because they don't like them a "clarification" papers over that intransigence.

There was not, and calling an entry aimed entirely at people who intentionally misinterpret the rules because they don't like them a "clarification" papers over that intransigence.

Yeah, just because a few people were quite vocal about it, doesn't mean there was really a need for a FAQ entry. It's not like it was actually confusing, it was simply a group of people who refused to accept that something worked RAW.

It costs FFG pretty much nothing to put entry into the FAQ so it makes sense that they'd bother putting one in when it generates enough traffic.

But again as Buhallin says, there was no real need of a clarification in the case of Farlander.

There was not, and calling an entry aimed entirely at people who intentionally misinterpret the rules because they don't like them a "clarification" papers over that intransigence.

Yeah, just because a few people were quite vocal about it, doesn't mean there was really a need for a FAQ entry. It's not like it was actually confusing, it was simply a group of people who refused to accept that something worked RAW.

It costs FFG pretty much nothing to put entry into the FAQ so it makes sense that they'd bother putting one in when it generates enough traffic.

But again as Buhallin says, there was no real need of a clarification in the case of Farlander.

I'm not familiar with the history here. Wouldn't the only source of confusion on Keyan be whether or not "all" includes zero?

There are other game mechanics that can lead to similar confusion, and thus the FAQ clears this up with the "Spending Tokens" entry (and likely other places I'm not recalling at the moment).

That was indeed the "confusion," with some arguing that Keyan isn't "spending a token" so that section didn't apply for his ability. It was basically never a real question on how he worked, but still needed an FAQ entry to stop the argument (as opposed to FAQ entries for interactions that are truly ambiguous, which I believe is the distinction Buhallin is making).

Wouldn't the only source of confusion on Keyan be whether or not "all" includes zero?

Yes that was the issue. But when Farlander came out we already had a FAQ entry or two, that said that All includes zero. But some people refused to accept that the FAQ entry for Garven applied to Farlander as well.

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Which ought to end the debate, right? (Spoiler: It won't, especially not for the hundreds? thousands? of people who saw it originally and won't go back to check because they're not part of this online conversation.)

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Yep changed it to a conners net, which would work with the advanced SLAM. So we can put this whole thing to rest finally.

(Spoiler: It won't...)

True, but at least now you can point to the updated article if someone tries to use it as evidence.

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Which ought to end the debate, right? (Spoiler: It won't, especially not for the hundreds? thousands? of people who saw it originally and won't go back to check because they're not part of this online conversation.)

That was indeed the "confusion," with some arguing that Keyan isn't "spending a token" so that section didn't apply for his ability. It was basically never a real question on how he worked, but still needed an FAQ entry to stop the argument (as opposed to FAQ entries for interactions that are truly ambiguous, which I believe is the distinction Buhallin is making).

Exactly this. There were two major arguments with Farlander: that he spent a stress rather than a token, so no other precedent applied and we just couldn't know, and he was OP. Neither was a serious rules argument.

There are several reasons something can end up with an FAQ entry - true ambiguity (Fettigator), clear but common misunderstandings (Backstabber), RAI overrides (IG-88A vs. Dead Man's Switch), and because people just don't want it to work the way it clearly does, and won't accept the obvious unless someone from On High crams it down their throat (Farlander).

Two of those fall on FFG. One is an understandable result of an unclear and complex rules set. And one is just a bunch of people who invent every reason possible to cram things into working the way they want it to. Dubbing the last as a "clarification" gives an improper level of respect to that sort of argument.

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Holy cow.

I've been reloading that article every few hours for days now. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen.

I think I'll revise my odds on what sort of official FAQ entry we will see regarding SLAM...

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Holy cow.

I've been reloading that article every few hours for days now. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen.

I think I'll revise my odds on what sort of official FAQ entry we will see regarding SLAM...

Well at least we still have bacon.

Article's been changed.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/6/29/slam-and-bomb/

Is the thread title finally the case now?

Looks like they finally fixed the article.

Holy cow.

I've been reloading that article every few hours for days now. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen.

I think I'll revise my odds on what sort of official FAQ entry we will see regarding SLAM...

Tell me the odds.

We don't serve your kind in here.

Okay. I was wrong, I admit it.

The K-Wing is a much less interesting bomber than they first advertised. Had I known this, I wouldn't have bought two.

It's offtopic to the matter of discussion, and irrelevant for most of you, but I am feeling deeply disappointed by FFG. They alter the deal, let us pray they don't alter it any further. They advertise some product with some features for $20, then they reduce the features after it is in the shelves. Feeling the same with the mandatory $40 new damage deck and the underwhelming $15 X-Wing fix.

FFG has entered a dynamic I abhor.

I guess it happens to everyone when they become too big.

They alter the deal, let us pray they don't alter it any further.

That's borderline signature worthy.

In unrelated news, tried a Y-Wing with Genius, TLT, Proton Bombs and Extra Munitions last night. SLAM action? We don't need no steenking SLAM action!

That is very disappointing. Well. I guess as long as we buy the stuff like crazy FFG doesn't care.

It makes me sad.

It was a cool and interesting idea. And regular bombs see little love.

guys, it was a neat gimmick and a fun little trick, but really you're not missing out on much of anything i.t.o of the K's overall effectiveness

if you can't see the value of SLAM with A-SLAM or even with just an Int Agent, then you probably shouldn't have bought the ship at all

unless you just wanted the awesome upgrades, of course

guys, it was a neat gimmick and a fun little trick, but really you're not missing out on much of anything i.t.o of the K's overall effectiveness

if you can't see the value of SLAM with A-SLAM or even with just an Int Agent, then you probably shouldn't have bought the ship at all

unless you just wanted the awesome upgrades, of course

guys, it was a neat gimmick and a fun little trick, but really you're not missing out on much of anything i.t.o of the K's overall effectiveness

if you can't see the value of SLAM with A-SLAM or even with just an Int Agent, then you probably shouldn't have bought the ship at all

unless you just wanted the awesome upgrades, of course

So FFG misleading their customers (us) with their article doesn't bother you at all. Okay, good point.

They made a mistake. The guys writing and designing the art for the preview article failed to check with the rules guys. It's sloppy and unprofessional, and FFG deserve to cop (and have copped) some flak for it, but it was just that: a mistake. It was hardly an attempt to lure people into buying the ship via false advertising.

guys, it was a neat gimmick and a fun little trick, but really you're not missing out on much of anything i.t.o of the K's overall effectiveness

if you can't see the value of SLAM with A-SLAM or even with just an Int Agent, then you probably shouldn't have bought the ship at all

unless you just wanted the awesome upgrades, of course

So FFG misleading their customers (us) with their article doesn't bother you at all. Okay, good point.

They made a mistake. The guys writing and designing the art for the preview article failed to check with the rules guys. It's sloppy and unprofessional, and FFG deserve to cop (and have copped) some flak for it, but it was just that: a mistake. It was hardly an attempt to lure people into buying the ship via false advertising.

Then where are their "sorry, guys, we really messed up, it won't happen again"? They seem to have failed into some kind of god syndrome. To do such thing with poker face is unacceptable.

Well, yeah, there's no point in arguing now. At least the matter is clarified and new players will not be misguided that way.