In the article there are TWO slams with mid-bomb release, one with seismic and one with proton bomb.

My opinion is this: For some reason the person who answered the e-mail question have not spoken to the people in charge of the rules, it´s not normal that a mistaken article is up in the web for more than two months and nobody corrects it.

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

Thats the right question i think.

If the game designers never intended mid-Slam drop, then even if they didnt see the article until everyone else saw it, they should probably have noticed the error when the article came out. Which is a pretty long time ago. So why didn't they just make their article dudes rectify it when the K-Wing was not yet out. There was enough time to do so in case they really never intended the mechanic shown there to work. They only clarifed it via mail two days ago. And that's why some people can't believe it was their intention to rule it this way all the time because it looks like they were deliberating it for a long time. But hey they are the designers, if they find reasons to think it would destroy game balance or something we have to accept it.

But People have bought the ship on false premises and thats what's really annoying about the whole affair. I mean gamewise the sky is not falling and the k-Wing might or might not be a fine ship, but you just don't do something like that to your fans and customers. I don't get people defending that either. You can be as much of a fanboy as you want. Hell i am a fanboy myself. But confusing (deceiving?) customers is as a matter of fact something that undeniably happened here. There is no way that they just didn't see the problem until now. Ask yourself. Do you really want to defend that behaviour. Well then i can't help you...

SO: Mistake in the article, okay it can happen. But not correcting or adressing the issue it until waaaaaay too late (on purpose???). Thats really really a big shame.

In the article there are TWO slams with mid-bomb release, one with seismic and one with proton bomb.

My opinion is this: For some reason the person who answered the e-mail question have not spoken to the people in charge of the rules, it´s not normal that a mistaken article is up in the web for more than two months and nobody corrects it.

A hopeful theory... But the one who answered the email MAKES the rules.

Apropos of little, I noticed Frank was not given a developer's credit for the new core set. Implications?

My opinion is this: For some reason the person who answered the e-mail question have not spoken to the people in charge of the rules

Edit: seriously?! I get ninja'd almost a hour after the post was made?

Re-reading some posts in reddit from when the article first came out, I found that the article was fixed in several occasions after publication. One of them we have mentioned already when they changed the slam 3-turn to a 3-bank.

But it also later happened that in one of the graphs the k-wing was SLAMming-and-dropping a conner net. They later changed it to an ion bomb. So in at least two different ocassions the designers have told the web team to change the article to correct some mistakes about how the SLAM-and-bomb technique works. Why bother, when the whole article is incorrect?

So in at least two different ocassions the designers have told the web team to change the article to correct some mistakes about how the SLAM-and-bomb technique works. Why bother, when the whole article is incorrect?

...that's just hilarious.

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

Because you just bumped the topic, obviously.

On a more serious note, the fact remains that while FFG may have made an official ruling on the matter, it was made as an email response to one player only, and the ruling is not currently in widespread circulation. As you can see from quite a few posts earlier in this thread, not even all the regular forum posters (a minority when it comes to the global X-Wing player base) are actually aware that this ruling has occurred.

And that will remain the case until the incorrect article is amended (or simply taken down) AND the ruling is officially published in a FAQ.

so the reason this discussion is still going on is because not everyone is aware the ruling has actually been made.

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

You rather have us bumping the Starwing XG-1 thread?

Sorry, I think I just dropped this:

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

The discussion is still going on because someone DID proofread the article, AFTER publication, TWICE, and amended it to show the "correct" mechanics of mid-SLAM bombing, both in terms of legal maneuver selection and "legal" bomb selection. Until the email ruling came along, turning the K-wing on its head.

The community is literally left with two FFG sources saying opposite things. And there is legitimate disagreement on which source should trump the other at this point in time, compounded by the evidences for backtracking and reversals behind the scenes. How could such a juicy topic NOT continue to be of interest on a discussion board?

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

We have an official ruling as soon as there is one in the form of an entry in the FAQ. An e-mail to a single player does not constitute a ruling you can take to a tournament.

I thought I was going nuts after reading the article on the K-Wing the second time. I couldn't find anything about dropping bombs anywhere along the SLAM template and thought I'd imagined it. It is quite confusing to have an article promote an unreleased product only to say that's not how it works after release.

I was really looking forwards to bombs being interesting and a new way to play with them. Oh, well.

And...

so the reason this discussion is still going on is because not everyone is aware the ruling has actually been made.

...yeah. I only just read this so I doubt very much anyone else at the local club (for example) is aware. Pretty sure everyone's going to be "SLAM and bomb"ing regardless of this email. In my local scene at least...

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

We have an official ruling as soon as there is one in the form of an entry in the FAQ. An e-mail to a single player does not constitute a ruling you can take to a tournament.

An interesting point, but I generally agree that the strictest interpretation of the RAW does not condone mid-SLAM bombing. (Note I said *condone*, as in affirmatively offering language that makes it permissible. That's different in my mind than whether the rules wording *allow* it through implicit mechanics.)

So this becomes a rules tension that must be resolved by the TO. Hopefully a TO will see K-wings in the lists and announce the rules stance for a given tournament ahead of time.

...They answered this issue in an email. We have an official ruling. Yes, they SHOULD have proofread the article - but they didn't. We can all agree on that. But we have an official ruling - so why is this discussion still going on?

We have an official ruling as soon as there is one in the form of an entry in the FAQ. An e-mail to a single player does not constitute a ruling you can take to a tournament.

Also there's card itself, which gets as official as you can get.

It is when the mail is signed by the guy who literally makes the rules. Also there's card itself, which gets as official as you can get.

Again, that email was sent to one person only. It has not been widely communicated by FFG, and the vast majority of the X-Wing playing community is completely unaware of it.

It is when the mail is signed by the guy who literally makes the rules. Also there's card itself, which gets as official as you can get.

Again, that email was sent to one person only. It has not been widely communicated by FFG, and the vast majority of the X-Wing playing community is completely unaware of it.

In this case we have a clear rule: The slam reference card and exhaustive reference book, which was then clarified by this email. Who cares if he tells one or one hundred people, he didn't errata a card, or create a special instruction. He backed up what the card said to do.

Problem is, the article has massive exposure and this thread doesn't. That's why it's such a problem when newspapers print something libellous: once you've put that information out there, correct or not, it's out there.

The articles are official and published on the website: people don't usually automatically doubt them. While the rules card doesn't allow Genius drops in its wording, it doesn't explicitly say that you can't.

If the distribution on this forum is any indication, when the article and the rules card conflicted, only a small group of people assumed the article was wrong right off the bat. Most of us who noticed the conflict (most likely just assumed the article was right and thought no more about it) instead assumed we were wrong.

If you break it down into basic logic, one of these statements has to be false.
The rules card is correct.
The article is correct.
The rules card and the article contradict.

Both the rules card and the article come from FFG. The belief that they contradict comes (initially) from us.

Rather than question the accuracy of the official material, I'd wager most of us first questioned our own intepretation (or in the case of people who didn't notice the conflict off the bat, questioned the interpretation of whoever said they conflicted).

So what most of us did is read those rules again, and assumed that "choose and execute a maneuver on your dial" meant "using your dial" rather than "that is on your dial". That you physically picked up the dial, turned it to the requisite maneuver, revealed it and that reveal was a bomb trigger. It's reading an awful lot into the rules that isn't there, but if you assume the article is correct (as most of us did) then it's the only intepretation of the rules that makes sense.

It's an intepretation I doubt many people at all would have made had the article dealt in Advanced SLAM minelaying instead. Those that did would likely ask about it and be told it didn't work by the majority. But when believing it doesn't work means accusing the article of being completely wrong, most people question themselves instead of the official material and go for the tenous intepretation (implied reveal) that allows the article and rules to coexist in truth rather than the otherwise obvious one (execute only) that contradicts the article. Especially when said intepretation lets you do a pretty cool move that, let's be honest, most of us would like to be possible.

For example, very few of us question that you can only drop one bomb per turn. If you drop a bomb, maneuver, then SLAM you can't drop a Proximity Mine off of Advanced SLAM at the end of it. But if the article had involved just that, then we would currently have a thread arguing that mines are not bombs, that the FAQ only refers to free drops and the action overrides that or some such. It's much easier to believe we're wrong than FFG's material, especially when siding with FFG over our first instinct means we can pull off a cool move.

And because of that, it's very hard to shake the belief that the article is simply a mistake. Even if everyone who reads this thread accepts it that's just a small portion of the playerbase. Furthermore, the only people who know for certain this email is legit are FFG and myself. While I'm grateful the vast majority of posters in this thread haven't cast aspertions on my character and accused me of faking it, in the heat of a tournament where victory depends on a SLAM drop or lack thereof people are much more likely to question the evidence. To make this ruling widely accepted will take either an FAQ or an article edit, and I'd wager either corporate procedure (read something about FFG having specific FAQ cycles rather than changing it when they need to once) or the licensing quagmire that is Star Wars is getting in the way of that.

It's a clarification. You don't need to be aware of it.

OK - you try telling that to someone at a tournament who read the Bomb & SLAM article, bought a K-wing off the back of it but who hasn't seen the clarification.

I shall eagerly await details of the punch-up that follows.

[...] And there is legitimate disagreement on which source should trump the other at this point in time, [...]

I'm not trying to take sides but I'm not sure what you mean by a 'legitimate' disagreement.

I'm not sure where you are seeing it state that an article has any precedence standing. I thought it was:

1. Rules
2. Cards
3. Missions
4. FAQ

It's a clarification. You don't need to be aware of it.

OK - you try telling that to someone at a tournament who read the Bomb & SLAM article, bought a K-wing off the back of it but who hasn't seen the clarification.

I shall eagerly await details of the punch-up that follows.

"I thought I read online, are you sure?"

"Yes, see here is the book, if it doesn't say you reveal a dial, you can't reveal a dial. I even emailed the head rules guy about it."

Then I guess after the TO comes over, repeats what I said in your world the opposing player throws a tantrum and punches me? Is that really how you want to depict your side in this, a bunch of rule bending babies?

It's a clarification. You don't need to be aware of it.

OK - you try telling that to someone at a tournament who read the Bomb & SLAM article, bought a K-wing off the back of it but who hasn't seen the clarification.

I shall eagerly await details of the punch-up that follows.

The conversation would go "unfortunately, the article was wrong. To drop that bomb you need to reveal a dial, slam doesn't do that. If you'd like to go back, that's fine."

"I thought I read online, are you sure?"

"Yes, see here is the book, if it doesn't say you reveal a dial, you can't reveal a dial. I even emailed the head rules guy about it."

Then I guess after the TO comes over, repeats what I said in your world the opposing player throws a tantrum and punches me? Is that really how you want to depict your side in this, a bunch of rule bending babies?

I'm not sure rule bending is precisely correct here. I'm also not sure that you have a particularly strong argument as we don't actually know if Frank even legitimately said the things in the original post. It's really easy to edit text online it turns out, so until there's an FAQ officially I think the article we know is curated by FFG outweighs the 'hey guys this email is totally official I swear' from a random forumite.

[...] And there is legitimate disagreement on which source should trump the other at this point in time, [...]

I'm not trying to take sides but I'm not sure what you mean by a 'legitimate' disagreement.

I'm not sure where you are seeing it state that an article has any precedence standing. I thought it was:

1. Rules
2. Cards
3. Missions
4. FAQ

I see your point. Maybe disagreement isn't "legitimate." (But I think I'm basically going to plow ahead here to suggest that it is... or something...)

By saying "at this point in time" I'm referring to the state of the rules as we stand today:

* a rules card that does NOT explicitly forbid a mechanic (the axiom "do what the card says to do; do not do what the card does not say to do" is a double-edged sword ... see the lousy graphics and language omissions in the new core set which, per the axiom, means the TIE/fo is not given shields in setup phase);

* a mechanic that WAS explicitly described in an intuitively legal way through multiple (yeah, I know, just 2) examples as a key selling point of the product;

* an authoritative email rules clarification that has NOT been deliberately or widely disseminated by the authority;

* no official FAQ yet released to clarify the tension in a widely disseminated way.

I think there's good bets to be made either way here -- the forthcoming FAQ codifies the content of Frank's email; or the forthcoming FAQ erratas the SLAM rules card thus invalidating Frank's email as a temporary measure to get around a rules typo.

Probably the most legitimate disagreement is not which source should trump the other at this point in time, but which source will eventually be shown to be in conformance to the final word on the rules. (In which case, your point is valid, and my prior post was badly worded.)

By the way, Frank's email does not fall into any of the 4 categories you mentioned. Is it #5? Is an article #6?

I'm also not sure that you have a particularly strong argument as we don't actually know if Frank even legitimately said the things in the original post.

I may have spoken too soon on the thanking everyone for not questioning my character.

"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'm not sure rule bending is precisely correct here. I'm also not sure that you have a particularly strong argument as we don't actually know if Frank even legitimately said the things in the original post. It's really easy to edit text online it turns out so until there's an FAQ officially I think the article we know is curated by FFG outweighs the 'hey guys this email is totally official I swear' from a random forumite.

The SLAM reference card is what makes the mid-SLAM bomb drop illegal. So the tension isn't between what a forum poster says FFG told him and an authoritative source--it's between the rules and a web article.

The e-mail from Frank helps resolve that tension by clarifying that players should pay attention to the rules text rather than the article. Even if the e-mail was faked (and, in case it's unclear, I'm sure it wasn't), you haven't helped anything by setting it aside.