The rules are the rules. The way the rules say that SLAM-ing bombs should be played at the moment is pretty crystal clear, even though they contradict the article. Maybe they'll FAQ it to fit the article. Maybe they won't. That's it. That's what we know, and that's all we know.

Now we play the waiting game (no, the waiting game sucks. Let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos).

"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'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.

Not that I doubt your character in any way but if someone at a tournament never goes on the forums and the argument is 'yeah this guy on the forums emailed Frank, it's totally legit' I don't blame them for calling bull when the only officially published source (release article) specifically says the opposite of the email.

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.

I think you can legitimately make the legal distinction between evidence and hearsay, and claim that an image facsimile of an email purporting to be from Frank is only hearsay.

But I don't think you have to phrase an arguably viable evidence challenge in such a way that questions somebody's character here.

By Occam's Razor I'm going with the email being legit.

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."

No, 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."

"who said the article was wrong?"

"I emailed the head rules guy about it."

"Uh-huh. OK. And where did this "head rules guy" post this information, exactly?"

"To me, on my email account"

"I mean where else? Is it in a FAQ?"

"No, it doesn't need a FAQ, it's a clarification of the rules, you don't need to be told about it, it's just how it works"

"You know what, thanks for your input, it was really valuable but I'm playing against you and don't know you from Adam, so I'm going to stick with what I saw on the K-Wing preview article, since that came from FFG itself."

"Yes, but the head rules guy said the article was wrong."

"Well, let's just look at the article on my phone, shall we? Oh look - it's still the same; it's showing the K-Wing dropping a bomb then SLAMing away, if it was wrong I think FFG would have changed it, don't you?"

"The head rules guy said it was wrong. I have an email from him"

"I don't particularly care what's on your email - we have an article from FFG specifically showing us how to use the ship and nothing in the FAQ that says you can't use it that way. Now do you want to play or not?"

"But I have an email..."

"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?

Proton Bomb/Seismic bomb card: States unequivocally when you can drop the bombs.

Slam reference card: States how to do a slam. It does not say to "reveal a dial".

Those should be all the rules references you need. It's too bad that the new rules reference was printed out of date

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

No one's questioning your character Blue Five, they're simply pointing out the difficulties in using an email sent to one person to enforce a global ruling in this manner - especially since it completely contradicts the abilities of the K-Wing as advertised in an official FFG preview article.

If it was in an official FAQ and available to download - no problem, show the player the questioning the ruling the FAQ. If the article was amended to show "mistakes have been made", again, no problem, show the player the article. Then there's no question about it at all. But we don't have either of those things, unfortunately.

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."

No, 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."

"who said the article was wrong?"

"I emailed the head rules guy about it."

"Uh-huh. OK. And where did this "head rules guy" post this information, exactly?"

"To me, on my email account"

"I mean where else? Is it in a FAQ?"

"No, it doesn't need a FAQ, it's a clarification of the rules, you don't need to be told about it, it's just how it works"

"You know what, thanks for your input, it was really valuable but I'm playing against you and don't know you from Adam, so I'm going to stick with what I saw on the K-Wing preview article, since that came from FFG itself."

"Yes, but the head rules guy said the article was wrong."

"Well, let's just look at the article on my phone, shall we? Oh look - it's still the same; it's showing the K-Wing dropping a bomb then SLAMing away, if it was wrong I think FFG would have changed it, don't you?"

"The head rules guy said it was wrong. I have an email from him"

"I don't particularly care what's on your email - we have an article from FFG specifically showing us how to use the ship and nothing in the FAQ that says you can't use it that way. Now do you want to play or not?"

"But I have an email..."

The issue with this being that at no point did our hypothetical self explain the rule conflict in the first place. The SLAM card is what says the article is wrong, and the "rules guy" is merely confirming that of the two, the card is the correct rule wording. (This should be common sense anyway, an article selling a product should never be taken over the actual, legal rule card you paid money to acquire)

Once the conflict is explained, any sensible person should be able to tell that the article and card do not mesh. Upon this realization, an assurance that FFG privately clarified in favor of the card should be enough.

If my opponent is convinced I'm lying for the sake of getting a benefit in a miniatures game, it's probably better we not play anyway.

"You know what, thanks for your input, it was really valuable but I'm playing against you and don't know you from Adam, so I'm going to stick with what I saw on the K-Wing preview article, since that came from FFG itself."

"Yes, but the head rules guy said the article was wrong."

"Well, let's just look at the article on my phone, shall we? Oh look - it's still the same; it's showing the K-Wing dropping a bomb then SLAMing away, if it was wrong I think FFG would have changed it, don't you?"

Okay, I'm starting to get cranky again. The problem is that the rules don't agree with the web article. They never have, and articles aren't rules text, so from a rules perspective there's no discrepancy to worry about. That ought to make the call at the table really easy, although I understand why it might not.

So if an opponent decides to believe the article, I'll point him or her at the rules. If the TO also decides to believe the web article over the rules, I'll be grumpy but it's the TO's call.

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."

No, 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."

"who said the article was wrong?"

"I emailed the head rules guy about it."

"Uh-huh. OK. And where did this "head rules guy" post this information, exactly?"

"To me, on my email account"

"I mean where else? Is it in a FAQ?"

"No, it doesn't need a FAQ, it's a clarification of the rules, you don't need to be told about it, it's just how it works"

"You know what, thanks for your input, it was really valuable but I'm playing against you and don't know you from Adam, so I'm going to stick with what I saw on the K-Wing preview article, since that came from FFG itself."

"Yes, but the head rules guy said the article was wrong."

"Well, let's just look at the article on my phone, shall we? Oh look - it's still the same; it's showing the K-Wing dropping a bomb then SLAMing away, if it was wrong I think FFG would have changed it, don't you?"

"The head rules guy said it was wrong. I have an email from him"

"I don't particularly care what's on your email - we have an article from FFG specifically showing us how to use the ship and nothing in the FAQ that says you can't use it that way. Now do you want to play or not?"

"But I have an email..."

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.

I think you can legitimately make the legal distinction between evidence and hearsay, and claim that an image facsimile of an email purporting to be from Frank is only hearsay.

But I don't think you have to phrase an arguably viable evidence challenge in such a way that questions somebody's character here.

By Occam's Razor I'm going with the email being legit.

Again to clarify I'm sure the email is legitimate, but that's because I go on the forums often and know this is a not infrequent way of clarifying things. If I'm Jim-Bob and know nothing but the ffg articles and the admittedly hazy rules syntax then there's a very good chance I'm not going to believe that this 'e-mail a designer' thing is common practice or legitimate.

"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.

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.

I think you can legitimately make the legal distinction between evidence and hearsay, and claim that an image facsimile of an email purporting to be from Frank is only hearsay.

But I don't think you have to phrase an arguably viable evidence challenge in such a way that questions somebody's character here.

By Occam's Razor I'm going with the email being legit.

Again to clarify I'm sure the email is legitimate, but that's because I go on the forums often and know this is a not infrequent way of clarifying things. If I'm Jim-Bob and know nothing but the ffg articles and the admittedly hazy rules syntax then there's a very good chance I'm not going to believe that this 'e-mail a designer' thing is common practice or legitimate.

Unfortunately, ignorance of the rules or their methods of clarification is not generally considered a legitimate excuse for refusing to accept them.

While I acknowledge that there *are* people who don't go on the forums, don't check FAQs, and don't know about the email rule clarification, that doesn't mean they are free to ignore the rulings made therein during play, no matter what they may believe.

As I stated before, if my opponent is really convinced I'm a scheming liar, I don't think we should be playing a miniatures game together.

What they mean when they say it's just a clarification is that you don't need the email to prove it: the rules text fairly clearly demonstrates you can't do it. It's not article versus email, it's article versus rules text and email.

The problem is that no matter how clearly you demonstrate that, most players aren't going to believe you over the article, even when the article lacks a rules leg to stand on simply because the article is a source they have more faith in. This is especially true for the majority of players who have a much weaker grasp of the rules than the people on this forum.

That's why this needs a fairly swift FAQ. That and Crew Bossk.

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.

I doubt very much the original plan was to have Genius drops from the K-wing. If it were, I'm fairly sure Frank and Alex would have made that clear in the rules, and if there were any ambiguity in what the rules mean then they've have ruled by intent as they have in all previous cases. The only reason I can fathom that they'd rule against the article is because the rules aren't ambigious: the K-wing isn't meant to SLAM drop.

That being said, given the article is still up and very publically declares SLAM drops are possible, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they errata (as opposed to clarify) the rules to allow it: it's fairly harmless and averts a possible bad PR situation. In that case, it'd make sense for any rules questions prior to the errata to be answered with the current ruling: the SLAM rules are no Genius drops until such a time as they change it.

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.

It's amazing that all this drama can come from the simple omission of one word from the SLAM card. "reveal".

"choose and execute a manuever on the ship's dial".

vs

"choose, reveal and execute a manuever on the ship's dial."

Performing a SLAM action is essentially no different from moving a ship during the Activation phase - you merely skip steps 1 (reveal dial) and 6 (perform action). Hell, if you have Advanced SLAM and aren't stressed you can still do step 6.

Absolute madness.

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.

You're overcomplicating things.

It would simply say "Choose, set, reveal and execute a maneuver using the ship's dial"

This is a clear, unambiguous, uncomplicated statement.

"Choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial" is similarly clear and unambiguous, and it does not involve doing anything with your dial other than referring to it for your options in maneuver. Not setting it, not revealing it, not fiddling with it, not throwing it like a discus at your opponent, not shoving it up your nose.

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.

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.

While I acknowledge that there *are* people who don't go on the forums, don't check FAQs, and don't know about the email rule clarification, that doesn't mean they are free to ignore the rulings made therein during play, no matter what they may believe.

The FAQs are the main official source of rules clarifications for the X-Wing miniatures game. I doubt anyone would dispute the ruling if it was readily available to all and present in a FAQ; but it's not.

I imagine quite a large percentage of X-Wing players around the world will take the Bomb and SLAM article as RAI, not even register the lack of the word "reveal" on the SLAM card and assume it's self evident in choosing and executing a manuever from the ship's dial and go from there.

Which is why the sooner FFG remove/amend the Bomb and SLAM article (again) make the official ruling publically available to all on a FAQ, the better.

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.

It's amazing that all this drama can come from the simple omission of one word from the SLAM card. "reveal".

"choose and execute a manuever on the ship's dial".

vs

"choose, reveal and execute a manuever on the ship's dial."

Performing a SLAM action is essentially no different from moving a ship during the Activation phase - you merely skip steps 1 (reveal dial) and 6 (perform action). Hell, if you have Advanced SLAM and aren't stressed you can still do step 6.

Absolute madness.

If you want to play the omission game how about the omission of the word "both?" As in at the end of the game "if you destroy each of your opponents ships you BOTH win."

Because we each played x wing. Everyone's a winner! Sure it'd be hard for tournaments but I think we can agree based on the tone of the articles that x wing is supposed to be fun and losing is no fun.

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.

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.

Actually, that's incorrect and the comparison will likely just confuse the matter even further. There's no reference to "choosing" anything on the Daredevil card - it simply states

"Action: Execute a red (Left Turn 1) or (Right Turn 1) maneuver."

Which - amusingly enough - was subsequently errata'd - via FAQ - to read

"Action: Execute a white (Left Turn 1) or (Right Turn 1) maneuver. Then, receive 1 stress token"

Note especially that unlike the SLAM action, Daredevil doesn't actually require the Left or Right Turn manuevers to be on the ship's dial, nor does it imply any kind of interaction with the ship's dial at all.

If you want to play the omission game how about the omission of the word "both?" As in at the end of the game "if you destroy each of your opponents ships you BOTH win."

Because we each played x wing. Everyone's a winner! Sure it'd be hard for tournaments but I think we can agree based on the tone of the articles that x wing is supposed to be fun and losing is no fun.

I would have thought you'd be better than straw man arguments, PewPewPew.

I know I frustrate people when I say to use common sense. And I know many people feel that is a rare commodity and I feel sorry for those people; we see quite a bit of common sense here.

But even applying common sense I've always deferred to the rules first and common sense only when there is ambiguity. I've stuck to the rules even when I think they go against common sense if the rules are clear. I do not see any ambiguity.

Reading something into the rules because 'it makes sense to me' isn't the same thing as 'there's more that one way to read this so in my opinion...'

In this case the rules are clear and the article, while nice, isn't part of the rules. The rules say that you must revel your dial, the card says nothing about reveling your dial. You may want it to, and you could imply that it meant that. But in this case there is no need for implication they are clear and all some people are doing is saying 'I want more regardless of what the rules say'.

Sorry, just my two cents since I'm so often on the other side of RAW.