Wait so i'm confused... So do I have drop my bomb before I SLAM? Or do I still move+ Drop bomb+ SLAM???

Ion Bombs, Proton Bombs and Seismic Charges all say "when you reveal your maneuver dial." SLAM simply executes a maneuver (like Daredevil), it doesn't reveal a dial.

Way to not answer his question.

You drop bombs when you reveal your manuever dial - at the start of the ship's activation phase.

- then it moves as per it's manuever dial.

- - then (assuming no stress) it can use it's action to SLAM.

So you can only drop bombs behind the ship's initial position that turn.

The exception is combining Advanced SLAM (which allows you a free action following a SLAM move) with mines - Proximity Mines, Conner Nets (good luck with that one) or Cluster Mines - which require an action to use. So you can potentially drop a mine at the end of a SLAM move.

This is of course rules as written - not rules as shown in action on the preview articles, which were apparently wrong.

They were not misleading, they were incorrect, and there is a difference. Clearly the person who wrote the article either didn't know how it worked or was given bad info. At one point it may of worked that way but playtesting showed that it was OP'ed or some other issue.

It's not an either/or situation, VanorDM. If you're toldthat an item does something and you buy it, only to find out it doesn't, you've been misled. Whether it's simple human error or not, you've still been misled.

Put it this way; if you were assured by a dealer that the new car you'd ordered had a soft top and when it arrived with a hard top, you wouldn't care if the dealer got his facts wrong or was just trying to close the sale, you'd still take it back.

Spin it however you want. The article is featured in their website even now, advertising a feature that the product lacks, and even making big promotion of it. It is not a typo, it is not a mistake or misunderstanding.

It's false advertising.

If the original intent of the SLAM action's bomb dropping mechanics wasn't exactly as shown in the still-online K-Wing preview article (bomb drop mid-SLAM), then where is the design logic in the Weapons Disabled token? Now the SLAM is just a glorified Boost action, so why can't you still shoot? And the beefing up of bomb playability that was supposedly a hallmark of this Wave (according to Alex Davy himself in that Team Covenant interview from months ago) was just cut in half (or worse) for this ship.

I really feel duped. It's like the whole point of the ship's unique action design has been undone because the Rules Card for SLAM omits language about "revealing" a dial. You can just tell that the whole starting point for designing the SLAM (explicitly a maneuver, with all that entails) was so you can drop that bomb (excluding action-based mines) in the middle of your overall maneuver. This isn't about divining nebulous RAI, it's about DAI -- Design As Intended.

This is the first time I feel completely let down by this wonderful game.

I feel like the victim of a cruel hoax.

Spin it however you want. The article is featured in their website even now, advertising a feature that the product lacks, and even making big promotion of it. It is not a typo, it is not a mistake or misunderstanding.

It's false advertising.

Actually, I would call that spinning it how you want.

So you choose a move but don't reveal it? Sounds like they should reword when you can drop those bombs then. Instead of saying "before you reveal your dial" it should probably just say "when activating a ship before you reveal its dial".

Spin it however you want. The article is featured in their website even now, advertising a feature that the product lacks, and even making big promotion of it. It is not a typo, it is not a mistake or misunderstanding.

It's false advertising.

File the class-action, dude

We'll all get two free K-Wings or a $20 check, whichever we choose

FFS! The blasted article is called "SLAM and bomb"!!!

Featuring a ship that can slam and bomb. And now they say that it cannot slam and bomb. Are you having Stockholm syndrome?

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

And only half of the bombs.

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

And only half of the bombs.

The good half, tbf

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

And only half of the bombs.

The good half, tbf

Not necessarily. Two of the three in this "good half" are dice dependent.

The other half (which I would argue are the centerpieces of the design intent for the SLAM) are guaranteed effect. Thus the design of the weapons disabled token, to prevent the ship being overpowered.

(which I would argue are the centerpieces of the design intent for the SLAM)

Yet one of the designers said it doesn't work.

If the design intent was for it to work, it probably would work: it would have been written in a way compatible with the rules.

(which I would argue are the centerpieces of the design intent for the SLAM)

Yet one of the designers said it doesn't work.

If the design intent was for it to work, it probably would work: it would have been written in a way compatible with the rules.

Please, don't make me laugh. This wave has been probably the one with highest amount of cards, pilots and abilities in immediate need of a FAQ entry and rules clarification from the designers.

The card text wording and rules writing in X-Wing aren't precisely top notch, with cards like Bossk that have exactly the same word structure than other cards, while still behaving differently.

The ever growing size of the FAQ document only proves that the designers are systematically unable of expressing their intentions in words.

(which I would argue are the centerpieces of the design intent for the SLAM)

Yet one of the designers said it doesn't work.

If the design intent was for it to work, it probably would work: it would have been written in a way compatible with the rules.

Please, don't make me laugh. This wave has been probably the one with highest amount of cards, pilots and abilities in immediate need of a FAQ entry and rules clarification from the designers.

I laughed.

Related, they need to update the ion token rules card to read as though the activation phase text contingent on the planning phase condition being met. The combat phase text being non-sequitur but •bulleted the same confuses the card to look like each phase acts independently.

(which I would argue are the centerpieces of the design intent for the SLAM)

Yet one of the designers said it doesn't work.

If the design intent was for it to work, it probably would work: it would have been written in a way compatible with the rules.

I was unclear on part of my point. The ORIGINAL intent of the design, not the way it was finally released, and subsequently clarified.

I'm arguing that if they had started development and play testing with the no-mid-SLAM-bombing mechanic as a given, I don't understand why they would have introduced Weapons Disabled as part of the ship design. It just feels like, in light of the clarification from Frank, the ship design now shows itself to be laden with vestigial organs left over from early evolutionary phases of the ship's development, where mid-SLAM bombing was the original aim. That also would explain why we got practically the entire focus of the ship's promotional hype revolving around a mechanic that is now ruled to be illegal -- because having it be legal was the original intent that informed the whole development, marketing and release process.

It feels like the ruling that it's illegal is just a bandaid, and the ship as released bears the signs of having been originally designed to do something it is now not allowed to do. I mean, the only reason it's illegal now is because the insert rules card lacks, what, two words? Add "and reveal" at the right spot and suddenly this is back to being legal again. Which enhances bomb usage (a stated intent). Which makes Weapons Disabled make sense (since mid-move bomb deployment on a high-PS ship with a turret would arguably be overpowered).

It just feels like a reversal happened somewhere along the way.

Oh, as to the last line of your post... what track record does this game have of introducing unique new abilities and also providing new rules language that leaves no confusion about that ability? It's not a great track record, which is half of why we have a FAQ document.

RIP. We hardly knew thee.

Que the music...

The dealer didn't assure you, some guy in marketing exaggerated the remote start feature. No it doesn't have the range of your living room to make your kid think he's Darth Vader. If you asked the mechanic he'd have told you that, and when you did your research online the forum of people who read over tech specs all said "no, because RFID can't have that range and they're using RFID". In fact you were assured the opposite and responded "but but the ad! I'm gonna wait, they'll fix it. You'll see!"

Right. They exaggerated remote start by telling me I could start remotely when in fact, I need to get in to the car to do it. If only I had bothered to consult my mechanic before buying my car.

The dealer didn't assure you, some guy in marketing exaggerated the remote start feature. No it doesn't have the range of your living room to make your kid think he's Darth Vader. If you asked the mechanic he'd have told you that, and when you did your research online the forum of people who read over tech specs all said "no, because RFID can't have that range and they're using RFID". In fact you were assured the opposite and responded "but but the ad! I'm gonna wait, they'll fix it. You'll see!"

Right. They exaggerated remote start by telling me I could start remotely when in fact, I need to get in to the car to do it. If only I had bothered to consult my mechanic before buying my car.

FFS! The blasted article is called "SLAM and bomb"!!!

Featuring a ship that can slam and bomb. And now they say that it cannot slam and bomb. Are you having Stockholm syndrome?

Or in that order across two turns.

It's the only ship that can both slam and bomb.

The dealer didn't assure you, some guy in marketing exaggerated the remote start feature...

So you agree then, the company has been misleading to it's customers. Fair enough!

RIP. We hardly knew thee.

Do you write the X-Wing articles? You clearly made a mistake in the direction of the ship token and those types of mistakes seem apropos for the K-Wing article.

Que the music...

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

And only half of the bombs.

Well, mines, since none of the bombs have Actions.

So the proper article title would be "Advanced SLAM and Mine".

THIS JUST IN:

McDonald's 100% beef burgers are actually 25% horse.

Food critics say "we always said they looked dodgy; you should have listened to us"

UP NEXT

the chilling truth about bacon

I mean, it can SLAM and bomb. Just only if you take Adv. SLAM.

And only half of the bombs.

Well, mines, since none of the bombs have Actions.

So the proper article title would be "Advanced SLAM and Mine".

It's not all that pedantic to issue the reminder that mines ARE bombs by definition. They are just an action-dependent subset of "bombs".

And by the way, my memory may be flawed on this, but didn't the earliest version of the "SLAM and Bomb" article get revised because the graphic showed a mine being deployed mid-SLAM? And then they corrected (sic) it to show the more intuitively appropriate Seismic being deployed in that middle position?