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?

I remember that we were commenting that it seemed to be the first article in a long run that had not had any glaring mistake that they needed to correct, and soon after we noticed that the K-Wing that was doing a 3 bank left, dropping a bomb, and then slamming a 3 turn right had been changed to perform a 3 bank right after the slam.

If we only had known back then that the whole article was wrong...

As a casual player, I'm really disappointed. At this point, most of my information about this game comes from FFGs promotional articles that pop up on social media, and the K-Wing was going to be my first purchase in a long time. The way I (and many others) play X-Wing, a $20 upgrade to a board game should make a significant difference in the quality of my play experience, and it is frustrating that the precise maneuver that made me excited about the product doesn't work.

I see the logic and value in the RAW argument, but especially from a company with other rules templating issues, it is reasonable to assume that when they publish an article telling you the way something should work, that it, well, works. Hopefully this situation makes them more responsible in their publishing process.

I read it that way the whole time... I guess I missed something in the first article... It's important to read what the card actually does and where it fits in with the timing.

The way I (and many others) play X-Wing, a $20 upgrade to a board game should make a significant difference in the quality of my play experience, and it is frustrating that the precise maneuver that made me excited about the product doesn't work.

This exactly. I was planning on just getting one Wave 7 ship this month, hoping to stretch my budget (nice plan anyway -- I went ahead and got two more products later) and ease myself into all the newness one ship at a time.

The move+bomb+SLAM mechanic advertised made me choose the K-Wing as the sole addition to my fleet to start with, because it was the new ability I was most excited about. I really enjoyed it while it lasted.

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

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.

Some bombs require an action to drop, so you would drop them after an Advanced SLAM equipped K-wing performs SLAM. Advanced SLAM gives you a free action after you SLAM.

SLAM

little worried that X-wing is reaching the point that ST:AW did many months ago...so many interactions that the rules start breaking down.
Right now all this meta shaking stuff is still not as strong as a super-Dash that can easily get out of arc/range every turn. Nerfing 2 of the things in wave 7 just means we won't see super-Dash go away anytime soon.

the chilling truth about bacon

The chilling truth about bacon is that it's ******* delicious and nothing else matters.

WUT

That is completely surprising. I was already on the fence about taking bombs on an ordinance K build. Now it's mines for sure. I'm not complaining, just really surprised by that. Wasn't that the whole point of the slam action?

For the simple reason that it's a huge missed occasion.

It could have completely set the K-Wing apart as a ship and made it interesting for something more than just having Miranda recharging some shields and carrying a TLT around. Now i will just slam the TLT on some Y-Wing and probably not play the K-Wing a whole lot. The SLAM action is suddenly a huge lot less useful and attractive. I thought it was expressly made for bombing the way and disappearing with Slam. It needs skill, is fun and not overly powerful. So what's stopping those rules experts from allowing it, i dont get it! What are they afraid of. It certainly is not something like the broken good stealth mechanics were before nerf or so.

Their article praising the precise maneuver that now is not working seems like a broken promise of some kind now on top of it being embarassing.

The second thing is that they could have made Bombs more appealing. I mean they are struggling to make people take bombs anyway and rule AGAINST a combo that would at least have made them interesting to play in one specific build? This would by no means have made the K-Wing Bombs ultra strong or so, just an interesting option to consider.

The Conner net ruling is just sad. I mean you pay a lot of points for the upgrade and in most cases its mechanics take no effect? That's just ridiculous FFG, please reconsider that! If someone manages to set a conner net in a way that a ship actually hits it, he deserves to ALWAYS get the full effect on the card and certainly not some "if it has not already activated" mumbo-jumbo. Just my 2 cents on that one...

Wow sorry for spamming a 2nd post but for some weird reason i cant edit into my last one.

I just wanted to add that i am glad to see the community on this forum being pretty unanimous about this ruling being a bad decision.

I mean some of the guys seem pretty disappointed, and so am i. I bought more than one K-Wing. Partly for this particular mid-SLAM bombing that was advertised!

I think we should perhaps use this very large consensus of negative feedback on the ruling in order to kindly ask (aka petition) FFG to maybe reconsider this ruling a second time. They seemed hesitating on it for sone days now, and maybe they would be willing to overlook the case one more time if we all agree on pulling at the sane end of the rope.

little worried that X-wing is reaching the point that ST:AW did many months ago...so many interactions that the rules start breaking down.

Right now all this meta shaking stuff is still not as strong as a super-Dash that can easily get out of arc/range every turn. Nerfing 2 of the things in wave 7 just means we won't see super-Dash go away anytime soon.

It's not at that point, and the problem with ST:AW is that Wizkids cares more about shoving product out the door than they do about development.

Also, there have been no nerfs in Wave 7.

I think we should perhaps use this very large consensus of negative feedback on the ruling in order to kindly ask (aka petition) FFG to maybe reconsider this ruling a second time. They seemed hesitating on it for sone days now, and maybe they would be willing to overlook the case one more time if we all agree on pulling at the sane end of the rope.

The sane end of the rope? SLAM doesn't reveal a dial. There's no reason to believe it reveals a dial. There's never been a reason to believe it, except for the article. And when the article was published, several people at every X-wing fan site I'm aware of pointed out, almost immediately, that it broke the same rules it cited.

I am aghast at the community's response. It's not a nerf, it's a reiteration that the rules work exactly the way everyone who looks carefully at the rules has said they work since the day SLAM was made public. It's not a step back in the power of bombs, it's a clarification of the intent of the design. And it's not a personal attack in any way.

And I'm left wondering, how many of the people complaining in this thread have had the K-wing on the table with the correct rules more than once? SLAM is incredibly powerful. In terms of speed and complexity of maneuvering, there's nothing in the game to compare it to except a Phantom. No K-wing is ever caught in a spot it doesn't want to be in, unless it's blocked. No K-wing should ever be in a position to be fired upon unless it wants to.

Get it on the table. Test it out. Work with it.

Wow. I just literally had to go recheck the article.

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

It's right there plain as day. They need to rectify this properly, as well as a proper Conner Net ruling, imho. There is almost no reason to take a K-wing build except for Miranda or an Esege buffing list.

I'm holding out hope that they change their minds before the official FAQ comes out. I mean they show a K-wing dropping a bomb before slamming twice and talk about the tactic. It was really all a mistake?

The sane end of the rope? SLAM doesn't reveal a dial. There's no reason to believe it reveals a dial. There's never been a reason to believe it, except for the article. And when the article was published, several people at every X-wing fan site I'm aware of pointed out, almost immediately, that it broke the same rules it cited.

I am aghast at the community's response. It's not a nerf, it's a reiteration that the rules work exactly the way everyone who looks carefully at the rules has said they work since the day SLAM was made public. It's not a step back in the power of bombs, it's a clarification of the intent of the design. And it's not a personal attack in any way.

I'm baffled by this statement. Can you enlighten me to some other alternative reference that FFG made about how Slam works, other than the misleading article? I'm not concerned about third party fansites; they're not the ones making the rules.

Wow. I just literally had to go recheck the article.

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

It's right there plain as day. They need to rectify this properly, as well as a proper Conner Net ruling, imho. There is almost no reason to take a K-wing build except for Miranda or an Esege buffing list.

Int agent and aslam make it THE counter to action dependent ships such as corran/dash/soontir etc since he can dump it on any of them before they get to activate

IMHO the only crap k (apart from guardian because 2 points for 2 PS...yeah) is ESE. Far too much expense and hoop jumping for my tastes. For example, hr can't mine and use his ability without ei (no ASlam)

I'm baffled by this statement. Can you enlighten me to some other alternative reference that FFG made about how Slam works, other than the misleading article? I'm not concerned about third party fansites; they're not the ones making the rules.

The actual rules text on the SLAM reference card and the rules text on the bomb cards.

Daredevil's here in case anyone wanted to argue that executing a maneuver means revealing a dial.

I don't mean to derail this but can someone fill me in on the Cloaking Howlrunner and Lightning Reflexes Graz issues in preview articles?

I'm morbidly curious.

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

I'm baffled by this statement. Can you enlighten me to some other alternative reference that FFG made about how Slam works, other than the misleading article? I'm not concerned about third party fansites; they're not the ones making the rules.

The actual rules text on the SLAM reference card and the rules text on the bomb cards.

Daredevil's here in case anyone wanted to argue that executing a maneuver means revealing a dial.

" Also, because your SLAM counts as a full maneuver, it allows you to drop your Proton Bombs in the middle of your activation, right before you execute your SLAM."

from this article:

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

The whole crux of the argument. Maybe the card was wrong not the article. Maybe there was going to be additional info who knows?

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

Punisher can do this, albeit with regular boost.

I'm baffled by this statement. Can you enlighten me to some other alternative reference that FFG made about how Slam works, other than the misleading article? I'm not concerned about third party fansites; they're not the ones making the rules.

The actual rules text on the SLAM reference card and the rules text on the bomb cards.

Daredevil's here in case anyone wanted to argue that executing a maneuver means revealing a dial.

" Also, because your SLAM counts as a full maneuver, it allows you to drop your Proton Bombs in the middle of your activation, right before you execute your SLAM."

from this article:

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

The whole crux of the argument. Maybe the card was wrong not the article. Maybe there was going to be additional info who knows?

The Article is wrong, not the card, especially since the devs said so. So a K cant drop its bombs mid slam. big deal. take corner/mines and deal with it. Not a big nerf considering it could be A LOT worse.

Vorpal:

Why exactly are you aghast?

Read the text on the SLAM card and think about how it works in practice, say in a tournament setting. You have to choose a maneuver on the dial. What's utterly implicit there (and any aghast feelings should be directed at FFG for not making this explicit) is that the maneuver must be chosen and strictly adhered to, just as surely as any planning phase dial selection. You have to lock it in and live with it. (In other words, you can't fudge it and change your mind when you realize the maneuver will take you over an obstacle and thus be to your detriment.)

So how exactly do you prove to your opponent that (a) you have selected one specific maneuver before fiddling with templates, and (b) it actually exists as a legal maneuver on the K-Wing's dial? You turn the dial and show it ("reveal") to your opponent!

I mean, I guess you could wave the paper insert with the maneuver chart at your opponent and just announce it, and sure, rules as written requires nothing more to execute a SLAM. But really, the intuitive way to accomplish this is to turn your dial and show it, and it's astonishing that this one solitary technicality of maneuver mechanics is (supposedly intentionally) left out, yet all other aspects of executing a maneuver remain intact.

And the Daredevil comparison is an inadequate precedent. That card requires one and only one clearly specified maneuver, without regard for whether that maneuver exists on the equipping ship's dial. There is no maneuver selection, no intervention of any dial.

SLAM explicitly refers to a dial, yet cutely leaves out any reference to actually rotating it or showing it. Yet EVERYTHING ELSE works just like executing a maneuver.

I just don't get WHY they have done this. It smells of last minute reneging on an original intent, and the bandaid they used to exclude the mid-SLAM bomb mechanic was a wink and a nod in the rules language.

They already have a completely arbitrary restriction in the SLAM rules, which is that it can't be considered a free action. (Why not??) So they could have just as easily stated clearly the arbitrary restriction against dropping a bomb at the beginning of the SLAM MANEUVER.

Look, Frank's ruling is the correct interpretation of the explicit wording on the rules card. It's just such a half-a**ed way of doing it that it BEGS for misinterpretation, because you are both CHOOSING and EXECUTING a MANEUVER on the DIAL. Yet you don't REVEAL it? Come on, man.

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

To heck with sensors, the more horrible combination would be a K-Wing and sensor jammer due to all the horrible Space Jam jokes that would ensue.

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

If you haven't revealed a maneuver, you can't SLAM since the speed you need to match is null. (Theoretically this might mean you could stall if it was on the dial, but why you'd spend an action to prevent yourself from shooting and to move zero before moving I beyond me. Maybe you really wanted to bump something?)

Good thing the K didnt have a systems slot, otherwise people would be giving it advanced sensors in order to loophole the rule. (advanced sensor to slam in a 2 direction, lets say, then drop the bomb as you reveal a 2 bank.)

If you haven't revealed a maneuver, you can't SLAM since the speed you need to match is null. (Theoretically this might mean you could stall if it was on the dial, but why you'd spend an action to prevent yourself from shooting and to move zero before moving I beyond me. Maybe you really wanted to bump something?)

Its a loop hole in the wording of the card (this is not posssible as the k does NOT have a systems slot to begin with...

It says that the slams move must be of the same speed of they manuver that is exectued this turn. meaning I could theoretically advanced sensor slam with aslam and drop the bomb before revealing my dial showing my actual move. the card doesnt specifically say "slam movement only after a movement this turn" just "same speed of the manuver executed this round" that menuver is stilll being executed this round, even if it hasnt yet been executed.

Its a phrasing loop hole, but a loop hole none the less.