P.S. Guys who protect FFG on this one...really, your argument seem invalid. "They always mess up the article", "that was obvious" and "K-Wing is still good" - nothing like this is an excuse. We love FFG for this wonderful game, but let's not idolize them. This scenario is bad for anyone and it should not become a tendency.

Cheers.

"K-wing is still good" is an appropriate response to those posts implying that the slam bomb was the only reason to get the k-wing

the entire thread isn't about the misleading article, you know?

P.S. Guys who protect FFG on this one...really, your argument seem invalid. "They always mess up the article", "that was obvious" and "K-Wing is still good" - nothing like this is an excuse. We love FFG for this wonderful game, but let's not idolize them. This scenario is bad for anyone and it should not become a tendency.

Cheers.

Nobody's saying the constant article errors are a bad thing, we're saying the article contradicted the rules: it's not a case of reversing a ruling because SLAM was never designed to drop bombs mid-activation in the first place.

And from where you got that was the original intention of the designers?

Look, Alex Davy said in the Gencon interview that the K-Wing and the Punisher came each with unique revolutionary new ways to deal with bombs. The Punisher has in DeathRain its new way. What does the K-Wing has that is new? If the K-Wing can only drop bombs at the beginning of its movement, or mines after moving with a "Boost+Experimental Interface+Weapons Disabled-Stress token" kind of card that is what Advanced Slam is, that is really nothing new. It is what Emon has been using in the past, kind of. And worse because he could still attack.

No, this cannot be the new revolutionary unique way the K-Wing brings to deal with bombs (actually only mines!). The article called "Slam and Bomb" went deeper into explaining these new ways. Whatever you say, I cannot believe that the preview articles (some of which Alex Davy himself has signed with his name) aren't written by the designers or the design team. I very much doubt that the cleaning lady or the janitor write these articles, and then they are proofread by the cafeteria attendant, and the graphs and examples are tought out by the company`s accountant and the system admin.

That is bovine faeces.

You know what is a simpler explanation?

That the designers meant the K-Wing to be able to drop a bomb before doing a SLAM. That they wrote an article about the new stuff and put the time to make not one but two example graphs explaining it.

That they even recruited Paul Heaver to write about it in his signed article.

All this was done way after the manufacturing of the products had started, and the SLAM rules cards was already ongoing printing.

Then, oh skit! They realized that the wording in the card rules text was botched and no longer up to date with the actual/current intentions of the designers (How could this happen!? It has never hapenned before!!1!eleven!).

Then the customers got products with defective rules texts and, in the lack of an updated FAQ, the printed rules text, of course, are to be followed to avoid confusion in a competitive environment, because even if Frank had said in his mail that the article is right and the rules card is wrong, in a tournament you could not simply bring out a printed email and pretend it to have more credibility than the printed rules.

The alternative explanation, the one that some of you that are trying so hard to apologize FFG believe, is that the designers made a ship that isn't better at dropping bombs than any other previously existing ship, neither it can do it in a particularly new way that wasn't somehow there before, kind of. It's a Y-Wing with a boost action that disables its weapons in exchange of extra distance and not having to assign the stress token that Experimental Interface would have required. Also, it would mean that that X-Wing design team has no control over what is previewed in the articles, claim that is countered by Alex signing some of them, and most other past "mistaken" articles containing simply typos or unconsequential wrong upgrades, not being entire articles about features of ships that didn't exist at all.

I simply find this much harder to believe.

Or, given my faith on FFG, I rather believe the simpler and actually usual explanation: "minor writing mistakes were made". On the rules card.

Alex Davy said in the Gencon interview that the K-Wing and the Punisher came each with unique revolutionary new ways to deal with bombs. The Punisher has in DeathRain its new way. What does the K-Wing has that is new?

It has a new bomb that currently doesn't come with any other ship.

Eight pages and 151 replies. Aparently the OP chose the thread title to be ironic...

Alex Davy said in the Gencon interview that the K-Wing and the Punisher came each with unique revolutionary new ways to deal with bombs. The Punisher has in DeathRain its new way. What does the K-Wing has that is new?

It has a new bomb that currently doesn't come with any other ship.

this has to be troll, right?

a-slam

a-slam

That too.

A scum y wing with genius, seismic, extra munitions, and engine is 26 points. Scum is capable of doing what a k wing was advertised as being able to do. Move drop move already existed, is this dude with the email answers just messing with us for fun or what?

And from where you got that was the original intention of the designers?

The rules text.

The only source of confusion was the article, which past evidence strongly suggests aren't written by the designers and have poor quality control/proofreading. The rules themselves are unambigious. A bomb drops "when you reveal your maneuver dial" and SLAM "execute a maneuver."

The rules are written by the designers.

If Frank Brooks and Alex Davy wanted bombs to drop mid-SLAM they would have made it very clear that they can. The rules go through months of playtesting. The articles, based on all the typos we get, aren't even proof-read.

That the designers meant the K-Wing to be able to drop a bomb before doing a SLAM. That they wrote an article about the new stuff and put the time to make not one but two example graphs explaining it.

That they even recruited Paul Heaver to write about it in his signed article.

And much like our mystery article writers you are not checking your material before you post it. Paul Heaver's article involves dropping a Conner Net using Advanced SLAM, which does work.

No, this cannot be the new revolutionary unique way the K-Wing brings to deal with bombs (actually only mines!).

Mines are bombs. And Advanced SLAM gives you collosal reactionary ability with them. It's far more potent than dropping a bomb after a maneuver, and you could do that since Wave 6 using Genius.

Whatever you say, I cannot believe that the preview articles (some of which Alex Davy himself has signed with his name) aren't written by the designers or the design team.

They're not all written by the same person. The fact that Alex Davy writing an article warranted a statement that it was written by Alex Davy is a strong indicator that the normal articles aren't.

Also, it would mean that that X-Wing design team has no control over what is previewed in the articles, claim that is countered by Alex signing some of them, and most other past "mistaken" articles containing simply typos or unconsequential wrong upgrades, not being entire articles about features of ships that didn't exist at all.

Nobody ever said the design team is powerless to influence articles. They said that it's highly likely SLAM And Bomb, the K-fighter article and likely the other ship previews are written by marketing staff. Their advertorial language would support that. It's not that the designers are powerless to check them, I'd simply wager they didn't. After this thread, they probably will.

As for a whole article on a nonexistent feature, not the case at all. The only error is the claim you could drop a bomb before the SLAM. That is not, believe it or not, the point of SLAM.

is that the designers made a ship that isn't better at dropping bombs than any other previously existing ship, neither it can do it in a particularly new way that wasn't somehow there before, kind of.

False. The K-wing's Advanced Slam mine drop is something no ship could do previously: SLAM didn't exist. It increases the threat range of action bombs significantly. Using SLAM to a drop an AOE bomb after your initial maneuver, however, is not a new feature. Genius allowed you to do it in Wave 6.

As for your assertion that it's not a better bomber than previous ships, that's an opinion.

Seeing as we're talking about the realism of scenarios here, which of these is more realistic?

The designers intend for bombs to drop mid-SLAM. Despite being the game designers themselves they write inept rules that do not allow this to happen, put an example in one error-riddled article and never reference it in an article again, then upon receiving a rules question about it they execute a coverup and claim it never worked all along. Despite errataing and FAQing every single past interaction that hasn't worked the way they intended to make it work the way they intended.

or

The member of the marketing staff that wrote SLAM and Bomb made a mistake with the Bomb rules, thinking they dropped before executing a maneuver than before revealing a dial. He puts this in the article, which had several other errors in it, and it isn't checked by one of the designers. When asked how it works, the designers say that it works the way the rules they wrote says it does and the article, which breaks the rules posted in the article itself, is wrong.

A scum y wing with genius, seismic, extra munitions, and engine is 26 points. Scum is capable of doing what a k wing was advertised as being able to do. Move drop move already existed, is this dude with the email answers just messing with us for fun or what?

That's the ruling I got. Figured it'd tidily end the SLAM arguments.

Figured wrong. While SLAM is now clear, we've got rabid fans up in arms that one of SLAM's interactions doesn't work. It's not as crazy as the thread where people think FFG's betrayed them because their personal intepretation of Conner Net turned out to be wrong.

FAQ > Frank. So until an "Official FAQ" says otherwise. Yeah...

Frank Brooks and Alex Davy write the FAQ. And the rules. The thing they didn't write is the article that caused this mess.

SLAM works exactly as the rules say it does. From a rules standpoint, there is no basis at all for allowing preSLAM bomb drops. If you do, you're houseruling.

The card still does exactly what it says it does, regardless of your or my personal feelings on the matter. Right now neither the article or Frank's reassertion that the card does what it says trumps the text on the card itself.

Once we get an FAQ, then we'll see, but until then, the rules on the card are unambiguous.

That said, if they don't add this feature, the K-wing as an actual bomber (not just slinger of inappropriately functioning action mines) is kind of inferior to the Punisher (especially Deathrain) and other cheaper options.

The K-wing is an excellent minelayer. Advanced SLAM vastly increases the threat area of its mines and its reactionary ability, allowing higher PS ships to mine lay effectively too. The only ships that can compete are Emon and Deathrain, and Deathrain (unless he has Experimental Interface) lacks the reactionary power.

As a bomber, yes, SLAM doesn't let you pull a Genius. However, it has a Crew slot (only the Firespray and VT-49 also boast both bomb and crew slots and neither are available to the Rebels), meaning it can take Intelligence Agent to mitigate the risk of low pilot skill bomb dropping or Bombardier to increase its threat range. Furthermore, SLAM allows it to get into position to drop a bomb in the ideal spot next turn: positionally it's an incredible ability.

Another thing the K-wing's got going for it is that it's the only bomber other than the VT-49 and Firespray with a turret/rear arc. Other ships are unlikely to be able to shoot at a ship they've bombed. A K-wing can hit a nearby ship that goes near its rear with an Ion Cannon Turret or Conner Net and then dump a bomb on it next turn.

The K-wing's lack of a Genius-type ability doesn't diminish any of it's other myriad options with both blast bombs and mines.

@Blue Five:

Quote:

Seeing as we're talking about the realism of scenarios here, which of these is more realistic?

The designers intend for bombs to drop mid-SLAM. Despite being the game designers themselves they write inept rules that do not allow this to happen, put an example in one error-riddled article and never reference it in an article again, then upon receiving a rules question about it they execute a coverup and claim it never worked all along. Despite errataing and FAQing every single past interaction that hasn't worked the way they intended to make it work the way they intended.

(End quote)

I'm going with this one as far more realistic. Although "coverup" is probably too strong language.

And read the article again. There are two examples with this intuitively obvious capability. It's a principal theme. There's two separate graphics designed and displayed to convey this capability.

The only thing that makes this inherently viable bomb mechanic illegal is that the slam rules card omits a comma, a space, and the word "reveal" between "choose" and "execute". And even then, I have argued (but admit the merits of the counter arguments) that a "reveal" of the dial is implicit in the slam rules, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

The whole picture just screams "oops" on the slam rules insert language. There is NOTHING that suggests this should be intuitively illegal or broken, and the ONLY thing that makes it illegal is the omission of one arguably unnecessary word.

But this horse is dead. I think I've said my piece. I await a FAQ entry that holds greater weight than an email facsimile shown in a thread on a discussion board.

............and my K-Wing goes on ebay in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. For the reasons listed above.

Can I get your cards and tokens? No seriously I'll take them if reasonable.

@Blue Five:

Quote:

Seeing as we're talking about the realism of scenarios here, which of these is more realistic?

The designers intend for bombs to drop mid-SLAM. Despite being the game designers themselves they write inept rules that do not allow this to happen, put an example in one error-riddled article and never reference it in an article again, then upon receiving a rules question about it they execute a coverup and claim it never worked all along. Despite errataing and FAQing every single past interaction that hasn't worked the way they intended to make it work the way they intended.

(End quote)

I'm going with this one as far more realistic. Although "coverup" is probably too strong language.

And read the article again. There are two examples with this intuitively obvious capability. It's a principal theme. There's two separate graphics designed and displayed to convey this capability.

The only thing that makes this inherently viable bomb mechanic illegal is that the slam rules card omits a comma, a space, and the word "reveal" between "choose" and "execute". And even then, I have argued (but admit the merits of the counter arguments) that a "reveal" of the dial is implicit in the slam rules, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

The whole picture just screams "oops" on the slam rules insert language. There is NOTHING that suggests this should be intuitively illegal or broken, and the ONLY thing that makes it illegal is the omission of one arguably unnecessary word.

But this horse is dead. I think I've said my piece. I await a FAQ entry that holds greater weight than an email facsimile shown in a thread on a discussion board.

The new rules make it clear that you can't drop bombs on the second maneuver that you get from SLAM. These rules were almost definitely written and sent to the printers before the article in question was published.

Rules Reference Page 4:

Revealing a dial is very clearly not part of the what happens when you are executing a maneuver. It is a completely separate step.

Well that sucks. The K-wing just became a lot less interesting. Honestly, bombs just generally suck. Mines and nets are cool. Bombs kinda not. Makes sense for rules as written but who the hell writes these articles?

SLAM and stress not a huge deal. Execute maneuver includes the check stress step. If you are stressed already then you can't take a SLAM action. If you somehow end up with red on your k-wing dial (crit effect), then you can gain stress through the SLAM maneuver.

K-Wings are still neat as hell to me - and it wasn't for the bombs, either. My plan was to run mine as a missile boat, stock it up with things like Advanced Proton Torpedos and Assault Missiles with the Extra Munitions upgrade.

The K-wing is an excellent minelayer. Advanced SLAM vastly increases the threat area of its mines and its reactionary ability, allowing higher PS ships to mine lay effectively too. The only ships that can compete are Emon and Deathrain, and Deathrain (unless he has Experimental Interface) lacks the reactionary power.

As a bomber, yes, SLAM doesn't let you pull a Genius. However, it has a Crew slot (only the Firespray and VT-49 also boast both bomb and crew slots and neither are available to the Rebels), meaning it can take Intelligence Agent to mitigate the risk of low pilot skill bomb dropping or Bombardier to increase its threat range. Furthermore, SLAM allows it to get into position to drop a bomb in the ideal spot next turn: positionally it's an incredible ability.

Another thing the K-wing's got going for it is that it's the only bomber other than the VT-49 and Firespray with a turret/rear arc. Other ships are unlikely to be able to shoot at a ship they've bombed. A K-wing can hit a nearby ship that goes near its rear with an Ion Cannon Turret or Conner Net and then dump a bomb on it next turn.

The K-wing's lack of a Genius-type ability doesn't diminish any of it's other myriad options with both blast bombs and mines.

That's just...evil. I love it.

And read the article again. There are two examples with this intuitively obvious capability. It's a principal theme. There's two separate graphics designed and displayed to convey this capability.

Two examples in the same article. No examples in any other article.

I'm not suggesting it's a typo. I'm suggesting whoever wrote the article thought it worked that way and was wrong, and if it's the same person writing the ship preview articles they don't have a great track record for rules accuracy.

The whole picture just screams "oops" on the slam rules insert language. There is NOTHING that suggests this should be intuitively illegal or broken, and the ONLY thing that makes it illegal is the omission of one arguably unnecessary word.

It's phrased exactly the same way as Daredevil and Inertial Dampeners. Execute Maneuver is not the same as Reveal Maneuver Dial. They're even separate steps in the rules.

If you believe the designers are totally incompetent and would miss throughout all their playtesting a rules interaction clearly not working when their stuff does go through QA and testing I'm not sure how I'll dissuade you. But if you truly believe that I deeply question why you buy and play this game.

The only thing that makes this inherently viable bomb mechanic illegal is that the slam rules card omits a comma, a space, and the word "reveal" between "choose" and "execute". And even then, I have argued (but admit the merits of the counter arguments) that a "reveal" of the dial is implicit in the slam rules, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

Only because you're doing some serious contortionism with the wording. The bombs clearly say "when you reveal your maneuver dial." Execute maneuver does not mean reveal dial, and there's huge precedent for this in multiple interactions. One of the bigger ones is Ion: you can't use Advanced Sensors nor pre-errata Decloak off of an Ion maneuver. Revealing a dial isn't implicit in any way. If executing a maneuver did imply revealing it, then you'd be able to drop bombs off of Ion and Daredevil.

I await a FAQ entry that holds greater weight than an email facsimile shown in a thread on a discussion board.

It's a screenshot, but you can use the Rules Questions page yourself to ask if you believe it's not geniune.

The ship reveal articles are notorious for errors, and those errors being in the graphics doesn't make them any less erroneous. We had Lightning Reflexes on Graz The Hunter in the Kihraxz article, a cloaking Howlrunner in one of the TIE punisher articles. The K-wing article in question involved the K-wing executing an illegal maneuver in one of the SLAM examples. This mid-SLAM bombing is likely yet another one of those errors, and especially given Frank Brooks himself has now said they work as the rules say it works it's very unlikely that this illegal move that appears in only this error-riddled article was the designer's intent.

And before you say "they made a mistake with the rules card", go look at the Conner Net. There they've ruled against Rules As Written in favour of intent. If their intent was to allow mid-SLAM bombing, why would they suddenly reverse here, when in every other situation for the last three years and seven waves they've ruled intent over RAW?

There's a pile of evidence¹ that says they work as the rules say they do and one dodgy piece of evidence to say they don't, and people are clutching onto that one piece of "evidence" and ignoring all else. Sound familiar?

^{1: What the actual text on the rules card says, the fact that this interaction only appears in this one article, the fact that this article also contained other errors, the fact that previous ship reveal articles (and more recent ones) also contain or contained errors such as illegal builds and maneuvers, the fact that in all previous situations the current designers have ruled intent over RAW, the fact that one of the designers themselves has said the rule works this way}

@Blue Five:

Quote:

Seeing as we're talking about the realism of scenarios here, which of these is more realistic?

The designers intend for bombs to drop mid-SLAM. Despite being the game designers themselves they write inept rules that do not allow this to happen, put an example in one error-riddled article and never reference it in an article again, then upon receiving a rules question about it they execute a coverup and claim it never worked all along. Despite errataing and FAQing every single past interaction that hasn't worked the way they intended to make it work the way they intended.

(End quote)

I'm going with this one as far more realistic. Although "coverup" is probably too strong language.

And read the article again. There are two examples with this intuitively obvious capability. It's a principal theme. There's two separate graphics designed and displayed to convey this capability.

The only thing that makes this inherently viable bomb mechanic illegal is that the slam rules card omits a comma, a space, and the word "reveal" between "choose" and "execute". And even then, I have argued (but admit the merits of the counter arguments) that a "reveal" of the dial is implicit in the slam rules, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

The whole picture just screams "oops" on the slam rules insert language. There is NOTHING that suggests this should be intuitively illegal or broken, and the ONLY thing that makes it illegal is the omission of one arguably unnecessary word.

But this horse is dead. I think I've said my piece. I await a FAQ entry that holds greater weight than an email facsimile shown in a thread on a discussion board.

The new rules make it clear that you can't drop bombs on the second maneuver that you get from SLAM. These rules were almost definitely written and sent to the printers before the article in question was published.

Rules Reference Page 4:

"When an ability instructs a ship to execute a specific maneuver, it resolves only the “Execute Maneuver” step.

The steps for the activation phase are also on page 4:

1. Reveal Dial: Reveal the ship’s dial and take

the maneuver template that matches the chosen

maneuver.

2. Execute Maneuver: Resolve the following

substeps in order:

a. Move Ship: Slide the maneuver template

between the front guides of the ship’s base

so that it is flush against the base. Then pick

up the ship and place it at the opposite end

of the template, sliding the rear guides of the

base into the opposite end of the template.

b. Check Pilot Stress: If the maneuver is

red, assign one stress token to the ship; if

the maneuver is green, remove one stress

token from the ship.

c. Clean Up: Return the maneuver template

to the pile of maneuver templates. Place the

revealed dial outside the play area next to

the ship’s Ship card.

3. Perform Action: The ship may perform one

action.""

Revealing a dial is very clearly not part of the what happens when you are executing a maneuver. It is a completely separate step.

Slam does not fall under this rule, because the ability does not involve a specific maneuver, as is the case with Daredevil. It involves choosing a maneuver from a range of legal choices. I fail to see how this citation from the new rules is binding.

Slam does not fall under this rule, because the ability does not involve a specific maneuver, as is the case with Daredevil. It involves choosing a maneuver from a range of legal choices. I fail to see how this citation from the new rules is binding.

It's the old rules, actually. The only change in the new rules is the integration of Check Pilot Stress into Execute Maneuver.

SLAM's rules card says Execute a maneuver on the ship's dial. That means declare one, stick it down on the table, move the ship and check pilot stress. It doesn't say set a dial, reveal it, execute maneuver.

Your suggestion is that it's sloppy wording: that it could be intepreted to mean set the dial, reveal the dial and execute maneuver, yes? Assuming you're correct and that the designers intended it to be a SLAM trigger, why did Frank Brooks say that it doesn't count as revealing a dial? If there's any ambiguity whatsoever, why would a designer rule against their intent?

@Blue Five:

Quote:

Seeing as we're talking about the realism of scenarios here, which of these is more realistic?

The designers intend for bombs to drop mid-SLAM. Despite being the game designers themselves they write inept rules that do not allow this to happen, put an example in one error-riddled article and never reference it in an article again, then upon receiving a rules question about it they execute a coverup and claim it never worked all along. Despite errataing and FAQing every single past interaction that hasn't worked the way they intended to make it work the way they intended.

(End quote)

I'm going with this one as far more realistic. Although "coverup" is probably too strong language.

And read the article again. There are two examples with this intuitively obvious capability. It's a principal theme. There's two separate graphics designed and displayed to convey this capability.

The only thing that makes this inherently viable bomb mechanic illegal is that the slam rules card omits a comma, a space, and the word "reveal" between "choose" and "execute". And even then, I have argued (but admit the merits of the counter arguments) that a "reveal" of the dial is implicit in the slam rules, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

The whole picture just screams "oops" on the slam rules insert language. There is NOTHING that suggests this should be intuitively illegal or broken, and the ONLY thing that makes it illegal is the omission of one arguably unnecessary word.

But this horse is dead. I think I've said my piece. I await a FAQ entry that holds greater weight than an email facsimile shown in a thread on a discussion board.

The new rules make it clear that you can't drop bombs on the second maneuver that you get from SLAM. These rules were almost definitely written and sent to the printers before the article in question was published.

Rules Reference Page 4:

"When an ability instructs a ship to execute a specific maneuver, it resolves only the “Execute Maneuver” step.

The steps for the activation phase are also on page 4:

1. Reveal Dial: Reveal the ship’s dial and take

the maneuver template that matches the chosen

maneuver.

2. Execute Maneuver: Resolve the following

substeps in order:

a. Move Ship: Slide the maneuver template

between the front guides of the ship’s base

so that it is flush against the base. Then pick

up the ship and place it at the opposite end

of the template, sliding the rear guides of the

base into the opposite end of the template.

b. Check Pilot Stress: If the maneuver is

red, assign one stress token to the ship; if

the maneuver is green, remove one stress

token from the ship.

c. Clean Up: Return the maneuver template

to the pile of maneuver templates. Place the

revealed dial outside the play area next to

the ship’s Ship card.

3. Perform Action: The ship may perform one

action.""

Revealing a dial is very clearly not part of the what happens when you are executing a maneuver. It is a completely separate step.

Slam does not fall under this rule, because the ability does not involve a specific maneuver, as is the case with Daredevil. It involves choosing a maneuver from a range of legal choices. I fail to see how this citation from the new rules is binding.

The SLAM action does tell you to execute a specific maneuver; it's the one you just chose.

Assuming you're correct and that the designers intended it to be a SLAM trigger, why did Frank Brooks say that it doesn't count as revealing a dial? If there's any ambiguity whatsoever, why would a designer rule against their intent?

This is a good point. Fank's emailed rulings have contradicted the rules as written in the past to make cards work the way he intended. Why should SLAM be an exception?

On the one hand: Seriously bummed that you can't do SLAM'd bomb drops after all.

On the other: The wording of SLAM meant that if SLAM could do it, so could Daredevil... and while I admit that would be a hilarious TIE bomber, I don't think that's what they had in mind.

For my part I don't think the K-Wing is nerfed. It still seems like a fun ship with cool abilities.