XD

This thread is amusing beyond all comprehension. There truly is nothing new beneath the sun...

Just for what it's worth, I've spent all weekend scrimmaging K-vs-Punisher based lists, along with the new TFA set ships.

One conclusion that is painfully clear is that dice-based mines are not terribly efficient damage dealers, especially given the great lengths you must go to to successfully land them on your opponent. Oops. All red blanks.

Anyway, removing the "upon reveal" bomb options with their guaranteed effects really seems deflating.

Just for what it's worth, I've spent all weekend scrimmaging K-vs-Punisher based lists, along with the new TFA set ships.

One conclusion that is painfully clear is that dice-based mines are not terribly efficient damage dealers, especially given the great lengths you must go to to successfully land them on your opponent. Oops. All red blanks.

Anyway, removing the "upon reveal" bomb options with their guaranteed effects really seems deflating.

ah, you've stumbled upon the overt truth of discard-able upgrades in general: "unreliable dice make for an unreliable investment ;)"

fortunately, FFG has your back! (conner nets, they even put it with the K!)

seriously, people, if you're still stuck in a squalid two ship meta Conner's are your magic bullet

save the "splody" bombs for when the ship count starts climbing; use them either with int agent or Miranda (as ship count increases, average pilot skill drops and PS 8 Miri can start leaving presents whilst knowing full well who'll be on the receiving end)

losing SLAM seismic/protons/ions does suck from a fun perspective (losing options suck even if you never had em ) but it does not diminish the actual effectiveness of the K-wing

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.

And basically what you tell us by that there is still time to make them realise that they are doing a mistake here. Hey it's their game, but they are pissing off a few good customers. It was and i will make this crystal clear again ABSOLUTELY NOT OBVIOUS that they would rule it like they did now. A lot of people read those articles, buy K-Wings and then see the SLAM action card AFTERWARDS realizing they can't do what was advertised. Customers dont care what was their intention, they want what was promised to them.

You dont advertise a flying car and after selling a few thousand you say "sorry this was an error, it can't fly but it's still a fine car!" I would like to see peoples reaction to that. Nobody would care if the user manual said it couldn't fly from the beginning. The advertisement is what people look at and it's misleading!

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Davy take a step back, reassess the situation and allow the mid-Slam bomb via next FAQ. People are happy getting what was promised and there is a small errata on the SLAM card. It will not break the game.

Also, where would the new way to deal with Bombs for the K-Wing they announced (themselves) in an interview be? If its not the mid SLAM drop there is none. I don't get it!

losing SLAM seismic/protons/ions does suck from a fun perspective (losing options suck even if you never had em ) but it does not diminish the actual effectiveness of the K-wing

If it sucks, as you say, then it indeed diminishes its effectiveness! Or would you argue that adding it back wouldn't increase it's appeal and effectiviness?

You cannot even say that it was totally broken and overpowered. You couldn't still drop a bomb after a SLAM, but just immediately before, so there was no way to correct your position with SLAM after your rivals had moved, to drop a bomb on them even if you were playing with Miranda and your rivals were all low PS ships. You still had to guess your rival's moves to position your K-wing right to drop the bomb with its SLAM, and you could be blocked.

And it's not like SLAM lets you arcdodge. It can put you out of peril, at the cost of losing your attack.

Have you actually tried it? It's not as simple as some of you want to make it look. It lightyears away from the Phantom kind of unfair precognition , where you could reposition after everyone else moved, then attack, then cloak and go out of peril.

If they don't fix this mess, the K-Wing is truly an inefficient turret carrier, that lays mines worse than Deathrain, drops bombs worse than a scum Y-Wing with "Genius", delivers ordnance worse than Redline, arcdodges worse than any arcdodger in the game, doesn't deliver bombs better than any other bomb-carrying ship in the game. What a mess of a specialized bomber is this? One whose only redeeming feature is Connor Net (that any bomb-carrying ship can use) and Twin Laser Turret (that is more efficient on a HWK or a Y-Wing).

Also, where would the new way to deal with Bombs for the K-Wing they announced (themselves) in an interview be? If its not the mid SLAM drop there is none. I don't get it!

Bombardier and Advanced SLAM.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Davy take a step back, reassess the situation and allow the mid-Slam bomb via next FAQ. People are happy getting what was promised and there is a small errata on the SLAM card. It will not break the game.

You're suggesting they change the game rules they designed and playtested for months because you're unhappy one interaction doesn't work?

And it's not like SLAM lets you arcdodge. It can put you out of peril, at the cost of losing your attack.

Have you actually tried it? It's not as simple as some of you want to make it look. It lightyears away from the Phantom kind of unfair precognition , where you could reposition after everyone else moved, then attack, then cloak and go out of peril.

Dodging firing arcs is what arc-dodge means. If SLAM puts you "out of peril", then it arcdodged.

If they don't fix this mess, the K-Wing is truly an inefficient turret carrier, that lays mines worse than Deathrain, drops bombs worse than a scum Y-Wing with "Genius", delivers ordnance worse than Redline,

I see a big list of other faction's ships. A list containing the shocking revelation that Deathrain and Redline are two of the best bombers and minelayers in the game. I suppose you'll tell me that Emon's better than the TIE bomber at mineslinging next, or that Fel's a better arcdodger than the B-wing.

A lot of people read those articles, buy K-Wings and then see the SLAM action card AFTERWARDS realizing they can't do what was advertised.

The SLAM card that is in the article? Not even hyperlinked, there in full view.

Please people, if you want the majority to take you seriously do some goddamn research before you post.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG.

Hardly a shitstorm. It's four players kicking up a fuss in a forum thread.

Also, where would the new way to deal with Bombs for the K-Wing they announced (themselves) in an interview be? If its not the mid SLAM drop there is none. I don't get it!

Bombardier and Advanced SLAM.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Davy take a step back, reassess the situation and allow the mid-Slam bomb via next FAQ. People are happy getting what was promised and there is a small errata on the SLAM card. It will not break the game.

You're suggesting they change the game rules they designed and playtested for months because you're unhappy one interaction doesn't work?

And it's not like SLAM lets you arcdodge. It can put you out of peril, at the cost of losing your attack.

Have you actually tried it? It's not as simple as some of you want to make it look. It lightyears away from the Phantom kind of unfair precognition , where you could reposition after everyone else moved, then attack, then cloak and go out of peril.

Dodging firing arcs is what arc-dodge means. If SLAM puts you "out of peril", then it arcdodged.

If they don't fix this mess, the K-Wing is truly an inefficient turret carrier, that lays mines worse than Deathrain, drops bombs worse than a scum Y-Wing with "Genius", delivers ordnance worse than Redline,

I see a big list of other faction's ships. A list containing the shocking revelation that Deathrain and Redline are two of the best bombers and minelayers in the game. I suppose you'll tell me that Emon's better than the TIE bomber at mineslinging next, or that Fel's a better arcdodger than the B-wing.

A lot of people read those articles, buy K-Wings and then see the SLAM action card AFTERWARDS realizing they can't do what was advertised.

The SLAM card that is in the article? Not even hyperlinked, there in full view.

Please people, if you want the majority to take you seriously do some goddamn research before you post.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG.

Hardly a shitstorm. It's four players kicking up a fuss in a forum thread.

This. Thank you, good sir (or possibly ma'am!) for stating the blunt truth.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Davy take a step back, reassess the situation and allow the mid-Slam bomb via next FAQ. People are happy getting what was promised and there is a small errata on the SLAM card. It will not break the game.

You're suggesting they change the game rules they designed and playtested for months because you're unhappy one interaction doesn't work?

Actually, I think he's simply suggesting they implement the game rules they actually advertised and highlighted within the preview article for the ship.

They advertised it with a particular ability. They now tell us post-release (and not even via an official medium, just an email to a forumite) that the ability they advertised is not possible. Whichever way you attempt to spin it, that's misleading for their customers. And it's still misleading, as the article in question hasn't been amended or removed.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG.

Hardly a shitstorm. It's four players kicking up a fuss in a forum thread.

Trust me when I say it's not simply "four players in a forum thread". I attended a tournament yesterday, and this was a hot topic amongst a lot of the players in attendance.

Actually, I think he's simply suggesting they implement the game rules they actually advertised and highlighted within the preview article for the ship.

That article also included performing SLAM with any maneuver of the same speed, rather than just ones on the K-wing's dial. To be more precise, it involved SLAMing into a 3 turn.

Should they errata that in too?

They advertised it with a particular ability. They now tell us post-release (and not even via an official medium, just an email to a forumite) that the ability they advertised is not possible. Whichever way you attempt to spin it, that's misleading for their customers. And it's still misleading, as the article in question hasn't been amended or removed.

The article was wrong, that's bad and they really need their articles proofread by the designers.

However, they aren't just telling us post-release via an email that it doesn't work. The actual rules card posted in the article itself says this doesn't work. It's not a case of them saying one thing before release and changing their mind after release. The rules text for SLAM was in the article. The article contradicted itself, hence why people like Vorpal have been saying for months that the rules don't actually let you Genius using SLAM. We all assumed it was a mistake and that you could Genius off SLAM, but only because we trusted the articles. Their total unreliability should be the real scandal here.

The outrage should be over the constant errors in the articles and them apparently being written by people who clearly don't have a sufficiently good grasp of the rules. Instead we have people demanding that article errors be copied onto the ruleset.

Actually, I think he's simply suggesting they implement the game rules they actually advertised and highlighted within the preview article for the ship.

That article also included performing SLAM with any maneuver of the same speed, rather than just ones on the K-wing's dial. To be more precise, it involved SLAMing into a 3 turn.

Should they errata that in too?

No, the difference is that they went and fixed that, because the K-Wing doesn't have a 3-turn in its dial.

But at the same time that they fixed that, why didn't they fix the SLAM&Bomb trick that isn't supported by the rules card? The trick that gives the name to the article?

I mean, if the designers told the marketing guy "Hey, you need to change the maneuver of the K-wing in the article after it SLAMs&Bombs, it has to be a bank 3"... why didn't they tell the poor marketing guy. "Hey, just delete the whole article. It doesn't work like that."?

They didn't change the 3-turn to 3-bank because we said so in the forums. We didn't know the dial of the K-Wing back then. We were just trying to gather information from the articles, so our influence on that at most was when we gathered that the k-wing must have a 3-bank and 3-turn in its dial because what it does in the article, maybe one of the designer spotted those posts and warned the marketing guy to fix the problem. In my opinion it's more likely that some designer actually proofread the article after publishing it, and send in the corrections by his own initiative.

Again, why didn't they catch that the K-Wing was slamming&bombing in an article called "SLAM and Bomb" where it is shown twice slamming&bombinb?

Cannot you admit that, other than their articles having many mistakes and typos, this makes no sense at all either?

It takes them hours, tops, to mend an article and change some graphics to correct some typos or wrong pilot/upgrade cards. We have seen it before happening. Then... why is the article still there? Why if you google "FFG Slam and bomb" that article is still the first result? Why does FFG is so reluctant to remove the article explaining the star feature of one of their latest products when one head designer said that the rules don't support that mechanic?

It's not a rethorical question. Just why?

Dear FFG, either the article (part of your product advertising) must be removed or the SLAM rules card must be errataed. But you cannot just sit and pretend that having both things is just right.

I don't claim to be right about SLAM being able to let you bomb as shown in the article. I just claim that this situation cannot exist anymore. FFG cannot tell us one thing and the opposite at the same time!

Again, why didn't they catch that the K-Wing was slamming&bombing in an article called "SLAM and Bomb" where it is shown twice slamming&bombinb?

If the article title was referring specifically to the K-wing pulling a Genius, would it not be called Bomb and SLAM? And even if SLAM and Bomb does refer to that move, the title was almost certainly written by the same person who wrote the article and made the rules mistake.

Dear FFG, either the article (part of your product advertising) must be removed or the SLAM rules card must be errataed. But you cannot just sit and pretend that having both things is just right.

I don't claim to be right about SLAM being able to let you bomb as shown in the article. I just claim that this situation cannot exist anymore. FFG cannot tell us one thing and the opposite at the same time!

The article itself contradicts: it has the (mostly) clear rules on one side and the K-wing pulling an illegal move next to it. It's not article versus Frank, it's article picture versus article rules text (and Frank).

But yes, I agree that the article needs fixing.

As for why they've not fixed it yet, remember that this thread was going through the weekend when they're not at work, it's only just passed 9AM in America so they've probably only just got into work, and it'll take time to completely rewrite that article.

No, the difference is that they went and fixed that, because the K-Wing doesn't have a 3-turn in its dial.

Yup. They amended the article for the dial error. It wasn't up for long after people noticed it. The move-bomb-SLAM error is still up now, however, and has been since the article was published.

Of course, they may amend it again during opening hours today (Frank's ruling only came to light on the forum Friday after all) or even remove it entirely - as it stands however, the article is still on FFG's site, and still currently misleading customers by advertising an ability the ship apparently doesn't have.

And no disagreement from me that a preview article with an error this severe in it should not be up. They should take it down and only put it back up when and if they fix it.

What I do disagree with is the suggestion that errors in a preview article, even huge ones are somehow binding and should be copied into the game ruleset.

My hope now is that this rather large thread leads FFG to put their preview articles through designer proofreading in future. Wave 7 had an error in almost every article.

So um... articles are not rules....no dial is revealed...so no using of bombs.. they messed up but they are only human...every one calm the frik down please...

One thing I find funny is all the "it's illegal" crowd trying to say the article is just one error among many that happen all too frequently.

No it's not.

The other errors generally fall in the category of a graphics designer clicking on the wrong file to insert into the final composite. A cloaking Howlrunner? Oops. That was supposed to be 1124.tif, not 1125.tif. Easy enough to fix. Now it's Whisper.

A 3-bank versus a 3-turn? Oops. I was referencing the draft version 0.3 dial graphic. Lemme swap that out.

This is an error in a whole different league.

I can believe that they playtested the slam&bomb mechanic and found it overpowered. I doesn't look to me, but who knows. I don't have a legion of playtesters to back my impressions. So that is why I still can believe that the document was written before they decided to drop that mechanic. I trust the criteria of the designers.

But then the article wouldn't be there.

I mean, the designers once thought for a time to put Luke in an E-Wing but then discarded the idea. But we don't have an anachronistic article about how cool Luke Skywaler is in his E-Wing and the nice combos he can do with his special unique skill.

So why does the fix have to be changing the article, rather than FAQing the card? How do we know the designers' intent wasn't to allow "SLAM and Bomb" as per the article, but the mistake was in the rules text?

Also, where would the new way to deal with Bombs for the K-Wing they announced (themselves) in an interview be? If its not the mid SLAM drop there is none. I don't get it!

Bombardier and Advanced SLAM.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Davy take a step back, reassess the situation and allow the mid-Slam bomb via next FAQ. People are happy getting what was promised and there is a small errata on the SLAM card. It will not break the game.

You're suggesting they change the game rules they designed and playtested for months because you're unhappy one interaction doesn't work?

And it's not like SLAM lets you arcdodge. It can put you out of peril, at the cost of losing your attack.

Have you actually tried it? It's not as simple as some of you want to make it look. It lightyears away from the Phantom kind of unfair precognition , where you could reposition after everyone else moved, then attack, then cloak and go out of peril.

Dodging firing arcs is what arc-dodge means. If SLAM puts you "out of peril", then it arcdodged.

If they don't fix this mess, the K-Wing is truly an inefficient turret carrier, that lays mines worse than Deathrain, drops bombs worse than a scum Y-Wing with "Genius", delivers ordnance worse than Redline,

I see a big list of other faction's ships. A list containing the shocking revelation that Deathrain and Redline are two of the best bombers and minelayers in the game. I suppose you'll tell me that Emon's better than the TIE bomber at mineslinging next, or that Fel's a better arcdodger than the B-wing.

A lot of people read those articles, buy K-Wings and then see the SLAM action card AFTERWARDS realizing they can't do what was advertised.

The SLAM card that is in the article? Not even hyperlinked, there in full view.

Please people, if you want the majority to take you seriously do some goddamn research before you post.

There is just one very simple solution to this well deserved little shitstorm here for FFG.

Hardly a shitstorm. It's four players kicking up a fuss in a forum thread.

@Blue Five: I'm curious. Was your statement in this post 10 days ago sarcastic? Seems you were on the side of, it's clearly a rules text error.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/186500-slam/?p=1762730

This could all be fixed, if someone at FFG had the balls to errata the SLAM card from:

"To SLAM, choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

to

"To SLAM, choose, reveal and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

Then we would have our K-Wing back.

So why does the fix have to be changing the article, rather than FAQing the card? How do we know the designers' intent wasn't to allow "SLAM and Bomb" as per the article, but the mistake was in the rules text?

I am not sure why so many are so positive about the intention of the designers being what the rules card states, given the history of errata and typos in rules manuals, rules cards and upgrade cards that this game has.

Whoever proofreads the rules and cards for X-wing was sick home when they were typing the Wave VII cards, because this has been the wave with most insta-FAQ cards since like ever?

It wouldn't be a first that FFG had to put a Rules Card on the errata section FAQ. It would have Decloak and Boost as Errata pals there. And I bet probably also the Ion Token Rules card would be a newcomer also, given the confusion with Conner Net.

So why does the fix have to be changing the article, rather than FAQing the card? How do we know the designers' intent wasn't to allow "SLAM and Bomb" as per the article, but the mistake was in the rules text?

Assuming the email from one of the designers is legit, that's the clue that intent matches the rules and not the article.

So why does the fix have to be changing the article, rather than FAQing the card? How do we know the designers' intent wasn't to allow "SLAM and Bomb" as per the article, but the mistake was in the rules text?

Assuming the email from one of the designers is legit, that's the clue that intent matches the rules and not the article.

The email from Frank answers a rules question. Following the printed rules, as everyone says here, the K-Wing cannot drop a bomb when performing a SLAM. On that we all agree. What we are discussing is whether the current SLAM rules are the intended ones, given several evidences against it.

If one day before they nerfed the Phantom someone had asked Frank if the Phantom is to decloak before revealing its dial, what you think he would have answered? Yes. The Phantom must decloak before revealing its dial, because that is what the written rules state. And then next day they errata the decloak rules.

I believe the SLAM rules as printed aren't the intended ones. I might be wrong, and if I am, I will come first to admit it. But I'd like FFG to make their stance clear on this.

This could all be fixed, if someone at FFG had the balls to errata the SLAM card from:

"To SLAM, choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

to

"To SLAM, choose, reveal and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

Then we would have our K-Wing back.

I mean, if we're just going to call the other side cowards...

So why does the fix have to be changing the article, rather than FAQing the card? How do we know the designers' intent wasn't to allow "SLAM and Bomb" as per the article, but the mistake was in the rules text?

Look at the SLAM card, and the way the text is set:

Paragraph 2:

To SLAM, choose and execute

a maneuver on the ship's dial. The chosen

maneuver must be the same speed as the

...

Why is "a" carriage returned to the second line?

Now try this on for size:

Paragraph 2 [conjecturally revised]:

To SLAM, choose, reveal and execute

a maneuver on the ship's dial. The chosen

maneuver must be the same speed as the

...

The addition of ", reveal" would probably push the text too far right into overlapping the action icon graphic, which explains part of why the "a" was carriage returned. But the graphic is easily enough shifted to make room for a comma-space-"reveal". Further evidence that strengthens the idea that there was either an error in the card text entry by the graphic designers, or an 11th hour crude change to the rules wording to eliminate the mid-SLAM bomb mechanic.

The article bears no sign of being a scribner's error. It shows every sign of being a deliberately constructed set of examples generated by actual players of the game (whether play testers or developers) to show an intentionally designed, cool new ability introduced to the game. This is not the work of ignorant public relations majors cranking away on the hype-machine. It shows all the signs of being Original Intent.

This could all be fixed, if someone at FFG had the balls to errata the SLAM card from:

"To SLAM, choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

to

"To SLAM, choose, reveal and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial"

Then we would have our K-Wing back.

This could all be fixed if people had the balls to do what the card says to do and not what it doesn't say to do.

I mean, if we're just going to call the other side cowards...

That axiom is very helpful, but if we were slaves to that axiom, then all the new players to the game who are being welcomed via the new core set should be slapped for daring to think their TIE/fos get shield tokens during setup.