I remember quite a few arguments about that article well before the K-wing came out with people being very adamant that the only way you could set the SLAM maneuver is set the dial to the maneuver and then 'reveal' it despite the language never appearing on the SLAM card or in any rules. I never did see any apologies for the very rude language that flew back and forth in these 'debates' after the K-wing actually hit. And no one learned their lesson because each time a new preview comes out we go through the same thing, just that SLAM-gate was so much worse.

I was one of the persons making that point, without insulting language as I recall, because I thought (and still do) that it is very difficult to make a ship do some maneuver without ever revealing what it is. So I thought it was a very persnickety way of reading the SLAM rule card to point out that the word 'reveal' never actually appeared on it.

And the oddest thing is, when using that very same mindset, you can by rights argue that the Raider cannot use the titles that come with it.

Yet, everything works with both rules and Frank's answer.

The CR-90 can indeed spend the focus token. But it is not affected by it. So you spend it and it does nothing!

Yet, everything works with both rules and Frank's answer.

The CR-90 can indeed spend the focus token. But it is not affected by it. So you spend it and it does nothing!

GET OUT

The K-Wing was advertised like a ship that could do something unique with the non-action based bombs. And it was quite interesting to see it moving, deploying a proton bomb, then slamming away.

It made sense that in the same way that Red Line could do something unique with ordnance, and Deathrain something unique with action-based bombs, the K-Wing could do that what they were advertising in that article.

Was it overpowered or not balanced? We will never know, but to me it doesn't look more that Redline or Deathrain are.

Then the "SLAM and Bomb" article was sneakly replaced, two weeks after the k-wing had been openly on the shelves, with another showing the K-Wing in an absurd situation. Starting its activation in front of a swarm of TIE Fighters, so that they could show it dropping a bomb and hitting anything. Absurd because that means that in order for that situation to actually happen, either the K-Wing put itself in front of a swarm in the previous round, and was shot heavily for that, or the swarm naively moved to that position this round, knowing that the k-wing could droup a bomb.

That situation wouldn't happen ever. So exactly... what is the "SLAM & Bomb" about?

Yes, yes. Mines are bombs and you can drop them after a SLAM with advanced slam. But then call the whole thing "SLAM and lay mines"...

The whole thing was probably an internal misunderstanding in FFG team. But they could have done much better reacting to it.

Has anyone asked what

Focus, Evade, and Stress Tokens
Focus, evade, and stress tokens do not affect huge ships.

means in light of Esege and Frank's emails?

I get what everyone is saying about the second sentence but what about the first sentence?
Shouldn't we ask?

P.S. I did but I think I mistyped my email address, yes twice

I think the CR-90 almost needs all the extra oomph from support ships and/or Han crew. My (limited) experience with the Raider makes the Imperial Epic seem significantly more effective than the Rebels.

From what I can make of it, this is kind of like utilizing Lieutenant Colzet's ability vs. Chewbacca piloting the Falcon. The written statement on Chewbacca's card is to make it impossible for crits to even damage the Falcon, much less be resolved. However since Colzet doesn't deal the crit card, but instead transforms an already dealt damage card into a crit card, it bypasses Chewbacca's ability.

Still, the term affect in the rulebook would seem to state that a huge ship could utilize Esege's focus token with an attack roll of all eyeballs and the spent focus token shouldn't cause the dice to be modified...

I remember quite a few arguments about that article well before the K-wing came out with people being very adamant that the only way you could set the SLAM maneuver is set the dial to the maneuver and then 'reveal' it despite the language never appearing on the SLAM card or in any rules. I never did see any apologies for the very rude language that flew back and forth in these 'debates' after the K-wing actually hit. And no one learned their lesson because each time a new preview comes out we go through the same thing, just that SLAM-gate was so much worse.

I was one of the persons making that point, without insulting language as I recall, because I thought (and still do) that it is very difficult to make a ship do some maneuver without ever revealing what it is. So I thought it was a very persnickety way of reading the SLAM rule card to point out that the word 'reveal' never actually appeared on it.

And the oddest thing is, when using that very same mindset, you can by rights argue that the Raider cannot use the titles that come with it.

FFG has messed up when it comes to titles and wording on their cards, and by their own rules the raider cannot use those titles. It's a good thing epic games don't happen at tourneys so house rules can fix that.

Thank you for being one of the few gracious people in that whole mess.

(One last thing, there's this slip of paper that comes in every expansion that shows he maneuvers on the dial of that ship, and this paper can be referenced at any time. This is then a way that you can pick a maneuver on the the dial without even touching he dial)

Yet, everything works with both rules and Frank's answer.

The CR-90 can indeed spend the focus token. But it is not affected by it. So you spend it and it does nothing!

GET OUT

You know I am right

I'll start by mentioning that this forum is god awful. Creating an account, then logging into that account required me to search for this particular thread in google again on each step. For gods sake how complicated is it to just return the visitor to the thread they were at prior to logging in/creating an account.

That said, I understand why people would want the rule to work the way it would appear it does, but there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that this actually came from FFG. This isn't a ruling, it's a (possible) e-mail. Even at this point there's nothing in the FAQ that actually corroborates this, 15 months down the line.

This e-mail could have been sent from anywhere; there are no headers or any other kinds of qualification. From what I can see, this could just as easily have been written by the poster, or someone else. It's not in the FAQ even after over a year following this thread. This thread hasn't even had a staff member of FFG comment on it confirming or denying the supposed ruling. There is literally no say either way. This entire argument could be ended in an instant by an official clarification from FFG, nothing appears to be forthcoming. This doesn't really surprise me as FFG's rulings are often contradictory and lack internal consistency. They have several times changed the FAQ to a flat contradiction of an earlier FAQ and back again.

To whoever commented saying that D&D 5th Edition was written to be deliberately ambiguous. Those rules are completely different to FFG's in that they only have to be internally consistent and their interpretation is up to only one person: The DM. Noone elses opinion matters and they have final say when running their game. The rules are in some areas ambiguous to give control to the GM's in line with the Golden Rule at the front of any RPG. If a rule doesn't work for you, change it.

That's completely different to a tournament rules set that cannot be interpreted as a TO wishes. The TO has final arbitration over rulings where they are ambiguous, but they are required to run with the rules as written and cannot simply change them if they don't like them.

Given the completely different themes of those rules it makes absolutely no sense to compare them in that way. By comparison the rules for Magic the Gathering are excessively precise in the tournament format and the wording on their cards is very rarely open to interpretation, even with as large a card-set and interaction possibilities as in a CCG with thousands of individual cards and when it does happen clarifications are very quickly given.

That's quite the necro...

5 minutes ago, PaulTiberius said:

That's quite the necro...

Actually thought the last post was only a couple of months ago..... point still stands that they haven't clarified it officially still. Even worse as it's been even longer than I thought. I tried to delete my post just now, but apparently I can't.

I suspect we'll see an update to the Epic rules/FAQ shortly after the release of the C-ROC, but probably not before that. I'd really like to see the Epic rules tightened up and some organised play support.

On 9/10/2015 at 0:04 PM, EbongHawk said:

It does seem rather inconsistent... gonna be a big FAQ update.

If huge ships ever get an FAQ.

IMHO I think CR-90 should be able to use Esage Teketu's focus to modify dice. It isn't an internal combo so without Biggs, Esage could get focused down fast. Also it is not like Imperials don't have their own counterpart to it. Captian Jonus can give the Raider numerous rerolls with his pilot ability. And since Huge ships need all the help they can get I cant' see why any of it could not be fair or OP.

3 hours ago, PaulTiberius said:

That's quite the necro...

4 hours ago, mitchella35 said:

Actually thought the last post was only a couple of months ago..... point still stands that they haven't clarified it officially still. Even worse as it's been even longer than I thought. I tried to delete my post just now, but apparently I can't.

Yeah, only, like, 14...

Actually glad that mitchella35 brought this back form the dead as it brings up an important subject.

What we have here is a decision purportedly made by a game dev, but then that decision is not released to the X-Wing community at large via FAQ or Errata. Realizing that Epic is the unloved child kept locked in FFG's basement, how much weight do we give to e-mail responses in the future?

I'd liken this to a person visiting a judge from another state and asking his opinion on a law. The judge responds 'if I ever heard a case involving that law, I would rule it unconstitutional. Well, the judge has that power, but if it isn't utilized in an official sense then the law stays in place. Nobody is going to use a judge's private thoughts as a defense if they break the law, and the writing on the books is the standard that everybody has access to.

So while we can argue the importance of RAI vs. RAW, I think that, since those who decide RAI also can change RAW, that the onus is on the devs to actually make those changes rather than sending out messages to a single person and expecting those decisions to reach the whole community via osmosis.

Allowing this pretty much guarantees that there will be a sizable portion of the community playing a different way depending on whether they read an e-mail thread or not. While I haven't personally seen messages kept in limbo for this long for 100/6 centered decisions, imagine the salt if the Deadeye/Palp/x7/Zuckuss decisions had been put out in a similar way and you had dozens of people coming to major tournaments with builds that they had no idea were now either significantly changed or straight up illegal?

And how does one even bring up such an e-mail as evidence? How many pages down was this page buried before it was necroed?

I'm done lending any credence to e-mails until they're actually posted to an FAQ. One person's opinion does not prove consensus of a team. The FAQ is the common document that all players have access to. If it isn't altered, then anything that raises an eyebrow on the rules is an opinion, not a rule itself.

4 hours ago, Marinealver said:

If huge ships ever get an FAQ.

IMHO I think CR-90 should be able to use Esage Teketu's focus to modify dice. It isn't an internal combo so without Biggs, Esage could get focused down fast. Also it is not like Imperials don't have their own counterpart to it. Captian Jonus can give the Raider numerous rerolls with his pilot ability. And since Huge ships need all the help they can get I cant' see why any of it could not be fair or OP.

My personal opinion is irrelevant, though sniper Tantive shooting with 6 attack dice at PS12 from range 5 with focus is unpleasant as all hell, which is how I first came across this particular build. The problem is that the rules for big ships explicitly state that focus, evade and stress tokens have no effect. The second part of the rule then states that if you do somehow assign those tokens to the ship discard them immediately. So they can't have their own tokens AND the tokens have no effect for them. Then we have an e-mail, with no proof of where its come from and no official confirmation that says you can. I'm with flyboymb, I can't see how that can be taken as an official clarification. Even if it weren't sketchy from an evidential standpoint, the fact that it was in an email from an employee of a games company doesn't make it official. There're only two places for official rulings that I know of. The official rulebook and the current FAQ. If it isn't in the FAQ then you pretty much have to go with the rulebook, which explicitly states that huge ships can gain no effect from tokens.

This thing is still coming up! And still not in FAQ, right?

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

This thing is still coming up! And still not in FAQ, right?

The rules are pretty clear, and even Frank's mail does not directly contradict them.

Take Shara Bey for example: "When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own." Let's say your X-Wing has a TL on a TIE. Now you're not allowed to have two target locks. But that does not mean you have to discard one if you use the TL from Shara, i.e. when you treat it as your own.
Because you only treat it as your own. It's never assigned, so it never is a TL of the X-Wing. Same for the CR90, it never really gets the focus assigned.

But the first part says "Focus, evade, and stress tokens do not affect huge ships.". So while you are allowed to use the token, and while you are allowed to spend it, it still does not affect the result. Similar to how you are allowed to spend a focus token with Keyan even if he has no focus results to turn. So if any card is triggered on "after you spent a focus token", that works. But the spent token does not affect the huge ship.