Yeah, I'd really love for the folks that were so adamant about the ruling on this card to come back and see how silly they were.

And then maybe learn to fly a little more casually RE: unreleased products.

Yeah, I'd really love for the folks that were so adamant about the ruling on this card to come back and see how silly they were.

And then maybe learn to fly a little more casually RE: unreleased products.

Except that those people were, y'know, spot on .

FFG had to errata a card, add an entirely new section to the rules, and put an entry in The Inquisitor's FAQ to make him turn off Autothrusters.

The people who argued against it were quite correctly interpreting the rules as they stood at the time. That FFG changed them isn't their fault.

As above

Fly casual doesn't mean "make **** up"

If it's not in the game I'm not going to waste my opponent's time with it without prior permission

The errata to thrusters was a good one that made things less ambiguous

Yeah, I'd really love for the folks that were so adamant about the ruling on this card to come back and see how silly they were.

And then maybe learn to fly a little more casually RE: unreleased products.

Except that those people were, y'know, spot on .

FFG had to errata a card, add an entirely new section to the rules, and put an entry in The Inquisitor's FAQ to make him turn off Autothrusters.

The people who argued against it were quite correctly interpreting the rules as they stood at the time. That FFG changed them isn't their fault.

Nothing was changed, just clarified. I keep copies of all the past FAQs. The term "defending" was linked to the Attacker's range. It's actually pretty clear how the attacker's range is measured (from day one). This is just the first time an ability throws the range ruler out the window. I understand why some found this unclear.

There are a few who may have been guilty of ignoring the meaning of terms in this game in this debate. I think those that feel justified by the ruling were erked by the fact that their very logical arguments that followed the letter of the game rules (prior to 4.1.1) were never considered by some.

An entirely new term has now been defined in the FAQ, along with a substantial alteration to a card's text. How in the seven hells is that not a change?

Yeah, I'd really love for the folks that were so adamant about the ruling on this card to come back and see how silly they were.

And then maybe learn to fly a little more casually RE: unreleased products.

Just because someone argues about rules in a rules forum (and sometimes those arguments make their way to the main forum) doesn't mean that they aren't laid back friendly players when they are actually playing.

An entirely new term has now been defined in the FAQ, along with a substantial alteration to a card's text. How in the seven hells is that not a change?

The previous FAQ is as follows:

S ome card abilities use the expression “inside arc at Range X” or “inside arc

beyond Range X.” This compound phrase defines a specific situation where

the closest point to closest point distance between two ships, when measured

inside firing arc, is at a specific range band.

ERRATA:

Autothrusters

This card should read:

“When defending, if you are inside the attacker’s firing

arc beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker’s firing

arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a <EVADE>

result. You can equip this card only if you have the <BOOST>

action icon.”

Changed from original text:

This is not a rule change, but a cleaning up of the language.

From the ORIGINAL Rule Book:

1. Declare Target

During this step, the attacker (the active ship) must

declare its target (the ship he wishes to attack). The

target ship must be inside the attacker’s firing arc

and within range. A player may measure to verify that

these conditions are met before declaring a target.

A ship cannot target a ship if their bases are

touching (see “Overlapping Other Ships” on page 17).

Once declared, the target ship is now the defender,

and players proceed to the “Roll Attack Dice” step.

Firing Arc

At the front of each ship token is a wedge shape

(green for Imperials, red for Rebels). This area shows

the angle from which the ship’s weapons can fire. An

enemy ship is inside the active ship’s firing arc if any

part of the enemy ship’s base falls inside the angle

defined by the wedge shape (see “Firing Arc and

Range Example” on page 11).

Other ships do not obstruct firing arcs. For

example, if a ship has multiple enemy ships inside its

firing arc, it can target any one of them. Thematically,

this represents that ships can attack above or below

the other ships in 3D space.

Range

Range is measured using the range ruler. The

range ruler is divided into three sections: Range

1 (close), Range 2 (medium), and Range 3 (long).

Some weapons and abilities provide bonuses or are

restricted based on the range (distance) from another

ship (see “Upgrade Card Anatomy” on page 19).

Each ship’s primary weapon can target ships at

Range 1–3 (i.e., at Range 1, 2, or 3).

To measure range, place the Range 1 end of the

range ruler so that it touches the closest part

of the attacker’s base. Then point the ruler toward

the closest part of the target ship’s base that is

inside the attacker’s firing arc. The lowest section (1,

2, or 3) of the ruler that overlaps the target ship’s

base is considered the range between the ships.

If the ruler is not long enough to reach the target

ship, the ship is considered out of range and cannot

be targeted. A ship may be within range, but still fall

outside the attacker’s firing arc.

Note: When determining firing arc and measuring

range, ignore all guides (the two small bumps on the

front and rear of each base).

Range Combat Bonuses

Depending on the range between the ships, the

attacker or defender may roll additional dice during this

attack (see “Roll Attack Dice” and “Roll Defense Dice”

on pages 11–12). Range combat bonuses only occur

when a ship is attacking with its primary weapon.

The range of the attack has ALWAYS been set by the attacker. ANYTHING that has to do with the Range of an ATTACK is set by the ATTACKING ship. All of this is very wordy and can be confusing. Now that there is a ship that manipulates the range of attack, I'm glad FFG has further clarified this rule of the game.

Both sides had good arguments. It was simply confusing.

Both sides had good arguments. It was simply confusing.

Agreed. The original language was overly complex. Great new ships and FAQ have been delivered to us this St. Patrick's Day.

It's been clarified and you're still having the argument? Sheesh...

Can't wait to finally table this ship!

It's been clarified and you're still having the argument? Sheesh...

Some people can't admit they were wrong is all, inquisitor didn't cancel AT before and now he does but it's not enough that they got the results they wanted they want to brag about being right.

Even though they weren't.

So, do you think PTL or VI on him? Or even Juke?

PTL, cause he'll just die otherwise or roll a bunch of focus on his red dice

also Juke is stupid stiff sometimes. Without relay, it's incredibly annoying to consistently enable. It's even worse on the Tie/v1 because you have to keep TLing to get that token

Annoying to get a free PTL without stress on specific actions? So, he can get a TL and an Evade every time he does that one action. Or are you saying it's annoying b/c you want to arc dodge with him all the time and you use the Boost and BR? Well, maybe he's more of a sniper type ship? Or he doesn't mind being in some arc? I dunno.

I like the idea of PTL, because you can use TL to measure range to stuff so you don't have to BR/Boost blindly. On the other hand, his dial isn't that good for being constantly stressed (tho it does allow him to go slow, staying at R3 where he feels best).

Would you use TIE mk2 with PtL, or is he married to Autothrusters?

Inq isn't so much married to thrusters as he is physically sown to it

Annoying to get a free PTL without stress on specific actions? So, he can get a TL and an Evade every time he does that one action. Or are you saying it's annoying b/c you want to arc dodge with him all the time and you use the Boost and BR? Well, maybe he's more of a sniper type ship? Or he doesn't mind being in some arc? I dunno.

annoying because you're limiting your options with Juke

PTL gives you far more flexibility, especially post boost/roll

I guess I just want to see a ship that doesn't HAVE to have PTL to be good.

I was more referring to the nature of the discussion prior to this clarification, not so much the clarification itself.

Feel free to have friendly, healthy discussions about whatever, whenever. That's still solid under a "fly casual" banner.

Many comments in this thread were not in the nature of a healthy discussion. They ranged from mildly salty to straight up elitism.

And now look like tools because they were so adamant about how the ruling would fall, only to be wrong, for whatever reason, once the product was released.

So, I say again, folks should try to fly a bit more casually when discussing unreleased products. No need to make enemies by being a jerk, and then have FFG make it so you're wrong on top of it.

My approach to the FFG rules is that I fully expect things to get FAQ'ed to fit into what I see as their intent. So, I am utterly not surprised that you can't switch the V1 and the X1. I'm not surprised that you don't get to use AT with Inquisitor.

I guess I just want to see a ship that doesn't HAVE to have PTL to be good.

Starviper

it actually gets worse if you give it PTL

also Vader and Omega Leader

hell, the FO in general is surprisingly bleh with PTL despite having an amazing dial for it

some people have run PTL on Juno, but imo it just restricts her to being a weak Vader

PTL also stiffs Rudor, assuming he's good enough to see consistent play in the first place

Can't wait to finally table this ship!

I just can't bring myself to say "I can't wait to play with this ship"....

Problems of a dirty mind

I guess I just want to see a ship that doesn't HAVE to have PTL to be good.

I don't think it needs PTL at all. The V1 title gives you PTL without the stress in a way. I do love the idea of Juke on the PAT, especially on the Barons.

The Inquisitor does not need PTL, but with all those greens, he can take advantage.

I disagree about PTL stiffing Rudor since he can trigger it off his free action. Use TL and free evade for his normal action and save PTL for his ability trigger giving him an action economy of 4 actions a turn. Also you can fly him a little ballsier as your opponent will be even more hesitant to shoot him. Or it just gIves him flexibility, maybe you really need to arc dodges that turn or get into a range 1 TLT bubble. He doesn't always need his pilot ability and I feel that PTL gives him a lot of flexibility.

I disagree about PTL stiffing Rudor since he can trigger it off his free action. Use TL and free evade for his normal action and save PTL for his ability trigger giving him an action economy of 4 actions a turn. Also you can fly him a little ballsier as your opponent will be even more hesitant to shoot him. Or it just gIves him flexibility, maybe you really need to arc dodges that turn or get into a range 1 TLT bubble. He doesn't always need his pilot ability and I feel that PTL gives him a lot of flexibility.

Exactly! I'm more likely to put PTL on Rudor than The Inquisitor because of this. TLT shoots him? Boost+barrel roll = no second shot. High PS ace takes R3 shot at you? Boost + Barrel Roll = R1/2 return shot.