There's another, friendlier internet? Can I get a link to that one please?

Www.northkorea.dearleader

There no one dares be mean or sarcastic, and all topics must be about dearleader.

There's another, friendlier internet? Can I get a link to that one please?

Www.northkorea.dearleader

There no one dares be mean or sarcastic, and all topics must be about dearleader.

lol

Tractor Beam as written:

1. Tractor Beam uses(choice) the mechanics for Boost with TWO EXCEPTIONS

a. Exception #1: Cannot use 1-Bank Templates during Tractor Beam "Boost"

b. Exception #2: Target can be landed on Obstacles during Tractor Beam "Boost"

2. Tractor Beam uses(choice) the mechanics for Barrel-Roll with ONE EXCEPTION

a. Exception #3: Target can be landed on Obstacles(Asteroids/Debris) Tractor Beam "Barrel-Roll"

Pretty straight forward. No exceptions for Overlapping Ships OR the Mat's Edge. Now for the FAQ/Errata:

Q: Can you be TB'd onto another ship?

A: Nope.

Q: Can you be TB'd off the mat's edge?

A: No Comment.

Q: Can you be TB'd off the mat's edge?

A: No Comment.

No comment required as the rules for this are clearly stated in the rules.

I'm in the camp of it seems obvious that you cannot boost/barrel roll off the table. Let me fix your list for you:

The Facts:

1. TB is not a Barrel-Roll Action, but it is a Barrel Roll and as such all the normal BR rules apply - barring clearly stated exceptions.

2. TB ignores specific Barrel-Roll Rules.

3. TB follows specific Barrel-Roll Rules.

4. FFG ignored addressing Mat's Edge in relation to a TB FFG didn't need to address Mat's Edge in relation to a Tractor Beam since that part is stated clearly in the rulebook in the Barrel Roll section.

This is very linear - TB allow for a forced BR/Boost, though not 'actions' nor 'maneuvers' it is still a BR/Boost, and as such follows all the normal rules -- unless there is a specific exception. There is a clear and specific exception for the allowance of placement on obstacles. There is not a clear and specific exception for forcing an opponent off the table. If that was the intent FFG would have said so, but since they didn't say so then the normal rule must apply

I am also of the opinion that you cannot be TB'd off the Mat's Edge. But I'm also of the opinion that I cannot prove this if the FAQ chooses to ignore it.

It was actually MORE clear before the FAQ, when there where only 3 Exceptions to Tractor Beam Ruling ((1)Can't Bank-Boost and Can overlap Obstacles (2)Boost/(3)Bank). Overlapping Ships WAS mentioned in the FAQ, but Mat's Edge was not. So if you're going to address only the exceptions, you don't need to remind people that Overlapping Ships was a no-go. To address 2/3 possible overlaps (rocks, ships, abyss), the FAQ is incomplete and doesn't hold any weight for me in proving anything during a heated debate.

I'm in complete and utter shock that Mat's Edge was left out of the TB-FAQ.

Q: Can you be TB'd off the mat's edge?

A: No Comment.

No comment required as the rules for this are clearly stated in the rules.

Exactly my point. If the rules were so clear, no mention of Ship-Overlapping is needed at all. The FAQ needed to simply say No, the only exceptions are ZeroBanks and CanCrashObstacles. Ships unchanged. Mat's Edge unchanged. But they didn't do that.

I still say, and feel like the consensus is, that it doesn't say you can BR/Boost a ship off the table therefore you cannot. This is a game of exceptions being clearly stated.

Having said that I do agree that if FFG was going to address (unnecessarily I think) overlapping ships that a quick 'No BR/Boost off the table' would have been a good (albeit unnecessarily again I think) idea.

I still say, and feel like the consensus is, that it doesn't say you can BR/Boost a ship off the table therefore you cannot. This is a game of exceptions being clearly stated.

Having said that I do agree that if FFG was going to address (unnecessarily I think) overlapping ships that a quick 'No BR/Boost off the table' would have been a good (albeit unnecessarily again I think) idea.

Thank you. I'm only concerned with Holes in the FAQ/Errata that needn't be there. I've taught a lot of people XWING in my town, I consider this a HUGE hole.

You consider it a huge hole because your methodology in approaching the rules is untenable. You assume one exception means other exceptions, which is just incorrect.

You consider it a huge hole because your methodology in approaching the rules is untenable. You assume one exception means other exceptions, which is just incorrect.

Yes.

You consider it a huge hole because your methodology in approaching the rules is untenable. You assume one exception means other exceptions, which is just incorrect.

Actually, close.

There are (3) Exceptions to Tractor Beam, and I feel as if ONLY the exceptions need to be listed. Then I'm on board with everyone else.

What happened was the FAQ / ERRATA came out and listed a 4th non-exception (Ship Overlapping), which appears incomplete now that (1) non-exception was addressed while not addressing all possible non-exceptions, and not even a "fall through the cracks" non-exception, but one of the major selling points for TB's strength overall: Insta-kills.

If I produce a FAQ during an argument IRL, it had better only list the (3) Exceptions so I have a leg to stand on. If it fails to list all non-exceptions while introducing non-exceptions, it is technically incomplete as FAQ/Errata goes.

While I see your point and agree that the 'overlapping ships' was an unnecessary inclusion, that does not automatically mean that (because it is not specifically listed in the exclusions) BR/Boost works any differently than in the rules.

If there is not a specific exclusion, even if it is an unnecessary one, then we can only go by what we are allowed to do in the rules. In this case the only specific ruling is there, in the rules and nowhere else, and consequently we are bound by that and that alone. And, as we all know, the rules say no BR/Boost off the mat.

to bad you cant use tractor beam to increase torp/missile accuracy when attacking or decrease Torp/missile accuracy when defending!

Well, according to some users opinion in this thread, since the TB card does not expliticly say you can't do that, you actually can.

Sorry, could not help.

Now I want to tractor beam bombs into people...

Me too, and unlike tractor beaming people of the field or tractor beaming incoming missiles, I am not sure if allowing to use the beam on bombs would be a bad idea.

You consider it a huge hole because your methodology in approaching the rules is untenable. You assume one exception means other exceptions, which is just incorrect.

Actually, close.

There are (3) Exceptions to Tractor Beam, and I feel as if ONLY the exceptions need to be listed. Then I'm on board with everyone else.

What happened was the FAQ / ERRATA came out and listed a 4th non-exception (Ship Overlapping), which appears incomplete now that (1) non-exception was addressed while not addressing all possible non-exceptions, and not even a "fall through the cracks" non-exception, but one of the major selling points for TB's strength overall: Insta-kills.

If I produce a FAQ during an argument IRL, it had better only list the (3) Exceptions so I have a leg to stand on. If it fails to list all non-exceptions while introducing non-exceptions, it is technically incomplete as FAQ/Errata goes.

I am totally with you on that, but it not a hole. It just bad writing. An editor might call it hole from his jobs perspective, a gamer nor a designer should. It is just a bad FAQ entry.

edit: Dang, totally unnecessary double post. And it seems no delete or merge posts options.

While I see your point and agree that the 'overlapping ships' was an unnecessary inclusion, that does not automatically mean that (because it is not specifically listed in the exclusions) BR/Boost works any differently than in the rules.

If there is not a specific exclusion, even if it is an unnecessary one, then we can only go by what we are allowed to do in the rules. In this case the only specific ruling is there, in the rules and nowhere else, and consequently we are bound by that and that alone. And, as we all know, the rules say no BR/Boost off the mat.

Someone at FFQ thought it was necessary... As if only to answer the question posed. Which is why so many are frustrated by this... "Can TB insta-kill?" was definitely asked a lot more than "Can TB help with my anti-pursuit-lasers?"

You consider it a huge hole because your methodology in approaching the rules is untenable. You assume one exception means other exceptions, which is just incorrect.

Actually, close.

There are (3) Exceptions to Tractor Beam, and I feel as if ONLY the exceptions need to be listed. Then I'm on board with everyone else.

What happened was the FAQ / ERRATA came out and listed a 4th non-exception (Ship Overlapping), which appears incomplete now that (1) non-exception was addressed while not addressing all possible non-exceptions, and not even a "fall through the cracks" non-exception, but one of the major selling points for TB's strength overall: Insta-kills.

If I produce a FAQ during an argument IRL, it had better only list the (3) Exceptions so I have a leg to stand on. If it fails to list all non-exceptions while introducing non-exceptions, it is technically incomplete as FAQ/Errata goes.

I am totally with you on that, but it not a hole. It just bad writing. An editor might call it hole from his jobs perspective, a gamer nor a designer should. It is just a bad FAQ entry.

Are we mincing words? In the list of all Exceptions and Non-exceptions... leaving ANY out is a hole in the list related to TB-questions. The biggest question being, "can it insta-kill?"

My point still stands - there is no exception stated for BR/Boost off the board. As such we must follow the rules that are provided, which clearly state BR/Boost off the board is not allowed. Since there is nothing saying otherwise we are bound by the rules as written.

I think I am done commenting on this. Folks are going to think what they think and nothing else I say is going to change that fact.

I will not be allowing someone to BR/Boost any of my ships off the board unless they can prove to me where it specifically says they can, which is not possible at this point. Problem solved (for me anyway lol).

I think I am done commenting on this. Folks are going to think what they think and nothing else I say is going to change that fact.

I will not be allowing someone to BR/Boost any of my ships off the board unless they can prove to me where it specifically says they can, which is not possible at this point. Problem solved (for me anyway lol).

Me too. But I wish FFG would address this... And perhaps more annoying/argumentative threads might be needed to achieve that end.

It's bad enough there are exceptions at all. I would be happy if TB didn't allow Obstacle Overlapping. Honestly I would. I find the no Insta-Kill(Mat's Edge) far less of a "nerf" if TB's sole purpose was simply Range && Agility Shenanigans.

But FFQ is like, guess what? It's a Ping-Pong Device that can smash your opponent against Asteroids!

Can we SUMO the opponent off the mat?

*** crickets ***

FFG?

*** crickets ***

Not this board's greatest moment.

This has become the dumbest thread of the week. The rules are very clear. Try reading them. Thank the mods for ignore functionality.