Having an argument and need this straightened out. Decimator gets structural damage and is at range 3, can he roll his one die from range combat bonus? I know the answer is yes, because the crit effects agility not range combat bonuses. I just need the proof to show him. FAQ isn't completely clear and I can't get through to him. Help please.

Yes.

The range combat bonus is added to your agility value, which cannot be set lower than 0.

Structural Damage does nothing to a Decimator (that isn't Kenkirk) or Ghost.

Based on my admittedly limited understanding of the rules. You are in the right the range 3 adds one defense dice to your pool.

You always (almost) get the range bonus except for secondary weapons.

Having an argument and need this straightened out. Decimator gets structural damage and is at range 3, can he roll his one die from range combat bonus? I know the answer is yes, because the crit effects agility not range combat bonuses. I just need the proof to show him. FAQ isn't completely clear and I can't get through to him. Help please.

Show him the rule on page 4 of the Rules Reference.

A ship with an agility value of “0” can still roll additional defense dice granted by range combat bonuses, obstructed attacks, card abilities, etc.

... and then show him the rule under Range Combat Bonus

When resolving a primary weapon attack, the attacker or defender may roll additional dice depending on the range of the attack. At Range 1, the attacker rolls one additional attack die during the “Roll Attack Dice” step. At Range 3, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the “Roll Defense Dice” step.

Note that it says you add a defense die , not raise or lower the agility value .

You could also show him the section in the FAQ (page 4) that covers this.

Increasing and Reducing Values

When multiple card effects or abilities increase or reduce a value, such as agility, ignore any “to a minimum of 0” restrictions until the calculation is complete. For example, if a ship with a printed agility value of “0” and the “Structural Damage” Damage card (reducing its agility by 1 to a minimum of 0) uses Countermeasures, (increasing its agility by 1) its agility is “0.”

So if you follow the attack sequence:

Step 4: Roll Defense Dice

• The defender resolves any card abilities that allow him to roll additional or fewer defense dice.

  Decimator Agility Value = 0, Structural Damage makes that -1, but the value must be a minimum of 0 (according to damage card and FAQ), so the Agility Value is now 0.

• If defending at Range 3 against a primary weapon attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die.
• If the attack is obstructed, the defender rolls one additional defense die.

If you are at Range 3 or obstructed, you would roll one additional die. If you are at Range 3 and obstructed, you would roll two additional dice.

Step 4: Roll Defense Dice

• The defender resolves any card abilities that allow him to roll additional or fewer defense dice.

  Decimator Agility Value = 0, Structural Damage makes that -1, but the value must be a minimum of 0 (according to damage card and FAQ), so the Agility Value is now 0.

• If defending at Range 3 against a primary weapon attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die.
• If the attack is obstructed, the defender rolls one additional defense die.

If you are at Range 3 or obstructed, you would roll one additional die. If you are at Range 3 and obstructed, you would roll two additional dice.

Slightly changed the wording:

Step 4: Roll Defense Dice

• The defender resolves any card abilities that makes him to increase or decrease agility value:

  Decimator Agility Value = 0, Structural Damage makes that -1, but the value must be a minimum of 0 (according to damage card and FAQ), so the Agility Value is now 0.

• If defending at Range 3 against a primary weapon attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die.
• If the attack is obstructed, the defender rolls one additional defense die.

If you are at Range 3 or obstructed, you would roll one additional die. If you are at Range 3 and obstructed, you would roll two additional dice.

The Key terms here are agility value and additional dice . When you roll for defense you take and roll number of dice equal to your agility value (after any modifications) plus any additional dice (granted by range, obstruction or other effects).

Step 4: Roll Defense Dice

• The defender resolves any card abilities that allow him to roll additional or fewer defense dice.

  Decimator Agility Value = 0, Structural Damage makes that -1, but the value must be a minimum of 0 (according to damage card and FAQ), so the Agility Value is now 0.

• If defending at Range 3 against a primary weapon attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die.
• If the attack is obstructed, the defender rolls one additional defense die.

If you are at Range 3 or obstructed, you would roll one additional die. If you are at Range 3 and obstructed, you would roll two additional dice.

Slightly changed the wording:

Step 4: Roll Defense Dice

• The defender resolves any card abilities that makes him to increase or decrease agility value:

  Decimator Agility Value = 0, Structural Damage makes that -1, but the value must be a minimum of 0 (according to damage card and FAQ), so the Agility Value is now 0.

• If defending at Range 3 against a primary weapon attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die.
• If the attack is obstructed, the defender rolls one additional defense die.

If you are at Range 3 or obstructed, you would roll one additional die. If you are at Range 3 and obstructed, you would roll two additional dice.

The Key terms here are agility value and additional dice . When you roll for defense you take and roll number of dice equal to your agility value (after any modifications) plus any additional dice (granted by range, obstruction or other effects).

Why the "slight" change to the wording? Because that's not what the rulebook says, and what I posted above was a direct quote from Step 4, page 5.

Change the book then

That way this is more transparent imho, when you separate agility value and any additional dice added to your pool (that was determined by agility). I had a feeling that you first explained it and then messed up, so that this became not clear again...

English is not my first language hence, this may be the reason for misunderstanding, though I hope you know what I mean.

Change the book then

That way this is more transparent imho, when you separate agility value and any additional dice added to your pool (that was determined by agility). I had a feeling that you first explained it and then messed up, so that this became not clear again...

English is not my first language hence, this may be the reason for misunderstanding, though I hope you know what I mean.

Don't change the wording if the rules. It just messes people up. You are not helping by doing so.

Hate to agro this but a discussion has arisen with the guys at my LGS and they are arguing that: " As of the newest rules reference A) all modification happens before dice are rolled (page 5) and B) all modifications are cumulative (page 4), so a decimator or ghost with structural damage or exposed at range three or obstructed will still not roll defense dice" so I have to ask is this really something new or are they just reading it differently?

Hate to agro this but a discussion has arisen with the guys at my LGS and they are arguing that: " As of the newest rules reference A) all modification happens before dice are rolled (page 5) and B) all modifications are cumulative (page 4), so a decimator or ghost with structural damage or exposed at range three or obstructed will still not roll defense dice" so I have to ask is this really something new or are they just reading it differently?

They are not reading something correctly.

To determine how many green dice you roll when defending a ship gets its agility in green dice and adds dice for range, obstruction, or other effects. The dice that are added have no relation to agility.

Structural Damage (and everything else that reduces agility) reduces agility to a minimum of 0. A Decimator with Structural Damage still has an agility of zero so nothing changes.

A Decimator would need an agility of -1 to not be able to roll any defense dice when entitled to the range bonus to defense. As far as I know, it is currently impossible to get an agility value below 0.

Yea they are trying to include the addition of the range bonus die in the calculation of total agility so that the Decimator with Structural Damage at range 3 calculation goes like this - (0 - 1 + 1 = 0) I will continue to argue the point and see where it goes.

so I have to ask is this really something new or are they just reading it differently?

It's just them. Besides range 3 adds a defense die and agility can never be below 0.

Here's what I think trips people up. Technically your agility can (temporarily) be negative. Per the faq:

Increasing and Reducing Values

When multiple card effects or abilities increase or reduce a value, such as

agility, ignore any “to a minimum of 0” restrictions until the calculation is

complete. For example, if a ship with a printed agility value of “0” and the

“Structural Damage” Damage card (reducing its agility by 1 to a minimum

of 0) uses Countermeasures, (increasing its agility by 1) its agility is “0.”

The key of course being that you calculate agility first in step 4i then you do your ranged combat bonus, obstruction bonus, zuckuss pilot bonus, etc. in step 4ii.

Example:

Decimator with countermeasures active, structural damage, and a tractor beam token at range 3 behind a rock is being attacked by wedge with outmanuever active.

4i: 0 (base agility) + 1 (countermeasures) - 1 (wedge) -1 (outmanuever) -1 (structural damage) = -2. Math is finished so apply 'minimum of zero' rules which are on each of the reducers. At this point agility is 0 and yields 0 dice.

4ii: 0 (from 4i agility) + 1 (range) + 1 (obstructed) = 2 dice rolled.

Here's what I think trips people up. Technically your agility can (temporarily) be negative. Per the faq:

Increasing and Reducing Values

When multiple card effects or abilities increase or reduce a value, such as

agility, ignore any “to a minimum of 0” restrictions until the calculation is

complete. For example, if a ship with a printed agility value of “0” and the

“Structural Damage” Damage card (reducing its agility by 1 to a minimum

of 0) uses Countermeasures, (increasing its agility by 1) its agility is “0.”

The key of course being that you calculate agility first in step 4i then you do your ranged combat bonus, obstruction bonus, zuckuss pilot bonus, etc. in step 4ii.

Example:

Decimator with countermeasures active, structural damage, and a tractor beam token at range 3 behind a rock is being attacked by wedge with outmanuever active.

4i: 0 (base agility) + 1 (countermeasures) - 1 (wedge) -1 (outmanuever) -1 (structural damage) = -2. Math is finished so apply 'minimum of zero' rules which are on each of the reducers. At this point agility is 0 and yields 0 dice.

4ii: 0 (from 4i agility) + 1 (range) + 1 (obstructed) = 2 dice rolled.

The temporary negative agility would be to counter various stacking effects where if the all of the negatives w/ minimum zero were applied first that would leave a zero when the positive modifiers started being added in. If expanding the quoted example there are other things that offer agility increases which presumably could leave a positive number if none of the negatives were allowed to take things below zero.

Yea I just made a long post that ended with the math equation looking like this - (Agility Value +/- any card abilities affecting agility) + Range Bonus + Obstruction Bonus = Total Number of Defense dice to use. Their argument is that the parentheses don't exist due to "all modifications happen at the same time." We will see how this ends up.

Yea I just made a long post that ended with the math equation looking like this - (Agility Value +/- any card abilities affecting agility) + Range Bonus + Obstruction Bonus = Total Number of Defense dice to use. Their argument is that the parentheses don't exist due to "all modifications happen at the same time." We will see how this ends up.

The rule that they are referencing is specifically addressing adjusting a value. Those other bonuses aren't adjusting Agility.

FAQ, pg. 4:

' Increasing and Reducing Values

It's an important distinction that Wedge, Tail Gunner, Structural Damage, Tractor Tokens, etc. do not directly reduce the number of defense dice that you roll. They reduce your Agility value (which indirectly reduces the number of dice rolled).

What you really have is:

Defense Dice = Agility + Defense Dice Modifiers

which expands out to:

Defense Dice = (Base Agility +/- Agility Modifications) + ( Obstruction Bonus + Range Bonus + Effects that Add or Subtract Defense Dice).

What FFG should have done was expand the sub-steps on the flow chart to clarify the fact that the attack or agility value is calculated independently from the range combat bonus and obstruction dice.

2. “Roll Attack Dice” step

i. Identify number of attack dice (from Ship card or secondary weapon)

iii. Add dice Range Combat bonus, and/or obstruction

What FFG should have done was expand the sub-steps on the flow chart to clarify the fact that the attack or agility value is calculated independently from the range combat bonus and obstruction dice.

2. “Roll Attack Dice” step

i. Identify number of attack dice (from Ship card or secondary weapon)

ii. Resolve abilities that increase or decrease the number of attack dice ( including Range Combat Bonus )

iii. Add die for Range Combat bonus

4. “Roll Defense Dice” step

i. Identify number of defense dice (from Agility Value on the Ship card)

ii. Resolve abilities that increase or decrease the number of defense dice ( including Range Combat Bonus )

iii. Add dice Range Combat bonus, and/or obstruction

Yes this exactly.

What FFG should have done was expand the sub-steps on the flow chart to clarify the fact that the attack or agility value is calculated independently from the range combat bonus and obstruction dice.

...

Yes and no.

FFG could probably put out a flow chart that shows every possible step a game may take but does that mean they should? Consider:

A. Something happens

1. This something is a trigger to something else.

a. Something else happens.

a1. This something else is something which could take you back to step A.

b. The person controlling something else specifically declines to do something else IF something else were optional.

I'm guessing more steps could be added but this is basically saying that if a trigger happens it must specifically be addressed.

What FFG should have done was expand the sub-steps on the flow chart to clarify the fact that the attack or agility value is calculated independently from the range combat bonus and obstruction dice.

...

Yes and no.

FFG could probably put out a flow chart that shows every possible step a game may take but does that mean they should? Consider:

A. Something happens

1. This something is a trigger to something else.

a. Something else happens.

a1. This something else is something which could take you back to step A.

b. The person controlling something else specifically declines to do something else IF something else were optional.

I'm guessing more steps could be added but this is basically saying that if a trigger happens it must specifically be addressed.

For more experienced players, that would definitely hold true. And with the addition of the Attack Timing Chart in the FAQ, they managed to clear a lot of questions in one hit. Timings for various things that were once somewhat vague are now more defined. But that still hasn't fixed the same old misconceptions that keep coming up, such as bonus defense dice and adjusted agility values.

There was probably an overwhelming influx of questions regarding Tractor Beams and obstacles before they finally produced an errata to the rules in the FAQ. Previously, they seemed to be reluctant to make any specific errata to the rulebook unless there was no other option. And this really serves to illustrate how the core rules are pretty solid and capable of coping with most players interpretations. But as we see more new abilities that seem to be either poorly worded, or open to varying interpretations, I would have thought they would plan their FAQ updates accordingly.

One problem I see, is the designers are all on the same page most of the time, whereas most gamers aren't. It seems they think up new stuff and bounce the idea of each other before finalising it. The only problem is, whoever designed said ability probably explained the theory and intention to the others, and sometimes it's that "explanation" that the end-user really needs to play it correctly.

They really need a Devil's Advocate (if they don't have one already) to try and rip these new concepts apart before going to publication. And some of the old concepts for that matter. We've had complaints about inconsistent wording on cards and vagueness within rules for quite some time, and sadly it's still occurring. Which to the seasoned player, usually isn't too much of a problem, as most of us can figure out the intent based on previous precedents. But for the newer players, that can sometimes be confusing. And if that confusion isn't clarified by the FAQ or the rulebook, or their local group, then it becomes their precedent. And this is how we end up with many posts here saying " my local group does it like this, is it correct? "

No argument there Parravon. I don't know how big the X-Wing design team is but I can see where a bit of tunnel vision can lead to things that are somewhat argumentative. I know that in the various RPG systems I've played over the years a little bit of uncertainty in how something worked was usually pretty easy for a GM to correct but when you start running competitive tournaments like X-Wing then everyone needs to be on the same page when it comes to how things work.

Perhaps X-Wing should have a "full sized" rule set that explains everything in the utmost detail using specific terms like how many laws are written and then have the synopsis/simplified version which basically tells everyone what they should know without needing to cover the exact details.

It has now been over 4 hours since my last reply that ended like this: " Range and obstruction bonuses are neither card effects nor are they abilities, they are added dice so they are not counted during the equation to determine agility value." Because the rule about all modifications have to be finished before you can apply the to a minimum of 0 and even gave the example in the FAQ about increasing and decreasing values as proof of their train of thought. I haven't heard anything more and I am going to assume that they have just decided that they can't convince me I am wrong and quit the debate. I was a good one too, no name calling, nothing but polite responses and counter arguments to counter arguments.

From a recent interview with Covenent, it appears the driving force behind the design team is just three guys, Alex, Frank and Max (?). I could be wrong, and I hope so, because those three would limit the creativity a little after a while. What they need is someone with just a basic understanding of the game, that also doesn't play competitively too often, and throw the new ideas at them and ask "how would you read this?" or "what does this tell you to do?".

They're going to get a basic response most of the time, and if they have to explain anything in detail, then it's obviously not clearly worded. By having an "outsider" look at the game without any pre-conceptions, they'll get to hear what the average gamer is likely to make of it.