I'm just going to use HitCrit from now on.

And I do feel like I am very accepting of "noobs" as mazz0 put it...

.. the amount of times I've hand-typed out the steps to an attack in the Rules Sub-Forum is ridiculous, after all

I was just informed of this VERY recently like 2-3 weeks ago, that's why I was no where to be found.

Heck, I used to run multiple BCC because of these forums and their findings that they do stack. The only reason I found out the other way was because of playing weekly at the FFG game center. It's clear to me that I can't convince you guys other wise.

So I will do everything I can to get a more solid answer. I play at FFG regularly, so I think I can get something.

One of the issues with this is there is no clear ruling, so judges and marshals have the final say in a tournament setting until we have an FAQ. Honestly it's a moot point to try and rehash this debate because an FAQ should be coming out soon. If the FFG game center rules that you can only use one, that's fine. But if I go play a tournament before the FAQ and if the judge/marshal there says it stacks, then it stacks. End of argument.

In regards to this post and reducing the time in squadron phase, take gunnery teams and kill some ships and swat some fighters. Less fighters=faster game play

I was just informed of this VERY recently like 2-3 weeks ago, that's why I was no where to be found.

Heck, I used to run multiple BCC because of these forums and their findings that they do stack. The only reason I found out the other way was because of playing weekly at the FFG game center. It's clear to me that I can't convince you guys other wise.

So I will do everything I can to get a more solid answer. I play at FFG regularly, so I think I can get something.

You see, I was one of the guys who spoke with Alex Davy at GenCon. It's not about trusting you or not trusting you, its about two conflicting pieces of information coming form the trusted sources. The way I see it currently is that it's likely that during Gencon developers saw BCC effects as stacking (as Alex response to my question was "Why wouldn't they stack?") however after some real world wave 4 exposure they decided to reverse that ruling and therefore your source said that BCCs don't stack. The only way to know is to wait for the FAQ which I assume should be out pretty soon.

Correct, I meant the side with both hit and crit on it.

Gotcha. I vote we call that hit+crit or hit&crit.

Regarding the issue at hand - sounds like some water muddying and confusion (and perhaps suspicioun) causing for very little benefit.

Disregarded

Hit/crit is easier to type, hasbeen used more often, and happens more often than wanting a Hit "OR" Crit, which itself, is a borderline case and thus, should bear the burden of the extra word to type out.

That may be, but / has a long history of usage in the English language (and others) to denote two options, either of which may be selected but not necessarily both. If you don't want to be clear to people who are new to the discussion then enough, that's up to you. I don't think that's a good strategy for welcoming noobs to the game and forum though.

Honestly - You're the first who brought it up. That is why I made my answer (with a joking face even, to keep it light hearted!) the way I did.

I feel it is clear enough, as you are delineating multiple die rolls with a comma, which of course, has a long history of usage in the English language to do that.

If you are insulted by my answer (which was completely unintentional), then you must understand why I am equally insulted as to have such a thing "brought to a vote" in the first place.

I'm not insulted, hope I didn't insult you either!

What would be great would be die result symbols in the forums, and other in-game sybols too. I was going to copy them from the rules PDFs; upload them to my webserver and start using them myself, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Being built in would be better though.

Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG

In all seriousness, playtesters are the worst for giving reliable information. FFG test a product and then alter it based on the reports from the play testers, sometimes quite dramatically. This has the tendency to cause the playtesters to get attached to the product that they played with, rather than the reality of the product which was released.

As sad as it is to say this, playtesters are the least reliable source of information. If gossip is what you are after, they are the best source of information.

Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG

In all seriousness, playtesters are the worst for giving reliable information. FFG test a product and then alter it based on the reports from the play testers, sometimes quite dramatically. This has the tendency to cause the playtesters to get attached to the product that they played with, rather than the reality of the product which was released.

As sad as it is to say this, playtesters are the least reliable source of information. If gossip is what you are after, they are the best source of information.

No way FFG test their products! You trippin'!

Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG

In all seriousness, playtesters are the worst for giving reliable information. FFG test a product and then alter it based on the reports from the play testers, sometimes quite dramatically. This has the tendency to cause the playtesters to get attached to the product that they played with, rather than the reality of the product which was released.

As sad as it is to say this, playtesters are the least reliable source of information. If gossip is what you are after, they are the best source of information.

This has been my direct experience at the FFG GC as well. Good information to hear, but not always reliable in the final product.

Again, I'm more inclined to believe a JUDGE and playtester at FFG

In all seriousness, playtesters are the worst for giving reliable information. FFG test a product and then alter it based on the reports from the play testers, sometimes quite dramatically. This has the tendency to cause the playtesters to get attached to the product that they played with, rather than the reality of the product which was released.

As sad as it is to say this, playtesters are the least reliable source of information. If gossip is what you are after, they are the best source of information.

This has been my direct experience at the FFG GC as well. Good information to hear, but not always reliable in the final product.

If you knew who it was, I'm betting you'd be quick to change your tune.

Since you're not going to tell us who it was, their theoretical reliability isn't a selling point

If you knew who it was, I'm betting you'd be quick to change your tune.

Unlikely. Unfortunately I don't get to many of the weekly games (I used to have Thursdays off, now I have weekends off, and they are dropping all of these small format tournaments... AAAAAHHHHH!)

Anyway, like I said, I've gotten information directly from employees who are also playtesters, and it's been inaccurate. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that I don't find your source reliable no matter what.

If name dropping is enough to convince me, PM me, or send me a Facebook Message (Norman J in the group.) I'll review the name, and see if that changes my mind, but I'm not expecting that it would.

Here's the thing: it outright does not matter who it was. We got an email response from Michael Gernes to a clarification question that was in direct conflict with a previous response to the same question from Alex. When I pointed it out to him, Michael immediately deferred to Alex, because he hadn't realized it was already answered.

The point is, it does not matter who you heard it from. Until the (OVERDUE) FAQ is published, there is no official stance on it beyond "hash it out on the forums." The forums haven't reached anything like a global consensus, so it very much falls on each individual TO to make the ruling.

Even though they obviously stack.

I understand the issue and the result could go either way, so in the mean time I have been playing 1 re-roll for any number of Bomber Command Teams in range as this seems the most restrictive to learn how it all works. Once the FAQ comes out then either I was right all along or it just got better than I expected.

As for the idea of game related icons, I contacted FFG support and suggested that they add their various icons as they have with the emojii tool in the forum. Perhaps if more people ask for this feature of the webmaster we may get it?

I understand the issue and the result could go either way, so in the mean time I have been playing 1 re-roll for any number of Bomber Command Teams in range as this seems the most restrictive to learn how it all works. Once the FAQ comes out then either I was right all along or it just got better than I expected.

As for the idea of game related icons, I contacted FFG support and suggested that they add their various icons as they have with the emojii tool in the forum. Perhaps if more people ask for this feature of the webmaster we may get it?

Make a thread on it?