Starting a thread to link to from the email rulings thread.

Here's a very edge-case scenario that came up in another thread (can't find it...), I think about the TIE Striker title "Adaptive Ailerons".

In summary:

If the TIE Striker bumps another ship during it's "Adaptive Ailerons" pre-maneuver-maneuver, it will not skip the Perform Action step after its actual maneuver.

The situation can currently happen with a weird setup of Tycho and Lando, which is what I explain in the question.

Quite happy with this ruling. Would've been very weird otherwise, IMO.

Hello Kevin,

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:
Hi!

The Rules Reference (p.3) states the following: "A ship must skip its 'Perform Action' step if it overlapped another ship while executing a maneuver."

Does this rule apply in the following scenario?

1. Lando executes his maneuver

2. Lando's ability gives a free action to Tycho

3. Tycho performs Daredevil, executes a 1 hard left maneuver and overlaps a ship.

4. Other ships activate.

5. Tycho activates, and performs the maneuver on his dial. This maneuver does NOT cause him to overlap

6. Tycho performs his action??

Does Tycho get to perform his action?

Thank you,

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase. So Tyco would not skip his “Perform Action” step in your example.

Thanks for playing,


Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]

For reference:

SO HAPPY!

That problem alone made me afraid to touch the strikers.

SO HAPPY!

That problem alone made me afraid to touch the strikers.

It's a definite power bump to them. It takes away the biggest downside to equipping the Ailerons.

I'd still wait and see on this one, I could still see the actual ruling go the other way, as AA is not an action which DD is.

Don't celebrate until you've got an actual ruling on the actual card in question

It's not like Frank's rulings have not been contradicted in the past by the FAQ document.

In particular, "Gonk" comes to mind.

Not criticizing Frank here. He interprets the cards following the currently accepted consensus of the designer team about the rules. But that consensus might change at a later point.

It's not like Frank's rulings have not been contradicted in the past by the FAQ document.

In particular, "Gonk" comes to mind.

Not criticizing Frank here. He interprets the cards following the currently accepted consensus of the designer team about the rules. But that consensus might change at a later point.

It's not like Frank's rulings have not been contradicted in the past by the FAQ document.

In particular, "Gonk" comes to mind.

Not criticizing Frank here. He interprets the cards following the currently accepted consensus of the designer team about the rules. But that consensus might change at a later point.

Didn't the "no double-Gonking" ruling actually make it into the FAQ before later being reversed in another FAQ?

No, it didn't. It was in an email ruling for a long time when we didn't have a new FAQ, then IIRC didn't make it into an FAQ, then we had another about 2 weeks later where it did.

Things that have been reversed / changed by FAQ updates:

• Printed pilot card text (eg: Wampa)
• Printed upgrade card text (eg: Tactician)
• Printed reference card text (eg: Decloak, Tractor Beam)
• Rules Reference (eg: Obstacles, Stress)
• Emails from the game designers (eg: Double Gonk)
• The FAQ itself

So please, please, stop saying that email rulings aren't official until they're in the FAQ.

I'm looking at you, thespaceinvader and Azrapse... If you say that email rulings aren't valid rules because they've been reversed in the past, then logic follows that all other sources for rules are also invalid, since they've also been reversed in the past.

I find the "it's just an email" argument so bloody frustrating...

Things that have been reversed / changed by FAQ updates:

• Printed pilot card text (eg: Wampa)
• Printed upgrade card text (eg: Tactician)
• Printed reference card text (eg: Decloak, Tractor Beam)
• Rules Reference (eg: Obstacles, Stress)
• Emails from the game designers (eg: Double Gonk)
• The FAQ itself

So please, please, stop saying that email rulings aren't official until they're in the FAQ.

I'm looking at you, thespaceinvader and Azrapse... If you say that email rulings aren't valid rules because they've been reversed in the past, then logic follows that all other sources for rules are also invalid, since they've also been reversed in the past.

I find the "it's just an email" argument so bloody frustrating...

I think the biggest issue that I have with email rulings is that it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the ruling. I'd feel more confident about them if there were some sort of ID code or ticket number that could be used to pull up the response on an FFG website.

Things that have been reversed / changed by FAQ updates:

• Printed pilot card text (eg: Wampa)
• Printed upgrade card text (eg: Tactician)
• Printed reference card text (eg: Decloak, Tractor Beam)
• Rules Reference (eg: Obstacles, Stress)
• Emails from the game designers (eg: Double Gonk)
• The FAQ itself

So please, please, stop saying that email rulings aren't official until they're in the FAQ.

I'm looking at you, thespaceinvader and Azrapse... If you say that email rulings aren't valid rules because they've been reversed in the past, then logic follows that all other sources for rules are also invalid, since they've also been reversed in the past.

I find the "it's just an email" argument so bloody frustrating...

I'm not saying the ruling is invalid because it's an email (though I would make that argument, the FAQ is the final word on what is and isn't the rules outside the card text and rules reference).

I'm saying it's invalid because the question being answered isn't actually the question under discussion.

The question answered is 'does bumping with the Daredevil action cost you your Perform Action step if it happens before you reveal your dial' which is close to, but not actually analogous with the question at hand, which is 'does bumping with the unreleased card Adaptive Ailerons free manoeuvre cost you your perform action step'.

These are similar, but they're not the same, and we've no way to know without official clarification *about Adaptive Ailerons* what the ruling about that card will be. And the devs don't answer rules questions about unreleased material most of the time. Not to mention that some rules have only in the last couple of waves been changed on day 1 after release, vis. Tractor Beam, so it's entirely possible that the card we've had spoiled won't match what's in the final product.

So we'll have to wait.

Until the product is released and the devs actually answer the question at hand, we only have conjecture to go on based on other broadly similar cases.

Seriously.

There's a difference between all those other sources and emails, by the by: those other sources are all official rules sources (Pilot and upgrade cards, reference cards, the rules reference, the FAQ) whereas emails aren't - and at the time the double GONK thing came out, a bunch of people in this forum basically went 'well, that doesn't seem right, hopefully it will be fixed in the next FAQ.

Same as the FAQ error about Kyle and Wingman.

I'll carry on saying that we don't know the answers to questions to which we don't know the answers, thanks.

Taken from Frank's email in the OP.

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

For what it's worth I think Frank is contradicting the rules for overlapping ships on page 15 of the RRG.

A ship overlaps another ship when executing a maneuver if its base overlaps the other ship's base.

[...] some sort of ID code or ticket number that could be used to pull up the response on an FFG website.

That would be amazing.

---------------------------------------------

I'm not saying the ruling is invalid because it's an email (though I would make that argument, the FAQ is the final word on what is and isn't the rules outside the card text and rules reference).

Of course the FAQ is the final word on what the rules are. But when a question is unanswered in the FAQ, the Rules Reference or the cards... the best we can get is an email ruling.

And that email ruling should be considered valid until it is superseded by a FAQ update.

I'm saying it's invalid because the question being answered isn't actually the question under discussion.

The question answered is 'does bumping with the Daredevil action cost you your Perform Action step if it happens before you reveal your dial' which is close to, but not actually analogous with the question at hand, which is 'does bumping with the unreleased card Adaptive Ailerons free manoeuvre cost you your perform action step'.

These are similar, but they're not the same, and we've no way to know without official clarification *about Adaptive Ailerons* what the ruling about that card will be. And the devs don't answer rules questions about unreleased material most of the time. Not to mention that some rules have only in the last couple of waves been changed on day 1 after release, vis. Tractor Beam, so it's entirely possible that the card we've had spoiled won't match what's in the final product.

So we'll have to wait.

It is absolutely clear that Frank's answer applies to Adaptive Ailerons.

He said: "A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase."

If you bump with Adaptive Ailerons, that is not during the "Execute Maneuver" step of the activation phase, therefore you do not skip the "Perform Action" step.

I'll carry on saying that we don't know the answers to questions to which we don't know the answers, thanks.

We do have the answer. You can deny it, but it doesn't make it true.

---------------------------------------------

Taken from Frank's email in the OP.

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

Assuming one accepts emails from the designers as a source of rules, can you please explain why this doesn't currently apply to Adaptive Ailerons? The question referenced Daredevil but the answer is broader.

I 100% agree with you up to this point. Frank's answer was abundantly clear.

For what it's worth I think Frank is contradicting the rules for overlapping ships on page 15 of the RRG.

A ship overlaps another ship when executing a maneuver if its base overlaps the other ship's base.

If overlapping was intended to happen only during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase it really should have been stated there.

Here you're wrong though. Frank did not contradict that. Nothing he said means that you can't overlap outside the “Execute Maneuver” step.

He did not say: A ship can only overlap another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

What he did say is: A ship only skips its "Perform Action" step if it overlaps during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

the non-regular maneuvers can still bump and mess up your move, it just doesnt strip your action.

Its possible to bump a striker where it basically didnt move, which could have shafted him if he was intending to bank.

That alone is a pretty big reward for bumping his premove. Stripping his action would be ridiculously unfair and way too easy to do.

For what it's worth I think Frank is contradicting the rules for overlapping ships on page 15 of the RRG.

A ship overlaps another ship when executing a maneuver if its base overlaps the other ship's base.

If overlapping was intended to happen only during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase it really should have been stated there.

Here you're wrong though. Frank did not contradict that. Nothing he said means that you can't overlap outside the “Execute Maneuver” step.

He did not say: A ship can only overlap another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

What he did say is: A ship only skips its "Perform Action" step if it overlaps during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post and must have forgotten exactly what point I was trying to make. If skipping your action was intended to happen only as a result of an overlap during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase it really should have been stated on page 15. I like Frank's new rule but it is a new rule.

I can forgive FFG for this one being unclear. At the time of writing the RRG they can't have anticipated manoeuvres that happen before a ship's normal manoeuvre.

Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post and must have forgotten exactly what point I was trying to make. If skipping your action was intended to happen only as a result of an overlap during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase it really should have been stated on page 15. I like Frank's new rule but it is a new rule.

I can forgive FFG for this one being unclear. At the time of writing the RRG they can't have anticipated manoeuvres that happen before a ship's normal manoeuvre.

Well, Advanced Sensors and Daredevil both existed then. They just weren't seeing a lot of play together.

Advanced Sensors + Daredevil was never a problem since Advanced Sensors specifically has you skip the Perform Action step.

That said, it's been a potential problem ever since Daredevil came out. All you need is a way to pass a ship an action outside its normal activation (Cracken, Squad Leader, Lando, etc). I don't think it has come up since Daredevil isn't popular, and even if it did happen I think almost everyone would assume it works the way Frank said it does.

Things that have been reversed / changed by FAQ updates:

• Printed pilot card text (eg: Wampa)
• Printed upgrade card text (eg: Tactician)
• Printed reference card text (eg: Decloak, Tractor Beam)
• Rules Reference (eg: Obstacles, Stress)
• Emails from the game designers (eg: Double Gonk)
• The FAQ itself

So please, please, stop saying that email rulings aren't official until they're in the FAQ.

I'm looking at you, thespaceinvader and Azrapse... If you say that email rulings aren't valid rules because they've been reversed in the past, then logic follows that all other sources for rules are also invalid, since they've also been reversed in the past.

I find the "it's just an email" argument so bloody frustrating...

Page 2, Tournament Regulations:

Page 5, Tournament Regulantions:

"Official rule documents include:

• All rules documents on the X-Wing website (that is, Rules Reference, FAQ, Tournament Regulations)
• Rules found in X-Wing products (that is, rules cards, rules sheets, maneuver references)
• or any portion thereof (subsets of the previous)"

Are personal emails listed there? No.

Emails are rules clarifications and interpretations made by one of the game designers. Because in a tournament, the tournament judge has the last word and decision, it is possible that the judge accepts and makes his or hers Franks interpretation. However, it's not forced to do so, and the judge can make his or her own interpretation of situation as long as it complies with the FAQ, card text, Regulation, Rules Reference, and rules card or rules sheet, likely in that order of priority.

Frank's interpretation, or even intention, isn't law (or rules). What is law is what is written on the official rules documents. (In a parallelism with the real world, if mister politician X wrote a law that was approved by the congress, that doesn't mean that whatever he says afterwards becomes law, or even the official interpretation of the written law)

If Frank ever judges a tournament, he probably follows his own interpretations that match those of his emails. That doesn't forces other judges to take the same decisions as him, when there is an unclear interaction of the rules, and no official rules document gives an clear answer.

If you are in a non-tournament situation, feel free to try and convince your rival that the right interpretation is that given by Frank in a email. I would accept it most of the time. However, nobody is forced to accept it, regardless of the authenticity of the email. In non tournament situation, the only rules that apply are the Rules Reference, the FAQ, and those agreed by both players. If there is no agreement, the manual recommends you to flip a coin or roll a die and solve the dissension by choosing one option at random.

Your rival could very well propose to accept a particular Frank ruling or not depending on what you get from a die roll or a coin flip.

Things that have been reversed / changed by FAQ updates:

• Printed pilot card text (eg: Wampa)
• Printed upgrade card text (eg: Tactician)
• Printed reference card text (eg: Decloak, Tractor Beam)
• Rules Reference (eg: Obstacles, Stress)
• Emails from the game designers (eg: Double Gonk)
• The FAQ itself

So please, please, stop saying that email rulings aren't official until they're in the FAQ.

I'm looking at you, thespaceinvader and Azrapse... If you say that email rulings aren't valid rules because they've been reversed in the past, then logic follows that all other sources for rules are also invalid, since they've also been reversed in the past.

I find the "it's just an email" argument so bloody frustrating...

Page 2, Tournament Regulations:

Page 5, Tournament Regulantions:

"Official rule documents include:

• All rules documents on the X-Wing website (that is, Rules Reference, FAQ, Tournament Regulations)
• Rules found in X-Wing products (that is, rules cards, rules sheets, maneuver references)
• or any portion thereof (subsets of the previous)"

Are personal emails listed there? No.

Emails are rules clarifications and interpretations made by one of the game designers. Because in a tournament, the tournament judge has the last word and decision, it is possible that the judge accepts and makes his or hers Franks interpretation. However, it's not forced to do so, and the judge can make his or her own interpretation of situation as long as it complies with the FAQ, card text, Regulation, Rules Reference, and rules card or rules sheet, likely in that order of priority.

Frank's interpretation, or even intention, isn't law (or rules). What is law is what is written on the official rules documents. (In a parallelism with the real world, if mister politician X wrote a law that was approved by the congress, that doesn't mean that whatever he says afterwards becomes law, or even the official interpretation of the written law)

If Frank ever judges a tournament, he probably follows his own interpretations that match those of his emails. That doesn't forces other judges to take the same decisions as him, when there is an unclear interaction of the rules, and no official rules document gives an clear answer.

If you are in a non-tournament situation, feel free to try and convince your rival that the right interpretation is that given by Frank in a email. I would accept it most of the time. However, nobody is forced to accept it, regardless of the authenticity of the email. In non tournament situation, the only rules that apply are the Rules Reference, the FAQ, and those agreed by both players. If there is no agreement, the manual recommends you to flip a coin or roll a die and solve the dissension by choosing one option at random.

Your rival could very well propose to accept a particular Frank ruling or not depending on what you get from a die roll or a coin flip.

The prohibition on outside reference only applies to players and only during a round. It is allowable for a TO to refer to outside information during a round. It is also allowable for you to discuss a particular ruling that you feel may be likely to come up in your rounds with the TO before the situation arises.

The point of making the emails available is to make it easier for TOs to apply consistent rulings. TOs are free to ignore the emails but I don't see real reason for them to do so. They are also free to override anything that they think is janky from FAQ. I suspect that a number of TOs will call bull on the Wingman and Kyle Katarn crew interaction from the most recent FAQ.

I dont have a rules reference in front of me, I guess the question would be of timing. Do immediately before effects count as part of the step they are immediately before? Because the ruling about DD doesn't matter as it is an action and AA is not an action, so, If it does then AA would count as part of the Execute Maneuver Step and be affected just like a normal maneuver, if not than it doesn't cause a problem with your normal action after a maneuver.

I dont have a rules reference in front of me, I guess the question would be of timing. Do immediately before effects count as part of the step they are immediately before? Because the ruling about DD doesn't matter as it is an action and AA is not an action, so, If it does then AA would count as part of the Execute Maneuver Step and be affected just like a normal maneuver, if not than it doesn't cause a problem with your normal action after a maneuver.

AA comes before you reveal your dial. "Reveal Dial" is the step before "Execute Maneuver". If the timing was "before you execute a maneuver" it might be questionable but since it is triggered by something that happens in the preceding step it is clearly not part of the "Execute Maneuver" step.

Confirmed in the X-Wing round table from Team Covenant:

Bumping with the mandatory "boost" from the title does not preclude you from taking actions as long as your dialed in maneuver does not bump/go over an asteroid

While im very happy with this ruling (don't get me wrong VERY happy) i think it does not make sense.

Lando/Tycho example made sense - Tycho was not active ship so his bump was irrelevant , agreed.

But in the moment we start touching Striker, it is active ship and it is its turn to activate in the activation phase...So AA bump is during executing maneuver during activation and:

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

Unless i'm caffeine didn't kicked in yet and i missed that there is one "main" executing maneuver in rules, nothing prevents executing 2 maneuvers if your allowed that by SLAM or AA...

My interpretation is the AA maneuver comes before the Execute Maneuver step, so that rule doesn't apply.

While im very happy with this ruling (don't get me wrong VERY happy) i think it does not make sense.

Lando/Tycho example made sense - Tycho was not active ship so his bump was irrelevant , agreed.

But in the moment we start touching Striker, it is active ship and it is its turn to activate in the activation phase...So AA bump is during executing maneuver during activation and:

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase.

Unless i'm caffeine didn't kicked in yet and i missed that there is one "main" executing maneuver in rules, nothing prevents executing 2 maneuvers if your allowed that by SLAM or AA...

The rules list three steps (with substeps) that occur during each ship's activation. These are:

1. Reveal Dial

2. Execute Maneuver

3. Perform Action

Adaptive Ailerons triggers during the "Reveal Dial" step. SLAM and Daredevil both happen during the "Perform Action" step (Daredevil could happen completely outside of a ship's activation). I can't think of a way for a ship to get a second maneuver during its "Execute Maneuver" step.

A ship only skips its “Perform Action” step when it overlaps another ship during the “Execute Maneuver” step of the Activation phase. So Tyco would not skip his “Perform Action” step in your example.

Thanks for playing,


Frank Brooks

??????????????????

​In what phase where whe during this question............ right the activation Phase

starting al the way back with Lando's moving in the same activation phase