4 hours ago, Vitalis said:

Response (from organised play FFG) regarding Kanan and Dampeners:

Full disclosure: if the developers give a different interpretation, that's the one that should be considered correct. You can trigger the crew/abilities in any order. So, if you use inertial dampeners, you may use Kanan to clear the stress gained from it.

Any more questions for now?

So this makes it all clear as mud.

FFG OP dun goofed.

This is why I said I don't trust developers' opinions on rules. Being a dev or playtester doesn't mean that actually know how the rules work, sad as that is.

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

This is why I said I don't trust developers' opinions on rules. Being a dev or playtester doesn't mean that actually know how the rules work, sad as that is.

So you prefer a ruling made by a judge at a tournament that needed to make an on the spot call to a ruling made by a developer that had the time to consult the rules and possibly discuss the ruling with team members before providing the answer? The answer that Frank provided is consistent with the wording on the cards and consistent with cards with similar wording. This isn't a case where a developer is throwing out some wacky-ass ruling that depends on being able to divine the intent behind the cards and rules.

Frank's ruling basically confirms that when you've got a card telling you do a thing, you do that thing and everything that triggers from it, and then you continue resolving the text on the card. I think people get hung up on cards having multiple effects and insisting on resolving the card in its entirety instead of handling all of the effects individually.

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

This is why I said I don't trust developers' opinions on rules. Being a dev or playtester doesn't mean that actually know how the rules work, sad as that is.

Developer = author.

Playtester = player that can talk to developer

FFG Organised Play = Playtester (maybe?), but not developer/author.

Jay Little designed the original game, and Alex Davy, James Kniffen, Corey Konieczka, Adam Sadler and Brady Sadler are the development team. Corey, Adam and Brady have been on the team since the beginning. Frank Brooks, although not credited in either the first or second edition rulebooks has worked closely with the development team and has been answering the majority of X-wing questions since the beginning.

The rules have been written, and the game's evolution (or development) with each successive wave means those "developers" are the guys writing the new cards that must interact with those rules. As a result, I would trust a "developers opinion" absolutely 100%, because they are the dudes that are updating the rules and writing the new cards that must interact with those rules.

5 hours ago, WWHSD said:

So you prefer a ruling made by a judge at a tournament that needed to make an on the spot call to a ruling made by a developer that had the time to consult the rules and possibly discuss the ruling with team members before providing the answer? The answer that Frank provided is consistent with the wording on the cards and consistent with cards with similar wording. This isn't a case where a developer is throwing out some wacky-ass ruling that depends on being able to divine the intent behind the cards and rules.

Frank's ruling basically confirms that when you've got a card telling you do a thing, you do that thing and everything that triggers from it, and then you continue resolving the text on the card. I think people get hung up on cards having multiple effects and insisting on resolving the card in its entirety instead of handling all of the effects individually.

Good lord. Why do people insist on telling me what I think even though I never said it? Seriously, don't do that.

What I prefer is to have someone designated as the be-all and end-all of making rules calls. Outside of the FAQ, we have people taking ruling cues from multiple sources: a dev said this, Frank said this, I got this reply in an email. They are rarely entirely consistent with each other. For a game of this size and complexity, you need somewhere that the buck stops who is capable of making sure these things are consistent. And yes, in some circumstances I would much prefer TOs to make rulings because they're frequently better versed in rules than staff. It's always been that way, in my experience.

And in this case, we are talking about some 'wacky-ass' ruling by whoever responded from FFG Organised play to say that you could Kanan away the stress from ID (I have no idea what Frank's ruling was). For someone to say that requires that they now know how those cards or the associated rules work – just as the Adaptive Ailerons ruling makes no sense with regard to the written rules. Either of these would be fine if there was a specific line where we could say 'X said it, therefore it is the rule'. Right now, one of several sources gives a rule and I am in no place to give it even the slightest credence until it hits the FAQ.

There should have been someone to put the AA question to bed on the spot. There should have been someone to put the Pivot Wing (Landing) vs stress rule to bed right away. There hasn't been and I think it's a pretty bad show.

On 2/23/2017 at 4:23 AM, Grendelator said:

Why the stress gain from the ID isn't in the "check pilot stress" ?

Execute a white stop maneuver

• Move Ship (don't move)
• THEN Check Pilot Stress, and gain a stress from the ID
• Clean-up, Kanan can remove the stress

The "then" on the ID card is respected. Nowhere it's says the "the" is after clean up step.

Grendel,

I was with you on the confusion over this card and Kanan. I finally understood that the card is two separate "statements", for lack of a better word. The first tells you to perform a Stop Maneuver on dial reveal. That includes all three substeps of Execute Maneuver. You're not moving so there's no templates to put down. You now go to Check Pilot Stress. The Rule Book specifically tells you that if the maneuver was red, gain a stress and if green, lose a stress. Our STOP maneuver was white so no change in pilot stress at this time.

We've finally reached the CLEANUP substep of the EXECUTE MANEUVER phase. No templates were used so there's nothing to remove from the board. We've completed all the steps in the EXECUTE MANEUVER phase as instructed by the first part of ID.

At this moment, we are in between CLEANUP and the PERFORM ACTION phase. IF we were using ID only the stress would be applied here by the second "statement" on the card. Then receive stress. But Kanan triggers here per the FAQ. This is where I had the most confusion.

Kanan's ability is a Triggered Event. Triggered events take priority over non triggered events. This is something I forgot. If you applied the stress from ID here, before Kanan, the timing for Kanan to trigger has passed even though we're still in the "After Cleanup" slot.

I know it's kind of wonky. If the FAQ had said Kanan triggered immediately after cleanup it might have prevented some of the confusion but probably not.

I hope this helps. I know how frustrating it can be. Trust me on that.

.

My gods, I don't know what to believe any more.

Just now, Sk3tch said:

My gods, I don't know what to believe any more.

In FAQ we trust.

20 minutes ago, Vitalis said:

In FAQ we trust.

Nah, I'll Just do a Braylen and roll a die.

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Good lord. Why do people insist on telling me what I think even though I never said it? Seriously, don't do that.

I asked you a question, I didn't tell you what you thought. You stated that you 'don't trust developers' opinions on rules'. I wanted to know who we should trust to make rulings if we can't trust the guy that writes the rules and the cards and responds to rules questions that have been submitted.

On the Kanan and ID question we've got two competing rulings. One ruling was a response to a question submitted using the official FFG rules question form and was answered by Frank Brooks, one of the game's developers. The other ruling was made by a TO at a regional tournament and as an email response that someone received from Organized Play. The email from Organized Play actually went as far as to say that you should defer to the devs if they offer a different ruling (which they have).

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

And in this case, we are talking about some 'wacky-ass' ruling by whoever responded from FFG Organised play to say that you could Kanan away the stress from ID (I have no idea what Frank's ruling was). For someone to say that requires that they now know how those cards or the associated rules work – just as the Adaptive Ailerons ruling makes no sense with regard to the written rules. Either of these would be fine if there was a specific line where we could say 'X said it, therefore it is the rule'. Right now, one of several sources gives a rule and I am in no place to give it even the slightest credence until it hits the FAQ.

Your post was unclear about what ruling you disagreed with. By criticizing developers making rulings, I assumed that you agreed with the ruling from Organized Play. Frank's ruling was that Kanan triggers before ID assigns stress.

Responses from the rules question form are fairly reliable. In my experience when they end up getting overturned it tends to be because of a change in the rules or the FAQ that causes the answer to become incorrect. I do wish that there were a way to search the answers that were given or to at least pull them up if you had a reference number. The biggest problems that I have with the rules questions is that you have to trust that the ruling actually came from there and that sometimes questions are not answered for months at a time.

9 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Frank's ruling was that Kanan triggers before ID assigns stress.

Was it? I've read through all of these threads, and I didn't think his response ever said that. He said an example, "first do this, then do this", but he never said, "Kanan triggers before Inertial Dampeners stress is applied". Did I miss that?

I'm cool with the ruling either way. I submitted the question to FFG (again). Hopefully it comes back with a definitive "Kanan triggers before Inertial Dampeners stress is applied".

6 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Was it? I've read through all of these threads, and I didn't think his response ever said that. He said an example, "first do this, then do this", but he never said, "Kanan triggers before Inertial Dampeners stress is applied". Did I miss that?

I'm cool with the ruling either way. I submitted the question to FFG (again). Hopefully it comes back with a definitive "Kanan triggers before Inertial Dampeners stress is applied".

The answer was specifically about Daredevil which is identical to ID in structure.

Both cards are "Perform X maneuver. Then receive 1 stress token" .

55 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

The answer was specifically about Daredevil which is identical to ID in structure.

Both cards are "Perform X maneuver. Then receive 1 stress token" .

It seems pretty clear (to me) that the intent was for both Daredevil and ID to be playable even while stressed, but to still gain a stress from the maneuver (thus the original text of Daredevil). It also seems pretty clear (to me) that Kanan(Crew) was intended to be an easy way to clear existing stress, and that using him with the Falcon sloop title was a loophole possibly missed in play-testing.

That answer, though, isn't a definitive answer from FFG. It's an interpretation from the community basic on similar mechanics. I'd agree with that interpretation and still play it that the stress comes after Kanan triggers, but I could see how someone could easily go the other way.

4 minutes ago, gennataos said:

It seems pretty clear (to me) that the intent was for both Daredevil and ID to be playable even while stressed, but to still gain a stress from the maneuver (thus the original text of Daredevil). It also seems pretty clear (to me) that Kanan(Crew) was intended to be an easy way to clear existing stress, and that using him with the Falcon sloop title was a loophole possibly missed in play-testing.

That answer, though, isn't a definitive answer from FFG. It's an interpretation from the community basic on similar mechanics. I'd agree with that interpretation and still play it that the stress comes after Kanan triggers, but I could see how someone could easily go the other way.

"When using Kanan with respect to Daredevil, Kanan would trigger after the ship executes the maneuver, but before the stress from Daredevil resolves. Kanan’s ability essentially interrupts the card effect or Daredevil."

That's the answer from Frank. Other than using replacing 'Daredevil' with 'Inertial Dampeners', how could it be any more definitive? Does FFG really need to provide a separate answer for every individual card they publish when they've already provided answers to cards that are effectively identical?

6 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

"When using Kanan with respect to Daredevil, Kanan would trigger after the ship executes the maneuver, but before the stress from Daredevil resolves. Kanan’s ability essentially interrupts the card effect or Daredevil."

That's the answer from Frank. Other than using replacing 'Daredevil' with 'Inertial Dampeners', how could it be any more definitive? Does FFG really need to provide a separate answer for every individual card they publish when they've already provided answers to cards that are effectively identical?

It could be more definitive, like you suggested, by replacing Daredevil with Inertial Dampeners. So, yeah, I guess they do need to provide a separate answer. Because if they did, these threads would consist of one person asking the question and another person linking to the answer. Currently, these threads consist of one person asking the question and half a dozen forum users telling them "It's just like this, take our word for it".

1 hour ago, gennataos said:

It could be more definitive, like you suggested, by replacing Daredevil with Inertial Dampeners. So, yeah, I guess they do need to provide a separate answer. Because if they did, these threads would consist of one person asking the question and another person linking to the answer. Currently, these threads consist of one person asking the question and half a dozen forum users telling them "It's just like this, take our word for it".

And I'd say those half a dozen forum users usually bat 95% at minimum. Sure we could expect FFG to spell out everything but if two cases are identical except in name why would they be interpreted differently? Reasonable interpretation is part of rules parsing, otherwise the 'move your ship' step would need to specify picking up the proper template with your hand, placing it carefully in front of the ship, moving the ship with your hand from behind to in front of the template, etc etc.

I've seen many many threads like this one of majority agreement and 1-2 staunch doubters and the doubters are so rarely correct I can't think of an instance off the top of my head.

48 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

And I'd say those half a dozen forum users usually bat 95% at minimum. Sure we could expect FFG to spell out everything but if two cases are identical except in name why would they be interpreted differently?

Because the text for Daredevil is corrected text. It was originally a red maneuver, which informs the corrected text. Maybe ID will end up with corrected text? /shrug

I don't know, man. I agree with "Kanan doesn't work with ID" camp, but I don't see the harm is asking FFG the question.

5 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

And I'd say those half a dozen forum users usually bat 95% at minimum. Sure we could expect FFG to spell out everything but if two cases are identical except in name why would they be interpreted differently? Reasonable interpretation is part of rules parsing, otherwise the 'move your ship' step would need to specify picking up the proper template with your hand, placing it carefully in front of the ship, moving the ship with your hand from behind to in front of the template, etc etc.

I've seen many many threads like this one of majority agreement and 1-2 staunch doubters and the doubters are so rarely correct I can't think of an instance off the top of my head.

It's not about those individuals being correct, it's about understanding the relationship of the cards. If I understand that relationship I may not have to ask questions when another similar card is released. Not everyone thinks the same and the example of "Do this and Then do the other thing" wasn't helpful because Kanan ended up between This and the Other Thing.

ID is kind of unique in that, as a maneuver, there's no templates used and no cleanup but those substeps still exist. When played I have revealed a dial, flipped ID and dropped a stress without thinking about the steps that were skipped.

It seems to me the simplest explanation using Frank's Kanan v. Daredevil email is this:

Effects that trigger "after..." are done before effects that trigger "...Then"

7 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

It seems to me the simplest explanation using Frank's Kanan v. Daredevil email is this:

Effects that trigger "after..." are done before effects that trigger "...Then"

No, that's confusing because 'after' is used for triggers but 'then' is not. The whole issue is is process vs trigger. The triggered ability, Kanan, interrupts the process of resolving Inertial Dampeners.

This was interesting a few pages back, then it started getting old.

We've had an answer to something very similar. Why can't we just accept it and move on?

13 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

No, that's confusing because 'after' is used for triggers but 'then' is not. The whole issue is is process vs trigger. The triggered ability, Kanan, interrupts the process of resolving Inertial Dampeners.

I'm sorry for the confusion, for your case then it should read more like:

Effects that trigger "after..." are done before a process moves on to complete "...Then"

I was trying to be more elaborate than just the shorthand in my head: 'after' happens before 'then'