lolwut

If I'm reading this right, he's actually nesting the entire queue mechanism inside of individual actions. Classic FFG 'intent' band-aid. *sigh*

So what the heck is the point of having a queue if the whole thing just resolves regardless of what else is happening? They're taking this game to a dangerous place if they can't even get their own rules straight.

6 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

lolwut

Classic FFG intent band-aid. *sigh*

So what the heck is the point of having a queue if the whole thing just resolves regardless of what else is happening? They're taking this game to a dangerous place if they can't even get their own rules straight.

The point of the queue seems clear, as does something that takes place "immediately." Again, there's nothing that suggested that something "immediately goes into the queue," when it's an action that pops when it's not your turn, it says that actions taken when it's not your turn happen immediately.

21 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

lolwut

If I'm reading this right, he's actually nesting the entire queue mechanism inside of individual actions. Classic FFG 'intent' band-aid. *sigh*

So what the heck is the point of having a queue if the whole thing just resolves regardless of what else is happening? They're taking this game to a dangerous place if they can't even get their own rules straight.

I'm sorry, but i don't understand your scorn. Lukas's reply makes perfect sense within the rules as they are currently written. You were taking something simple and adding complicated layers. It was obvious to me and Mep (if I may speak for Mep) at least as far as this thread is concerned, that actions are not the same as abilities and effects and don't go in the queue which is meant for handling the timing of abilities and effects. This is a simple and elegant way to handle timing.

On the down side I had just finished sending FFG a rather lengthy question which no longer requires a response.

Does this not contradict his Tactical Mastery ruling referenced earlier in the thread? I guess those actions are exceptions because they are during the resolution of Tactical Mastery?

His ruling invents a timing window within an action (see: nesting) that does not presently exist in the RRG; he even admits that it's predicated upon their 'intent.' It's unnecessary, arbitrary, and only serves to undermine our faith in their ability to create a consistent and cohesive rule set. Again, it's a classic FFG response. I don't even know why I'm surprised any more.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

His ruling invents a window within an action (see: nesting) that does not presently exist in the RRG . It's unnecessary, arbitrary, and only serves to undermine our faith in the game. Again, it's a classic FFG response. I don't even know why I'm surprised any more.

This ruling prevents nesting. Jango's ability happens immediately upon the completion of another character's activation. Because it's optional, it happens then, or it does not. It does not happen within an action, it happens immediately, between Rey's activation and her next action.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

His ruling invents a window within an action (see: nesting) that does not presently exist in the RRG. It's unnecessary, arbitrary, and only serves to undermine our faith in the game. Again, it's a classic FFG response. I don't even know why I'm surprised any more.

It doesn't undermine my faith in the game as it is exactly how I and others read the rules and played the game from the beginning.

The current rules clearly differentiate between actions and abilities/effects. The rules are also clear on the the queue being used to control the timing of abilities and effects. This is extremely easy to implement in game and will reduce the confusion once everybody is on the same page.

lol at everyone overthinking this question and turned this thread into 5 pages of back and forth with a very simple concept. One that was even answered by myself as the very first reply as someone that's not even a rules lawyer, the wording is very straight forward. This game is not like magic where there is a bunch of reaction queues that enter a stack because there is no multiple instances of reaction play in this game. Jango is currently the only exception.

think about it this way, as soon as Rey activates, Jango must immediately activate of forfeit his is ability for this action phase. There was nothing in this wording to suggest otherwise

15 minutes ago, KalEl814 said:

This ruling prevents nesting. Jango's ability happens immediately upon the completion of another character's activation. Because it's optional, it happens then, or it does not. It does not happen within an action, it happens immediately, between Rey's activation and her next action.

His ruling nests separate triggers within a Q, within an action, that resolve entirely (and seemingly concurrently) before the initial action/effect has fully resolved itself. Not only is that the very definition of nesting, it's also very, very bad game design.

Yeah I think having any after ability triggered within a group of stacked actions waiting until after all of those actions are resolved is far more convoluted and faith undermining then the clarification we've given.

Even in just the limited scope of after abilities we have it would create silly interactions like Tactical Mastery to gain 2 actions use an action to play Backup Muscle which wouldn't fill with damage tokens until after the 2nd action is finished.

Until this morning I hadn't seen nor heard anything that would lead me to believe that actions are anything but encapsulated, isolated events that may or may not cause other effects to trigger as a consequence of their resolution. The stack, Q, whatever you want to call it, is the most deceptively brilliant and intuitive timing mechanism ever conceived for a game. This ruling completely undermines its validity by nesting it within those heretofore encapsulated events.

So let me get this straight, the turn structure looks something like this now:

[Turn (Action {Queue |Triggered effect|})]

With possible multiple instances of a separate queue for each individual action. Convoluted indeed...

29 minutes ago, executor said:

lol at everyone overthinking this question and turned this thread into 5 pages of back and forth with a very simple concept. One that was even answered by myself as the very first reply as someone that's not even a rules lawyer, the wording is very straight forward. This game is not like magic where there is a bunch of reaction queues that enter a stack because there is no multiple instances of reaction play in this game. Jango is currently the only exception.

think about it this way, as soon as Rey activates, Jango must immediately activate of forfeit his is ability for this action phase. There was nothing in this wording to suggest otherwise

Yeah, but as the rules are written your answer is wrong. That's why the designer said he has to change the rules in the next update.

While we can't argue with how the game is played when given instructions by the designer, I do not believe the language in the rules in any way supports this.

Glad we have an answer, though I truly fear for what kind of monster FAQ/Rules Reference/Errata we're going to be experiencing with Destiny.

Sure, X-Wing has a decent sized one, but the game has been out for years. The loosely worded base game of Destiny feels like it's going to quickly outpace some of the other competitive titles.

Well, there's that. IMHO this is like the ruling from the card/reroll in the pool reactivation ruling - knowing it's there you can kind of squint and see the outlines of what they intended, but... for such a big concept it's pretty much completely undefined.

<shrug> Pretty typical FFG rules.

41 minutes ago, executor said:

lol at everyone overthinking this question and turned this thread into 5 pages of back and forth with a very simple concept. One that was even answered by myself as the very first reply as someone that's not even a rules lawyer, the wording is very straight forward. This game is not like magic where there is a bunch of reaction queues that enter a stack because there is no multiple instances of reaction play in this game. Jango is currently the only exception.

think about it this way, as soon as Rey activates, Jango must immediately activate of forfeit his is ability for this action phase. There was nothing in this wording to suggest otherwise

1. Your interpretation, or yours with 17 others to back you up, means nothing if it isn't actually apparent as written. That there is discord means it wasn't.

2. Game designer clearly said it is unclear, meaning no amount of player interpretation is going to make the rules more clearly -- the devs have to do some more work.

3. You constantly say that, if Jango doesn't activate, he forfeits his ability. This is bull, and willfully ignores the existence of the queue, which is a thing, despite apparently not working within the dev's current intention.

4. That you were correct in the end doesn't add any additional value to your opinion, and snarking about it afterword rather devalues it, truth be told.

My problem with this whole thing has always been the wording on the Ambush and Rey's abilities, which say to TAKE an action not GAIN an action. His post clearly says you're gaining an action from resolving both of those triggers. To me it always made sense to Queue both triggers, and then to resolve them you'd have to take an action like the cards say, not gain it to save for later in the turn after the other triggers resolve (which is also in the rules, you can't save actions).

Oh well, hopefully the next rules update clears it up.

It might clear things up, but I don't think they realize that it's not as easy as "here's our intent." They now need to further define what action, effect, and ability are; they need to delineate between the three if, assuming, actions don't actually cause abilities or effects to go into the queue (nothing in the rules currently supports that assumption); they need to completely re-write the queue section; they need to spell out how the queue is nested inside of individual actions; and it would help to have a flow chart that spans an entire turn, similar to what the Conquest RRG had (and even then it was pretty convoluted). That's an awful lot of extra work to make for themselves when there's already a working interpretation that uses the rules as currently written.

it's only becomes unclear when you start becoming a rules nazi and looking so deeply into the rules to try and find wording that bends to your perception

in all my years of gaming with FFG titles, i can say this with certainty; They design games to be fun, simple and intuitive with very low chances of over complex rules such as the one that you guys are trying to make this molehill into a mountain.

it always seems to start on the forums with people trying to overthink rules and finding loopholes in wording to cheat the game to their advantage, causing FFG to go back through the rules sets and change the wording again so that it can be played as intended, which is the simple answer

if it wasn't for people trying to constantly take advantage of situations which are very clear when you think about it in simple terms, there would be no need for these threads to come up on a regular basis.

sure sometimes a rule can cause a slight bit of confusion, but this was a pretty straight forward rule with the way that this game interacts and did not require 5 pages of back and forth banter

this game is a take and action, then you take an action kind of game.. there is no stack. If this was MtG, we wouldn't be having this conversation because that game can have mountain rules larger than Mt. Everest at times

You also don't gain much in the way of credibility by invoking Godwin's law. Am I supposed to feel bad because I can read?

13 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

....... already a working interpretation that uses the rules as currently written.

Exactly, we finally agree. There is already a working interpretation that uses the rules as currently written and Lukas confirmed that in his email.

Just because your interpretation was incorrect doesn't mean the other one doesn't follow the rules as written. I've never played against anybody who interpreted the rules as you did and I've played in multiple game stores, some as far away as 175 miles. Clearly that is not a case of group think.

Now obviously you and some others interpreted it as you did for whatever reasons you had. That's fine, but there is no need to try and delegitimize the designers ruling by saying it doesn't make sense, when obviously it did to another group of players.

3 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You also don't gain much in the way of credibility by invoking Godwin's law.

yet this was answered on page 4 and it still seems to be going on.

sometimes you need someone to stop the conversation that has already come to an end, yet for some reason people keep posting for the sake of posting

5 minutes ago, executor said:

it's only becomes unclear when you start becoming a rules nazi and looking so deeply into the rules to try and find wording that bends to your perception

in all my years of gaming with FFG titles, i can say this with certainty; They design games to be fun, simple and intuitive with very low chances of over complex rules such as the one that you guys are trying to make this molehill into a mountain.

it always seems to start on the forums with people trying to overthink rules and finding loopholes in wording to cheat the game to their advantage, causing FFG to go back through the rules sets and change the wording again so that it can be played as intended, which is the simple answer

if it wasn't for people trying to constantly take advantage of situations which are very clear when you think about it in simple terms, there would be no need for these threads to come up on a regular basis.

My experience with both Armada and Imperial Assault tell me this is incorrect. There games have very complex interactions and do not always have the written rules to fully explain them.

Jango is an after ability. He MUST enter the queue. No thing in the rules currently says actions gained from abilities do not also enter the queue.

i'm done, i refuse to argue further

8 minutes ago, Starbane said:

Exactly, we finally agree. There is already a working interpretation that uses the rules as currently written and Lukas confirmed that in his email.

Just because your interpretation was incorrect doesn't mean the other one doesn't follow the rules as written. I've never played against anybody who interpreted the rules as you did and I've played in multiple game stores, some as far away as 175 miles. Clearly that is not a case of group think.

Now obviously you and some others interpreted it as you did for whatever reasons you had. That's fine, but there is no need to try and delegitimize the designers ruling by saying it doesn't make sense, when obviously it did to another group of players.

Except the part of Lukas' email where he says the rules don't convey his intent...

10 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Except the part of Lukas' email where he says the rules don't convey his intent...

Ah yeah, that is not what he said at all. I suggest you read it again.

He acknowledges an ambiguity in the interpretation and says he will make sure it is clear in the next update.

While his intent may not have been clear to some, both the intent and rules as written were clear to others, thus the ambiguity.

The good news is someday soon it will be spelled out specifically in the RRG.