48 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Unfortunately, you've now opened yourself up to ridicule for following "group think" and stomping on individuality...

... Despite being entirely correct.

I would not be surprised by that counterargument though it would be funny.

I'll make the argument which usually is the crux of misunderstandings here again. Rules parsing is often difficult for humans because they're really good at context. Rules engines work like computers because otherwise things would be subjective and confusing or hard to correctly apply across various scenarios.

If you parse the cards without context as a rules engine would you come fairly clearly to the answer which will almost assuredly be clarified by the FAQ. We hit timing window for minefield mapper. The effect triggers and allows you to discard any legal number of equipped upgrades. The rules engine will never short cut to get contextual information like a human would so when looking at a ship with 2 equipped bomb cards and extra munitions it will only register that 2 bomb upgrades are equipped. There is no reason for the engine to interact with the extra munitions tokens at all. The player may then select the maximal number of upgrades to discard, 2. When the player discards a bomb which has a token on it the token and extra munitions trigger, allowing a token to be discarded instead. The player cannot go back and select more bombs to discard, as there is only 1 time in which to trigger mapper. Similarly the player may not pick more upgrades to discard than they have equipped, because that would make no sense. If 'any number' is not restricted by the number of equipped upgrades then I will select -2 and the game breaks due to invalid selection.

If the above doesn't make sense to you I'm sorry, but it's fairly clear how this FAQ should be resolved.

41 minutes ago, ObiWonka said:

You are trading someone two of your Rebel Veteran Instincts cards for all of their Imperial Veteran Instincts cards.
They have two Imperial Veteran Instincts cards.
You give them two Rebel Veteran Instincts cards, they give you two Imperial Veteran Instincts cards.
The fact that they have a high-end color printer and make themselves two more Imperial Veteran Instincts cards later has nothing to do with your trade.

I love this.

14 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

I would not be surprised by that counterargument though it would be funny.

I'll make the argument which usually is the crux of misunderstandings here again. Rules parsing is often difficult for humans because they're really good at context. Rules engines work like computers because otherwise things would be subjective and confusing or hard to correctly apply across various scenarios.

If you parse the cards without context as a rules engine would you come fairly clearly to the answer which will almost assuredly be clarified by the FAQ. We hit timing window for minefield mapper. The effect triggers and allows you to discard any legal number of equipped upgrades. The rules engine will never short cut to get contextual information like a human would so when looking at a ship with 2 equipped bomb cards and extra munitions it will only register that 2 bomb upgrades are equipped. There is no reason for the engine to interact with the extra munitions tokens at all. The player may then select the maximal number of upgrades to discard, 2. When the player discards a bomb which has a token on it the token and extra munitions trigger, allowing a token to be discarded instead. The player cannot go back and select more bombs to discard, as there is only 1 time in which to trigger mapper. Similarly the player may not pick more upgrades to discard than they have equipped, because that would make no sense. If 'any number' is not restricted by the number of equipped upgrades then I will select -2 and the game breaks due to invalid selection.

If the above doesn't make sense to you I'm sorry, but it's fairly clear how this FAQ should be resolved.

Now the cycle starts again, because someone will argue with your logic, completely ignoring the fact that you are simply explaining the logic (which has been explained before), because "they can't understand how your 'interpretation' doesn't match their opinion." You're a better person than I am for trying, but this is literally done just about every page in this gorram thread.

ALSO HAS NO ONE SEEN THIS GORRAM TRAILER!? We're getting off topic here, folks.

Just now, ArbitraryNerd said:

Now the cycle starts again, because someone will argue with your logic, completely ignoring the fact that you are simply explaining the logic (which has been explained before), because "they can't understand how your 'interpretation' doesn't match their opinion." You're a better person than I am for trying, but this is literally done just about every page in this gorram thread.

ALSO HAS NO ONE SEEN THIS GORRAM TRAILER!? We're getting off topic here, folks.

Admittedly I skipped most of the interim pages which play out fairly predictably and I'll just avoid engaging with arguments against my logic, which will at least stem some amount of thread bloom.

I haven't watched that trailer because I've been enjoying going into these movies a "virgin" as much as possible, with no foreknowledge.

As I understand it, The Last Jedi now has a Teaser, a Trailer, and a Behind-the-Scenes clip. Three distinct YouTube videos.

Here's my problem with a lot of the logic around this thread: if I present you with a set of three YouTube videos and tell you that you can watch "any number" of them, I'm not actually asking you for a number. If you're presented with that option and you say "5!" or "pi!" or "33 1/3!" that's obviously invalid, but so is "3". I'm not asking you for a number. I'm asking you to select some elements from this set of elements.

Likewise, if I ask you to select some of these videos and your response is "The teaser, the trailer, and the teaser again," that too is invalid. I didn't ask you to describe your plan for the afternoon, I asked you to pick some elements from a discrete set.

"But at the end of every YouTube video there's a button you can click to watch the video again!" you say.

That's true. It's also completely irrelevant to the question you were asked.

9 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

As I understand it, The Last Jedi now has a Teaser, a Trailer, and a Behind-the-Scenes clip. Three distinct YouTube videos.

Here's my problem with a lot of the logic around this thread: if I present you with a set of three YouTube videos and tell you that you can watch "any number" of them, I'm not actually asking you for a number. If you're presented with that option and you say "5!" or "pi!" or "33 1/3!" that's obviously invalid, but so is "3". I'm not asking you for a number. I'm asking you to select some elements from this set of elements.

Likewise, if I ask you to select some of these videos and your response is "The teaser, the trailer, and the teaser again," that too is invalid. I didn't ask you to describe your plan for the afternoon, I asked you to pick some elements from a discrete set.

"But at the end of every YouTube video there's a button you can click to watch the video again!" you say.

That's true. It's also completely irrelevant to the question you were asked.

This explanation makes my brain tingly, well said, very elegant.

4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Minefield is instructing you to discard an upgrade card, which you can discard a token instead.

True, one causes the other in a sequence.

4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Thus having 2 mines + EM = 4 deploy-able mines.

Incorrect. Minefield Mapper doesn't mention being able to pick tokens, only cards. Extra Munitions doesn't do anything until you discard a card, which comes after you pick them during Minefield Mapper.

Practically, over the course of a normal game, you may be able to deploy 4 mines from 2 cards and EM, but at no point does EM count as a mine itself. That's something you've wrongly extrapolated from their practical effect.

I'm in the boat of 2 cluster mine cards + Minefield Mapper + Extra Munitions equals 4 deployable sets of cluster mines after the place forces step.

Not everyone agrees with me and that's okay. I've seen the various arguments against and I disagree.

This very topic and situation came up in play testing. You know. I know it.

What is crazy is that it's not a meta breaking situation. No one is going to ride 4 sets of cluster mines deployed before first dials to a regional championship. It's not tournament competitive. Yet 7 pages here and various facebook and reddit threads would make it seem as though this (Minefield Mapper) was game changing and will flip the xwing miniatures universe further than Tie Phantoms, TLT, or triple scouts ever did.

It's simply not true.

The sky is not falling and Minefield Mapper, no matter what the eventual FAQ says, will not be a meta changing upgrade card.

9 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I'm in the boat of 2 cluster mine cards + Minefield Mapper + Extra Munitions equals 4 deployable sets of cluster mines after the place forces step.

Not everyone agrees with me and that's okay. I've seen the various arguments against and I disagree.

This very topic and situation came up in play testing. You know. I know it.

What is crazy is that it's not a meta breaking situation. No one is going to ride 4 sets of cluster mines deployed before first dials to a regional championship. It's not tournament competitive. Yet 7 pages here and various facebook and reddit threads would make it seem as though this (Minefield Mapper) was game changing and will flip the xwing miniatures universe further than Tie Phantoms, TLT, or triple scouts ever did.

It's simply not true.

The sky is not falling and Minefield Mapper, no matter what the eventual FAQ says, will not be a meta changing upgrade card.

*Unless you're playing Epic.

44 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I'm in the boat of 2 cluster mine cards + Minefield Mapper + Extra Munitions equals 4 deployable sets of cluster mines after the place forces step.

Not everyone agrees with me and that's okay. I've seen the various arguments against and I disagree.

This very topic and situation came up in play testing. You know. I know it.

What is crazy is that it's not a meta breaking situation. No one is going to ride 4 sets of cluster mines deployed before first dials to a regional championship. It's not tournament competitive. Yet 7 pages here and various facebook and reddit threads would make it seem as though this (Minefield Mapper) was game changing and will flip the xwing miniatures universe further than Tie Phantoms, TLT, or triple scouts ever did.

It's simply not true.

The sky is not falling and Minefield Mapper, no matter what the eventual FAQ says, will not be a meta changing upgrade card.

Competitive viability and rule clarity are, and should always be, completely unrelated.

1 hour ago, Sephlar said:

The sky is not falling and Minefield Mapper, no matter what the eventual FAQ says, will not be a meta changing upgrade card.

I don't think I've seen anyone in here claim it to be, it's just odd to see so many people get it wrong when reading two straightforward cards. I mean, I do get why people might get confused at a cursory glance at it, but to actually quote the card text and still miss it holds a certain degree of fascination.

40 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

I don't think I've seen anyone in here claim it to be, it's just odd to see so many people get it wrong when reading two straightforward cards. I mean, I do get why people might get confused at a cursory glance at it, but to actually quote the card text and still miss it holds a certain degree of fascination.

And then they get mad about it!

3 hours ago, __underscore__ said:

it's just odd to see so many people get it wrong when reading two straightforward cards

100% agree.

22 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

100% agree.

I see what you did did there.

And here I am feeling like I'm one of the only people who has a strong opinion about this ruling now but didn't have one when the topic first came up. I had a fairly quick intuition as to which side I thought was correct, but it took reading through a lot of the arguments and carefully considering the cards before I became certain and felt like I had a good grasp on the exact reasons why I prefer one ruling over the other.

1 hour ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

And here I am feeling like I'm one of the only people who has a strong opinion about this ruling now but didn't have one when the topic first came up. I had a fairly quick intuition as to which side I thought was correct, but it took reading through a lot of the arguments and carefully considering the cards before I became certain and felt like I had a good grasp on the exact reasons why I prefer one ruling over the other.

So don't keep everyone waiting and weigh in with your conclusion.

Then maybe even the reasoning that would take you from "in the air" to "pretty solid" on the answer.

10 minutes ago, StevenO said:

So don't keep everyone waiting and weigh in with your conclusion.

Then maybe even the reasoning that would take you from "in the air" to "pretty solid" on the answer.

Fair warning: what I'm about to say is fairly repetitive of what has been said elsewhere in the thread.

My conclusion is that a ship equipped with Minefield Mapper, Proximity Mine, Conner Net, and Extra Munitions may drop exactly one Proximity Mine and one Conner Net during the setup phase, discarding EM tokens instead of the actual bombs. It then retains the actual bomb cards to be dropped normally during normal play. It cannot, under any circumstances, drop two Proximity Mines or two Conner Nets or two each of both (totaling four bombs) during the setup phase.

My reasoning is that the phrasing "any number of your equipped <bomb> cards" limits you to choosing a number from 0 to the actual-factual number of real bomb cards you have equipped (so, in my example above, from zero to two). Extra Munitions tokens are not bomb cards, so they don't increase the range of numbers you can pick from. Or, looking at it from a set theory perspective, you can pick as many elements as you like from the set of discrete items {Proximity Mine, Conner Net}, but you can't pick the same element twice. Even if the set contains {Cluster Mine, Cluster Mine}, you can still only pick each of those Cluster Mine elements once.

My two big supporting arguments:

1. Extra Munitions tokens aren't bomb cards, so they don't affect how many you can pick. Substitution is not equality.

2. The choosing is not iterative. If you had a card that said to pick any number of enemy ships to deal a damage card to, the fact that one of them had Integrated Astromech and discarded the damage card would not magically allow you to pick that same ship again and deal it a card again.

I would also point out that for a ship equipped with Minefield Mapper, Proximity Mine, Conner Net, and Extra Munitions ... the worst thing it could do is to drop all of it's cargo (at least in most cases) and be empty of "droppables."

Part of a bomb carrying ship's value is when the opponent still has to fear a bomb drop. Once a ship has dropped all it's bombs, it loses a lot of it's bite and often becomes more predictable in where it is going.

3 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I would also point out that for a ship equipped with Minefield Mapper, Proximity Mine, Conner Net, and Extra Munitions ... the worst thing it could do is to drop all of it's cargo (at least in most cases) and be empty of "droppables."

Part of a bomb carrying ship's value is when the opponent still has to fear a bomb drop. Once a ship has dropped all it's bombs, it loses a lot of it's bite and often becomes more predictable in where it is going.

As has already been said above, the power level of the combo has nothing to do with whether or not it is legal by the Rules As Written. There are a million terrible combos that would never see the light of competitive play but are still illegal because the rules say so.

Understood, sure.

But if we all were not stating in different ways what was already stated above, this thread would be 1 page instead of 7.

31 minutes ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

Fair warning: what I'm about to say is fairly repetitive of what has been said elsewhere in the thread.

My conclusion is that a ship equipped with Minefield Mapper, Proximity Mine, Conner Net, and Extra Munitions may drop exactly one Proximity Mine and one Conner Net during the setup phase, discarding EM tokens instead of the actual bombs. It then retains the actual bomb cards to be dropped normally during normal play. It cannot, under any circumstances, drop two Proximity Mines or two Conner Nets or two each of both (totaling four bombs) during the setup phase.

...snip.. .

Repetition is to be expected at this point as I was pretty much asking what points you found convincing. I also believe that the vast majority also sees things the same way when it comes to the interactions.

Another "choose any number" thing is your basic Target Lock. You pick the dice you are going to reroll even if you were to roll them one at a time. To say MM would allow you to pick the same card twice is like saying TL will just let you start rerolling and you can then say when you want to quit after you've started.

2 hours ago, StevenO said:

Another "choose any number" thing is your basic Target Lock. You pick the dice you are going to reroll even if you were to roll them one at a time. To say MM would allow you to pick the same card twice is like saying TL will just let you start rerolling and you can then say when you want to quit after you've started.

I used this example as well on Facebook weeks ago and got ridiculed, but pretty much everyone on Facebook (and I'm not excluding myself) is a gorram idiot.

1 hour ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

I used this example as well on Facebook weeks ago and got ridiculed, but pretty much everyone on Facebook (and I'm not excluding myself) is a gorram idiot.

I think I may have used it before on this very topic as well. I know it has come up before when people have asked if you must ROLL all of the dice at the same time. While that is certainly preferable it isn't strictly required but you still must determine which dice will be rerolled before the rolling process starts and then all of those dice must be rerolled. In the case of the Mapper you have to pick all of your upgrade CARDS before you move on; once you get to the discard portion then EM should kick in and save the card but it doesn't let you go back and pick the card again.

21 hours ago, Sephlar said:

This very topic and situation came up in play testing. You know. I know it.

Bah, before the jump master I would agree with you, after the jump master not sure I have faith in playtesters to notice much of anything. Much less a rules interaction that has taken at this point seven pages of highly intelligent discussion by the most highly trained and educated members of this forum.

Just now, doji said:

Bah, before the jump master I would agree with you, after the jump master not sure I have faith in playtesters to notice much of anything. Much less a rules interaction that has taken at this point seven pages of highly intelligent discussion by the most highly trained and educated members of this forum.

Rumour has it that the Jumpmaster had several very late changes imposed by the design team which either didn't see playtesting at all, or didn't see adequate playtesting - and either way, blaming the platesters is unfair, they can only ever be as good as they're allowed to be.

I have my suspicions that if they were listened to more often, we'd have a better game.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Rumour has it that the Jumpmaster had several very late changes imposed by the design team which either didn't see playtesting at all, or didn't see adequate playtesting - and either way, blaming the platesters is unfair, they can only ever be as good as they're allowed to be.

I have my suspicions that if they were listened to more often, we'd have a better game.

I agree that blaming playtesters is unfair... AND that we'd probably have a better game if they were listened to more.

The Jumpmaster (IMO) would have been more difficult to playtest ALL the interactions than Minefield Mapper (much fewer interactions).

Personally I find it a little disheartening that we have not yet seen a new FAQ. Releasing wave XI during the middle of store championship season is okay... IF you also release FAQ explaining how FFG wants some of the cards from this wave to work that may have some questions. I feel for all the TOs last weekend and this coming up weekend running store championships that probably have to make a LOT more rulings than the TOs who ran tournaments a few weekends prior.