4 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

But strikers are purpose-built to take the sky from you.

ALL YOUR SKY BELONG TO STRIKERS NOW!!

My 5 strikers will take as many actions as they want. Lawyers cant stop me from putting a token next to my ship.

3 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

My 5 strikers will take as many actions as they want. Lawyers cant stop me from putting a token next to my ship.

What if my Lawyers are on Reapers?

1 minute ago, Do I need a Username said:

What if my Lawyers are on Reapers?

Sloane Vermiel is the ultimate buzzkill

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Sloane Vermiel is the ultimate buzzkill

Captain Fair.

Stop them from being able to hit you for Chip damage when your big **** double modded red dice **** them.

lol@ this latest dumpster fire of an episode. Especially at the guy who plays worse than michael j fox off his meds and the other white noise host for calling out the winner on his plays.

1 minute ago, Shazbot said:

lol@ this latest dumpster fire of an episode. Especially at the guy who plays worse than michael j fox off his meds and the other white noise host for calling out the winner on his plays.

Wuh?

39 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Bonus attacks are triggered (RAW) in the aftermath step. There is always a defender in the aftermath step.

Anything that says perform a bonus attack outside of an aftermath step clearly do nothing.

ohhhh I love it

31 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

I too will bet $5 that the devs know the rules better than these clowns.

Because it definitely wasn't a dev who had no clues on how Leebo and Kylo interacted...

I guess we should make up our own rules then? The devs wrote the FAQ too, clearly THAT can't be trusted anymore.

12 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

ohhhh I love it

Wait, what? No, there's nothing to love - just noticed a silly inconsistency. It's an oversight - I'm sure it'll be fixed eventually, until then we all know what it means. As is the case with pretty much all of this - when you release 500 cards at once and totally rewrite the rules, there are a few mistakes that are going to slip through. Not a big deal.

Just so we're clear, no one has actually provided written evidence against what I've been talking about so far, right? It's just been all "I'm a rules architect" and "mah strikers" so far, right? I get that's the schtick here. I typically listen to you guys because you're a) funny and b) reasonably logical and pretty common sensical and c) eager to try and break things. I'm moderately confused by the fingers in ears and foot stomping.

4 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Just so we're clear, no one has actually provided written evidence against what I've been talking about so far, right? It's just been all "I'm a rules architect" and "mah strikers" so far, right? I get that's the schtick here. I typically listen to you guys because you're a) funny and b) reasonably logical and pretty common sensical and c) eager to try and break things. I'm moderately confused by the fingers in ears and foot stomping.

You're misunderstanding the point, which is "there are multiple mistakes across the rules reference as part of a giant undertaking. If something changed that you have to look in 8 different places to kind of uncover and argument, it's probably an oversight".

Layered on top of big piles of "I don't care, do whatever you want". No one does or should care about my feelings on whether strikers should get actions moving over rocks. I'm under the assumption it's an oversight, but frankly, I don't care what you do in your games, and if I were a betting man I would be betting it will work the same way it always has.

edit: I guess, put shorter: I haven't double checked ailerons and the executing a maneuver rules, because I haven't played strikers recently. But, presuming you're right and you have to do this weird dive through the rules reference to find out how ailerons is supposed... ACTUALLY FINE I'LL JUST GO READ IT.

Regardless, the idea that RAW is king in xwing is ridiculous. No one has ever actually done that for obvious reasons. The rules aren't bulletproof, and it doesn't much matter.

23 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

ohhhh I love it

Because it definitely wasn't a dev who had no clues on how Leebo and Kylo interacted...

Should be an easy bet then, right?

I'm willing to legitimately bet $5 that AAs dont stop your perform action step.

I'm going to start in 1e:

Standard obstacle/ship rules

Quote

• A ship must skip its “Perform Action” step if it overlapped another ship while executing a maneuver.

...Asteroid: The ship must skip its “Perform Action” step this round.

Quote

Immediately before you reveal your dial, if you are not stressed, you must execute a white (Left Bank 1), (Straight 1) or (Right Bank 1) maneuver.

Cool, then we got clarification in the FAQ for this unclear interaction:

Quote

If a ship equipped with Adaptive Ailerons overlaps an obstacle as part of this additional maneuver, it suffers the effect of overlapping it as described in the "Obstacles" section on page 14 of the Rules Reference. For example, if a ship using Adaptive Ailerons overlaps an asteroid it would roll for damage but not skip its "Perform Action" step.

If a ship equipped with Adaptive Ailerons overlaps another ship as part of this additional maneuver, it does not skip its "Perform Action" step.

Cool - adaptive ailerons maneuver unrelated to obstacles, for clarity's sake. Note this is in the FAQ, not an errata.

For 2e!

Quote

Asteroid: After executing the maneuver, it rolls one attack die. On a <hit> result, the ship suffers one <hit> damage; on a <crit> result, it suffers one <crit>
damage. Then the ship skips its Perform Action step this round.

Quote

Adaptive Ailerons: Before you reveal your dial, if you are not stressed, you must execute a white 1 bank left, 1 straight, or 1 bank right maneuver.

We don't have a clarifying FAQ, but why should we the players think anything has changed here? The conditions are the same, as are the obstacle effects.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

I'm going to start in 1e:

Standard obstacle/ship rules

Cool, then we got clarification in the FAQ for this unclear interaction:

Cool - adaptive ailerons maneuver unrelated to obstacles, for clarity's sake. Note this is in the FAQ, not an errata.

For 2e!

We don't have a clarifying FAQ, but why should we the players think anything has changed here? The conditions are the same, as are the obstacle effects.

IT'S SUPER DIFFERENT! EVERYTHING IS SO CHANGED, WHY NOT AILERONS?!

WE CAN NEVER KNOW THE INTENT OF THE DEVS

It's Friday and I'm just bored at work. You expect me to actual contribute in this thread when I can't even do that for a job I get paid to do?

WHY CANT I SHOOT IF WE'RE RANGE 0, BUT RANGE 1 IN ARC?

MY SHOT IS RANGE 1, NOT RANGE 0!

2 minutes ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

It's Friday and I'm just bored at work. You expect me to actual contribute in this thread when I can't even do that for a job I get paid to do?

Are you kidding? That's when I posted the most incorrect garbage I can. Usually regret it too, but not always.

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I'm going to start in 1e:

Standard obstacle/ship rules

Cool, then we got clarification in the FAQ for this unclear interaction:

Cool - adaptive ailerons maneuver unrelated to obstacles, for clarity's sake. Note this is in the FAQ, not an errata.

For 2e!

We don't have a clarifying FAQ, but why should we the players think anything has changed here? The conditions are the same, as are the obstacle effects.

That all makes perfect sense. Certainly doesn't match RAW, but speaks to intent. It's part of the FAQ, and I don't think it goes far enough to actually address the exception, but that's my personal pickadilly. Given how difficult 1e errata was, I can see why they simply addressed it in the FAQ in a "yeah, but this is what we meant/wanted" sense.

4 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Should be an easy bet then, right?

I'm willing to legitimately bet $5 that AAs dont stop your perform action step.

Oh but I agree with you, I'm confident they will be ruled this way at Coruscant, as devs have always done in the event they were present: they made logical ruling where they failed to put it clearly on paper.

The argument is always the same: RAI is opening a gigantic can of worms when you are dealing with ambigous rules. I don't have a dev on speed dial nor I have ever met one, but after so many 1.0 precedences where something was ruled "because we said so" I don't dare to interpret what they were actually meaning (m9g8 and Omega Leader working differently than Lowhrick and Omega Leader just to make an example).

We are once again back to me completly lacking any trust on consistancy and capability of the devs and you guys keeping backing them for reasons. We already discussed that at lenght.

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

We don't have a clarifying FAQ, but why should we the players think anything has changed here? The conditions are the same, as are the obstacle effects.

The same could be said for spending focus and such while you have no eyes to modify. Previously you could, now you can't. The conditions were the same, the outcome is different.

Note that I'm not saying AA should work in one way or another, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm just amused it's so straightforward for you that it will work the same as 1.0.

If anything, I'd expect AA to follow suit with almost everything else in 2.0 and be "worse"

Once again it's just a matter of prospective I suppose and it amuses me

THE WORLD IS CHAOS.

NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!

THE GAME IS BASICALLY UNPLAYABLE!

I really need to put names to forum handles. I'm getting confused who's voice to apply to which post. Do you guys have a flowchart or something?

1 minute ago, JasonCole said:

I really need to put names to forum handles. I'm getting confused who's voice to apply to which post. Do you guys have a flowchart or something?

Trust your instincts. Reach out with your feelings.

7 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Trust your instincts. Reach out with your feelings.

I'm pretty sure that's a path to the dark side.

8 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

I'm pretty sure that's a path to the dark side.

Your instincts are bad, and you should feel bad. Yuck.

1 hour ago, JasonCole said:

Just so we're clear, no one has actually provided written evidence against what I've been talking about so far, right? It's just been all "I'm a rules architect" and "mah strikers" so far, right? I get that's the schtick here. I typically listen to you guys because you're a) funny and b) reasonably logical and pretty common sensical and c) eager to try and break things. I'm moderately confused by the fingers in ears and foot stomping.

Read ‘Activation Phase,’ I think it clears this up unambiguously?