3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

He's said it a couple times in a couple threads on the mynock fb page.

Ah, cool, thanks...I don't follow the page.

14 minutes ago, gennataos said:

It's probably this, like it was with the Aileron thing. Problem is, the rules don't really read that way and there's a question of designer intent to change that interaction in Second Edition. Maybe they meant to change it? Probably not, but maybe? Most of us just want any ambiguity to be removed.

Now, the folks who have a torch to bear for their preferred rules interactions or want to redesign the game? I skip those posts/threads.

my inference is that they would not have even bothered with the "it counts as an overlap" ruling if they didn't intend it to give stress and the crit roll. They probably weren't even aware of the inherent ambiguity existent in the RRG and thought "overlap" covered it.

The question is if being in a state of overlapping does anything.

This is not unique to Rigged cargo, so let's step back and look at the other case

You are parked with the back end of your ship on a debris. Do you take a stress at the start of planning?

The good news is Coruscant is this weekend. Let's see how it gets ruled there and we can move on with our lives

27 minutes ago, jagsba said:

He's said it a couple times in a couple threads on the mynock fb page.

So he hasn't said it anywhere relevant yet.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

So he hasn't said it anywhere relevant yet.

i mean, people don't believe the developers know how the game works. Why would they believe one of the top judges?

16 minutes ago, jagsba said:

i mean, people don't believe the developers know how the game works. Why would they believe one of the top judges?

To be fair, judges can be wrong too. They are acting with the information they have on hand, but are not in constant communication with the developers. Big events such as Coruscant though provide them with the opportunity to clarify known issues. I'll be listening very carefully for any interesting rulings.

18 minutes ago, jagsba said:

i mean, people don't believe the developers know how the game works. Why would they believe one of the top judges?

The developers know the thing that matters- The intent.

2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

To be fair, judges can be wrong too. They are acting with the information they have on hand, but are not in constant communication with the developers. Big events such as Coruscant though provide them with the opportunity to clarify known issues. I'll be listening very carefully for any interesting rulings.

#RememberTheFFGCenterFAQ

2 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

The developers know the thing that matters- The intent.

Weird.

6 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

#RememberTheFFGCenterFAQ

I feel like I've forgotten something of relevance... Something of such importance that it'll make me question not only my stance on this particular ruling, but question the path my life has taken and the very nature of reality itself...

1 hour ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

The question is if being in a state of overlapping does anything.

This is not unique to Rigged cargo, so let's step back and look at the other case

You are parked with the back end of your ship on a debris. Do you take a stress at the start of planning?

I'd argue that the state of overlapping has different effects depending on the game state and/or phase. The relevant condition is when the overlapping is introduced OR reintroduced, that's when we see the initial effect, right? So starting a turn on a rock doesn't have an effect, but if you have to put your template across that rock to execute a maneuver, you've just triggered the new overlap.

1 hour ago, gennataos said:

It's probably this, like it was with the Aileron thing. Problem is, the rules don't really read that way and there's a question of designer intent to change that interaction in Second Edition. Maybe they meant to change it? Probably not, but maybe? Most of us just want any ambiguity to be removed.

Now, the folks who have a torch to bear for their preferred rules interactions or want to redesign the game? I skip those posts/threads.

^ every bit this (at least that was my stance from the AA debacle).

g'**** doubletap

26 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

I'd argue that the state of overlapping has different effects depending on the game state and/or phase. The relevant condition is when the overlapping is introduced OR reintroduced, that's when we see the initial effect, right? So starting a turn on a rock doesn't have an effect, but if you have to put your template across that rock to execute a maneuver, you've just triggered the new overlap.

This is wrong.

There are different effects that trigger when overlapping and moving through/onto a rock.

Rocks while overlap=no shoot

Rocks while move through=take damage

Say 2.0 QD is on a rock. Someone drops a mine onto her in Systems phase. Can she shoot?

Let me clarify my position on rules while waiting for developers to git gud at writing like they have a legal document.

We should rule on ambigious rulings with the answer, that if used as precedent, ****s with the least ****.

Sure, Poop Chutes when dropped on people in 1.0 caused immediate stress. But starting the turn on Debris in 1.0 didn't stress you, and that happens a lot more often than poop chutes.

The way to **** with the least **** with the 2.0 rules reference in place (which says that if dropping cargo on them gives stress that planning on debris gives stress under the same logic) is to rule that dropped chutes don't do anything until movement.

FFG please get a rules writer.

11 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Rocks while move through=take damage

What if the rock moves

(more seriously though, I guess that‘s the reasoning behind the ruling that the effect triggers - if that ruling really happened?

Focusing on ‚move‘ is correct, but that is not limited to ships. Of course rocks don‘t (yet) move, but dissecting the process of ‚move‘ into more basic components it kinda does: ‚move’ applies in general when a new physical interaction happened. The exception is then the partial movement where a ship renews its interaction with an obstacle.)

Why has this haven of sanity suddenly been infected with rules lawyers. ****, take it outside where people actually care eh?

I don‘t think you can or should compare the forum pre-2.0 with now. The topics changed drastically, all around. That includes this thread. Rules lawyering is just one example. Which is by the way an interesting one because the krayts promote a (hyper)rational, data driven and thorough approach to the game. Combined with abuse of imbalanced components, including rules (whether it is to raise awareness and induce change, or just because it‘s the rational choice doesn‘t matter here). Rules lawyering is not very far away from that to identify those OP interactions

Wait ... did you just rules lawyer my attempt to stop the rules lawyering?

Just now, Dreadai said:

Wait ... did you just rules lawyer my attempt to stop the rules lawyering?

Nothing personnel kid

17 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

Wait ... did you just rules lawyer my attempt to stop the rules lawyering?

If that‘s rules lawyering then I don‘t want it to stop

If I was marshalling an event today, I'd rule chutes don't give instant stress. The FAQ was worded really terribly. I THINK the intent was to cause instant stress, but I can't be sure, and the strict wording leans towards no instant stress.

Fortunately, FFG is marshalling a big event tomorrow, and we can ask them. So this whole thing is pretty moot.

7 minutes ago, pheaver said:

If I was marshalling an event today, I'd rule chutes don't give instant stress. The FAQ was worded really terribly. I THINK the intent was to cause instant stress, but I can't be sure, and the strict wording leans towards no instant stress.

Fortunately, FFG is marshalling a big event tomorrow, and we can ask them. So this whole thing is pretty moot.

If Coruscant wasn't tomorrow, given that they made a very clear ruling on mines, and this weird, hedged-ly worded ruling here, I'd lean no stress.

It's a mixture of the two in context, and the devs being on record they don't want overly punishing stress and ion effects.

Fortunately, there *is* an FFG event tomorrow, and they'll have to make a ruling.

I hope no one brings a rigged cargo chute this weekend.

Not really.