2 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Vessery is the most effective Advanced Defender.

This is true, given he acquires, not acts for his lock. If AS becomes initiative based, he could rise from beneath Rex's shadow.

To avoid a double post:

How good is a pattern analyzer at analyzing patterns? Does it accidentally see patterns where none are, or is it a tool to keep that practice of the pilot's down? What kind of patterns are being analyzed? Why do the patterns need to be analyzed? Does it analyze what kind of stress the ship will endure given the series of input by the pilot, thereby offering a warning to the pilot that the fighter will be stressed?

7 hours ago, LagJanson said:

Wedge, Dutch, Cassian, Braylen? I’m guessing here, haven’t checked to see if it fits... actually it shouldn’t...

It does fit, but did he take the bid or put selfless on Braylen?

15 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

It does fit, but did he take the bid or put selfless on Braylen?

Who knows, the list was chosen by folding 4 different lists into paper planes and pick the one that flew furthest...

7 hours ago, player3010587 said:

Which is why Rex is so fun! Give him an HLC + LW/Juke and people spend their actions running off. And if they don't, kaboom! (Yeah, defenders can take Outmaneuver or what not, but Juke is still super good on Rex).

Almost took this to Gencon, although in this build Rex has HLC and LW but Grand Inky only has Hate. It's solid, but my Soontir play is too cowardly. I'm glad I flew FO instead bc the win threshold for dial covers was much lower, as was expected.

Juke also boring. Bullseye abilities are cool, so i w ant as many as possible. Plus, autoblaster marksmanship double defender memes leaves room for more words. Words like "advanced sensors" "homing missiles" and "vessery"

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Who knows, the list was chosen by folding 4 different lists into paper planes and pick the one that flew furthest...

I like this person

7 hours ago, Brunas said:

I like this person

He's part of the German krayts, kinda, team Hooters. They are maybe a bit more goofy and less often serious than you guys 😂

haha, german nats have their scandal.

One SEMIfinalist got disqualified awarded a game loss. He had an incorrect list. What (allegedly but likely) happened is that he didn't write the s-foils for his T70 on the list but had the card and used them all day. Judges noticed at some point, reminded him to correct the mistake. He understood to correct the list and added the sfoils onto the list. The judges meant to remove the card. So in the end he didn't do what the judges told him and he got the game loss for it.

IMO that's an overreaction, I don't see why adding a 0-cost card that is already there is not an option. Maybe there's a can of worms that will be opened, but I don't see it right now.

However, floor rules demand the game loss:

List error: Both the deck and list are legal, but do not match each other.
Resolution: The deck must be corrected to match the list.
Penalty issued: During a round: Game Loss

E: just to emphasize because I'm sure it can't be emphasized enough: The judges handled it the way they had to as far as I understand. The floor rules demand the game loss. It's unfortunate that the timing turned out that way, but I'm not saying the judges overreacted. I think the floor rules might handle that a suboptimally. But more individual solutions are maybe dangerous and this is the overall best case. Still seems ridiculous in this case.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

The judges handled it the way they had to as far as I understand. The floor rules demand the game loss.

This is not and should not be an acceptable defense, for any judge decision. I'm putting this first so it's more clear that I'm not taking issue with the decision itself - a judge's decision needs to weigh the situation and stand on its merits. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the ruling - but "well, the judge had no choice" is just a bad argument. Judges can always bend the rules in the direction of leniency if the situation warrants.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Judges noticed at some point, reminded him to correct the mistake. He understood to correct the list and added the sfoils onto the list. The judges meant to remove the card. So in the end he didn't do what the judges told him and he got the game loss for it.

IMO that's an overreaction, I don't see why adding a 0-cost card that is already there is not an option.

To be fair, it does sound like the judge acted leniently. Strictly speaking, the floor rules call for a game loss if a list/deck mismatch is found after the event starts.

From your telling, it sounds like this was waved in favor of a warning or something, and only actually awarded a game loss when the player showed up to play their next game with a still illegal deck/list issue.

1 minute ago, svelok said:

To be fair, it does sound like the judge acted leniently. Strictly speaking, the floor rules call for a game loss if a list/deck mismatch is found after the event starts. 

From your telling, it sounds like this was waved in favor of a warning or something, and only actually awarded a game loss when the player showed up to play their next game with a still illegal deck/list issue.

Translating what the player said himself: "Just simply a list building error (not an illegal list). The judges then gave me the instruction to solve the problem. I misundertood the instruction in the heat of the moment and we all notice too late, unfortunately." He put the blame on himself and mentioned he could have asked to clear it up.

I know that he got told at some, earlier point, then didn't remove the card, and then got awarded a game loss before the final. The earlier point might have been before the tournament, it might have been at a different point. But I wasn't there myself, and part is telephone game in full effect.

9 minutes ago, svelok said:

This is not and should not be an acceptable defense, for any judge decision. I'm putting this first so it's more clear that I'm not taking issue with the decision itself - a judge's decision needs to weigh the situation and stand on its merits. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the ruling - but "well, the judge had no choice" is just a bad argument. Judges can always bend the rules in the direction of leniency if the situation warrants. 

Do you think a game loss is justified in this instance? A 0 point configuration upgrade seems to be a nobrainer. There was something like that during that US team tournament earlier this year, right? Where Sfoils got forgotten?

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Do you think a game loss is justified in this instance? A 0 point configuration upgrade seems to be a nobrainer. There was something like that during that US team tournament earlier this year, right? Where Sfoils got forgotten?

Yes. A team forgot their S-foils before the list deadline, and elected to not take them.

A Game loss is probably justified, as the punishment is not for the initial action (that was probably just a warning) but the lack of appropriate correction.

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

There was something like that during that US team tournament earlier this year, right? Where Sfoils got forgotten?

Iirc that team voluntarily chose to be disqualified... Nope, Recalled incorrectly. check post above mine.

5 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

A Game loss is probably justified, as the punishment is not for the initial action (that was probably just a warning) but the lack of appropriate correction. 

The implicit question is: why can't the upgrade be added? In that case his correction would have been appropriate.

I understand that it is not the currently correct way to handle it, but why?

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

The implicit question is: why can't the upgrade be added? In that case his correction would have been appropriate.

I understand that it is not the currently correct way to handle it, but why?

Because its easier for everyone if we just say no adding of upgrades. For now, we only have one case where someone could choose between multiple 0pt. options, but if more come along its just simpler to say no.

11 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Because its easier for everyone if we just say no adding of upgrades. For now, we only have one case where someone could choose between multiple 0pt. options, but if more come along its just simpler to say no.

If multiple zero point upgrades for the same ship and slot exist someday, judges can change how they handle it. "Someday things might get more complicated" is not a very compelling argument in my opinion.

1 minute ago, Do I need a Username said:

Because its easier for everyone if we just say no adding of upgrades. For now, we only have one case where someone could choose between multiple 0pt. options, but if more come along its just simpler to say no.

It strikes me as interesting that we can have a judge's sense of proportion when judging stalling/slow play, but we can't have a judge's sense of proportion when adding a 0pt upgrade - something that is much easier to identify.

There are 8 upgrades for 0 points: 2xS-foils, pivot wings, ghost title, 2x gunboat config, r5tk and jamming beam. It is an amount where we could get a yes/no for each card. We could even define specific situations for more questionable ones: gunboats get the one that has an equipped secondary weapon mentioned on the config. Jamming beam is maybe never free to add, same for R5TK. Whatever the reason, it would be possible to explicitly handle each one. There is no real danger of rules bloat because nobody has to know unless a judge runs into the situation.

Also, it's not a hill for me to die on and I don't even know the dude who lost the game. I think it's an interesting contrast to the slow play discussion, that's why I wonder.

18 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

If multiple zero point upgrades for the same ship and slot exist someday, judges can change how they handle it. "Someday things might get more complicated" is not a very compelling argument in my opinion.

Gunboat configs. But even then it's pretty clear which one you meant to take.

This is where we post tournament results, right?

My son and I went to our first tournament since before Reapers were available. He flew quad heroic R4 t70s, because it lacks in complicated and situational words. I chickened out on bringing Chad silencers and went with Fenn&friends, which also has very few words to remember!

It turns out that @LagJanson was wrong and we had no hyperspace raiders from afar, so participation since for (almost) everyone!

My son started the day wrecking one of the eventual top 4, nearly putting him on tilt. It was fun. Then he got wrecked by a good player with a TIE swarm, less fun. He went 2-2 and had fun playing X-wing again.

Our takeaways:

- the weight of words and the myriad of tokens is much more pronounced than in 1.0, especially since a lot is more situational and may not be as obvious for less dedicated players. He faced a Nien/Cova/Poe list with triggers he couldn't all keep straight, he won, but only because he outflew and out diced the other player. I'm not sure that's an improvement on 1.0

- hyper defensive and risk averse X-wing is not our X-wing. People overthink to risk manage way too often. I'm loathe to call slow play since I know we play really fast and tend to take more risks so we're probably not the most fair of benchmarks, but ugh! It seems to be trending now, and I agree that it's probably the rational choice in a competitive setting under the current rules, but it's not for us. Quad ARCs is so much beef to chew through and can shoot everywhere. That top 4 rematch was not something that felt exciting.

- all that said, X-wing is still fun and my son wants to go to the next one, so yay me!

6 minutes ago, drjkel said:

It turns out that @LagJanson was wrong

I’m never wrong!

oh wait, sorry, I’m being informed I’m mistaken. I’m pretty good at being wrong, actually.

8 minutes ago, drjkel said:

the weight of words and the myriad of tokens is much more pronounced than in 1.0, especially since a lot is more situational and may not be as obvious for less dedicated players. He faced a Nien/Cova/Poe list with triggers he couldn't all keep straight, he won, but only because he outflew and out diced the other player. I'm not sure that's an improvement on 1.0

There’s more tokens, but 1.0 level card combos are much more rare... There are some the do resemble however...

10 minutes ago, drjkel said:

all that said, X-wing is still fun and my son wants to go to the next one, so yay me! 

Congrats. Back on the wagon!

3 hours ago, svelok said:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the ruling - but "well, the judge had no choice" is just a bad argument. Judges can always bend the rules in the direction of leniency if the situation warrants.

Agreed. I mean, we call them judges because they use their judgment.

I fundamentally reject the "I had no choice" line in rules interpretation--whether game rules or floor rules. Folks are making decisions, and should take ownership for that.

//

In general, if it was an upgrade *other* than S-Foils (or Pivot Wing), I get it, and would hand out a loss. Jamming Beam is a real upgrade, same as anything else. XG-1 vs OS-1 define the fundamental nature of a Gunboat. The Ghost Title announces a specific strategy of docking. WTF are you flying R5-TK for anyhow?

But like, this is S-Foils. It's a ship ability that was too long to stick on the ship card.

This discussion makes me want to see what the text to S Foils would look as a ship ability...

1 recurring charge (somehow separate from charge pilot abilities, I guess placed beneath the card, IDK).

Servomotor S Foils:

When you activate, you may spend one <charge>. While your <charge> is inactive, you may perform <boost> and <focus linked to red boost> actions. When you perform a primary attack, if your <charge> is inactive, roll one fewer attack die.

Wouldn't work for T70's given the charge mechanic for Poe/Jess and fighting for Weapons Hardpoint as a ship ability.

8 hours ago, svelok said:

This is not and should not be an acceptable defense, for any judge decision. I'm putting this first so it's more clear that I'm not taking issue with the decision itself - a judge's decision needs to weigh the situation and stand on its merits. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the ruling - but "well, the judge had no choice" is just a bad argument. Judges can always bend the rules in the direction of leniency if the situation warrants.

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Agreed. I mean, we call them judges because they use their judgment.

I fundamentally reject the "I had no choice" line in rules interpretation--whether game rules or floor rules. Folks are making decisions, and should take ownership for that.

Different parts of the rules have different amount of wiggle room for interpretation. I don't remember who said (and where: podcast, this thread, forum, reddit, ?) but this TO gave his opinion on different parts. If it directly contradicts the FAQ, rules reference, floor rules, then he handles that differently. Not everything is up for interpretation: Tavson gets his damage dealt individually, for example, and a judge has to inform the players of that rule without choice.

I realize that's not quite the same, but why not? The floor rules have it explicitly mentioned what you have to do in this case, as the FAQ explains Tavson.

8 hours ago, drjkel said:

- the weight of words and the myriad of tokens is much more pronounced than in 1.0, especially since a lot is more situational and may not be as obvious for less dedicated players. He faced a Nien/Cova/Poe list with triggers he couldn't all keep straight, he won, but only because he outflew and out diced the other player. I'm not sure that's an improvement on 1.0

By the way, my SO says exactly the same. I don't think it's entirely true. Some words might have moved to a different, less accessible place in the rules now from cards in 1.0. But the problem exists and some really don't like it.

On average 2.0 is more complicated than 1.0 was, but 1.0 had a couple of lists that spiked far above the average.

Things like 4 clt jedi with sense and saese are getting closer to that thought

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Different parts of the rules have different amount of wiggle room for interpretation.

All language is, at some fundamental level, open to interpretation. Maybe that's a little woo-woo postmodernist, and too far in the background to be relevant here in this specific case, but it shows up decently often*.

I can kinda see where the Judge is coming from. And yet, this is S-Foils. X-Wing equivalent of tearing the tag off a mattress. An act that may be illegal, but at such a minor level that it's absurd for the law to act against it. Like, the ultimate point of rules is fairness and justice. Maybe that's "the rules," yet I still think it's absurd.

Well, that's just, like, MY opinion, man.

* A great example is Qi'ra's ship on a rock. Whether or not it can attack isn't a RAW vs a RAI debate, it's a question of what "while" means, and an issue of the interpretation of language.