26 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

A good example. Thank you.

Not so much.

It's an or, not an and, so it's not the same case.

Autothrusters is 'if a or b then c'. It doesn't give you multiple opportunities to resolve it just because you qualify to do so in two different ways - it's still binary as to whether you qualify or not, and binary as to whether you then choose to use it.

Ion Torp is 'a, and a, b, and c get d'.

They're not analogous.

Honestly Ion Torp was written before people were particularly careful about each versus each other ship, and it's not clear how it's meant to be interpreted.

I'm of the opinion that is needs an erratum to clarify it (Either 'the target and each other ship gain one ion token', or 'the target gains 2 ion tokens and each other ship gains one ion token'), and that making it do 2 ions to the primary target wouldn't be remotely broken. Or indeed, even worth taking for 5 points with a TL spend.

2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

How about...

You don't get two modification opportunities for being at Range 3, and outside of the attacker's firing arc. I mean, I wish you did...

EDIT: I'm curious... for those of you with more experience with logic gates, as Autothrusters is worded, would you theoretically be denied the modification, if you fulfilled both requirements? does "if A or B, then C" include "if A and B, then C"?

To answer the question after the EDIT, if you fulfill one, the other, or both, then you have met the requirements and achieve the triggered effect. The hiccup only happens if this was an exclusive "or," for which exists in programming and some human languages, but not in English.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Not so much.

It's an or, not an and, so it's not the same case.

Autothrusters is 'if a or b then c'. It doesn't give you multiple opportunities to resolve it just because you qualify to do so in two different ways - it's still binary as to whether you qualify or not, and binary as to whether you then choose to use it.

Ion Torp is 'a, and a, b, and c get d'.

They're not analogous.

Honestly Ion Torp was written before people were particularly careful about each versus each other ship, and it's not clear how it's meant to be interpreted.

I'm of the opinion that is needs an erratum to clarify it (Either 'the target and each other ship gain one ion token', or 'the target gains 2 ion tokens and each other ship gains one ion token'), and that making it do 2 ions to the primary target wouldn't be remotely broken. Or indeed, even worth taking for 5 points with a TL spend.

It would make them more useful vs large based ships and during Epic battles. Imagine 4 Y-Wings ioning a an Epic ship! No energy for one turn! That alone would make it worth the points and target lock!

1 minute ago, Stoneface said:

It would make them more useful vs large based ships and during Epic battles. Imagine 4 Y-Wings ioning a an Epic ship! No energy for one turn! That alone would make it worth the points and target lock!

I would be OK with this.

E: the converse point, imagine 4 TIE BOmbers with Harpoons for the same price. They just kill the thing outright.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I would be OK with this.

E: the converse point, imagine 4 TIE BOmbers with Harpoons for the same price. They just kill the thing outright.

You just crushed that glorious image of the Y-Wings gliding across the mat to shutdown a Gozanti.

57 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'm of the opinion that is needs an erratum to clarify it (Either 'the target and each other ship gain one ion token', or 'the target gains 2 ion tokens and each other ship gains one ion token')

Agreed. I've only given a personal opinion.

It's definitely debatable enough to require an erratum, and it actually matters, because it determines whether a single shot can ionise a large ship or not.

To add to what Juunon said there is a logical OR operand that does not include "a AND b" and it's called XOR or "Exclusive OR" but using logic gates to explain the wording of x-wing cards is probably not the right direction to go.

On 3/1/2018 at 3:19 AM, Smuggler said:

Perform +1 ion token on list.

List: A, B, C, A

Execution:

A+1 token

B+1 token

C+1 token

A+1 token

Result:

A = +2 tokens

B= +1 token

C= +1 token

I don't think this is an unresonable interpretation when read in a "programatic" way. It's not he most intuitive read when reading it as every day language between humans. But I think we have plenty of rulings to show that the X-wing rules often are to be read more technicaly. We allso have plenty of cases where final ruling in FAQ turns out to be just "becous FFG sys so". So mabye send it in as a rules question and get this settled instead of continue to disagrea with no added arguments from either side?

This smacks of the same problem with Minefield Mapper. It took a FAQ to settle it after months of back and forth. Which means that this:

On 2/24/2018 at 3:59 PM, thespaceinvader said:

No you just read it, do what it says and don't do what it doesn't.

isn't always helpful. How you would crunch the process changes the outcome, however. This isn't the first game with the problem. . .M:TG finally dropped Interrupts and added the stack as a way to codify timing, when to me it was always was obvious that

"Tapping" > Interrupt > Instant .

It's like saying, just look at it, and you can tell what color it is:

Mauve?

Pink?

Pastel Red?

On 2/25/2018 at 11:32 AM, muribundi said:

I find water to be a lot consistent. Always act and look the same

Try drinking salt water. It will act different, I guarantee.

I refer you to my most recent post in the topic.

7 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

This smacks of the same problem with Minefield Mapper. It took a FAQ to settle it after months of back and forth. Which means that this:

isn't always helpful. How you would crunch the process changes the outcome, however. This isn't the first game with the problem. . .M:TG finally dropped Interrupts and added the stack as a way to codify timing, when to me it was always was obvious that

"Tapping" > Interrupt > Instant .

It's like saying, just look at it, and you can tell what color it is:

Mauve?

Pink?

Pastel Red?

Try drinking salt water. It will act different, I guarantee.

You might be able to match it to FS-595.