1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

Here's an idea, how bout you let me do my thing, and I let you do yours?

You obviously have no intention to engage in a thoughtful conversation, apparent by the lack of your answers to previous comments.

If something as silly as a forum about plastic spaceships is so upsetting for you that you can't stop commenting the same answer within hours of each other, to the same person, then perhaps you can understand my frustration about the actual plastic spaceships themselves.

Yes, you have unlocked the secret to greater happiness when it comes to X-Wing. Why don't you go and celebrate that, by playing the game, instead of getting boggled down in petty arguments.

If you are trolling, you are not putting enough effort in it. If you are serious, then... why are you doing it?

I don't think SotL is trolling. Or, if they are, I think there's still something to what they're saying.

The (valid) question, to my mind, is why this meta. Why are we in dire straits and where do we find it in the game right now? Specifically, what has deviated to an unholy degree from the game's core that is different than the metas that predated this one?

Like, SW: Destiny recently had a real, game-wide problem: action stacking had sufficiently deviated from the call-and-respond gameplay that was the pillar of the game. The game was originally built on Player 1 acts - Player 2 responds - Player 1 responds, etc. and it had turned into Player 1 acts, acts again, acts another 3-4 times - Player 2 responds if they're still alive. So it was a different game than what the designers had originally laid out, much more limited in scope, and that was a serious problem that had to be addressed for the health of the game. I think we should be looking for something similar here. What's really, truly new that is destroying X-Wing's core mechanics? Maybe Genius - Trajectory Simulator could have been that thing, but FFG squashed it. Maybe Fenn is that thing, since he disrupts the tradeoff that ships previously had to make between say PtL and VI, or maybe he's more of a costing issue, I tend to the latter. Maybe it's something entirely different or I'm looking at it too narrowly.

Generally though I think it's worthwhile being skeptical of personal and popular diagnoses of game-wide health or disease. That's why I wonder about the reasons underlying the popular take that the game is in trouble. I don't hold that opinion, but I'm skeptical of my own experience of a healthy game too. I'm just one person. Maybe I'm just basing that off having a successful tournament season and a couple of lucky takedowns of popular archetypes. I dunno.

7 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

I don't think SotL is trolling. Or, if they are, I think there's still something to what they're saying.

The (valid) question, to my mind, is why this meta. Why are we in dire straits and where do we find it in the game right now? Specifically, what has deviated to an unholy degree from the game's core that is different than the metas that predated this one?

Like, SW: Destiny recently had a real, game-wide problem: action stacking had sufficiently deviated from the call-and-respond gameplay that was the pillar of the game. The game was originally built on Player 1 acts - Player 2 responds - Player 1 responds, etc. and it had turned into Player 1 acts, acts again, acts another 3-4 times - Player 2 responds if they're still alive. So it was a different game than what the designers had originally laid out, much more limited in scope, and that was a serious problem that had to be addressed for the health of the game. I think we should be looking for something similar here. What's really, truly new that is destroying X-Wing's core mechanics? Maybe Genius - Trajectory Simulator could have been that thing, but FFG squashed it. Maybe Fenn is that thing, since he disrupts the tradeoff that ships previously had to make between say PtL and VI, or maybe he's more of a costing issue, I tend to the latter. Maybe it's something entirely different or I'm looking at it too narrowly.

Generally though I think it's worthwhile being skeptical of personal and popular diagnoses of game-wide health or disease. That's why I wonder about the reasons underlying the popular take that the game is in trouble. I don't hold that opinion, but I'm skeptical of my own experience of a healthy game too. I'm just one person. Maybe I'm just basing that off having a successful tournament season and a couple of lucky takedowns of popular archetypes. I dunno.

What his argument is, doesn't matter. It's not the content that made me think he is trolling, but his childish way of handling these arguments.

Diverting the subject, ignoring most of the comments, cherry picking his arguments... I don't care about his views. He is free to hold them. But his way of handling the situation, is C grade at best.

I am willing to engage in a thoughtful debate about mechanics. He is not. He just repeats the same thing, and tells me how wrong I am for having an opinion he disagrees with, but he is unwilling or unable to defend his views.

13 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

I don't think SotL is trolling. Or, if they are, I think there's still something to what they're saying.

There is and there isn't. In some ways, he's not wrong that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the world isn't going to effect FFG if their bottom line is not only not hurting but soaring. However the faux Zen "Perhaps it is not the building that is on fire, perhaps it is your inner being that is on fire" response is not only tiresome but equally unhelpful. In either case, people are expressing real displeasure with the current state of the game, telling them not to feel that way is as pointless as all the wailing and gnashing.

18 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

The (valid) question, to my mind, is why this meta. Why are we in dire straits and where do we find it in the game right now? Specifically, what has deviated to an unholy degree from the game's core that is different than the metas that predated this one?

I'm honestly not sure that it is this meta, or at least not just this meta. Rather it's a combination of a few particularly bad aspects of this meta combined with a more general feeling that due to a series of bad metas, poor design choices, and broken combos that this is considered an acceptable state for the game. The desperate calls for action are not just about correcting the specific issues at the moment but a plea for FFG to acknowledge that they even exist and indicate that the game won't continue in this direction.

27 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

What's really, truly new that is destroying X-Wing's core mechanics?

Mostly it's the fact that for many people the game is, or at least was, about properly choosing maneuver dials and outguessing your opponent. However lists such as Ghost/Fenn don't care about arcs, and to a large degree don't care about maneuvering, making the game devolve it's a fairly simple math equation with a middling amount of variance and where skill is a small factor at best. I honestly don't think Ghost/Fenn will win worlds, while is has an absurdly high skill floor, it doesn't have an overly high skill ceiling. It's virtually impossible to fly it poorly, but it's also difficult to truly excel with meaning that another list such as FML is more likely to take the crown. Complaints about the J5k were about it being blatantly OP, complaints about Ghost/Fenn, TLT, Sabine, etc. tend to center more around them being unfun to both play and play against. The fact that they're significantly above average just means we see a whole lot of them, sometimes 100% of the cut, but the real vitriol comes from the fact that those lists gameplay styles make the game unenjoyable for a lot of people.

The most visible archetypes of the current meta (Ghost/Fenn and its twin brother Miranda/Low) have in one form or another been a defining feature of the competive game since last summer basically before and ultimately after the biggs nerf. The ghost hasnt dominated the competitve scene but it has been near the top of the list of things to be able to handle going back to the Kanan/Biggs days and Kanan/Low days that followed.

People get stuck on Miranda and the Ghost, but its things like Biggs, Lowhrick, and Fenn that lead to true salt.

None of the current meta is new in any way besides maybe PS11 Coordinate, Kylo running to time against Miranda, and the ability for 3-4 fully modified missile shots to finally put pressure on the leading defensive turrets.

The player base has been extremely consistent with its opinion that fighting AOE tanks that dont take damage is not fun. Some players enjoy not taking damage but no one enjoys not doing damage.

Some players who feel that way have just moved on and accepted it as a reality. Its just an upfront fee we pay to be part of whats still in many spots a really cool community. Accept it and get to hang out or dont. Easy. Should only be 50-60% of your games in Swiss or the Cut so whatever, its fine.

People are just generally bored of what it feels like to fight a defensive AOE bubble. I dont blame them. The puzzle being solved is the same each time. Against Ghost/Fenn and Miranda/Low/Fenn....im just trying to stay inside a triangle safe zone somewhere on the mat. Its fun for a little while and then its not.

Winning against it is irrelevant. Its straight forward and sometimes simple to beat both archetypes. Winning consistently is a choice you make before the game, not during it. Though players who get to the Top 4-8 always deserve some amount of respect.

Bottom line. Hyper Defense is a threat to X-Wing. It almost always dulls the most fun parts of X-Wing. Soontir and Biggs did. Lowhrick does. Fenn is. Its worse when predictable offense can be paired with it. The win condition simply breaks under the weight of ships that dont die and barely care where they move.

None of this matters anyway. There is nothing wrong with complaining about a competitve game (and I am strictly referring to the competitive game) that very obviously has the potential to be amazing but is not functioning at its full and obviously great potential.

Its possible to complain vocally about what we dont like about X-Wing and to be happy in other parts of life and to have fun with what we do like about X-Wing all at the same time.

Live Free

Dont Join

Hakuna Matata

Hooray Beer

Final point its critical to avoid complaining to someone to their face during a tournament game about their list choice...once the dials go down let the salt go and take it easy.

I'm not trolling and I'm not diverting, because it's all part of the same picture.

Its about paradigm shift.

1 hour ago, Makaze said:

Mostly it's the fact that for many people the game is, or at least was, about properly choosing maneuver dials and outguessing your opponent. However lists such as Ghost/Fenn don't care about arcs, and to a large degree don't care about maneuvering, making the game devolve it's a fairly simple math equation with a middling amount of variance and where skill is a small factor at best. I honestly don't think Ghost/Fenn will win worlds, while is has an absurdly high skill floor, it doesn't have an overly high skill ceiling. It's virtually impossible to fly it poorly, but it's also difficult to truly excel with meaning that another list such as FML is more likely to take the crown. Complaints about the J5k were about it being blatantly OP, complaints about Ghost/Fenn, TLT, Sabine, etc. tend to center more around them being unfun to both play and play against. The fact that they're significantly above average just means we see a whole lot of them, sometimes 100% of the cut, but the real vitriol comes from the fact that those lists gameplay styles make the game unenjoyable for a lot of people.

This is not my experience with Ghost/Fenn. Just because it doesn't have to care as much about positioning and choosing maneuver dials carefully and outguessing, that doesn't mean you can't have success against it with a list that does care about those things. And if your list cares about those things (and is a decent list to begin with), then your opponent needs to care about those things to at least a certain extent or they'll lose, no matter what they're flying.

But again, this could just be my personal experience talking and the conclusions I've drawn could be entirely subjective.

5 hours ago, YourHucklebrry said:

This is not my experience with Ghost/Fenn. Just because it doesn't have to care as much about positioning and choosing maneuver dials carefully and outguessing, that doesn't mean you can't have success against it with a list that does care about those things. And if your list cares about those things (and is a decent list to begin with), then your opponent needs to care about those things to at least a certain extent or they'll lose, no matter what they're flying.

In that situation the burden of execution is almost entirely on you.

No one with any credibility is saying that Ghost/Fenn is unbeatable, rather the complaint is that it's boring. The Ghost/Fenn player can dial in simple safe moves, react with the PS11 boost if necessary, and on average they'll stand a good chance of winning. I am of course oversimplifying to some degree, but often the decision tree boils down to whether you 2 hard, 1 bank, or occasionally 4K and when to boost. That's it. Maul rerolls and primary vs. TLT generally all have an objectively correct calculable answer and don't sacrifice your defenses to use. Bump with Fenn? That's OK because hotcop and his ability, the reasons you brought him, still work just fine. Accidentally put the Ghost on a rock? No worries, just boost off. There are some decisions, but the consequences for making the wrong one tend to be fairly low.

You on the other hand typically have to be on point and dial in exceptional moves the entire game to win. One wrong move and you fall behind on the damage curve and lose. That can, for a while, be exciting. But after doing it enough, especially several times in one day, it gets really old. Playing starts to feel more like a chore, you know you can win, but that alone doesn't make pushing that rock up the hill any more fun

7 hours ago, Makaze said:

In that situation the burden of execution is almost entirely on you.

No one with any credibility is saying that Ghost/Fenn is unbeatable, rather the complaint is that it's boring. The Ghost/Fenn player can dial in simple safe moves, react with the PS11 boost if necessary, and on average they'll stand a good chance of winning. I am of course oversimplifying to some degree, but often the decision tree boils down to whether you 2 hard, 1 bank, or occasionally 4K and when to boost. That's it. Maul rerolls and primary vs. TLT generally all have an objectively correct calculable answer and don't sacrifice your defenses to use. Bump with Fenn? That's OK because hotcop and his ability, the reasons you brought him, still work just fine. Accidentally put the Ghost on a rock? No worries, just boost off. There are some decisions, but the consequences for making the wrong one tend to be fairly low.

You on the other hand typically have to be on point and dial in exceptional moves the entire game to win. One wrong move and you fall behind on the damage curve and lose. That can, for a while, be exciting. But after doing it enough, especially several times in one day, it gets really old. Playing starts to feel more like a chore, you know you can win, but that alone doesn't make pushing that rock up the hill any more fun

I do understand that the list is strong, and I also understand why it's strong. What I don't understand is the extent to which it is supposedly subverting our experience as the opponent.

We choose what we fly, and that's another way of saying that we choose the win conditions for our list. I've beaten multiple Ghost/Fenns in a competitive environment with lists that I enjoy to fly: arc-bound lists that reward good maneuver choices and punish bad ones. Ghost/Fenn didn't change that. In fact, when the Ghost/Fenn player didn't respect the maneuverability of my list, I was able to punish them for it like I'm supposed to be able to. The games were all surprisingly standard wrt the way I flew and my enjoyment of the games.

If we want, we can control our experiences more directly than that, because we don't even have to ever play against it in a casual setting. If I take a casual list to the weekly get-together that doesn't have a realistic win condition against Ghost/Fenn, that's fine, I just don't play against it because there isn't much point. But if I take a list to a tournament that also doesn't have a way out against Ghost/Fenn, I better hope I made that decision consciously with hopes of an edge against the rest of the meta. Otherwise, how's that not on me?

Basically, if we can construct lists that can beat Ghost/Fenn with win conditions that we enjoy, and I think we can, I don't see the game-wide cancerous problem that it's supposed to be. I just see a good list.

17 hours ago, YourHucklebrry said:

What's really, truly new that is destroying X-Wing's core mechanics? The question.

16 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Bottom line. Hyper Defense on a ship that can bring the 360 pain is a threat to X-Wing.

Live Free

Dont Join

Hakuna Matata

Hooray Beer

Added for emphasis

8 hours ago, Makaze said:

...the answer lies in what causes the situation on easyer, non-guessing, constant defense/offense that, in that situation the burden of execution is almost entirely on you.

No one with any credibility is saying that Ghost/Fenn is unbeatable, rather the complaint is that it's boring. The Ghost/Fenn player can dial in simple safe moves, react with the PS11 boost if necessary, and on average they'll stand a good chance of winning.

What is the answer? If it removes guessing your opponents moves and strategies because they don’t matter, if it slows you to not have to take chances but perform attacks regardless the opponents positioning, if it gives defense regardless of your opponents investment in attack, if it allows you to recover after damage and remove your opponents ability to win by removing one of your ships, then, if it has most of these, I think it’s against the game’s core mechanics.

...too simple?

14 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Added for emphasis

What is the answer? If it removes guessing your opponents moves and strategies because they don’t matter, if it slows you to not have to take chances but perform attacks regardless the opponents positioning, if it gives defense regardless of your opponents investment in attack, if it allows you to recover after damage and remove your opponents ability to win by removing one of your ships, then, if it has all these, I think it’s against the game’s core mechanics.

...too simple?

I hope I've been clear that that's just not my experience vs. the list. It does not subvert my list's goals or win conditions, even ones that involve guessing my opponent's moves, cares about positioning, involves investment in offence. And if I'm playing that game and, by extension, forcing my opponent to play that game, I'm having fun. Because we're continuing to ignore the fact that it's our lists that primarily shapes our experience, the ones we're flying all day, not our opponent's. 'But the burden of execution is on me to fly well, not my opponent'. Well duh, I brought a couple arc-bound ships, that's what I signed up for.

So I come back to the idea that if you don't want to play against it casually, don't. If you go into a tournament with a list that doesn't have a serious win-condition against it, that's on you. And if you're convinced you can't beat Ghost/Fenn with lists that care about all the things you say Ghost/Fenn doesn't care about, I think you're mistaken.

lol, I couldn't be happier. The sounds of nerfherders crying that the ship/pilot/upgrade they hate so much will still be in the tournament.

It is not like many of them will be at worlds so why would they care.

7 hours ago, YourHucklebrry said:

I do understand that the list is strong, and I also understand why it's strong. What I don't understand is the extent to which it is supposedly subverting our experience as the opponent.

We choose what we fly, and that's another way of saying that we choose the win conditions for our list. I've beaten multiple Ghost/Fenns in a competitive environment with lists that I enjoy to fly: arc-bound lists that reward good maneuver choices and punish bad ones. Ghost/Fenn didn't change that. In fact, when the Ghost/Fenn player didn't respect the maneuverability of my list, I was able to punish them for it like I'm supposed to be able to. The games were all surprisingly standard wrt the way I flew and my enjoyment of the games.

If we want, we can control our experiences more directly than that, because we don't even have to ever play against it in a casual setting. If I take a casual list to the weekly get-together that doesn't have a realistic win condition against Ghost/Fenn, that's fine, I just don't play against it because there isn't much point. But if I take a list to a tournament that also doesn't have a way out against Ghost/Fenn, I better hope I made that decision consciously with hopes of an edge against the rest of the meta. Otherwise, how's that not on me?

Basically, if we can construct lists that can beat Ghost/Fenn with win conditions that we enjoy, and I think we can, I don't see the game-wide cancerous problem that it's supposed to be. I just see a good list.

Well said!

There are plenty of other lists that are much more boring to fly against and are annoyingly strong too. Off the top of my head Aggressors with LWF/TLT and Jonus, 4x Y-Wings with TLT, 4xHWKs with TLT and Pulsed ray shield... wait a minute what do these have in common hahaha.

Actually 3-4 wookies and anything Jumpmasters STILL are pretty awful too

Disappointing, because even if a FAQ didn't contain nerfs, there are actual rules questions which ought to get cleared up by an FAQ.

• They should clarify TLT/Harpooned! a little better, since I've still seen debate on whether initiative matters.
• I'd love an official ruling on Viktor Hel vs "perform this attack twice." I'm squarely in the "he doesn't trigger unless an individual attack roll is of not-two dice, and two dice twice doesn't trigger" since every other card in X-Wing, when looking at Perform This Attack Twice works in a logic gate way, but I understand that the 2+2=4 crew have an argument which, while mathematically inappropriate, isn't entirely senseless.
• Some clarification on what can or cannot trigger Captain Jostero, for example. Can Dace Bonearm's ability triggering off an Ion Cannon [Turret] trigger Jostero? Having a detailed entry on him in the FAQ would be nice.
• I'm sure there are a few more things.

I think I may be the only person who doesn't care about errata at all and really does want an FAQ. I'm walking into Worlds with more legitimate rules questions than ever before. Questions that will likely come up given the expected meta. It's extremely frustrating from a judge perspective.

14 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Disappointing, because even if a FAQ didn't contain nerfs, there are actual rules questions which ought to get cleared up by an FAQ.

• They should clarify TLT/Harpooned! a little better, since I've still seen debate on whether initiative matters.
• I'd love an official ruling on Viktor Hel vs "perform this attack twice." I'm squarely in the "he doesn't trigger unless an individual attack roll is of not-two dice, and two dice twice doesn't trigger" since every other card in X-Wing, when looking at Perform This Attack Twice works in a logic gate way, but I understand that the 2+2=4 crew have an argument which, while mathematically inappropriate, isn't entirely senseless.
• Some clarification on what can or cannot trigger Captain Jostero, for example. Can Dace Bonearm's ability triggering off an Ion Cannon [Turret] trigger Jostero? Having a detailed entry on him in the FAQ would be nice.
• I'm sure there are a few more things.

Seriously. All balance questions aside there are quite a number of rules questions that are fairly likely to come up, that are currently either impossible to answer by current RAW (Hel vs TLT) or answerable only by tenuously-related precedent (Jostero again, since he's on the mind, and his timing related to attacking a ship being affected by Harpoon splash damage - which seems likely to be ruled to be the same as QD, and to trigger after the attack, but we're not yet sure). Or the whole mess around the timing of destruction versus removal from the board.

There are probably half a dozen little niggles like this in the rules which just aren't clearly answered by the rules or the current FAQ. Regardless of whether things need balance changes, or whether i want balance changes, some clarity of unclear things would be most appreciated.

13 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Seriously. All balance questions aside there are quite a number of rules questions that are fairly likely to come up.

Stealing a list from reddit:

palp lw/frame

torani and jostero

flight assist - measure - have to?

hotshot copilot and tlt (both focus?)

juke and reinforce

cruise missile and jan ors (4 dice max - include jan ors?)

scum nym - ability before or after bomb explodes?

rebel nym - ability before or after he maneuvers?

tractor beam - template able to overlap obstacle

bomb effects generating attacks

Victor hel vs Tlt

Jake Farrel+ intensity (can you trigger intensity twice before flipping it?)

If a ship that's been coordinated an action can't perform it, (eg it tries to target lock but target isn't in range), what point does the coordinate get walked back to?

Chopper discarding things

Snap shot and blinded pilot

Ion torpedo

3 minutes ago, player2072913 said:

Stealing a list from reddit:

palp lw/frame

torani and jostero

flight assist - measure - have to?

hotshot copilot and tlt (both focus?)

juke and reinforce

cruise missile and jan ors (4 dice max - include jan ors?)

scum nym - ability before or after bomb explodes?

rebel nym - ability before or after he maneuvers?

tractor beam - template able to overlap obstacle

bomb effects generating attacks

Victor hel vs Tlt

Jake Farrel+ intensity (can you trigger intensity twice before flipping it?)

If a ship that's been coordinated an action can't perform it, (eg it tries to target lock but target isn't in range), what point does the coordinate get walked back to?

Chopper discarding things

Snap shot and blinded pilot

Ion torpedo

Holy crap, did someone copy paste my list? It's like exactly the same order too... I must have mentioned it on the podcast.

2 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

Holy crap, did someone copy paste my list? It's like exactly the same order too... I must have mentioned it on the podcast.

Yeah they copied it from the OCX podcast

28 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

I think I may be the only person who doesn't care about errata at all and really does want an FAQ. I'm walking into Worlds with more legitimate rules questions than ever before. Questions that will likely come up given the expected meta. It's extremely frustrating from a judge perspective.

FFG designers come from an RPG background so their approach to rules is to allow TOs a gamesmaster-type level of authority to interpret the rules for their group at a local level, and if that doesn't solve a problem immediately you just roll a dice to decide who's right and get on with the game. Consistency of ruling across the game is not really an FFG goal, and as a judge you should feel you have the authority to rules things as you see fit and that your players will accept that.

Many if not most of those are pretty clear, tbh.

But some of them definitely aren't.

E: I'm 100% happy with judges making rulings, but when there are some things like these that can have a pretty major impact on the game to the point of affecting list building, knowing what the ruling will be in advance is pretty important.

I'm not convinced that complaints about the current meta are really more pronounced than they have been in the past. To the extent that top-level players are more fed up than in the past, I'm legitimately curious why.

I'm wondering if Ghost Fenn is one of the first lists where top level players are losing consistently to players with significantly less experience and skill.

On 4/14/2018 at 5:06 PM, Kaptin Krunch said:

I foresee X-wing having to do what 40k did during the 6th/7th edition Era- Form a group that puts out their own rules addendum for tournaments.

And hey, the ITC (the 40k rules group) ended up being the people to write 8th edition as well- it could all turn out for the better.

So are Objectives going to be the basework for X-wing's ITC? Or are we going with a total rewrite?

Either way, I know that this is half the reason that I started making cards as prize support- to support whatever community edition gets made.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter sir. Serisouly, if FFG doesn't want to balance their game, the community should.

There are at least two community revisions in various stages of completion.

The trouble with them is that they will never be used at SC level or above, and that's, to be honest, where the vast majority of top tier competition takes place. Quarterly kits can within reason do what they like, but the competitive track has to use FFG rules.

On 4/16/2018 at 9:36 AM, thespaceinvader said:

Many if not most of those are pretty clear, tbh.

But some of them definitely aren't.

You would think so, but these are all questions that I've had people argue with me about and, while I disagree, they present some interesting arguments for both sides.

On 4/16/2018 at 9:36 AM, thespaceinvader said:

E: I'm 100% happy with judges making rulings, but when there are some things like these that can have a pretty major impact on the game to the point of affecting list building, knowing what the ruling will be in advance is pretty important.

That's what Iain, Brent, and I tried to do for System Opens. Get as much information out to the public as early as possible so they can plan accordingly. Finding out the morning of that your combo doesn't work like you hoped is an awful way to do things. That's also why I've been bugging FFG to make judgments on these early and hopefully make them public if not officially, but for just worlds so people can plan for them. Some of them, I'm pretty sure I know how they will get ruled and some of those are directly against how the rules are written. At least one, palp and lightweight frame, I have no idea how it will be ruled as it seems like they don't even agree on it yet.

1 minute ago, Killerardvark said:

You would think so, but these are all questions that I've had people argue with me about and, while I disagree, they present some interesting arguments for both sides.

In some cases, they've definitely been wrong to argue.

Specifically, Torani/Jostero, and Juke/Reinforce are both very clear, and I've no idea what the Nym ones are even asking.