Just now, Wiredin said:

the FAQ specifically states you cannot use palp on the additional die if you palp'd the first two. but it doesn't say the reverse. it just says results. the previously rolled die(dice) are also results are they not?

It doesn't say results, it is specific that you may can it on the additional die, not upon the additional die roll. It's a permissive entry with limited permissions.

1 minute ago, RampancyTW said:

It doesn't say results, it is specific that you may can it on the additional die, not upon the additional die roll. It's a permissive entry with limited permissions.

After rolling, you must change 1 of your dice results to the named result.

that looks like the word "results" was used.

Just now, Wiredin said:

After rolling, you must change 1 of your dice results to the named result.

that looks like the word "results" was used.

Oh, didn't realize you were referring to the errata entry. That is the card's general instruction, yes. The FAQ entry is how to apply it, which is where it separates the initial roll from the LWF roll and how Palp can and cannot interact with each.

In short, yes, there is a distinct need for an FAQ, just to clarify some common and unclear interactions.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

In short, yes, there is a distinct need for an FAQ, just to clarify some common and unclear interactions.

Snap Shot/FA Blinded Pilot, Viktor Hel/PTAT, and Jake/Intensity are the three I would really love to see clarified. Jake being able to trigger Intensity twice seems incorrect (there doesn't appear to be a nesting opportunity RAW), but it's been ruled that way and thus could very much use an entry.

And of course a clarification for ISYTDS vs Reinforced Deflectors would be nice, but the odds of that ever mattering in an important tournament are pretty much zero

4 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Snap Shot/FA Blinded Pilot, Viktor Hel/PTAT, and Jake/Intensity are the three I would really love to see clarified. Jake being able to trigger Intensity twice seems incorrect (there doesn't appear to be a nesting opportunity RAW), but it's been ruled that way and thus could very much use an entry.

And of course a clarification for ISYTDS vs Reinforced Deflectors would be nice, but the odds of that ever mattering in an important tournament are pretty much zero

the double intensity jake thing has to be incorrect. but it's not like it's broken and making Jake an S tier ship anyways....

Snapshot/Blinded Pilot is interesting tho... it is an attack... so I think it would clear the crit.

16 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Oh, didn't realize you were referring to the errata entry. That is the card's general instruction, yes. The FAQ entry is how to apply it, which is where it separates the initial roll from the LWF roll and how Palp can and cannot interact with each.

once again, it only specifically outlines that the additional die roll cannot be modified if you use palp on the original roll. it does not say vice versa. I agree, this is/should be the intended operation, but rules lawyering it does not specifically state that you cannot roll the original die roll.

1 minute ago, Wiredin said:

the double intensity jake thing has to be incorrect. but it's not like it's broken and making Jake an S tier ship anyways....

Snapshot/Blinded Pilot is interesting tho... it is an attack... so I think it would clear the crit.

The attack itself definitely would, the question with SS/BP is what constitutes an opportunity to attack, since SS says you may perform this attack after an enemy ship executes a maneuver. The attack itself is range limited, but the opportunity to attack is ???? due to the permissions header before the attack header.

3 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

The attack itself definitely would, the question with SS/BP is what constitutes an opportunity to attack, since SS says you may perform this attack after an enemy ship executes a maneuver. The attack itself is range limited, but the opportunity to attack is ???? due to the permissions header before the attack header.

okay, I see it...

I would rule it, and I've never judged or had interest in judging, that if you could complete the snap shot attack normally, then blinded pilot would trigger. but if snap shot could not trigger (r2 for example) then blinded pilot would not trigger and would wait for the next opportunity.

am I understanding the grey area?

21 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

It does, though. Its wording specifies using it on the LWF die, not after the LWF roll.

FAA is worded like any other rule/card that gives you a may if conditions are met. There is zero precedent to force players to boost or BR if they measure, and zero precedent for forcing them to declare a boost or BR before measuring. Rule accordingly.

Cruise Missile/Prockets resolve in step 2i of the attack timing chart, which is where the additional dice from CM/Prockets are added to their max. Jan Ors/Opportunist/etc. resolve in step 2ii, after the maximum dice limitation has resolved. They're separate steps with separate resolutions. Rule accordingly.

Tractor beam FAQ was amended and Obstacle rules FAQ were added at the same time to clarify what could and could not be done with a tractor beam movement. "After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the overlap is not from executing a maneuver, it suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle:" Tractoring is literally the only thing that allows this to happen (SLAM is a maneuver and normal boost/BR by rule cannot), and this entry was made in conjunction with the FAQ process for tractoring. Edit: This is wrong. Collision Detector allows this as well. We do, however, have a ruling from TIE/x7 that maneuver template overlapping an obstacle is under the umbrella of a ship overlapping an obstacle, which is explicitly allowed. Rule accordingly.

What is your basis for disagreement?

Palp LWF

The FAQ states that you can invoke palp on the LWF die. The counter argument is that then when you roll and resolve you must change one of your die results. Is the die from LWF the only result at that moment or are the previously rolled results part of the valid results pool. And again I state, one of the designers of the game holds this argument to be true. If he decides it works that way, that's what we have to live with. I just hope they add it to the FAQ, whichever way they decide, more explicitly.

FAA

I agree with you on this one, but i've gotten questions asked on it frequently. Enough that a formal response from FFG would be nice. I also think the discussion of "abusive measurement" would be nice to have with the designers. Personally, I would like to see some of it eliminated, just my opinion though.

Cruise Missiles

Again, I agree with you, but a formal response would be nice to clarify for people. The paragraph regarding min/max calculations has confused people.

Tractor Beam

Barrel roll and boost cannot have their template or base overlap an obstacle unless you have collision detector. Tractor Beam allows the base to overlap but does not say that the template can overlap. x7 doesn't reference boost or barrel roll so I don't find that relevant. I hold that it may have been intended that the template can overlap on a tractor beam effect, but that's not what's written right now. I'm hoping that the worlds marshal (hopefully a designer) will be able to state this for precedence and hopefully get it into the next FAQ.

What's my basis for disagreement? I'm not really disagreeing on most of these. I'm simply using the scientific method to prove my rulings. I have my opinion and how I plan on ruling things, then I take opinions from others and attempt to disprove my ruling based on their arguments. When available, getting an answer directly from the decision maker at FFG is the best I can get. That's why I have this list questions that may seem obvious to some or vague to others. Regardless, there are people out there that have differing opinions on all of these. Putting forth the effort to have FFG make these less vague is my goal.

I'm not trying to sway opinions here, I'm just presenting arguments that exist, and frankly arguments that I expect to hear at worlds. Being preemptive and accumulating concurring or dissenting opinions so we can make the best judgement we can is all part of being a good judge. I didn't become one of the highest level judges in the world by digging in my heals, refusing to hear their opinion, and telling people I'm right.

3 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

okay, I see it...

I would rule it, and I've never judged or had interest in judging, that if you could complete the snap shot attack normally, then blinded pilot would trigger. but if snap shot could not trigger (r2 for example) then blinded pilot would not trigger and would wait for the next opportunity.

am I understanding the grey area?

Yeah, that's where the grey exists. The RAI would almost definitely be only flips at R1 in arc, but the RAW for Snap Shot leaves that entirely up in the air

9 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

I agree with you on this one, but i've gotten questions asked on it frequently. Enough that a formal response from FFG would be nice. I also think the discussion of "abusive measurement" would be nice to have with the designers. Personally, I would like to see some of it eliminated, just my opinion though.

I'll admit, I've used the "abusive measurement" a lot with flight assist astromech. and I've often had to reiterate that the re-position is a "may".

is the abusive measuring a major issue tho? what would be the way to rule it to take it away... you go for a TL, you are not in range, so you now have lost your action?

6 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

snip

Can absolutely agree with all of the sentiments expressed here. Abusive measurement in particular is a bit of a problem area for X-Wing, to the point where there have been people asking in the rules subforum how they can legally gain additional information well above and beyond what they're supposed to glean from a given action. Not quite sure how to enforce sportsmanship in that regard, but a method of doing so would be great.

Your initial response to me indicated your disagreement with "most of what [TSI and I] have said," and I got a little plucky. I apologize, I hope you get the clarifications you need to make your job easier.

I really don't understand the issue. The meta this regional season was more open (variety) than either of the previous two.

6 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

I'll admit, I've used the "abusive measurement" a lot with flight assist astromech. and I've often had to reiterate that the re-position is a "may".

is the abusive measuring a major issue tho? what would be the way to rule it to take it away... you go for a TL, you are not in range, so you now have lost your action?

The issue to me is more when somebody calls out for a TL/Flight Astro when it's clearly not possible, measures it (not an issue) and holds it down there to survey the rest of the map in relation to that range ruler position. You can tell the difference, between an honest ruler goes down, glance, move on... and ruler goes down, five beats later is removed despite the target being 6" further than the end of the ruler...

Of course, that's my personal opinion of what abusive measurement means...

6 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

I'll admit, I've used the "abusive measurement" a lot with flight assist astromech. and I've often had to reiterate that the re-position is a "may".

is the abusive measuring a major issue tho? what would be the way to rule it to take it away... you go for a TL, you are not in range, so you now have lost your action?

I don't think losing an action is required, but I do think finding a methodology that eliminates the whole "whether or not this range/arc trigger is satisfied is 100% clear but I'm going to hang out and move my range ruler for another 10 seconds so I gain specific range information on every single ship in that direction" would be nice. If you go for a TL, you're permitted to measure whether or not the target is in range, NOT to measure the range to every single other ship. I think measuring from the target ship instead of the origin ship could be a good potential solution. Still room for abuse, but less of it, and generally your opponent will benefit from it just as much as you do, which is not the case right now.

Just now, LagJanson said:

The issue to me is more when somebody calls out for a TL/Flight Astro when it's clearly not possible, measures it (not an issue) and holds it down there to survey the rest of the map in relation to that range ruler position. You can tell the difference, between an honest ruler goes down, glance, move on... and ruler goes down, five beats later is removed despite the target being 6" further than the end of the ruler...

Of course, that's my personal opinion of what abusive measurement means...

I see what you mean. I won't even measure it if it's obvious for TL or FAA is not in. but if it looks like it could be on the verge of R3 I will go for the measure, and since FAA is from arc I have to measure from arc. but if I start placing the ruler in and see with a quick sweep nothing is in R3 I will decide to perform my action or not.

I have met others that sit there with the ruler for what feels like 15 seconds to make sure. that feels wrong. but I think you can get enough info from a 1 second down and up that you can make the right decisions.

1 minute ago, RampancyTW said:

I don't think losing an action is required, but I do think finding a methodology that eliminates the whole "whether or not this range/arc trigger is satisfied is 100% clear but I'm going to hang out and move my range ruler for another 10 seconds so I gain specific range information on every single ship in that direction" would be nice. If you go for a TL, you're permitted to measure whether or not the target is in range, NOT to measure the range to every single other ship. I think measuring from the target ship instead of the origin ship could be a good potential solution. Still room for abuse, but less of it, and generally your opponent will benefit from it just as much as you do, which is not the case right now.

holy crap, I really like that. I think that is a very elegant solution.

yes, TL you should always just measure distance to the target ONLY. however, if ships are flying in formation you will always have someone measure for the most distant target which is obviously out of R3 so they can see which target is in range (maybe 1 out of the 3 are in, maybe out of 3 ships are in... but you know ship #3 isnt) and that is abusive.

Flight assist, especially on double arc' ships like the ARC and the S.Shuttle are a different matter because you need to make sure there is nothing in any arc...and that can lead to a lot of abuse. like I said, if I have a target in Norra's rear arc at R1 and it's obvious, I wouldn't measure for any ships in the front arc because FAA won't activate.

stupid game...

28 minutes ago, Killerardvark said:

Tractor Beam allows the base to overlap but does not say that the template can overlap.

For what it's worth: personally I changed my opinion (with some friendly help) on that after it was pointed out to me that there seems to be a rule difference between "ship overlap" and "shipbase overlap". Shipbase means just the ship, whereas "ship" means "shipbase + template". That's where the relevance of x7 or advanced SLAM comes in, even though there it is written "you" instead of "ship".

Tractor beam uses "ship" and not "shipbase", meaning that unlike boost/BR, the wording of tractorbeam includes both the ship and the templates.

It was convincing enough to me, but it's also obnoxious enough to warrant an FAQ entry.

45 minutes ago, Sephlar said:

I really don't understand the issue. The meta this regional season was more open (variety) than either of the previous two.

That's factually incorrect. Please don't spread misinformation.

1 hour ago, Wiredin said:

okay, I see it...

I would rule it, and I've never judged or had interest in judging, that if you could complete the snap shot attack normally, then blinded pilot would trigger. but if snap shot could not trigger (r2 for example) then blinded pilot would not trigger and would wait for the next opportunity.

am I understanding the grey area?

But then arc locked ships may stay blinded all game as their condition to perform an attack is having a ship in arc.

The card even states "even if there was no target" so the interaction with that card and snap shot already seems clear to me.

11 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

That's factually incorrect. Please don't spread misinformation.

Pssh!!

The fact is a huge variety of ships can be used with the 49 pts this leaves open.

#soopen

#sovaried

4 minutes ago, benlane17 said:

But then arc locked ships may stay blinded all game as their condition to perform an attack is having a ship in arc.

The card even states "even if there was no target" so the interaction with that card and snap shot already seems clear to me.

JFC.... Outrider title with HLC. no valid target because nothing in the 2-3 band... still flips. I get it.

well now thats fun and dirty

2 hours ago, Killerardvark said:

Palp LWF

The FAQ states that you can invoke palp on the LWF die. The counter argument is that then when you roll and resolve you must change one of your die results. Is the die from LWF the only result at that moment or are the previously rolled results part of the valid results pool. And again I state, one of the designers of the game holds this argument to be true. If he decides it works that way, that's what we have to live with. I just hope they add it to the FAQ, whichever way they decide, more explicitly.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not you can call it on the 3rd die and change any of the three, but usually how people play this is also related to whether or not they do the palpatine mod right after rolling (i.e. like HLC) or "whenever they want in their modify phase". The latter I have a number of issues with as it not only undermines the stated purpose in the palp errata itself (if you can call it on the LWF die and modify whenever it's effectively just old palp...), but also it creates a number of additional rules issues around the fact that palpatine is a "must" but various abilities can cancel dice results before or during the modify phase. Tracking a die or pool of dice separately through two modify steps and potentially rerolls and all of that is mechanically awkward as well.

In ambiguous situations (which I agree all of these are), I think resolutions that do not create significant additional rules or mechanical complexity should be preferred. Ideally palpatine and most other effects like him would be optional to avoid these sorts of rules paradoxes in the first place, but that's obviously too much of a stretch from how it is written to make as a judgement call without really serious and common problems.

1 hour ago, Chumbalaya said:

That's factually incorrect. Please don't spread misinformation.

Recent regionals (April 2018):

Northern Nevada X-wing Regional had 6 different arch types lists in the top 8 meaning only 3 of the 8 were similar. Poe/Dash and 3 TIE PUNISHERS made top 4.
Regional Dresden, Germany had 7 different arch types lists in the top 8 meaning only 2 of the 8 were similar. Eaden Vrill, Braylen Stramm, and Nien Nunb was in top 4. A four JM5k list in top 8.
Bratislava Regionals, Slovakia was entirely too small (10 participants) so I won't use that data.
Victorian Regionals, Australia had no elimination rounds enter in listjuggler, but of the 6-0 and 5-1 records of swiss... the top 4 were Imperial, Imperial, Rebel, Scum. Rey and Bossk lists were also 5-1.
South Island Regionals, New Zealand was also too small (22 participants) so I won't use that data.
Sheffield Regional, United Kingdom had 1 Ghost and 1 Fenn list that lost fewer than two games (as listed). Of the 9 lists entered that went 6-0 or 5-1, six different arch types were represented.

I stand by my statement and reject yours. I remember regionals that had cuts to top 16's just a little more than a year ago in which 13 of the 16 lists had jumpmasters in them. That kind of similarity in list simply does NOT exist in the current competitive/regional meta at the moment.

Chumba... your podcast is often a good listen... but listjuggler doesn't back your claim on this subject.