In 2.0 is it possible to Trajectory Simulator launch a proximity mine field or a connor net? I haven't seen anything saying you can't so far. Anyone know the rules?

12 minutes ago, AngryAlbatross said:

In 2.0 is it possible to Trajectory Simulator launch a proximity mine field or a connor net? I haven't seen anything saying you can't so far. Anyone know the rules?

Trajectory Simulator specifies Bombs, the Rules Reference differentiates between Bombs & Mines, and Prox/Conner are Mines, not Bombs.

While I know folks don't have the physical cards yet, it's often instructive to look up the pictures.

There isn't technically a " Bomb " upgrade slot anymore, but there are " Device " upgrade slots. All Device upgrades so far have either a Bomb keyword or a Mine keyword (so far... there could easily be other keywords in the future). These words are in bold italics at the top of the upgrade's text block. The text of Trajectory Simulator specifies that, "Durring the System phase, when dropping or launching a bomb, you can launch using the 5-Straight template instead." Neatly, this also rules out any potential Genius interaction, since it limits TrajSim to the System phase, but Genius happens after fully executing a maneuver (and Genius also specifies 'bomb').

Also, it's nuts that Genius is still 0 points, the only non-configuration at 0 points, I think, and even R5-TK is up to 1 point. Genius ought to have become 1 point too. It's kind of a bomb version of Ruthless, and Ruthless is 1 point...

So a lot of old 1e players will read the word bomb, and fall back on our old terms. I know I make mistakes like this, presuming for example that Countess Ryad still had green/blue K-Turns, since she's so familiar to me. Folks might read TrajSim or Genius and forget that Bomb isn't a type of upgrade slot anymore.

"Read the cards" is a piece of rules advice that I tend to hate, since a lot of the time in 1e, folks did read them, but the language was odd, or there are legitimate interpretations about what the words mean. Viktor Hel is my favorite example of this: I've got a longstanding disagreement with my local TO about under which circumstances his ability will proc when defending against "perform this attack twice." I believe that if G is the number of green dice rolled, and G=2 for both attacks, that's rolling exactly two dice. I view it as a qualitative difference, and that summing the two attacks would be inappropriate. Two kids can't combine their ages to buy alcohol, or sit on each other's shoulders to be tall enough for a carnival ride. My TO disagrees, and feels that summing the dice across the attacks is appropriate, so unless G=1, (so G+G=2), the attacker would receive a stress. I think that interpretation is a desecration of all logic and language... But it's not an issue with whether or not someone has read the cards.

However, a lot of 2e questions seem to be because folks haven't read the cards. We know how they worked in 1e, but this isn't 1e anymore. A lot of text on cards have changed. I messed up the other day with the new Midnight. The former Omega Leader's text has changed, and rather than preventing the ship he has locked from modifying it's dice, it prevents the dice of that ship from being modified by anyone. That change to the passive voice (2e: the dice cannot be modified) from the active (1e: the opposing ship cannot modify its dice) carries with it a massive difference in actual gameplay. For example, when Midnight attacks with Juke and is Evading, he cannot turn one of the locked defender's dice from an evade to a focus, because of that passive voice. And so when I presume that folks are just saying Juke/Midnight won't work, I elide that in my head with Advanced Optics becoming Weapons Guidance, presume that Comm Relay is likewise gone (it almost surely will be gone... probably it's Sensor Cluster, if anything), rather than the fact that Midnight has substantially changed.

I'm sure that won't be the last time I make a mistake about 2e rules based on knowing how things worked in 1e, and not paying enough attention to how things have changed.

//

TL;DR: No, you cannot Launch Conner Net or Proximity Mine. @Innese is right that bombs and mines are different. Read all the cards, since a lot of stuff in 2e has changed, and our memories can deceive us.

22 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

TL;DR: No, you cannot Launch Conner Net or Proximity Mine.

What about Deathfire's ability?

After you are destroyed, before you are removed, you may preform an attack and drop or launch 1 device.

Can Deathfire launch a mine upon death?

Yes. But only 1 forward.

3 hours ago, gennataos said:

What about Deathfire's ability?

After you are destroyed, before you are removed, you may preform an attack and drop or launch 1 device.

Can Deathfire launch a mine upon death?

I would argue no, mostly.

The 'perform an attack' part of Deathfire's ability doesn't allow you to perform an illegal attack. You couldn't perform an Advanced Proton Torpedo attack at Range 2, or against a target out of arc. The attack still has to be a legal attack. As such, when Deathfire drops or launches a device, I believe it still has to be a legal drop or launch. The are currently no devices which natively can be launched instead of dropped, and TIE Bombers cannot equip a Trajectory Simulator.

The inclusion of the full text "drop or launch" seems like a kind of future proofing. Maybe there will be devices which get launched. Perhaps there could be a "Jamming Buoy" which just sits somewhere and hands out jam tokens, but doesn't explode, and perhaps it natively can be launched. Maybe there will be a kind of "Mad Bomber" Gunner which allows launching mines instead of dropping them, almost like a cross between Genius and Trajectory Simulator.

It doesn't matter *right now* that Deathfire is given an opportunity to launch a device, because there aren't any devices Deathfire can legally launch.

15 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I would argue no, mostly.

The 'perform an attack' part of Deathfire's ability doesn't allow you to perform an illegal attack. You couldn't perform an Advanced Proton Torpedo attack at Range 2, or against a target out of arc. The attack still has to be a legal attack. As such, when Deathfire drops or launches a device, I believe it still has to be a legal drop or launch. The are currently no devices which natively can be launched instead of dropped, and TIE Bombers cannot equip a Trajectory Simulator.

The inclusion of the full text "drop or launch" seems like a kind of future proofing. Maybe there will be devices which get launched. Perhaps there could be a "Jamming Buoy" which just sits somewhere and hands out jam tokens, but doesn't explode, and perhaps it natively can be launched. Maybe there will be a kind of "Mad Bomber" Gunner which allows launching mines instead of dropping them, almost like a cross between Genius and Trajectory Simulator.

It doesn't matter *right now* that Deathfire is given an opportunity to launch a device, because there aren't any devices Deathfire can legally launch.

The rules reference makes no distinction between bombs & mines when it comes to Launching, only refering to the broader device category.

In addition you have Trajectory Simulator specifying launching a Bomb, but Constable Zuvio saying you can launch a Device.

2 minutes ago, Innese said:

The rules reference makes no distinction between bombs & mines when it comes to Launching, only refering to the broader device category.

In addition you have Trajectory Simulator specifying launching a Bomb, but Constable Zuvio saying you can launch a Device.

The rules reference doesn't specify a difference, but all existing devices say "drop" and not "drop or launch." I'd understand this as normally being unable to launch, unless something specifically says you can. I'd interpret Trajectory Simulator and Constable Zuvio as allowing launches instead of drops (subject to any rules on their cards), but everything else I'd interpret as relying on the normal wording on cards.

When Deathrain or Deathfire use "drop or launch" in their text, I don't think that's permission to launch when you might otherwise drop, but referring to a general trigger. Just like "perform an attack" doesn't allow you to break the normal rules of target selection and firing arc, I don't think this wording gives permission. Zuvio and TrajSim both specifically allow you to Launch instead of Drop. There's no "instead" in Deathfire's ability.

How would DF EVER Launch a device, though? He doesn't have the ability to do so (except from his pilot ability) and nothing currently can grant him it.

His ability is clear and unambiguously worded.

As is Deathrain's, though I'm not sure why they didn't use the Launch keyword.

41 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

The rules reference doesn't specify a difference, but all existing devices say "drop" and not "drop or launch." I'd understand this as normally being unable to launch, unless something specifically says you can. I'd interpret Trajectory Simulator and Constable Zuvio as allowing launches instead of drops (subject to any rules on their cards), but everything else I'd interpret as relying on the normal wording on cards.

When Deathrain or Deathfire use "drop or launch" in their text, I don't think that's permission to launch when you might otherwise drop, but referring to a general trigger. Just like "perform an attack" doesn't allow you to break the normal rules of target selection and firing arc, I don't think this wording gives permission. Zuvio and TrajSim both specifically allow you to Launch instead of Drop. There's no "instead" in Deathfire's ability.

What the card says trumps everything else other than errata specific to that card. As stated in the "Golden Rules" section in the introduction setion of the Rules Reference: "If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules on this guide, the card ability takes precedence."

That being said, the cards in question do not specify a change in how bombs or mines are deployed. They just say that after you do so (Deathrain) or before you are removed after being destroyed (Deathfire) you may do so.

7 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

What the card says trumps everything else other than errata specific to that card. As stated in the "Golden Rules" section in the introduction setion of the Rules Reference: "If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules on this guide, the card ability takes precedence."

That being said, the cards in question do not specify a change in how bombs or mines are deployed. They just say that after you do so (Deathrain) or before you are removed after being destroyed (Deathfire) you may do so.

I mean, an ability which lets you perform a boost doesn't let you boost in reverse, or use a 3-speed template. 1e Blue Ace can bend the rules, use a 1-hard, but otherwise a card effect which instructs you to boost, without specifying anything else related to the boost, still has to follow the normal rules for a boost. Part of the Golden Rule has to be "do what the card says, not what the card doesn't say."

7 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

How would DF EVER Launch a device, though? He doesn't have the ability to do so (except from his pilot ability) and nothing currently can grant him it.

His ability is clear and unambiguously worded.

As is Deathrain's, though I'm not sure why they didn't use the Launch keyword.

(off to the side: Deathrain does say "drop or launch")

I think his ability is clear, but I don't think that means he can just launch anything he wants. I think "drop or launch" is a generic term used for how a device hits the table. Here's the rules reference on Devices: "Each ? (device) upgrade card allows a ship to drop or launch a specific type of device and provides additional rules for how that device behaves." Right now, no device upgrade allows itself to be launched on it's own, but there could be in the future. Nothing *currently* can grant it is accurate, and the reason why he's worded "drop or launch" since if they just wrote "drop" then he'd be prevented from using any potential "launch" devices they make in the future.

The key word is "currently." X-Wing 1e got into a lot of trouble with the wording on Trajectory Simulator and Genius. As written, both ought to be usable together, because the rules didn't have a unified language. X-Wing 2e is taking steps to make these interactions clearer. The full text of Trajectory Simulator is illustrative, I think. "During the System Phase, if you would drop or launch a bomb, you may launch it using the (5 S) template instead."[emphasis added]. The text specifies a trigger of "drop or launch" and then provides rules for how to deal with that in another situation. Likewise, Emon Azzameen is designed so that he won't interact with potential launching, and only says "drop," despite there being no way for him to launch anything either. Again, I think this is FFG trying to future proof their language so that when new cards get added to the game, the old text still remains valid.

I was going to say that everything which alters the normal rules for how to place a device in relation to a ship uses the word "instead" but Skilled Bombardier had to mess that up. : P But even then, Skilled Bombardier is worded in such a way as to allow the speed-adjustment on any template.

I still don't think Deathfire is giving permission to launch instead of drop a device which can normally only be dropped--he's giving a new timing window for dropping (any current device) or launching (some future device).

I think the best interpretation of "Drop or Launch" is that it's a generic timing window, like "perform an attack" or "execute a maneuver" or "perform a barrel roll." It doesn't break the normal rules for how those typically proceed, unless otherwise specified. Deathrain doesn't otherwise specify. He gives you a window to do what you could normally only do in the systems phase, but otherwise following the rules for how you would drop or launch a device.

With keywords now being a thing, I can see the argument for Deathfire getting the option to lauch a single device upon destruction. If it said "perform a launch action", I'd say he couldn't do it, because he doesn't have that action on his action bar (though launch/drop isn't actually an action bar action, is it? and why not, if it takes the place of an action? but I digress...), similar to how if it said "perform a boost action". But since it says "drop or launch a device" similar in phrasing to "gain an evade token", I'd say he could launch it. Gaining an evade token allows ships that don't have the evade action to "evade". No difference here, to me.

12 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

With keywords now being a thing, I can see the argument for Deathfire getting the option to lauch a single device upon destruction. If it said "perform a launch action", I'd say he couldn't do it, because he doesn't have that action on his action bar (though launch/drop isn't actually an action bar action, is it? and why not, if it takes the place of an action? but I digress...), similar to how if it said "perform a boost action". But since it says "drop or launch a device" similar in phrasing to "gain an evade token", I'd say he could launch it. Gaining an evade token allows ships that don't have the evade action to "evade". No difference here, to me.

The question is whether this is specific language (perform a boost action) or if it's generic language (perform a free action). I think Deathfire has generic language, and much like how "perform a free action" wouldn't give a typical TIE/LN Fighter a Boost action.

A large part of this is that I believe a generic language of device placement needs to exist. There needs to be some sort of generic way to call out this type of event, both to allow it to happen (Deathfire) or to trigger when it does happen (Deathrain). If you wanted a trigger to allow a ship to drop what can be dropped, launch what can be launched, but not mix up the normal order of things, how would you word it? And the best I can do is exactly as Deathfire and Deathrain are worded.

Sure, but it's not generic if it's telling you to do a specific thing, which this is. It's telling you that you may drop or launch a thing. Now, keeping in mind that "not" trumps everything, even things that break other rules, I'd submit that if the rules for mines say "you can only drop mines, you may not launch them" or "mines may not be launched", then you could either launch or drop a device unless that device can't be launched. Regardless, I do think this is nuanced enough to warrant official clarification. My stance would be that Deathfire gives you a one time "launch" option, which is upon his destruction.

For flavor (and I know that rules aren't specifically flavor, but they're *based* on flavor), I can see Deathfire sort of being a "deathblossom" of sorts, when he dies, a readied charge slips out of the launcher and continues on his last trajectory.

3 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Sure, but it's not generic if it's telling you to do a specific thing, which this is. It's telling you that you may drop or launch a thing. Now, keeping in mind that "not" trumps everything, even things that break other rules, I'd submit that if the rules for mines say "you can only drop mines, you may not launch them" or "mines may not be launched", then you could either launch or drop a device unless that device can't be launched. Regardless, I do think this is nuanced enough to warrant official clarification. My stance would be that Deathfire gives you a one time "launch" option, which is upon his destruction.

For flavor (and I know that rules aren't specifically flavor, but they're *based* on flavor), I can see Deathfire sort of being a "deathblossom" of sorts, when he dies, a readied charge slips out of the launcher and continues on his last trajectory.

I just fundamentally disagree with your first sentence; we are interpreting the language very differently. I emphatically *don't* think it's telling you to do a specific thing.

I honestly believe that FFG was trying to come up with rules so that we wouldn't be launching things which are supposed to be dropped. They're putting effort into making the rules interactions in this game more clear, but to some extent, it's up to us to decide if we want to help that or to thwart that.

I don't think the rules for Mines need to say "cannot be launched" because the rules on the Mine Devices all say "you may drop" and don't say launch on the card. I think this is the same as how various upgrades which allow special attacks all have indicators on what kinds of arcs the attacks can be performed with. They don't have text or rules saying "you cannot perform this attack outside of the indicated arcs" because they don't need it. I don't believe devices need that language either--the fact that they provide their own drop instructions is sufficient. The text of the mine, or any other device, tells us they can be dropped and not launched. Unless something tells us it can. Trajectory Simulator or Zuvio specifically tell us you can Launch instead of Drop, perhaps with certain conditions on this. Deathfire or Deathrain don't say anything about launching instead of dropping, they both just refer generically to drop and launch triggers. Deathfire can't perform a Proton Torpedo attack out of arc, he's not 1e Nera Dantels. Likewise, I don't believe he can launch a Proximity Mine, because that can only be dropped and Deathfire is not Zuvio.

This is from X-Wing 2.0 rule book online, page 13:

"Mines can be dropped or launched during the System Phase and typically detonate after they are moved through or overlapped by a ship."

I think Mines can be launched.

On 9/8/2018 at 7:48 PM, Boredflak1066 said:

This is from X-Wing 2.0 rule book online, page 13:

"Mines can be dropped or launched during the System Phase and typically detonate after they are moved through or overlapped by a ship."

I think Mines can be launched.

No mine currently in game states it can be launched. Both Proximity Mine and Connor net say drop.

I think there is a lot of supporting collateral for the argument that "drop or launch a device" is a generic way of saying "deploy". If the card read "you may drop a device" then there would be ambiguity as to wether you could instead launch a device and we would have the Genius/Traj Sim all debate all over again. It would have been nice if it just said "you may deploy a device" but I think we need to give FFG credit for the Second Edition gift and forgive them a few wording choices.

In the Device section of the Rules, both dropping and launching instruct you to "Take the template indicated on the upgrade card" and thus it is pretty clear, that Deathfire's pilot card is not giving him/her the ability of launching anything (bomb or mine) as there is no template mentioned , and there is no default template for dropping/launching . As mentioned, all devices currently instruct you to drop them and give you a template to do so, and a few outside abilities augment that option to allow for the launch along with a template to do so. If there was a Gunner that allowed for launching (bombs or mines), then yes Deathfire (equipped with that gunner) could launch in their final moments. But until then, the only abilities granted to to to "drop or launch a device" are the device cards themselves. (and the inherent Nimble Bomber ability that comes with the bomber)

Neither mine nor bombs state they can be launched. Its not "can this device be launched?" its "do i have access to a rule to launch a mine or bomb?"

By default nobody can launch, and currently the only upgrade enabling it is TrajSim, which specifically says Bomb so no conner/proxies.

Deathfire and Zuvio are the only other two examples of launching w/o trajsim (that im aware of), and neither of them state bomb or mine as Device is a blanket term for both. THEY can launch them, nobody else atm can.
Deathfire is allowed to launch despite not normally having access to it because his ability says "drop or launch 1 device" not "drop a device, or launch if you are capable of launching"

I'll again strenuously disagree that Deathfire does anything of the kind. There's a pretty big difference in the language between Zuvio and Deathfire, when it comes to 'drop or launch.'

Zuvio says that you can launch instead of drop, converting the normal drop rules on any equipped device into a launch. Deathfire doesn't instruct you to change how you drop or launch devise, just gives you a new window or opportunity to do so. Deathfire allows you to perform an attack as well. This does not allow the attack to be against a ship out of range or arc for your weapons, and likewise for devices. Devices drop if they can, launch if they can, with normal rules , other than the timing.

Actually, Deathfire says you may "drop or launch a device". With nothing available that would otherwise let him launch something, we're left facing one of two situations. A) his text is what lets you launch something (once, when he pops) or B) his text shouldn't have included the launch keyword, and is in error.

I get that we disagree about whether or not his text allows him to launch a thing. No difference to me than 1.0 Deathrain getting to break the bomb/mine drop rule because of his ability. Pretty much every single pilot skill in the game breaks some sort of standard rule, this one is no different.

The big issue with Deathfire's launch text is that it doesn't say what template to use, and there isn't a standard one.

7 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Actually, Deathfire says you may "drop or launch a device". With nothing available that would otherwise let him launch something, we're left facing one of two situations. A) his text is what lets you launch something (once, when he pops) or B) his text shouldn't have included the launch keyword, and is in error.

I get that we disagree about whether or not his text allows him to launch a thing. No difference to me than 1.0 Deathrain getting to break the bomb/mine drop rule because of his ability. Pretty much every single pilot skill in the game breaks some sort of standard rule, this one is no different.

There's a C possibility. This is future proofing. They don't want to word Deathfire as just "drop" since there might be "launch" devices created later, or a gunner might allow Launching instead of Dropping. If they omit "or launch" there, those new cards wouldn't function. This is the 1e issue with Genius and Trajectory Simulator, where expanding game terms caused confusion. Deathfire is as broad as can be, so that new functionality can be added to the game, without breaking the functionality. As I see it, it's not that Deathfire can't launch a device in principle, but he can't launch any specific devices already printed.

Would it have been better if FFG used an even further generic terms, "deploy a device" and then all the devices said "you may deploy this device by [drop/launch/hopscotch]?" Sure. But I still read Deathfire as generic language, along the lines of Perform an Attack, or Perform a Free Action. That doesn't allow you to do actions you couldn't normally perform, or make attacks you couldn't normally make. Why should the most generic terms existing for dropping or launching devices allow you to drop or launch a device in ways you couldn't normally drop or launch them? It shouldn't! By and large, I think the normal rules for placing devices should apply, unless really clearly some card gives other instructions. All the other ones clearly do give some instructions to this end. Use this template instead of that one, most commonly. Zuvio's text takes a lot longer to explain how he changes the bomb placement, which templates are used, etc. Deathfire doesn't do any that, doesn't suggest in any way to change how something is placed, just that he gets to toss one out as a parting gift.

I mean, if Deathfire said "Perform a Range 1 attack" that clearly wouldn't have allowed him to fire Proton Torpedoes at a target at Range 1. Devices should be viewed in the same way.

13 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The big issue with Deathfire's launch text is that it doesn't say what template to use, and there isn't a standard one.

This could work. Everything else with Launching or Dropping specifies a template. Zuvio explicit says 1-Straight, Trajectory Simulator says 5-Straight. The normal rules for dropping are specified on the Devices as 1-straight (so far), but once you break the normal Drop, you're left hanging. Without a template to use, a Launch can't take place.