So this keeps coming up with almost everyone that I speak to barring people on this board.

Because of the sneak peak article for the Mining Guild TIEs pointing this out as a thing alot are (i think) playing a rule wrong. Because the articles NEVER get rules wrong.

Yushyn has an ability that says "Before a friendly ship gains a disarmed token, it may receive a stress token instead"

Proach has an ability that reads "Nominate a target and gain a disarmed token. You may then give that target a tractor token."

Now as I read that, Proach at no point gains a disarmed token because Yushyn replaces it BEFORE he gains it so theres no interaction between the two. Proach would just end up stressed and no Tractor trigger.

Is that right or am I going mad? Sick of arguing with people that keep adding assumptive text or "intent to gain is triggered" etc. I think something similar was addressed with Jun Erso replacing focus tokens.

I would agree, and feel this is how the same sort of interactions (Feedback Array and Static Discharge) work.

Yep, that is correct. Rules as written Yushyn cannot remove the disarm token from Proach without shutting down Proach's ability. Sadly, trying to convince some players to play with the rules as written instead of what they assume to be the rules as intended is often a futile struggle.

20 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Yep, that is correct. Rules as written Yushyn cannot remove the disarm token from Proach without shutting down Proach's ability. Sadly, trying to convince some players to play with the rules as written instead of what they assume to be the rules as intended is often a futile struggle.

Usually that is because the RAW people tend to bring things up mid game as a 'gotcha' which pisses people off.

Yes articles can be wrong, but the fact it was suggested in the article, and these are two pilots for the same ship developed at the same time suggests that the interaction was probably intended. What's more likely an esoteric rule in the RRG was forgotten when writing the cards, or they were intentionally written to look like they go together but don't?

10 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

Usually that is because the RAW people tend to bring things up mid game as a 'gotcha' which pisses people off.

Yes articles can be wrong, but the fact it was suggested in the article, and these are two pilots for the same ship developed at the same time suggests that the interaction was probably intended. What's more likely an esoteric rule in the RRG was forgotten when writing the cards, or they were intentionally written to look like they go together but don't?

RAW is not gotcha, if you don't know the rules and get upset when you try and cheat and someone explains the rules to you that's not wrong of them.

You can't just interpret things however you want and expect people not to correct you. When in doubt ask your opponent or the TO ahead of time not just assume your random interpretation is correct.

4 minutes ago, Icelom said:

RAW is not gotcha, if you don't know the rules and get upset when you try and cheat and someone explains the rules to you that's not wrong of them.

You can't just interpret things however you want and expect people not to correct you. When I doubt ask your opponent or the TO ahead not just assume your random interpretation is correct.

Whether or not it's a gotcha depends on how the situation is handled. I have seen it handled well and badly. But most people remember the badly, which is why people who constantly RAW only (rule lawyers) have a negative perception. The implication that someone is trying to cheat says it all. There is wonder why the discussion is futile, the attitude is why.

Also, why would someone doubt a combo read on an article on a manufacturers website for a product they bought? You assume people should have reason to doubt something that appears clear.

Anyways, there has already been a discussion on this exact issue in a different thread. My opinion is they should work together, and that was probably the intention. I also acknowledge the RRG makes that invalid and so this is going to be a place of contention until FFG releases a clarification.

I am not sure I agree that the article is wrong. I have not seen this discussed in another thread, so a link would be appreciated. Also can someone link the relevant rules/ruleings that would lead to this conclusion, because I can't find anywhere that would lead to the conclusion it would not work.

Here's the thread where it was discussed.

The interaction may have been intended and the person who wrote the article clearly thought they were supposed to work together, but due to how replacement rules work you need to bend the rules of the game to make those two pilots work together.

1 hour ago, GeneralVryth said:

Whether or not it's a gotcha depends on how the situation is handled. I have seen it handled well and badly. But most people remember the badly, which is why people who constantly RAW only (rule lawyers) have a negative perception. The implication that someone is trying to cheat says it all. There is wonder why the discussion is futile, the attitude is why.

Also, why would someone doubt a combo read on an article on a manufacturers website for a product they bought? You assume people should have reason to doubt something that appears clear.

Anyways, there has already been a discussion on this exact issue in a different thread. My opinion is they should work together, and that was probably the intention. I also acknowledge the RRG makes that invalid and so this is going to be a place of contention until FFG releases a clarification.

2 hours ago, GeneralVryth said:

Usually that is because the RAW people tend to bring things up mid game as a 'gotcha' which pisses people off.

If someone gets pissed off at me because i explain the rules when they do something wrong, then i do jump to the conclusion that they were trying to cheat otherwise they would have no reason to be angry with me.

the attitude problem is not with me.

This is always the intention when RAW vs RAI pops up but you have to draw a line when people are inserting "The intent to get a token" and "I met a part of the cost" and expecting it to work.

42 minutes ago, Icelom said:

If someone gets pissed off at me because i explain the rules when they do something wrong, then i do jump to the conclusion that they were trying to cheat otherwise they would have no reason to be angry with me.

the attitude problem is not with me.

You either don't get it, or are willfully ignoring the point I am trying to make. Which is fine but people like you is why I hear peopke speak about competitive X-wing negatively, which is sad because the game is fun and I would like to view the competitive aspect of it as fun as well.

2 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

You either don't get it, or are willfully ignoring the point I am trying to make. Which is fine but people like you is why I hear peopke speak about competitive X-wing negatively, which is sad because the game is fun and I would like to view the competitive aspect of it as fun as well.

I have no idea what your point is... beyond you get pissed off if someone explains the rules correctly to you.

this has nothing to do with competitive vs casual.... if your idea of casual is do whatever you want ignore or change whatever rules you want then i don't really want to play any casual games with you.

casual to me is letting people take actions they forgot, adjusting ships so they don't just barely fly off the board... stuff like that not "i have decided this card works differently then the rules and will get pissed off if you don't let me"

I have no problem with people making mistakes or getting the rules wrong, that happens at every level of play. Even at high level i let people correct things unless they have gained some kind of massive information from it or before it. i do not however accept people getting "pissed off"-GeneralVryth because what they tried to do was against the rules.

My only beef is with your "pissed off" statement I can fully understand getting this interaction wrong, i cant fully understand getting mad at someone for explaining to you why it does not work.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

I have no idea what your point is... beyond you get pissed off if someone explains the rules correctly to you.

this has nothing to do with competitive vs casual.... if your idea of casual is do whatever you want ignore or change whatever rules you want then i don't really want to play any casual games with you.

casual to me is letting people take actions they forgot, adjusting ships so they don't just barely fly off the board... stuff like that not "i have decided this card works differently then the rules and will get pissed off if you don't let me"

I have no problem with people making mistakes or getting the rules wrong, that happens at every level of play. Even at high level i let people correct things unless they have gained some kind of massive information from it or before it. i do not however accept people getting "pissed off"-GeneralVryth because what they tried to do was against the rules.

My only beef is with your "pissed off" statement I can fully understand getting this interaction wrong, i cant fully understand getting mad at someone for explaining to you why it does not work.

Fair. I was referring to a specific kind of interaction I have both seen and and experienced. It usually goes like:

Player 1: I pay A to do B move.

Player 2: You can't do B move because of X.

Player 1: Okay, the then I do move C.

Player 2: You can't do that either because you paid A already for the failed move B.

Player 1: But I would have never done mive B if I had known about X.

Player 2: Too bad, shall I call a judge over?

At that point player 1 is usually some version of frustrated or pissed off. And a lot of the time X is some subtle rule or worse an errata that would be easy to miss. It sounds like you are more reasonable than player 2 so I am sorry for painting you otherwise. But it's the ones that aren't reasonable that give the rest a bad name, and by extension those that appear to dogmatically follow RAW.

Anyways, we are quite off topic at this point. My original intent was to say the cards would be reasonably expected to work together and we probably need a clarification from FFG. And until we get one it's something that is going to require understanding instead of a strict RAW mentality.

45 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

Fair. I was referring to a specific kind of interaction I have both seen and and experienced. It usually goes like:

Player 1: I pay A to do B move.

Player 2: You can't do B move because of X.

Player 1: Okay, the then I do move C.

Player 2: You can't do that either because you paid A already for the failed move B.

Player 1: But I would have never done mive B if I had known about X.

Player 2: Too bad, shall I call a judge over?

At that point player 1 is usually some version of frustrated or pissed off. And a lot of the time X is some subtle rule or worse an errata that would be easy to miss. It sounds like you are more reasonable than player 2 so I am sorry for painting you otherwise. But it's the ones that aren't reasonable that give the rest a bad name, and by extension those that appear to dogmatically follow RAW.

Anyways, we are quite off topic at this point. My original intent was to say the cards would be reasonably expected to work together and we probably need a clarification from FFG. And until we get one it's something that is going to require understanding instead of a strict RAW mentality.

By understanding you basically mean "see it your way because you assume it's right and FFG will obviously FAQ it in your favour despite what the rules say?"

30 minutes ago, Sonikgav said:

By understanding you basically mean "see it your way because you assume it's right and FFG will obviously FAQ it in your favour despite what the rules say?"

No, actually I don't. I mean it's going to be a source of legitimate confusion. I expect people to make this error. So be reasonable in your approach. That could mean warning your opponent when you see their list, or letting them take something back. I expect FFG to clarify they work together because that is what makes sense given the evidence. If they don't it will be a permanent source of a potential gotcha.

So changing the conversation, is there a balance or other reason they shouldn't be allowed to work together (again acknowledging the rules currently don't)? Would allowing it cause a bad precedent for similar interactions?

Well yes.

What if in future a Modification comes out where Proach could get a bonus for gaining a stress token?

In these instances it's got to be one or the other, not both so which token is ACTUALLY happening?

Also allowing "implied" effects to trigger other effect even when they're negated opens up a whole bag of issues.

I don't see how they can rule how you imply because it would undo the ruling on Replacement effects.

The RAW is perfect clear and shouldn't be changed, it boils down to Yushyn being a badly written card.

Or replacement rule is badly written, causing much ado.

37 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Or replacement rule is badly written, causing much ado.

Could be that. Looking at the text of Proach:

Quote

Before you engage, you may choose 1 enemy ship in your at range 1-2 and gain 1 disarm token.

could be FFG considers the "gain 1 disarm token" an effect of using the ability, not a cost? FAQ clarification (if they're concerned about a misapplication of the rules) or an Errata (if they borked the language on Proach) would be nice.

It is the effect of an ability. It's also the cost of the s3cond half of the ability so looking at the first half in isolation is irrelevant and misleading.

I think ppl are just reading the whole Replacement part wrong.

It is only the replaced effect that is... replaced, not the entire card.

Sure, it's possible to argue the other way, but it's no more RAW that way - and makes a lot less sense.

So Yushyn and Proach work fine: the only replacement effect is spending a charge on Yushyn to replace the jam token with a stress token.

It's not more complicated than that - and doesn't have to be. It's even RAW.

Replacement Effects

Some abilities are substitutive in nature - they replace how an effect would normally resolve. These abilities use the words "would" and "instead."

• Replacement effects are not added to the end of the ability queue as they are resolved at the timing of the effect they are replacing.
• When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred.
  • For example, Jyn Erso's ability says "If a friendly ship at range 0-3 would gain a focus token, it may gain 1 evade token instead." If this ability is used, an effect that triggers after a ship gains a focus token cannot trigger.
• If there are multiple replacement effects that could substitute for the same effect, only one effect can be substituted for the original effect.
  • For example, a ship is about to gain a focus token and has both the ability "Before you would gain a focus token, gain an evade token instead" and the ability "Before you would gain a focus token, gain a calculate token instead." Only one of those abilities could be resolved.

The key point is that the replaced effect is treated as not having occurred. So a disarm token was never gained and as a result everything contingent on it cannot occur. So the 'if you do' fails, because you don't.

It could easily have been written to avoid this by making the disarm happen after the tractor. But they didn't.

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It could easily have been written to avoid this by making the disarm happen after the tractor. But they didn't.

#sad #wastedopportunity

35 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The key point is that the replaced effect is treated as not having occurred. So a disarm token was never gained and as a result everything contingent on it cannot occur. So the 'if you do' fails, because you don't.

You could argue that since the disarm token was replaced by another effect, the condition had been fulfilled.

It's not gain disarm that's the trigger, but the effect that replaced gain disarmed.

Except that's not what the rules say so your argument would be incorrect.