1 hour 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.

After reading the rules for replacement effects, I still don't agree. 'If you do so' is not referring to gaining a disarm token. It is referring to you choosing the do the first part of the ability. The replacement effect makes you gain a different token, but you still chose a ship and gained said token. So the condition is met. If on the other hand the second sentence had said 'When you gain a disarm token' then it would not have worked.

4 hours ago, Green Knight said:

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.

No, you really can't.

If someone asks you to go to the store for milk and you come back with Whiskey, you can say "Well I intended to buy milk" all you like but you're still not getting pancakes.

Due to the wording Proach needs to receive a Disarmed token to trigger his effect. Regardless of intent, as per the replacement effect rules (And Yushyns own wording of "Before" and "Instead") does Proach gain a disarmed token?

Yes or no?

2 minutes ago, StephenEsven said:

After reading the rules for replacement effects, I still don't agree. 'If you do so' is not referring to gaining a disarm token. It is referring to you choosing the do the first part of the ability. The replacement effect makes you gain a different token, but you still chose a ship and gained said token. So the condition is met. If on the other hand the second sentence had said 'When you gain a disarm token' then it would not have worked.

What does Proach say?

"Gain a Disarm token"

Or

"Choose to intend to gain a Disarm token"?

The Disarm is the cost of declaring a target for the ability. There's one side of this argument that keeps adding extra words and "intentions" to what's written based on their assumption of how it should work.

3 minutes ago, Sonikgav said:

What does Proach say?

"Gain a Disarm token"

Or

"Choose to intend to gain a Disarm token"?

The Disarm is the cost of declaring a target for the ability. There's one side of this argument that keeps adding extra words and "intentions" to what's written based on their assumption of how it should work.

It says Choose a ship ... and gain a Disarm token. I choose a ship, then triggers a replacement effect, for which I pay a cost, and I gain a stress. And since I chose to do do the fist part, I now do the latter part of the ability. The problem is that you are treating the latter part as being dependent on gaining a Disarm token, when in fact it is only depentent on you choosing to initiate the ability. Nowhere does the text say 'If you gain a disarm token...'

I fully agree that the effect 'Gain a Disarm token' did not happen as per the Replacement Effect rule. Where we disagree is wether the second part is dependent on you gaining said token.

Except there are no elipses that you have inserted.

The Trigger is "Choose a target and gain a Disarm token".

The "and", contained on the same sentence before the full stop means that is all the same part of the rule. You're taking the trigger but deciding for yourself that you're going to take a stress as cost not disarm. That's not what Proach says.

If it wasn't dependent on you getting the token, why would it be part of it at all?

Do what the card says, not what it doesn't say, as always. It gives you instructions to do in order to do something else. If you cannot do those instructions, you don't get to do what they trigger.

this discussion again?

RAW it doesn't work, if we're strictly following the language on the cards and in the rules reference. imho the intention for it to work is there and you can interpret it as working, if you choose to interpret the rules about replacement effects as not stopping this kind of interaction - and how strict the "if you do..."-text is in relation to what was actually done.

i'm hosting a tournament next week. if this comes up, i'm ruling that it does work, while clearly stating that the wording is not 100% clear and that i'm taking the freedom to interpret FFGs intentions as a TO. that's just me, though.

if you choose to use an ability, you should always resolve as much of the ability as possible. if there are replacement effects involved, you should resolve those as far as possible as well. if you choose to gain a disarm token, you have chosen to gain a disarm token, even if you replace the effect, the rest of the ability should still be resolved as far as possible.

i know that argument is not 100% solid according to the rules as written, but it's not the first time i have gone beyond RAW when interpreting rules in a way that i see is best for the game as a whole, especially when it comes to x-wing.

dear FFG, we need a clarification for this asap. thank you!

On 12/20/2018 at 3:05 PM, meffo said:

i know that argument is not 100% solid according to the rules as written, but it's not the first time i have gone beyond RAW when interpreting rules in a way that i see is best for the game as a whole, especially when it comes to x-wing.

Can you please not? House rules like this don't belong in Organized Play. Consistent objective rulings based on correct readings of RAW is more important than this little combo. What is best for the game as a whole is a unified ruleset in Organized Play that does not change from store to store and from TO to TO so that players that have taken the time to read and know the rules do not get blindsided when they go to a store or event they have not been to before, by a Marshall who has decided to say "@#$% the actual rules, I'm the TO and I know what's best for the game!". It also hurts players that play under the incorrect rules and then try to do the same things at another store that is playing correctly.

This type of ruling has bigger implications outside of this little combo. For example, by ruling this way, you are opening the door to lists with U-Wings blocking and locking down ships with Feedback Array and Static Dishcharge Vanes in a loop until they die. This also allows Nien Numb with Static Discharge Vanes to Slam behind someone with Black One and dump all his stress, disarm and ion tokens before he attacks and leave the ship in front of him ioned. There is a good reason that the rules are setup to prevent players from using replacement effects to "cheat" out of paying a cost, even if the marketing department that writes preview articles doesn't understand that. The former example is an especially unfun experience that imo does not make the game better.

15 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

This type of ruling has bigger implications outside of this little combo. For example, by ruling this way, you are opening the door to lists with U-Wings blocking and locking down ships with Feedback Array and Static Dishcharge Vanes in a loop until they die  . This also allows Nien Numb with Static Discharge Vanes to Slam behind someone with Black One and dump all his stress, disarm and ion tokens before he attacks and leave the ship in front of him ioned. There is a good reason that the rules are setup to prevent players from using replacement effects to "cheat" out of paying a cost, even if the marketing department that writes preview articles doesn't understand that. The former example is an especially unfun experience that imo does not make the game better.

Both your U-Wing example and your Nien Numb example are legal by the current wording though, Static Discharge Vanes no longer cause the token to skip the ship with them equipped, they transfer the token after it is received...

Per the Rules Reference, pg. 2 Errata and Conflicts, their Squad Builder has the errata for the cards on their selection entries. From there:

"Static Discharge Vanes (6)

If you would gain an ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose a ship at range 0–1. If you do, gain 1 stress token and transfer 1 ion or jam token to that ship."

18 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Both your U-Wing example and your Nien Numb example are legal by the current wording though, Static Discharge Vanes no longer cause the token to skip the ship with them equipped, they transfer the token after it is received...

Per the Rules Reference, pg. 2 Errata and Conflicts, their Squad Builder has the errata for the cards on their selection entries. From there:

"Static Discharge Vanes (6)

If you would gain an ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose a ship at range 0–1. If you do, gain 1 stress token and transfer 1 ion or jam token to that ship."

From the Rules Reference 1.0.2

Static Discharge Vanes Should read: “Before you would gain 1 ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose another ship at range 0–1 and gain 1 stress token. If you do, the chosen ship gains that ion or jam token instead.”

(Changed from “If you would gain an ion or jam token, you may choose a ship at range 0–1. If you do, gain 1 stress token and transfer 1 ion or jam token to that ship.”)

It's almost as if they changed it just to avoid players using it to cheat cost of taking an ion token to use abilities.

2 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

I am looking at the official FFG squad builder right now and in the list builder and card database both have the text as: Before you would gain 1 ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose another ship at range 0-1 and gain 1 stress token. If you do, the chosen ship gains that ion or jam token instead.

Also Yasb's entry for the card shows this:

You're looking at the card image, look at the wording of the entry you click on to select the upgrade. It is different from the card.

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

You're looking at the card image, look at the wording of the entry you click on to select the upgrade. It is different from the card.

I just edited my post to quote the Rules Reference directly. You quoted the card's old text, it was errata'd from that.

8 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

From the Rules Reference 1.0.2

Static Discharge Vanes Should read: “Before you would gain 1 ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose another ship at range 0–1 and gain 1 stress token. If you do, the chosen ship gains that ion or jam token instead.”

(Changed from “If you would gain an ion or jam token, you may choose a ship at range 0–1. If you do, gain 1 stress token and transfer 1 ion or jam token to that ship.”)

It's almost as if they changed it just to avoid players using it to cheat cost of taking an ion token to use abilities.

3 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

I just edited my post to quote the Rules Reference directly. You quoted the card's old text, it was errata'd from that.

Okay. Pg 22 in Errata...

46 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Can you please not? House rules like this don't belong in Organized Play. Consistent objective rulings based on correct readings of RAW is more important than this little combo. What is best for the game as a whole is a unified ruleset in Organized Play that does not change from store to store and from TO to TO so that players that have taken the time to read and know the rules do not get blindsided when they go to a store or event they have not been to before, by a Marshall who has decided to say "@#$% the actual rules, I'm the TO and I know what's best for the game!". It also hurts players that play under the incorrect rules and then try to do the same things at another store that is playing correctly.

 This type of ruling has bigger implications outside of this little combo. For example, by ruling this way, you are opening the door to lists with U-Wings blocking and locking down ships with Feedback Array and Static Dishcharge Vanes in a loop until they die. This also allows Nien Numb with Static Discharge Vanes to Slam behind someone with Black One and dump all his stress, disarm and ion tokens before he attacks and leave the ship in front of him ioned. There is a good reason that the rules are setup to prevent players from using replacement effects to "cheat" out of paying a cost, even if the marketing department that writes preview articles doesn't understand that. The former example is an especially unfun experience that imo does not make the game better.  

oh, yes i will. already stated well before the tournament starts that's how i'm ruling this interaction and that i'm well aware this is not how the RAW works at the moment, to keep everyone well aware in good time.

i agree that nien numb is no fun. how ever, flying him equipped with black one and static discharge vanes and pulling off the combo is expensive - and a one trick pony. it's not that bad, even though i really don't like it. i'm still allowing it, simply to let people use y ushyn / proach or feedback array / static discharge vanes.

@Tvboy That would then mean no damage is dealt by the Feedback Array in your U-Wing example and Nien has his Disarm Token still in that example but in both cases the ship they target with the Static Discharge Vanes would still have an Ion token (possibly more in the case of a group of Partisan U-Wings focusing on 1 target), likely being Ionized and stuck doing the Ionization maneuver (which blocks Advanced Sensors actions since no dial is going to be revealed for the Ionized ship), limited to a Focus action in the Perform Action step (per Ionization) and very likely in arc and range 1 of multiple attackers during the Engagement Phase following the Static Discharge Vanes use, who are now not disarmed. Other than the loss of the AOE damage from the Feedback Array (doesn't trigger since the cost of a disarm token and an ion token are not paid) I fail to see the difference in end result.

33 minutes ago, meffo said:

oh, yes i will. already stated well before the tournament starts that's how i'm ruling this interaction and that i'm well aware this is not how the RAW works at the moment, to keep everyone well aware in good time.

i agree that nien numb is no fun. how ever, flying him equipped with black one and static discharge vanes and pulling off the combo is expensive - and a one trick pony. it's not that bad, even though i really don't like it. i'm still allowing it, simply to let people use y ushyn / proach or feedback array / static discharge vanes.

It's an amazing trick for just 8 points, and it's still Nien doing Nien things with Pattern Analyzer after it gets used.

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

@Tvboy That would then mean no damage is dealt by the Feedback Array in your U-Wing example and Nien has his Disarm Token still in that example but in both cases the ship they target with the Static Discharge Vanes would still have an Ion token (possibly more in the case of a group of Partisan U-Wings focusing on 1 target), likely being Ionized and stuck doing the Ionization maneuver (which blocks Advanced Sensors actions since no dial is going to be revealed for the Ionized ship), limited to a Focus action in the Perform Action step (per Ionization) and very likely in arc and range 1 of multiple attackers during the Engagement Phase following the Static Discharge Vanes use, who are now not disarmed. Other than the loss of the AOE damage from the Feedback Array (doesn't trigger since the cost of a disarm token and an ion token are not paid) I fail to see the difference in end result.

U-Wing blocks a ships forward movement, they get into a head on bump. Opponent's ship can't shoot at the U-Wing, U-Wing uses Feedback Array and uses the replacement effect of Static Discharge Vanes:

1. RAW, the U-Wing gives an ion to the opponents ship, takes a stress and no damage is done. Next turn if the opponent's ship is small, it's forced to 1-straight and bump the U-Wing again, who also performs a 1-straight and the loop continues as long as the U-Wing player has another ship that can maneuver freely.

2. @meffo's interpretation, the U-Wing and it's prisoner both still take a damage because the cost of gaining an ion token was attempted, if not successfully paid due to being intercepted by Static Discharge Vanes. If the U-Wing's prisoner has less health than the U-Wing, then it dies after X turns trapped in a loop.

On 12/15/2018 at 3:46 AM, Sonikgav said:

If someone asks you to go to the store for milk and you come back with Whiskey, you can say "Well I intended to buy milk" all you like but you're still not getting pancakes.

.........no pancakes?

they could easily solve this problem by saying : after you gain a weapon disable token you can trade it for a stress token...

On 12/27/2018 at 9:00 PM, Grendelator said:

they could easily solve this problem by saying : after you gain a weapon disable token you can trade it for a stress token...

They could... if they intend for the pair to work together.

The thing is, people have seen these two, and because of the promotional stuff (that has gotten rules wrong before) everyone has decided that because both of these pilots are in the same ship and both have abilities that reference Disarm tokens they absolutely must be designed to work together which in the end may not be the case.

As soon as the players start assuming their version of the intent super cedes the rules as written the game falls apart.

If it changes or is FAQ'd then fine, i will stand corrected and go with the new ruling, but that new ruling would also come with a wording change because as it stands at this moment in time, as the rules are written, these two pilots do not pull off the combo some think they do.

16 hours ago, Sonikgav said:

They could... if they intend for the pair to work together.

The thing is, people have seen these two, and because of the promotional stuff (that has gotten rules wrong before) everyone has decided that because both of these pilots are in the same ship and both have abilities that reference Disarm tokens they absolutely must be designed to work together which in the end may not be the case.

As soon as the players start assuming their version of the intent super cedes the rules as written the game falls apart.

If it changes or is FAQ'd then fine, i will stand corrected and go with the new ruling, but that new ruling would also come with a wording change because as it stands at this moment in time, as the rules are written, these two pilots do not pull off the combo some think the  y do. 

i agree, RAW it doesn't work.

"Before you engage, you may choose 1 ship in your (bullseye) at range 1-2 and gain 1 disarm token. If you do, that ship gains one tractor token."

"When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred."

foreman proach clearly states that "IF YOU DO, that ship gains one tractor token."

i ruled that it would work for a tournament i held yesterday and informed everyone well in advance. no one used it, or even any nien numb / black one / static discharge vanes shenanigans.

there is an argument for the other end of the conclusion, that it should be allowed, but it's not solid enough and doesn't have the amount of support as disallowing it has in the RR. i still think this warrants a clarification from FFG, though. it's important all players are at the same page, to avoid misunderstandings and rules discussions over the board.

well, at least i'm back to following RAW. now, what ever happened to the zari bangel card and flying over asteroids with her before bumping... RAW is hard to interpret sometimes.

10 minutes ago, meffo said:

i agree, RAW it doesn't work.

"Before you engage, you may choose 1 ship in your (bullseye) at range 1-2 and gain 1 disarm token. If you do, that ship gains one tractor token."

"When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred."

foreman proach clearly states that "IF YOU DO, that ship gains one tractor token."

i ruled that it would work for a tournament i held yesterday and informed everyone well in advance. no one used it, or even any nien numb / black one / static discharge vanes shenanigans.

there is an argument for the other end of the conclusion, that it should be allowed, but it's not solid enough and doesn't have the amount of support as disallowing it has in the RR. i still think this warrants a clarification from FFG, though. it's important all players are at the same page, to avoid misunderstandings and rules discussions over the board.

well, at least i'm back to following RAW. now, what ever happened to the zari bangel card and flying over asteroids with her before bumping... RAW is hard to interpret sometimes.

No one used it because no one got to buy 2, except for the guy who decided he wanted to run a full generic swarm.

The Zari interaction is easy though, you still skip perform action for overlapping the asteroid. If the ability said you cannot skip the action step then itd take priority.

1 hour ago, ConomeOnTheVine said:

No one used it because no one got to buy 2, except for the guy who decided he wanted to run a full generic swarm.

 The Zari interaction is easy though, you still skip perform action for overlapping the asteroid. If the ability said you cannot skip the action step then itd take priority.

there was a lot of scum jank, but just a single mining guild tie. i only own four mining guid ties myself. there was only one player running resistance, otherwise i'm sure someone would have brought the nien numb / black one / static discharge cheese.

fortunately, i was running the tournament, so the participants were mostly decent people. not many resistance and rebel players in other words.

you're right, her card says "do not", not "cannot". still not the best wording. in general, the language should be more technical and precise. x-wing is kind of a huge deal these days.