Quote

Q: Do Paige Tico [Crew] and "Deathfire" [TIE Bomber]'s abilities supersede the "one device per round" limitation?

A: Yes. These abilities allow one ship to drop a second device in the same round (at the relevant timing windows), as they do not include the "if you have not dropped or launched a device this round" limitation (as included on Elon Kappehl).

Except, you've already given us this limitation in the rules reference. Pg 9 under Devices.

Quote

Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.

This rule isn't stating "only in the system phase" or another qualification. Just a hard, once per round limit. Paige and Deathfire are not, specifically stipulating that they override this rule.

So what the above ruling is stating is that, the "once per round" rule is no longer valid, and its up to each ability to determine if you can drop one or not. Which sets a dangerous precedence...


Does this mean that Quickdraw with "Special Forces Gunner" can in fact, make 2 bonus attacks? After all, neither are saying "if you have not made a bonus attack this round" as a limitation, so according to this ruling, we can make 2 bonus attacks.

By that same precedent, Captain Jostero can attack Each time an enemy ship suffers damage outside of defending because, again, he doesn't stipulate "has not made a bonus attack this round".


This also conflicts with the Golden Rules

Quote

If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence.

Except, the text on Paige and Deathfire aren't conflicting with the rules in the guide. They are not stipulating any limit overrides, which means, we *should* default to the rules in the guide, which is "only one device per round".


Sorry, FFG, this is clearly a poor ruling. If you want both pilots to work the way you say, then their pilot card needs to be re-worded to make that exception, and NOT work that way due to the lack of it.

i partially agree. since ffg has stated that they want these abilities to contradict the rules, it should be clearly stated on the cards.

and the other way around. if edon kappehl or genius are not intended to contradict the rules, it doesn't need to be stated on the cards that they can't.

well, i guess clarity is best and it's preferable that more is stated than less. at least now we know.

erratas are not desirable, but it's better than having to dig through forum threads. or the RR should be changed regarding this.

There are a few rulings in that thread that baffle the mind, but this is clearly the worst of them all. Hopefully they will reverse it at some point and errata the relevant cards if they want them to work that way.

Yeah, concur. This is a really, really dumb and bad precedent to set, because it could be taken to imply that ALL similar abilities that don't state the normal restrictions alongside them, ignore them.

So, for instance every ability that gives an action, could be done whilst stressed, because they don't say they can't be.

It's a *really* bad precedent, unless they amend the wording of the RR from one Device per round, to one Device per phase, at which point, it's fine.

Arggggg... Yeah, this is bad. The Rules-Benderd are going to be pointing to this ruleing to make a whole ton of stuff work. It completely overrides the "Do what the card says, not what it doesn't say" swim lanes that are so important to the rules of this game.

For funzies and sarcasm, lets start a list of all the things you can "now do" due to the this ruling:

1. Perform an action while stressed if granted by an ability that does not also state "Unless you are already Stressed"
2. Perform a third bonus attack if granted by an ability that does not also state that "Unless you already performed a Bonus Attack"
3. Aquire a Target Lock at any Range if granted by an ability that does not also state "At Range 0-3"
4. Aquire Multiple Target Locks if a TL is granted by an ability that does not also state "Unless you already have a TL"
5. Perform multiple Barrel Rolls or Boosts if granted by an ability that does not also state "Unless you have already performed" said action
6. .....

I agree this is a dangerous precedent and it would be ideal if there is a rules amendment.

Would it be an adequate fix if the bullet point, "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.", was removed from the Rules Reference?

28 minutes ago, Hobologist said:

I agree this is a dangerous precedent and it would be ideal if there is a rules amendment.

Would it be an adequate fix if the bullet point, "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.", was removed from the Rules Reference?

Yes, or as noted, change it to one per phase, or one during the system phase.

35 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

1 hour ago, Hobologist said:

I agree this is a dangerous precedent and it would be ideal if there is a rules amendment.

Would  it be an adequate fix if the bullet point, "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.", was removed from the Rules Reference?

Yes, or as noted, change it to one per phase, or one during the system phase.

Yes and yes. No card errata is necessary, just update the next Rules Reference doc. We're due for one anyways since the new wave (already released!) has new tokens and whatnot that are not currently covered.

Then FFG can issue an amended ruling to cancel this one.

Removing one per round entirely will raise the question of whether you can drop multiple from a single ship in the System phase - which once per opportunity WOULD prevent, but it would be made more confusing.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Removing one per round entirely will raise the question of whether you can drop multiple from a single ship in the System phase - which once per opportunity WOULD prevent, but it would be made more confusing.

Yes, that makes sense. Changing it to one device deployed per phase might be the best way to go.

Regardless of what we think should be done to fix it, this ruling need to be retracted in the meantime. Do you all agree?

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Regardless of what we think should be done to fix it, this ruling need to be retracted in the meantime. Do you all agree?

you mean this ruling?

" Q: Do Paige Tico [Crew] and "Deathfire" [TIE Bomber]'s abilities supersede the "one device per round" limitation?

A: Yes. These abilities allow one ship to drop a second device in the same round (at the relevant timing windows), as they do not include the "if you have not dropped or launched a device this round" limitation (as included on Elon Kappehl)."

or the only one device per round ruling?

i don't think any of them should be retracted in the meantime. i think there should be a new rules reference addressing this soon. until then, there is nothing we can do but wait. it's up to every TO how to treat it.

Here's what I find awkward. 1e had, I believe, a good term in "free action." Any action outside your normal action is a free action. They used similar language for the 2e Bonus Attack, which is super clean. If it isn't your normal attack, it is a bonus attack. You can only perform *one* bonus attack. But oddly they ditched the free action term. And they didn't introduce a generic term for device deployment, placement, or release (drop or launch is awkward, in that it leads to confusion such as with Deathfire and whether or not they can launch a device--they can't but the confusion remained). Having the term "Bonus action" or "Bonus drop" would have been so handy.

Paige Tico could have been written as a "bonus drop" while Edon Kappehl could have used the basic "drop" term. If there's the word bonus, it'd be clear that it's extra or in-addition. If there's no bonus term, nope.

Lol in the meantime I am going to enjoy dropping four bombs in one turn with Paige on a VTG bomber!

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

while Edon Kappehl could have used the basic "drop" term.

Thats partly my point tho. The rule in the reference stating "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round" covers Edon's ability. There was literately no need for them to put the extra wording qualifying if he had dropped one or not, because his ability would bump into this limit if he had.

What all this means is (and ive said this before) that the statement in the rules reference now means nothing. If they keep it in the reference after the update, it would still mean nothing, which then brings into question the entire rules reference as to its validity as it contradicts unwritten rulings that appear to override it.

Quote

You can only perform *one* bonus attack.

And according to the rules reference, until now, you could only drop *One* device. But FFG has pretty much ignored that.

13 hours ago, Lyianx said:

 ...

And   according to the rules reference, until now, you could only dro  p *One* device. But FFG has pretty much ignored tha   t.      

More than ignored, they've directly countermanded a rule from the actual FFG Rules Reference document with what amounts to a clarification given through a social platform. 🙄

20 hours ago, meffo said:

... i think         there should be a new rules reference addressing this soon. until then, there is nothing we can do but wait. it's up to every TO  how to treat it.

So what's a TO to do? Which is the superceding resource when they are in direct conflict?

14 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

More than ignored, they've directly countermanded a rule from the actual FFG Rules Reference document with what amounts to a clarification given through a social platform. 🙄

So what's a TO to do? Which is the superceding resource when they are in direct conflict?

depends on the situation. generally, just follow the rules for devices and let ships drop devices more than once a round unless the cards state otherwise.

and of course, not letting this set an example for other rules interpretations.

On 3/22/2019 at 1:19 PM, Hobologist said:

Yes, that makes sense. Changing it to one device deployed per phase might be the best way to go.

Or even just making it only one Device during the System Phase. I'm guessing the primary purpose of the rule in the first place was just to prevent ships with multiple Device slots from being able to drop several Bombs or Mines all at once. Especially someone like Emon in Andrasta, who could drop one to the rear-left, and another to the rear-right, which would be terrifying coverage for a single turn of deployment.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Or even just making it only one Device during the System Phase. I'm guessing the primary purpose of the rule in the first place was just to prevent ships with multiple Device slots from being able to drop several Bombs or Mines all at once. Especially someone like Emon in Andrasta, who could drop one to the rear-left, and another to the rear-right, which would be terrifying coverage for a single turn of deployment.

I think changing the rule to one device per system phase would also work well. It partially depends on if the developers want stuff like Paige Tico to enable deploying 3 devices in a single engagement phase.

Honestly, any of the proposed changes seem okay to me: removing the one per round restriction, changing it to one per phase, or one per system phase. The main issue is that the text on cards needs to mention when the ability is exempt from rules; otherwise this ruling sets precedent for all cards being able to bypass core game mechanics without explicit text (examples: any card ability action being possible when stressed, recovering shields above a ship's shield value, performing more than one bonus attack per round, acquiring locks beyond range 3 or more than one lock, etc.) The list really goes on and on.

A new Rules Reference needs to address this.

That would be a problem... (System phase)

Drop bomb with deathfire during system phase.

Emon drops proxy mine on deathfire and it dies.

Deathfire attacks emon and drops a second device.

It can be solved by adding a magenta line "normally, each ship can only drop (or launch) one device per round" and with that i believe card texts match the rule

Or to just reverse the bad ruling that allows Paige and DF to violate a core rule without having that violation explicitly written on their card *shrug*.

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Or to just reverse the bad ruling that allows Paige and DF to violate a core rule without having that violation explicitly written on their card *shrug*.

This is really what needs to happen. It needs to be written on their cards specifically stating that they ignore that core rule. They have changed text on cards before, and since neither one of them have been released in a single expansion yet, they can make that change and have that new card in their standalone expansions.

36 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

This is really what needs to happen. It needs to be written on their cards specifically stating that they ignore that core rule. They have changed text on cards before, and since neither one of them have been released in a single expansion yet, they can make that change and have that new card in their standalone expansions.

This is an excellent point! Both of these ships are prime errata opportunities since they have only been released in conversion kits so far and will likely get their own single pack releases in the near future.

So technically you could drop up to 4 bombs in a round with TVG and Paige?

10 minutes ago, AngryAlbatross said:

So technically you could drop up to 4 bombs in a round with TVG and Paige?

5, I think? If there's a way to get rid of Weapons Disabled in Resistance, which I think there might be.