None of these rules set precedent, they are just arbitrary decrees by FFG.

Case in Point: Han Gunner and Roark. FFG ruled one way for 4 months, then reversed that ruling when it suited them even though nothing about those cards changed rules-wise.

The only logic behind any of these rules is "because I'm FFG and because I say so".

Its not quite the same because in the Han/Roark example, its two card abilities conflicting with each other.

With Paige/Deathfire, What is written on the card seems to clearly be limited by the rule set in the rule reference. Now FFG is just telling us they ignore the rules reference, without any text on the card clearly stating that it does. If they said "the card should say.." and added in that it ignores this limit, that is one thing. But they are not. They are saying, because it Doesnt say that it follows the rule, that it ignores it. Except aLOT of cards dont say they follow the rule reference rules. Its just been known that, unless the card Specifically states that it overrides a rule in the reference, then it is bound by that rule.

So yes. It DOES indeed set a precedent, and it isnt just arbitrary.

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

So yes. It DOES indeed set a precedent, and it isnt just arbitrary.

It sets a precedent AND it's just arbitrary. it's both things.

On 3/22/2019 at 1:09 PM, 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.

In fact not exactly...

Because if you have two bombs upgrade they are their own opportunity. In fact according to their new ruling if you have two different bomb upgrades, you can drop these two without problem, because they don't say if you did not drop a bomb blablabla...

If they want to keep this ruling, they have to make it one per phase. They can't just remove the one per round.

maybe this is intentional to buff the star fortress and upcoming hyena bomber?

hang on, i'm just going to drop a bomblet. and then a proxy mine. and then a seismic. ok, done. no, wait! these shiny new cluster mines from the hyena bomber expansion pack would look great right there, over in front of your tie swarm. ok, then, done. now we can go on to my next bomber.

they have to be able to sell the new ships, right?

2 hours ago, meffo said:

maybe this is intentional to buff the star fortress and upcoming hyena bomber?

hang on, i'm just going to drop a bomblet. and then a proxy mine. and then a seismic. ok, done. no, wait! these shiny new cluster mines from the hyena bomber expansion pack would look great right there, over in front of your tie swarm. ok, then, done. now we can go on to my next bomber.

they have to be able to sell the new ships, right?

I mean there's already a limit there as Paige's ability says bombs, so she can't drop mines at all with her ability.

7 minutes ago, InterceptorMad said:

I mean there's already a limit there as Paige's ability says bombs, so she can't drop mines at all with her ability.

i was referring to @muribundi s post above. if every device is its own opportunity and none of them state that you can only drop them if you haven't dropped a device earlier during that round, if we set the ruling about paige as a precedent, you can drop as many devices as you have equipped during every systems phase. only one of each though, because of the once per opportunity golden rule.

You're not trying hard enough. Paige doesn't say she she's to follow Once Per Opportunity so...

This is why it's a terrible ruling.

I think it's pretty sad that if the ruling had simply said "yes they can drop more" then we would have (mostly) accepted it as a narrow single case ruling and another sloppy case of 'cuz we said so'. But then they had to go adding in that "explanation" that says they don't follow the rules, because... They don't explicitly indicate on the card that they're supposed to...?

I'm really hoping whoever entered that ruling just forgot about the once-per-round limit and guessed that other people were assuming it from the only-one-bonus-attack rule. Slightly less appealing is the thought that the writer didn't know about it? I sure hope the people writing these Q&As have read the rule book!

15 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

I think it's pretty sad that if the ruling had simply said "yes they can drop more" then we would have (mostly) accepted it as a narrow single case ruling and another sloppy case of 'cuz we said so'. But then they had to go adding in that "explanation" that says they don't follow the rules, because... They don't explicitly indicate on the card that they're supposed to...?

I'm really hoping whoever entered that ruling just forgot about the once-per-round limit and guessed that other people were assuming it from the only-one-bonus-attack rule. Slightly less appealing is the thought that the writer didn't know about it? I sure hope the people writing these Q&As have read the rule book!

thank you for finally bringing this discussion back to where it belongs, in this thread.

Hey @Lyianx , I appreciate your efforts to maintain a high profile of this issue for FFG, I don't think that adding confusion to every question is a good way to go about it. I would like to propose an alternative: instead of mentioning this ruling in every new question thread, we bring those questions to this thread. Then we can discuss whether there's anything in that question that would allow it to work as it should or if it is also susceptible to the awful reasoning used in the the Paige+Deathfire ruling .

Maybe if we continue the discussion in this thread, it will keep it at the top of the sub-forum and as the page count increases and it doesn't go away FFG will notice. I highly doubt they scan every comment on every question, so bringing up this problem elsewhere just annoys/confuses people

I would also invite anyone else who is concerned with the implications of this ruling to join us in this thread to encourage FFG to change its ruling    .   @DarthSempai , @drazen90909 , @meffo , @thespaceinvader , @Hobologist

Best way will be to submit the question via the rules questions form https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

That's the only way that definitely reaches people, as opposed to the forums which I'm honestly pretty sure that the designers don't read, because signal:noise is very poor.

Thanks!

14 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Best way will be to submit the question via the rules questions form https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

That's the only way that definitely reaches people, as opposed to the forums which I'm honestly pretty sure that the designers don't read, because signal:noise is very poor.

Do you think it makes a difference if they get the same question from more people?

25 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Thanks!

Do you think it makes a difference if they get the same question from more people?

IDK maybe

On 3/28/2019 at 2:45 PM, thespaceinvader said:

Best way will be to submit the question via the rules questions form https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

That's the only way that definitely reaches people, as opposed to the forums which I'm honestly pretty sure that the designers don't read, because signal:noise is very poor.

Sounds like a good plan. I have written FFG at that link with the following in case anyone simply wants to copy and paste:

*********************************************************************************************************

FFG

I am writing you today with concern for the Page Tico and Deathfire ruling that was posted on March 21st in the X-Wing Official Rulings thread.

While I understand that we wish to grant Page Tico and Deathfire their ability even if they already deployed a device, however, my concern revolves around the explanation given and the (until now) absolute of the Golden Rules.

To officially state that they can deploy a second device (which is in conflict with a Golden Rule) solely because their cards do not state that they cannot deploy a second decive establishes a very real precedent that all Golden Rules are overridden by pilot ability for any card where the pilot ability does not also re-mention the Golden Rule.

Here is a short list of examples that seem to be back up for debate due to this ruling:

• 3+ Attacks can be made through any ability that grants a Bonus Attack that does not include the verbiage "unless you have already performed an attack this round"
• Multiples of the same action can be made through any ability that grants said Action that does not include the verbiage "unless you have already performed a [that action] Action this round"
• Actions can be performed while stressed if granted by an ability that does not include the verbiage "unless you are stressed"
• Re-Rolled Dice may be re-rolled again (and again) if granted by an ability that does not include the verbiage "unless you have alreaddy Re-Rolled..."

As a player who loves this game and wants to continue to be able to play it whithout having to constantly defend against the Golden Rules, and to help TOs from having to rule against an Official Ruling, I am emploring you to overturn this ruling, and instead take some other course of action to grant Page Tico and Deathfire thier ability (i.e. Change the Golden Rule via an Errata to be "Once per Phase", Errata thier cards to include the verbiage "Even if you have already dropped or launched..." and Errata Edon Kappehl to remove its verbiage as it is redundant to the Golden Rule, etc...)

I do appricate your help with this.

I've sent one as well, worded in a similar manner. Hopefully they see it and correct it before they release the rules reference update.

On 3/30/2019 at 12:58 PM, drazen90909 said:

Sounds like a good plan. I have written FFG at that link with the following in case anyone simply wants to copy and paste:

*********************************************************************************************************

FFG

I am writing you today with concern for the Page Tico and Deathfire ruling that was posted on March 21st in the X-Wing Official Rulings thread.

While I understand that we wish to grant Page Tico and Deathfire their ability even if they already deployed a device, however, my concern revolves around the explanation given and the (until now) absolute of the Golden Rules.

To officially state that they can deploy a second device (which is in conflict with a Golden Rule) solely because their cards do not state that they cannot deploy a second decive establishes a very real precedent that all Golden Rules are overridden by pilot ability for any card where the pilot ability does not also re-mention the Golden Rule.

Here is a short list of examples that seem to be back up for debate due to this ruling:

• 3+ Attacks can be made through any ability that grants a Bonus Attack that does not include the verbiage "unless you have already performed an attack this round"
• Multiples of the same action can be made through any ability that grants said Action that does not include the verbiage "unless you have already performed a [that action] Action this round"
• Actions can be performed while stressed if granted by an ability that does not include the verbiage "unless you are stressed"
• Re-Rolled Dice may be re-rolled again (and again) if granted by an ability that does not include the verbiage "unless you have alreaddy Re-Rolled..."

As a player who loves this game and wants to continue to be able to play it whithout having to constantly defend against the Golden Rules, and to help TOs from having to rule against an Official Ruling, I am emploring you to overturn this ruling, and instead take some other course of action to grant Page Tico and Deathfire thier ability (i.e. Change the Golden Rule via an Errata to be "Once per Phase", Errata thier cards to include the verbiage "Even if you have already dropped or launched..." and Errata Edon Kappehl to remove its verbiage as it is redundant to the Golden Rule, etc...)

I do appricate your help with this.

🤨 I think you may be aiming in part at the wrong section of the rules. The one device deployment per round is not a Golden Rule.

"Golden Rules

If a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes precedence.

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

If a card ability uses the word "cannot," that effect is absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects.

During an attack or while otherwise resolving an effect involving dice, each die cannot be rerolled more than once."

I think the Golden Rule that is the focus of this thread is:

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

The rules from the rules refence guide in question are from the Device Section:

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

Consider the card text from Paige Tico:

"After you perform a primary attack, you may drop 1 bomb or rotate your [single turret].

After you are destroyed, you may drop 1 bomb."

And the text from "Deathfire":

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

Looking at all the above text, there is no conflict between the rules reference and the card abilities. Rules as written, each card should allow a device to be deployed at an irregular timing window given that the ship has not violated the one device per round rule.

Up until this point, some kind of conflict (or exception) has been be included in the card ability to override the rules reference guide, such as Dutch Vander's text:

"... That ship may acquire a lock on the object you locked, ignoring range restrictions. "

Or Ahsoka Tano:

"... That ship may perform an action, even if it is stressed. "

However, the official ruling claims that because Paige Tico and "Deathfire" do not mention a conflict it is safe to assume they do not adhere to the rules reference. It is my understanding that it is the logic of the official ruling is under the most scrutiny in this thread. If that logic is followed for current or future card abilities, the it could be considered precedent by some to ignore the rules reference even when cards do not mention a conflict with the rules.

Several possible solutions have been suggested, such as using errata to alter the card text of Paige Tico and "Deathfire", changing the rules reference to allow multiple device deployments per round, or reversing the official ruling.

39 minutes ago, Hobologist said:

I think the Golden Rule that is the focus of this thread is:

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

The rules from the rules refence guide in question are from the Device Section:

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

Consider the card text from Paige Tico:

"After you perform a primary attack, you may drop 1 bomb or rotate your [single turret].

After you are destroyed, you may drop 1 bomb."

And the text from "Deathfire":

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

Looking at all the above text, there is no conflict between the rules reference and the card abilities. Rules as written, each card should allow a device to be deployed at an irregular timing window given that the ship has not violated the one device per round rule.

Up until this point, some kind of conflict (or exception) has been be included in the card ability to override the rules reference guide, such as Dutch Vander's text:

"... That ship may acquire a lock on the object you locked, ignoring range restrictions. "

Or Ahsoka Tano:

"... That ship may perform an action, even if it is stressed. "

However, the official ruling claims that because Paige Tico and "Deathfire" do not mention a conflict it is safe to assume they do not adhere to the rules reference. It is my understanding that it is the logic of the official ruling is under the most scrutiny in this thread. If that logic is followed for current or future card abilities, the it could be considered precedent by some to ignore the rules reference even when cards do not mention a conflict with the rules.

Several possible solutions have been suggested, such as using errata to alter the card text of Paige Tico and "Deathfire", changing the rules reference to allow multiple device deployments per round, or reversing the official ruling.

The person I quoted stated multiple times that the ruling conflicts with the Golden Rules though. It doesn't. What it does is muddy the applied meaning of of term "conflict" used in the section of them that you quoted. There is a fair bit of difference between the two concepts...

7 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

The person I quoted stated multiple times that the ruling conflicts with the Golden Rules though. It doesn't.

But we are saying it Does. It conflicts with this Golden Rule

Quote

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

The forum post ruling conflicts with this because the Printed cards, as written are NOT conflicting with the rules in the guide.. However the Forum post says it Does conflict with it, allowing the card ability's to take precedence in order to override the rules in the guide despite the cards themselves not Specifically stating that they override the rules in the guide.

The forum ruling is so broken, just following the path in how its broken can be baffling.

The thing that is being violated is the general principle of exception based design: the rules say what you CAN do. You can't do anything they don't say. Then, the cards and upgrades (in the case of X Wing) provide exceptions to those rules - but only when they SAY they do.

'Ain't no rule says you can't' is the absolute antithesis of that rules system, because it no longer allows the general rules to be inviolate unless something specifically says otherwise.

Ain't no rule says you can't just set your dice to what faces you want after rolling.

Ain't no rule says you can't turn your dials secretly after they've been set.

Ain't no rule... etc

Indeed, I'm still working on the wording to definitively make it a question while covering the main point. Here's the question as I've best distilled it so far:

------------------------------------------------

Regarding a recent ruling in the "X-wing Official Ruling" thread that addresses Page Tico and Deathfire: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/277390-x-wing-official-rulings/?do=findComment&comment=3653624
That Q/A says, "These abilities allow one ship to drop a second device in the same round, as they do not include the 'if you have not dropped or launched a device this round' limitation." What stops this explanation from being applied to other 'extra opportunity' card abilities that do not explicitly state they are restricted by the rules?

------------------------------------------------

That's the best I've got, but I don't feel like it fully addresses my points of contention. I'd like to avoid a multi-part question because the hard questions might get glossed over, or worse the "clarification" could introduce further contradiction. Here's the issues as I see them, in no particular order:

1. The rules interaction was clear before this ruling

2. The rules reference and the card are not in disagreement

3. The "X-Wing Official Rulings" thread is in disagreement

4. The "X-Wing Official Rulings" is not given an official position in relation to the rules reference

5. The "X-Wing Official Rulings" gives an explanation using broad language that can be applied to other rule/card interactions

6. What prevents this explanation from being applied to other "extra opportunity" abilities? Potential examples are too numerous to include.

Just reread my Q before submitting and added a little more to it, underlined the addition:

------------------------------

Regarding a recent ruling in the "X-wing Official Ruling" thread that addresses Page Tico and Deathfire: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/277390-x-wing-official-rulings/?do=findComment&comment=3653624
That Q/A says, "These abilities allow one ship to drop a second device in the same round, as they do not include the 'if you have not dropped or launched a device this round' limitation." My question comes from the fact that the restriction of only dropping one device per round is already established by the Rules Reference (1.0.2) on page 9 and applies to all cards that do not explicitly contradict it. What stops this explanation , of not including rules text that already applies, from being applied to other 'extra opportunity' card abilities that do not explicitly state they are restricted by the rules?

Any suggestions/edits? I feel pretty good about that last one

Folks - summarize your main issues with this ruling in one or two sentences in response to this comment (quote it so I know). I can put together a letter that can cover them - my specialty is business communication. There's a whole lot to dig through, but if I have an overall picture, I can communicate it. From what I can gather so far, the main issue seems to be that this ruling allows a number of other debatable rulings to be upended; in essence, some abilities can now trigger ad infinitum , or close enough.