If multiple friendlies are destroyed at R0-3 Chewie gets 1 action per destroyed friendly plus 1 (and only one) bonus attack. Correct?
I had an opponent take 2 bonus attacks (3 total attacks) with Chewie. I wasn't sure if there was anything about Chewie's ability that overrides the 1 only bonus attack rule.
Thanks for helping a noob!
I dont know anymore. If you take what FFG says on another ruling, there isnt anything on chewies card that says he 'cant'.
That dumb ruling aside, according to the rules reference, only 1 bonus attack per ship per round.
12 minutes ago, Lyianx said:I dont know anymore. If you take what FFG says on another ruling, there isnt anything on chewies card that says he 'cant'.
That dumb ruling aside, according to the rules reference, only 1 bonus attack per ship per round.
Really? EVERY thread?
Chewie's ability (and no explicit ruling from FFG) says tat he can bypass the one bonus attack a round rule, and so he only gets one (for a total of two attacks a turn)
Actions are only limited to doing one of each action per round. So he is only limited to friendlies being destroyed and how many distinct actions he has at his disposal.
Also one thing to note is Chewie just says a friendly ship at range 0-3, that means when Chewie himself is killed he can trigger his own ability before he goes.
53 minutes ago, Lyianx said:I dont know anymore. If you take what FFG says on another ruling, there isnt anything on chewies card that says he 'cant'.
That dumb ruling aside, according to the rules reference, only 1 bonus attack per ship per round.
Dude. This is so ******* tiresome. I know you hate the bomb ruling. It's unfortunate that it hasn't been accompanied by any rules reference revision, but still. Trying to work that ruling into every threat *IS NOT ******* USEFUL* to people getting answers to their questions. It just makes things more confusing for what ought to be a simple question.
14 hours ago, theBitterFig said:Dude. This is so ******* tiresome. I know you hate the bomb ruling. It's unfortunate that it hasn't been accompanied by any rules reference revision, but still. Trying to work that ruling into every threat *IS NOT ******* USEFUL* to people getting answers to their questions. It just makes things more confusing for what ought to be a simple question.
It has set a bad precedence. These are all prime examples of that. Dont like it, ***** to FFG to change it. Its not my fault they ****** up. But i dont see how else to get it changed without keep it in the spot light. Not my fault so dont ***** at me for it.
It isn't your fault, and we all agree that it is a weird ruling.
But we don't go into every rules thread and muddy it with our own opinions on it. FFG aren't sat there reading all your posts going "you know what, he's right". You are just annoying other posters and confusing simple rule question threads.
FFG made a bad ruling for TWO SPECIFIC CARD ABILITIES. They in no way made a change to the general rules. Just two cards. Stop throwing it into every rules thread. Ot's tiresome and confusing to new people.
23 hours ago, Lyianx said:Not my fault so dont ***** at me for it.
It is absolutely your decision to bring it up for Chewbacca. Take responsibility for your actions. You're old enough to be posting on forums, so you're old enough to own up to the consequences of your actions.
20 hours ago, InterceptorMad said:FFG made a bad ruling for TWO SPECIFIC CARD ABILITIES. They in no way made a change to the general rules. Just two cards. Stop throwing it into every rules thread. Ot's tiresome and confusing to new people.
Exactly.
23 hours ago, Lyianx said:It has set a bad precedence. These are all prime examples of that. Dont like it, ***** to FFG to change it. Its not my fault they ****** up. But i dont see how else to get it changed without keep it in the spot light.
Does it really, though?
Look, the best way to describe the rules in X-Wing isn't RAW. It's RAC. All rules are necessarily--and this is describing the forum and game as they exist now--rules as community. I mean, it has to be, at some level, because the meaning of the written word isn't handed down from on high--all language is built by community. But beyond that, it's just practical. Trying to confuse people about Chewbacca because you've got an axe to grind about Paige Tico doesn't make sense, because the community is solidly behind the one-bonus-action rule.
Meanwhile, Precedent is a tricky thing. Does this device ruling apply only to devices, or to anything? If the community is fine with it, we can view it as FFG has described: only applying to devices. Anything which says to drop or launch a device can be treated, essentially, like actions. You have a Perform Action where you can perform one action. Other effects can give you extra actions. The perform action step rules don't specifically say "you may be given other actions at other times" because it doesn't need to. Can the community be fine with Devices being the same way? You may drop or launch one at your initiative. Other effects might shift drop or launch timings. Other effects might grant extra drops and launches.
I'm someone who always viewed the "one device" wording as a bit squishier than the "one bonus attack" ruling, specifically because the no-prior-drops stipulation has always strongly implied that the one device wording wasn't mean as an absolute limit . Was I always shouting from the rooftops about it? Naw, because I didn't see a point of trying to go against the current. But if this was their goal all along--additional drops based on card effects--could FFG have worded the Rules Reference better? Of course they could! They're FFG! They've got trash technical writers, and they're cheap so they'll never justify the expense.
But we still want to play X-Wing (and it's a game which can only exist within a community), so some sort of accommodation has to be made for the times they come up with cards and interactions and rules which are confusing or contradictory. Most of the time, the community can come up with something close to agreement about how these things are resolved. We can treat this ruling as applying only to devices, and use devices in the way that FFG has told us to use them.
Or, someone could freak the **** out, say "because of one ruling on two upgrades, no rules in X-Wing work anymore," and put confusing trash in threads which ought to be simple answers.