4 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

Why is Camp B so rooted in their belief that it can be only one way? What combo specifically are they trying to protect (because I might want to start flying that combo 😀 ).

Because the card states that an effect exists, and doesn't give any timing for it. The rules also don't give any timing for it. It has nothing to do with any combo that zi know of, but simply the most straightforward reading of the situation.

13 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

Why  is Camp B so rooted in their belief that it can be only one way? What combo specifically are they trying to protect (  because I might want to start flying that combo 😀 ). 

(...)

I want     the answer to be the right answer. Not the answer  of the people who spoke the loudest or most often.    

Hera (Pilot, Rebel) + Nien (Crew, Rebel).

Also, paying only 2 points to +1/+1 increase the stats of Cova almost indefinitely, while the next possible options for the same benefit is 19 points worth of crew, just feels wrong and unintended, imho.

On the other note, there can be no right or wrong answer here, as the rules of the game are not built on objectively examinable laws of nature. Whatever FFG lists as valid is valid, whatever they invalidate is invalidated. As of now, the rule sorting it out doesn't exist and any post-factum move the devs can make can only be seen as possibly reactive in nature.

7 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

Also, paying only 2 points to +1/+1 increase the stats of Cova almost indefinitely, while the next possible options for the same benefit is 19 points worth of crew, just feels wrong and unintended, imho.

Isn't this backwards? If R4 is always in effect, then none of Cova's Basic 1-2s can possibly be red, unless some other effect alters them.

10 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

Camp A argument - There are multiple rules which describe how to modify difficulty of a maneuver. This argument requires a single interpretation to assign a timing to something that has no explicit timing . Viewed as insane by Camp B.

This is the thing that doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason to assign R4 a specific timing. Why would you? It's like arguing that you can't use rebel Han's ability to reroll for obstacle damage, because Han's ability is a dice modification and obstacle rolls don't have a dice modification step. Or like arguing that Wounded Pilot can only be triggered during your Perform Action step, because that's the default time you perform an action, so it can't apply to other actions. It's an arbitrary restriction that isn't grounded in the rules, so yes, it seems insane to me, in the sense that I don't understand the logic behind it.

R4 doesn't have a timing. Restricting it to a specific timing window goes against the core principle of "do what the card says to do, don't do what the card doesn't say to do." There's no reason to think R4 doesn't apply every single time a ship is checking the difficulty of its maneuver, including when it checks for Cova Nell's ability.

57 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

...

I  am            willing to admit that either could be the FFG intended effect. While I lean Camp A, I think there is a solid chance that Camp B is correct. Why is Camp B so rooted in their belief that it can be only one way? What combo specifically are they trying  to protect (because I might want to start flying that combo 😀 )  .   

...

The combo I know of is Hera(VCX)+Nien(crew). It's not burning up the meta, but it has been community accepted since 2e dropped that that Nien is "always on" and that includes both the revealed maneuver and all unrevealed maneuvers that you might consider changing the revealed maneuver to.

R4 uses the same wording as Nien so they should have the same interpretation. If these no-timing cards can affect unrevealed maneuvers to make them legal targets for "set your maneuver" abilities that is well outside the "check difficulty" step.

57 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

...Clung to with religious fervor by Camp B.

...

I think Camp B in this argument is clinging to precedent of previous interpretation. This is validated by not having been addressed by any FAQ/Errata/official ruling this far and having been previously agreed on by a preponderance of players and judges.

Further logical argument in favor of "always on" comes from a combination of the section on While , under Timing on p19 RR1.0.4, and precedent regarding when Han (Rebel pilot) is allowed to reroll. Han's timing is "after rolling dice" which is the broadest timing given for an dice modification in the game as it is not restricted to "attacking or defending" but it is accepted that he can modify any time dice are rolled, even outside when that is normally allowed.

R4/Nien have even broader timing than Han, as in no-timing. Which is being interpreted to take effect any time another affect or ability checks any of the covered maneuvers.

TL:DR if Cova+R4 works to allow all of the good with none of the bad (which can be backed by a strict interpretation of rules) then using the same interpretation disables two known and accepted abilities so they do not work the way they have been used since the game was released (both using an interpretation just as restrictive as the language on the cards)

- Hera+Nien would not work because Nien would only affect the "check difficulty" step and therefore Hera's Banks are white when she looks for something else to set to.

- Han would not be allowed to reroll non combat dice because there is no designated modification step for those rolls.

I believe these interpretations do have more backing under a strict reading of the rules, but having two well known precedents would override a new interpretation in most communities.

18 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Prior   to this wave there was no need to check a maneuver's difficulty outside of the "check difficulty" step of executing a maneuver. No one cared about the timing of R4 because it didn't matter. Now we have this new process where several ships reference a revealed maneuver dial and suddenly timing is an issue.     

Bringing this back up to be directly addressed by Hera(VCX)+Nien(crew) as well as Han's dice mods outside the "modify dice" step.

34 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

- Han would not be allowed to reroll non combat dice because there is no designated modification step for those rolls.

This is a false equivalency. Han has a specific timing window “After you roll dice.” That triggers whenever he rolls dice.

You are correct that this interpretation breaks Hera/Nien

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Isn't this backwards? If R4 is always in effect, then none of Cova's Basic 1-2s can possibly be red, unless some other effect alters them.

Yes, hence why I support the "always being on" interpretation whence I'm asked for filling in the judge's role in my local community.

7 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

Yes, hence why I support the "always being on" interpretation whence I'm asked for filling in the judge's role in my local community.

Ah, sorry. I was mistaken about what your argument was.

After three pages of heated debate here, how every many other pages of debate on other fora, and folks submitting this rules question directly to FFG via its rules question form, FFG *must* be aware that this rules interaction is begging for an official ruling by now.

I'd bet that the internal FFG discussion is heated too.

*grumbles*

1 hour ago, Yank01 said:

This is a false equivalency. Han has a specific timing window “After you roll dice.” That triggers whenever he rolls dice.

You are correct that this interpretation breaks Hera/Nien

What is the trigger for R4/Nien that restricts it to only affect the "check difficulty" step?

34 minutes ago, hoarybat said:

After three pages of heated debate here, how every many other pages of debate on other fora, and folks submitting this rules question directly to FFG via its rules question form, FFG *must* be aware that this rules interaction is begging for an official ruling by now.

I'd bet that the internal FFG discussion is heated too.

*grumbles*

We can hope 🤞

The way I see it though this (and most other heated arguments) are caused by sloppy rules writing, much of which has not been clearly resolved over the course of the last three updates. One side (camp B) of the argument is reading the rules using precedent (from earlier waves, other factions, or unfortunately from 1e) to fill in gaps in the rules. The other side (camp A) is not using precedent and only reading strictly from the rules and the cards at hand to draw conclusions, using their own internal logic to fill in the gaps.

I see a lot of familiar usernames in camp B while there's a lot of relatively new ones in camp A and feel that this indicates a generational divide within this game which requires a tight ruleset to unify around. I have high hopes, but low expectations 😢

I don't care which way this ruling goes. I want clarity. If R4 + Cova work, the combination will be a bargain powerhouse. Expect play and a points increase down the line. If R4 + Cova doesn't work, Cova will still be good. Just not super-efficient-extragood. I'm happy either way.

One local argument inn favor of Camp A (Cova + R4 works) takes the position that R4, Nien Nunb, Damaged Engine, et al, are always in effect on the dial... HOWEVER, the particular instance of reviewing a ship's "Revealed Maneuver," as spelled out in the Rules Reference, calls specifically for the maneuver that is currently shown on the ship's dial. That judge's interpretation is that, no matter what maneuver you executed, your dial remains your dial, and what it shows is what your "revealed maneuver" is, irregardless of any modifications, be they persistent, intermittent, or one-time modifications.

I'm not saying I AGREE with that interpretation, but at least I can understand where they're coming from.

6 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

One local argument inn favor of Camp A (Cova + R4 works) takes the position that R4, Nien Nunb, Damaged Engine, et al, are always in effect on the dial... HOWEVER, the particular instance of reviewing a ship's "Revealed Maneuver," as spelled out in the Rules Reference, calls specifically for the maneuver that is currently shown on the ship's dial. That judge's interpretation is that, no matter what maneuver you executed, your dial remains your dial, and what it shows is what your "revealed maneuver" is, irregardless of any modifications, be they persistent, intermittent, or one-time modifications.

I'm not saying I AGREE with that interpretation, but at least I can understand where they're coming from.

The judge is arguing that your revealed maneuver is not a maneuver.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if FFG ruled it that way

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

One local argument inn favor of Camp A (Cova + R4 works) takes the position that R4, Nien Nunb, Damaged Engine, et al, are always in effect on the dial... HOWEVER, the particular instance of reviewing a ship's "Revealed Maneuver," as spelled out in the Rules Reference, calls specifically for the maneuver that is currently shown on the ship's dial. That judge's interpretation is that, no matter what maneuver you executed, your dial remains your dial, and what it shows is what your "revealed maneuver" is, irregardless of any modifications, be they persistent, intermittent, or one-time modifications.

I'm not saying I AGREE with that interpretation, but at least I can understand where they're coming from.

Hm...if they ruled something like that, I'd personally prefer if they'd call it the "printed maneuver" or something like card games tend to do.

I just read the insert that comes with the Resistance Transport. Interestingly, the verbiage in the insert is slightly different from that of the rules reference:

The insert states: "Some abilities reference a ship's revealed maneuver outside of that ship's Reveal Dial and Execute Maneuver steps. If a card ability references a ship's revealed dial, use the maneuver shown on the ship's dial. "

Vs the Rules Reference: "Some abilities reference a ship’s revealed maneuver outside of that ship’s activation. A ship’s revealed maneuver is the maneuver selected on its dial , which remains faceup next to that ship’s ship card until the next Planning Phase."

The insert verbiage supports that the R4/Cova combo working better than the Rules Reference.

That said, I agree with @JJ48 :

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Hm...if they ruled something like that, I'd personally prefer if they'd call it the "printed maneuver" or something like card games tend to do.

2 minutes ago, Yank01 said:

I just read the insert that comes with the Resistance Transport. Interestingly, the verbiage in the insert is slightly different from that of the rules reference:

The insert states: "Some abilities reference a ship's revealed maneuver outside of that ship's Reveal Dial and Execute Maneuver steps. If a card ability references a ship's revealed dial, use the maneuver shown on the ship's dial. "

Vs the Rules Reference: "Some abilities reference a ship’s revealed maneuver outside of that ship’s activation. A ship’s revealed maneuver is the maneuver selected on its dial , which remains faceup next to that ship’s ship card until the next Planning Phase."

The insert verbiage supports that the R4/Cova combo  working better than the Rules Reference.

That said, I agree with @JJ48 :

If that's the reading they want to go with, then R4 needs an errata.

1 hour ago, Yank01 said:

I just read the insert that comes with the Resistance Transport. Interestingly, the verbiage in the insert is slightly different from that of the rules reference:

The insert states: "Some abilities reference a ship's revealed maneuver outside of that ship's Reveal Dial and Execute Maneuver steps. If a card ability references a ship's revealed dial, use the maneuver shown on the ship's dial. "

Vs the Rules Reference: "Some abilities reference a ship’s revealed maneuver outside of that ship’s activation. A ship’s revealed maneuver is the maneuver selected on its dial , which remains faceup next to that ship’s ship card until the next Planning Phase."

(...)

Great finding! That being said, we know that " if a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes precedence. " And I'd suppose this is also meant to extended to the rule inserts. However, in fact we've found another loophole in the rules, because it's not straight-out stated which document is the more binding of the two.

Good job forum! 😅

That is a good find @Yank01 , thanks! I think the difference between the printed insert and the RR is a telling one. The change away from "shown" (or something more physical, like "printed") to "selected" seems (to me) like they are trying to include effects that were in place when the dial was used for its maneuver.

10 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

...And    I'd suppose this is also meant to extended to the rule inserts. However, in fact we've found another loophole in the rules, because it's not straight  -out stated which document is the more binding of  the two. 

...

When determining which is the better resource take for consideration that the insert was finalized and printed months (possibly up to a year) before we got the ships in stores while the RR was finalized and posted less than a month ago so it's definitely the more recent document. I would like to think the intent on this is clear since the single rules document from FFG was a significant selling point for 1e players who bemoaned having to own every ship in the game just to be able to read the full rules of the game.

A similar loophole has already existed around the so called X-Wing Official Rulings thread since neither that thread nor the Rules Reference mention each other at all.

It works! Thread closed!

1 hour ago, wurms said:

It works! Thread closed!

This same ruling has similarly "broken" Hera + Nien Nunb, since any bank you reveal is still white, according to her ability.

3 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

This same ruling has similarly "broken" Hera + Nien Nunb, since any bank you reveal is still white, according to her ability.

I think the question is now, can you reveal a printed blue manuever and change it to a Nien changed blue manuever?

Similarly, what about Saese and r4?