As per the Rules Reference:

Quote

• A device cannot be placed so that a portion of the device would be outside the play area. If this would happen, play is reversed to before the device was placed—the device is not placed, any charges spent are recovered, and the player can choose to not place that device.

Based on that last line, I interpret this to mean that I may chose to try to deploy that device again, assuming I can use a different template (Nimble Bomber, Skilled Bombardier, et al), or switch directions (drop/launch), or just not to do so.

Would this also allow me to choose another device, such as my mine template went over the edge, but a bomb template is fine?

Thanks for any feedback.

Personally I'd rule that once per opportunity would apply to this. If your first try fails, you've used up your one try. Just like a failed action.

Normally I'd agree with the "once per opportunity" ruling. But the fact that they say "play is reversed," with all the intervening steps, followed by "the player can choose not to place that device," rather than simply something to the effect of "the attempt fails and charges are not spent," really does seem to imply (oh, god, i hate that word) that another attempt may be made with a different device.

I hadn't thought about this, and in fact had been under the impression that device tokens could hang off the board edge just like a maneuver template. Huh.

@Kleeg005 , yeah that is something that was in the first 2e RR, but most missed since it wasn’t something they thought to look for.

Which is specifically why I referenced failed actions - because wheny ou fail a boost or roll, you rewind play back to before you started it - but you don't get to try a different direction, or another action, you just lose that action.

But, this is not an action, and it does not say ‘failed’ or such. Also, unlike the action phase, if I’m not mistaken, you can do multiple systems phase things, such as uncloaking and deploying a device.

I've made my point.

I'm happy to acknowledge that it's not explicitly covered by the rules, and probably should be, but I'd be pretty surprised if this isn't how it's ruled if FFG ever get round to it.

I agree with Kleeg on this one.

Spacey has a point tho...

Definitely requires an FAQ.

Good question, check with event staff prior to play.

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Which is specifically why I referenced failed actions - because wheny ou fail a boost or roll, you rewind play back to before you started it - but you don't get to try a different direction, or another action, you just lose that action.

except that's not what happens at all with failed actions. they are resolved in a default way. when boosting or barrel rolling fails, the ship is returned to the position it was in prior to attempting the boost or barrel roll, but play is not reversed.

since play is reversed, it's easy to argue that you get another chance, but i agree it's not sufficiently clear.

" play is reversed to before the device was placed—the device is not placed, any charges spent are recovered, and the player can choose to not place that device." is an interesting line of text.

"the device is not placed," and "the player can choose to not place that device." leaves a lot of room for interpretation, which is not good. needs clarification, yes.

I do agree that losing the opportunity DOES fit 2.0 ethos. But... with FFG FAQ ya never know! 😝

This is why you don't mess around with time travel unless you have an airtight system for covering temporal paradoxes.

I'd say that per the rules, you rewind time to just before the bomb would have been dropped and get to replay that opportunity as a fresh one until you create a situation where there isn't a bomb token hanging out outside of the play area.

I'm kind of on the side that, there is another change to deploy the device. Since failed actions specifically state that "they fail" (using that wording), where as this is not using that wording.

Granted, We all know how inconsistent FFG can be with their terms and wording, so this could very well be their intent as well. It defiantly needs cleared up though.

On 7/14/2019 at 7:13 AM, thespaceinvader said:

Personally I'd rule that once per opportunity would apply to this. If your first try fails, you've used up your one try. Just like a failed action.

How does that jive with

player can choose to not place that device.

?

That portion directly indicates that the player can choose TO place that device

I know. It's bad writing op

To expand: the core principle that seems to be espoused by the rules is: if you're doing something that requires a judgement of distance or angle, and you have multiple options available, and that thing can through you picking the wrong distance or angle, not work and send you back to the decision point, if it DOES fail, you don't get to try again with a different angle or distance. Or tl;dr, no do-overs. That this rule was written poorly doesn't obviate that.

Also, it says they can choose NOT to place it. It doesn't say they can then choose to try again. Don't do what the rules don't say.

i agree with @thespaceinvader , in the spirit of the game you should not get another chance if you're unable to drop a device.

the rules don't fully support that approach unfortunately. it's good that you cannot play outside of the play area, though. on the other hand, failing to drop a device seems pretty ridiculous. (should detonate onboard in that case, no?)

if i could rewrite the rule, i would remove the device immediately if it was outside of the play area, the charge spent for dropping it would not be regained and the device would count as having been dropped (or launched if that's what you were doing) for the purpose of other effects. there would be no detonation.

seems logical assuming a ship accidently dropped or launched a device outside of the area of engagement for fluff reasons - and seems punishing enough for people misjudging where the device would end up, but could also allow for some expensive and ridiculous tricks (cad bane boosting away from a board edge without risking other ships taking damage from your device, for example).

Either way, I am glad I brought this up. Hope it means somebody official noticed this thread.

Just now, Ravenhull said:

Either way, I am glad I brought this up. Hope it means somebody official noticed this thread.

It doesn't.

It will only reach official eyes if you ask via the rules questions form, and even that is not reliable.