A ship can perform a SLAM action only as the ship’s one action during the Perform Action step. Therefore a ship cannot perform a SLAM action if it is granted an action from another effect .

Come ON FFG seriously. Make an effort. They've been so careful up to now, to ensure that free SLAMs don't exist, and that they can only be performed during the Perform Action Step, with Black One having the msot convoluted mechanics to make that happen.

And then just... sure, why not SLAM outside the Perform Action Step?

I'm hoping that they will come up with a more general rule that makes SLAM a little bit easier to use: "you can only SLAM when you have revealed your dial. If you attempt to SLAM before your dial is revealed, it fails."

Either that or different card text: "After you partially execute a manoeuvre, you may expose 1 of your damage cards or suffer 1 crit to not skip your perform action step. If you do you must perform a SLAM action during that step."

Fingers crossed for now, I'll revisit this thread if the rules ref for the wave release doesn't include some change, or the card text doesn't.

Siiiiiigh.

hmm... you need slam on your action bar and an illicit slot to equip this. seems like it's limiting design space. don't see an obvious problem with it mechanically, though, even though it seems like generally bad practice that it fundamentally breaks a limitation on the slam action that is very good for the game.

as far as interpreting the card and how it works, it seems very clear. am i missing something?

No, there's no particular question, really. Just somethign I noticed. Probably in the wrong space tbh.

Thing is, you could still have made it 'work' without breaking the rules.

"After you partially execute a manoeuvre, you may expose 1 of your damage cards or suffer 1 [critical]. If you do, you do not skip your perform action step this turn, but may only perform a [SLAM] action in this step."

Thing is, just making it "you may SLAM whilst stressed for [damage]" seems like a perfectly sensible complete rule. You could just have left it at that and no-one would have complained...

42 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Thing is, you could still have made it 'work' without breaking the rules.

"After you partially execute a manoeuvre, you may expose 1 of your damage cards or suffer 1 [critical]. If you do, you do not skip your perform action step this turn, but may only perform a [SLAM] action in this step."

Thing is, just making it "you may SLAM whilst stressed for [damage]" seems like a perfectly sensible complete rule. You could just have left it at that and no-one would have complained...

Seriously. The partially execute thing was completely unnecessary, AND you could easily have phrased it in a way which didn't conflict with the SLAM rules in a confusing and potentially precedent-breaking way.

What frustrates me is that it's pretty clear how it's all supposed to work - but writing it technically clearly seems to elude them. They make a fortune off x-wing, they couldn't hire a technical proofreader?

Card text overrides rule book. Nothing strange here.

39 minutes ago, mcgreag said:

Card text overrides rule book. Nothing strange here.

OK.

So, can Poe use his ability to SLAM with Black One? If not, why not? WHat about Advanced Sensors SLAM? Same question?

(Obviously, the answer to both is no, but the precedent set by this card makes the answer actually arguably yes, since they're both cards saying you can do actions, which overrides the rule saying you can't do that one, and in both cases you'd have a revealed dial (potentially, Poe-ing off a coordinate notwithstanding) to measure the speed of the move.)

The card specifically says you can do a SLAM action.

This is kind of ridiculous.

Only this card is overriding the rules because of specific text. It appears they've written what you want in a shorter way. You can only use this card if you have the SLAM action on your bar, you still can't SLAM outside of the Perform Action Step (what they've done is allow a Perform Action step after partially executing but only for the SLAM action) and you can't do it without consequence. Black One will still adhere to the rules reference limiting SLAM because the card doesn't contradict the rules.

And that illicit slot limits this even further.

Yeah I don't see the issue here. The card is TELLING you how and why you can break the normal slam rules. Other cards (like Poe's ability you mentioned) don't say that (although he is still breaking the one action per turn rule).

This is the same as when a card states that you can do any sort of action while stressed. No one can do that, but that card is TELLING you that it can (in whatever way the text says) break that rule.

54 minutes ago, eRADicator67 said:

Only this card is overriding the rules because of specific text. It appears they've written what you want in a shorter way. You can only use this card if you have the SLAM action on your bar, you still can't SLAM outside of the Perform Action Step (what they've done is allow a Perform Action step after partially executing but only for the SLAM action) and you can't do it without consequence. Black One will still adhere to the rules reference limiting SLAM because the card doesn't contradict the rules.

And that illicit slot limits this even further.

I agree with you in spirit (the card clearly works just fine, because it provides a specific exception) but it definitely doesn't give you your Perform Action step; it's a specific opportunity to perform a SLAM action. In practice this distinction will probably never matter, but hypothetically speaking, putting Zari Bangel (RZ-2) in a Fireball with this upgrade would allow her a Perform Action step and a SLAM after partially executing a maneuver.

Does not need a complex change. Just a simple swapping of the "may" in the second part to a "can" and it's fine. They really need to make sure whoever writes these things reads though the first section of the RR when ever they format a new ability.

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Does not need a complex change. Just a simple swapping of the "may" in the second part to a "can" and it's fine. They really need to make sure whoever writes these things reads though the first section of the RR when ever they format a new ability.

It's an optional ability, so 'may' is the correct word there.

The only foreseeable issue I see is if scum ever gets a way to equip this card. If they do, they can Cikatro it onto a ship that doesn't have the SLAM action, which would then allow that ship to SLAM away after being blocked. But that can be avoided (you could create a burnout SLAM illicit that didn't add the action to your action bar, for example). Feels kinda weird for there to be an illicit that scum can't use, though.

18 minutes ago, Maui. said:

It's an optional ability, so 'may' is the correct word there.

The only foreseeable issue I see is if scum ever gets a way to equip this card. If they do, they can Cikatro it onto a ship that doesn't have the SLAM action, which would then allow that ship to SLAM away after being blocked. But that can be avoided (you could create a burnout SLAM illicit that didn't add the action to your action bar, for example). Feels kinda weird for there to be an illicit that scum can't use, though.

The issue arises when "may" is then applied as it is here to bonus attacks, as someone has been arguing in the Squad Lists sub (They're saying that the "may" on the docked attack shuttle and Ezra gunner allow the VCX to fire three times a turn). The limitation wording on bonus attacks "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round." is similar to the limitation wording on SLAM. If "may" overrules SLAM's limitation then the limitation on the # of bonus attacks effectively does not exist.

I agree that this is sloppy and is exacerbating an issue that they're starting to have with their writing. It's the same issue with the Paige Tico ruling. Sure, we all know that card text overrules RRG but that's only during a direct conflict and IMO they're not making these cards "directly conflict" the RRG enough to stand out. IMO this card should have something as blatant as "This ship can use this ability to perform a SLAM action outside of the perform action step."

The issue with overruling the RRG without being blatant is that people start to get confused on what constitutes "directly conflicting". For example, people might start thinking that Airen Cracken's ability allows a stressed ship to perform an action because his ability says "may" therefore it overrules the RRG and so stress no longer stops ships from performing actions.

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

The issue arises when "may" is then applied as it is here to bonus attacks, as someone has been arguing in the Squad Lists sub (They're saying that the "may" on the docked attack shuttle and Ezra gunner allow the VCX to fire three times a turn). The limitation wording on bonus attacks "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round." is similar to the limitation wording on SLAM. If "may" overrules SLAM's limitation then the limitation on the # of bonus attacks effectively does not exist.

There's no slippery slope here. Coaxium Hyperfuel provides a specific exception to the rule forbidding SLAMs outside the Perform Action step. Neither Ezra nor the docked shuttle provide such an exception to the rule against multiple bonus attacks. Rules need to be specifically exempted to be broken, but they don't break every rule they need to in order to function. There shouldn't be a question of how Coaxium Hyperfuel works. There shouldn't be questions about Ezra + shuttle, either. If people are misinterpreting how rules and abilities interact, we just need to clarify for them.

---

Also, it has occurred to me that my earlier comment about the distinction re: Perform Action step was wrong--it actually does matter in practice. A ship that partially executes a maneuver over an asteroid or gas cloud could still use Coaxium Hyperfuel to perform a SLAM action, which is... interesting

Just now, Maui. said:

There's no slippery slope here. Coaxium Hyperfuel provides a specific exception to the rule forbidding SLAMs outside the Perform Action step.

It doesn't though. A specific exception would be 'you may perform a SLAM action, even outside your Perform Action Step'. It doesn't make a specific exception until you actually mention the thing you're specifically excepting. An opportunity is not a specific exception.

The point re. bonus attacks is a valid one, IMO. The restriction on bonus attacks (which is a badly written rule written to avoid errating Rebel Han gunner, but that notwithstanding) is excepted by any random bonus attack just as much as the rule against SLAMming outside the Perform Action Step is by this.

When an ability provides you with an opportunity to do something that cannot be done without breaking the rules, then it is providing a specific exemption to the rules.

2 minutes ago, Maui. said:

When an ability provides you with an opportunity to do something that cannot be done without breaking the rules, then it is providing a specific exemption to the rules.

So why does Afterburners need to tell you you can do it when stressed? It provides an opportunity to do it, which exempts it from the rules, doesn't it?

Or, why can't you use Advanced Sensors when stressed?

All I'm looking for is consistency in writing, for the record, as people seem to think I'm actually advocating for these things to work in practical play. I'm not. I just want the writing to be as high quality as it can be.

Because you can use those abilities while you're not stressed. You don't break every rule you have to in order to make an ability work; this is long established and well understood.

You can't use the hyperfuel ability without breaking the perform-action-only rule, so that ability breaks the perform-action-only rule.

1 hour ago, Maui. said:

When an ability provides you with an opportunity to do something that cannot be done without breaking the rules, then it is providing a specific exemption to the rules.

Then why does Paige Tico allow you to drop more than one bomb in a round? You could use her ability to drop a bomb during the Engagement Phase which isn't breaking the rules but somehow her ability also inherently overrules the RRG's limit on one device per round.

4 minutes ago, MadTownXWing said:

Then why does Paige Tico allow you to drop more than one bomb in a round? You could use her ability to drop a bomb during the Engagement Phase which isn't breaking the rules but somehow her ability also inherently overrules the RRG's limit on one device per round.

Because FFG says it works that way.

I'm not arguing that it's a good ruling that is healthy for the game or the way rules are written, but it is the ruling. I don't consider it precedent-making because that would break the game.

On 8/2/2019 at 3:50 PM, Maui. said:

It's an optional ability, so 'may' is the correct word there.

The only foreseeable issue I see is if scum ever gets a way to equip this card. If they do, they can Cikatro it onto a ship that doesn't have the SLAM action, which would then allow that ship to SLAM away after being blocked. But that can be avoided (you could create a burnout SLAM illicit that didn't add the action to your action bar, for example). Feels kinda weird for there to be an illicit that scum can't use, though.

You can't SLAM with this upgrade if you don't have SLAM on your action bar. This card does not add SLAM to a ship's action bar.

17 minutes ago, eRADicator67 said:

You can't SLAM with this upgrade if you don't have SLAM on your action bar. This card does not add SLAM to a ship's action bar.

Doesn't matter for the second half of the card, which enables you to SLAM regardless of what's on your bar a la Passive Sensors.