All bombs say “During the System Phase you may spend 1 [charge] to drop a bomb”. Paige says after you perform an attack or are destroyed you may drop 1 bomb. If you drop a bomb using Paige do have to spend a charge? Her wording implies that the cost of dropping a bomb is attacking or dying.

Also for electro proton bombs if you drop the bomb outside of the System Phase is the fuse required?

3 hours ago, Asaverino1019 said:

All bombs say “During the System Phase you may spend 1 [charge] to drop a bomb”. Paige says after you perform an attack or are destroyed you may drop 1 bomb. If you drop a bomb using Paige do have to spend a charge? Her wording implies that the cost of dropping a bomb is attacking or dying.

Also for electro proton bombs if you drop the bomb outside of the System Phase is the fuse required?

yes and yes. there is no indication that the dropping of a bomb should be altered in any way, except Paige's ability lets you drop at a different timing. you spend a charge and when dropping an electro proton bomb you add a fuse marker.

17 hours ago, meffo said:

yes and yes. there is no indication that the dropping of a bomb should be altered in any way, except Paige's ability lets you drop at a different timing. you spend a charge and when dropping an electro proton bomb you add a fuse marker.

I really.. REALLY hate to play devils advocate here.. because on a logical level, i 100% agree with you. *sigh* however from an "as written" perspective, he actually has a point.

RR pg 9

Quote

To drop a device, follow the steps below:
1. Take the template indicated on the upgrade card.
2. Set the template between the ship’s rear guides.
3. Place the device indicated on the upgrade card into the play area and slide the guides of the device into the opposite end of the template. Then remove the template.

Sadly, those are the steps to drop a bomb. Which doesnt say to spend a charge. Only the device card says that. While i agree a charge is clearly meant to be spent here, it doesnt specifically say to. She just says "drop".


I reeeeally hate Paige Tico and her absolute crap wording. This card has causes soo many debates, assumptions, and bad precedence.

14 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I really.. REALLY hate to play devils advocate here.. because on a logical level, i 100% agree with you. *sigh* however from an "as written" perspective, he actually has a point.

RR pg 9

Sadly, those are the steps to drop a bomb. Which doesnt say to spend a charge. Only the device card says that. While i agree a charge is clearly meant to be spent here, it doesnt specifically say to. She just says "drop".


I reeeeally hate Paige Tico and her absolute crap wording. This card has causes soo many debates, assumptions, and bad precedence.

Concur, this is one of those cases where how it works is super obvious, but the poor technical writing can't cope with the concept.

I'll say what I've always said about Paige's wording: Paige is fine, it's the rulebook that's crap.

*e*

I'll elaborate. I think FFG did a great job with the terminology of a Bonus Attack. A ship gets one normal attack, and then might have access to a *bonus* attack. Follows all the normal rules, but has a new timing.

They would have done well to expand that language to devices (as well as actions, but that's another topic). If the rulebook granted you one drop, but stuff like Paige referred to a Bonus Drop, you'd know you follow all the normal rules for the specific Device card, but just at another time. Maybe there's a cap on bonus bomb drops, maybe there isn't. It would have been a handy piece of terminology.

While we're at it, there should have been a generic term for [drop/launch/place]. There's a generic term for movement , whether that's executing maneuvers, or moving by barrel rolls and boosts. That also should have been expanded to drop/launch/place.

25 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I'll say what I've always said about Paige's wording: Paige is fine, it's the rulebook that's crap.

*e*

I'll elaborate. I think FFG did a great job with the terminology of a Bonus Attack. A ship gets one normal attack, and then might have access to a *bonus* attack. Follows all the normal rules, but has a new timing.

They would have done well to expand that language to devices (as well as actions, but that's another topic). If the rulebook granted you one drop, but stuff like Paige referred to a Bonus Drop, you'd know you follow all the normal rules for the specific Device card, but just at another time. Maybe there's a cap on bonus bomb drops, maybe there isn't. It would have been a handy piece of terminology.

While we're at it, there should have been a generic term for [drop/launch/place]. There's a generic term for movement , whether that's executing maneuvers, or moving by barrel rolls and boosts. That also should have been expanded to drop/launch/place.

Agreed. I am still hoping FFG adopts the generic term "deploy" as a generic term for [drop/launch/place]. It would make it a lot less confusing.

10 minutes ago, drazen90909 said:

Agreed. I am still hoping FFG adopts the generic term "deploy" as a generic term for [drop/launch/place]. It would make it a lot less confusing.

Tehy missed the window on that, it would have needed to be in game from the start to avoid having to errata stuff.

Its absence is disappointing.

I wish they had treated Drop and Launch like Attack or Action headers. It would have made it much easier to clean up confusion on devices.

Quote

Seismic Charge - Bomb

During the System Phase you may drop this device.

Drop: Spend 1 to drop a Seismic Charge with the [1 ] template.

Then, if a card instructs you to drop a device, there are very clear rules to follow. If a card instructs you to drop or launch a device, you clearly couldn't launch a device that lacks the rules for launching that device. It could be more wordy with devices that can be dropped or launched, but even then you could have probably combined the two keywords such as Launch/Drop:. Alas, what is done is done and now they have to find ways to update the rules reference to try and establish clean rules for the cards they have developed.

16 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I wish they had treated Drop and Launch like Attack or Action headers. It would have made it much easier to clean up confusion on devices.

Then, if a card instructs you to drop a device, there are very clear rules to follow. If a card instructs you to drop or launch a device, you clearly couldn't launch a device that lacks the rules for launching that device. It could be more wordy with devices that can be dropped or launched, but even then you could have probably combined the two keywords such as Launch/Drop:. Alas, what is done is done and now they have to find ways to update the rules reference to try and establish clean rules for the cards they have developed.

This would actually have made a lot of sense - good on ya!

2 hours ago, drazen90909 said:

Agreed. I am still hoping FFG adopts the generic term "deploy" as a generic term for [drop/launch/place]. It would make it a lot less confusing.

Except there is already a Deploy term. Its in reference to deploying docked ships.

Quote

A docked ship is able to deploy from its carrier ship during the System Phase by performing the following steps:

I think there is no doubt that you should spend a charge to drop a bomb with Paige. However, with the rules and card wording that exists today, I think the ambiguity gives you an avenue to drop a bomb without spending the charge.

6 hours ago, Asaverino1019 said:

I think there is no doubt that you should spend a charge to drop a bomb with Paige. However, with the rules and card wording that exists today, I think the ambiguity gives you an avenue to drop a bomb without spending the charge.

Would you say the same ambiguity exists with Genius? It could make turn-after-turn deployment of Electro-Proton Bombs very potent. Someone like Kavil can burn in, poop out a fused electro proton WITHOUT burning the charge, then burn out to avoid damage... and do it all over again the next turn.

13 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Would you say the same ambiguity exists with Genius? It could make turn-after-turn deployment of Electro-Proton Bombs very potent. Someone like Kavil can burn in, poop out a fused electro proton WITHOUT burning the charge, then burn out to avoid damage... and do it all over again the next turn.

Yes. The same would go for Edon Kapphel. Move and bomb infinitely because there is nothing in the rules saying to spend a charge when bombing outside of the System Phase.

19 minutes ago, Asaverino1019 said:

Yes. The same would go for Edon Kapphel. Move and bomb infinitely because there is nothing in the rules saying to spend a charge when bombing outside of the System Phase.

The only things these abilities change is the timing of the drop, the rest of the Devices' text still applies...

6 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

The only things these abilities change is the timing of the drop, the rest of the Devices' text still applies...

Point is, the devices are not worded to work that way.

For special weapons, they all have key word "Attack". how do you attack? You can look up in the rules and it gives you the steps to follow the attack. With devices, it says you may drop this device during the system phase. How do you drop? Going to the rules, it tells you how to drop a device. So you follow those steps. None of which include paying costs (which Attack steps DO include).

joeshmoe554 is right. It should have been worded the way he proposed.

Quote

Seismic Charge - Bomb

During the System Phase you may drop this device.

Drop: Spend 1 to drop a Seismic Charge with the [1 ] template.

But further, step 1 for Drop should also be re-written

Quote

To drop a device, follow the steps below:

1. Choose Device : Active player chooses one device to drop.

2. Pay Costs : Active player must pay any costs for dropping the device indicated on the upgrade card.

3. Take the template indicated on the upgrade card.

4. Set the template between the ship’s rear guides.

5. Place the device indicated on the upgrade card into the play area and
slide the guides of the device into the opposite end of the template. Then
remove the template.

This would put in in a similar format to Attack:. Of course, this is how we all play it now regardless, but the wording should reflect that.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

Point is, the devices are not worded to work that way.

For special weapons, they all have key word "Attack". how do you attack? You can look up in the rules and it gives you the steps to follow the attack. With devices, it says you may drop this device during the system phase. How do you drop? Going to the rules, it tells you how to drop a device. So you follow those steps. None of which include paying costs (which Attack steps DO include).

joeshmoe554 is right. It should have been worded the way he proposed.

But further, step 1 for Drop should also be re-written

This would put in in a similar format to Attack:. Of course, this is how we all play it now regardless, but the wording should reflect that.

Exactly! Attack is thoroughly detailed where as bombing is not, which allows infinite bombs when released outside of the System Phase. Hopefully FFG is paying attention to this thread so they can errata the cards going into the Fully Loaded pack.

1 hour ago, Asaverino1019 said:

Hopefully FFG is paying attention to this thread...

...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money rules that work . They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world rules burn.

5 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money rules that work . They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world rules burn.

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 11:35 AM, emeraldbeacon said:

New rules reference says you have to spend a charge to use a device now regardless of when you actually use it. I guess they were listening...

I guess so. There is no longer a "one device per round" limit, just "one device per system phase". Change the rules to make 2 cards make sense lol.

Eh whatever. At least they are in sync now.

But they are still not specifically overriding it with their text, just with the faq.

On 9/18/2019 at 10:53 AM, Lyianx said:

I guess so. There is no longer a "one device per round" limit, just "one device per system phase". Change the rules to make 2 cards make sense lol.

Eh whatever. At least they are in sync now.

But they are still not specifically overriding it with their text, just with the faq.

Fixing the actual Rules Reference so it says what the designers (apparently) intended is the best solution I was hoping for.

On 9/18/2019 at 1:53 PM, Lyianx said:

I guess so. There is no longer a "one device per round" limit, just "one device per system phase". Change the rules to make 2 cards make sense lol.

To me, this always seemed like what FFG intended, but didn't communicate effectively.

12 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Fixing the actual Rules Reference so it says what the designers (apparently) intended is the best solution I was hoping for.

Agreed.

7 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

To me, this always seemed like what FFG intended, but didn't communicate effectively.

You mean because they didnt add to Paige's upgrade card " you may drop 1 bomb, even if you have already dropped one this turn" to overule the limit, like they did for EVERY OTHER card that overrides a limit?

No, they ****** up, plain an simple. It happens, it just feels like a way to fix it without needing to correct the wording on the card itself, which they seem strongly opposed to doing. On the flip side, it does open the game up to allow crap like this to happen with other abilities as well. So there is that.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

You mean because they didnt add to Paige's upgrade card " you may drop 1 bomb, even if you have already dropped one this turn" to overule the limit, like they did for EVERY OTHER card that overrides a limit?

No, they ****** up, plain an simple. It happens, it just feels like a way to fix it without needing to correct the wording on the card itself, which they seem strongly opposed to doing. On the flip side, it does open the game up to allow crap like this to happen with other abilities as well. So there is that.

No, I genuinely believe that Paige and Deathfire were supposed to exceed the 1-bomb-per-turn rule. I mean, look at Paige's role in TLJ--she's supposed to be chucking out extra bombs. Gameplay over Fluff, but ideally Fluff inspires Design. Meanwhile, that's the entire point of Deathfire. If Deathfire didn't work if you dropped a bomb earlier, that kind of negates the entire point of the pilot.

It *ALWAYS* made more sense for the 1-bomb rule to be a 1-normal-drop-per-systems-phase rather 1-drop-and-never-ever-more. The text on Genius and Edon Kappehl doesn't make any sense if the bomb drop was supposed to be a hard cap. That text only matters if you're allowed to drop extra bombs.

The screw up wasn't in Paige's text, or in the ruling on Paige and Deathfire, but in the original Rules Reference. Which they fixed with this update.