39 minutes ago, Bort said:

This game is full of issues with RAW vs RAI. I'm a very casual player (don't do tournaments), so in reality I'm happy to roll a dice on rules disputes while playing instead of arguing for hours. But when not playing and theorycrafting and thinking about the game... don't get me started.

But bigger picture, for an international tournament level game they really should be consistent with their wording.

To be fair to FFG, I think this can be harder than people sometimes assume. Ambiguity is still very much a problem in law and philosophy, let alone games about pushing tiny plastic spaceships around a table.

Some fun examples:

• Is sponge a cake or pastry for tax purposes ? (and Round 2: Are Jaffa Cakes actually biscuits for tax purposes ?)
• Is a hotdog a sandwich?
• A labour law case decided by lack of Oxford comma

3 minutes ago, Ysenhal said:

To be fair to FFG, I think this can be harder than people sometimes assume. Ambiguity is still very much a problem in law and philosophy, let alone games about pushing tiny plastic spaceships around a table.

I agree. I never claimed it to be easy.

But I'm also a big supporter of formatted cards (as I mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread), instead of using natural language for this exact reason. But this takes more physical space on the cards, and doesn't allow such a nice free form design.

3 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

let alone games about pushing tiny plastic spaceships around a table

Hey now, Lifting and placing.. not pushing

15 hours ago, meffo said:

how and why?

It isn't in this thread but someone broke out Sloane as an example of ignoring a paragraph on a card as argument that Snap Shot can be used in the engagement phase absent the enemy finishing a maneuver text. You can ignore this paragraph why can't you ignore this other paragraph? Any ***** in the armor is going to get stabbed at.

This is a concise version of the problem needing solved which I totally agree with.

10 hours ago, Mace Windu said:

Targeting restrictions of abilities either are or they are not restrictions to putting an ability in the Queue, they have to be one or the other and can't be both. If not then EVERY card printed in the future that has these sort of targeting restrictions will forever be debated until EVERY card has an official FAQ entry clarifying if the restrictions are or are not required to put the ability into the Queue.

If Teroch doesn't need a target why then should Anakin need a target? If Teroch can wait for Ketsu to give him a target why can't Anakin FTC to get a target? Unless you want to take everything on a case by case basis which I'm starting to think a lot of people do. To go reducto ad absurdum I see the conflict here being mostly between restrictions on Anakin being considered good (no FTC into his stress removal ability) while restrictions on Teroch/Ketsu (Ketsu can't tractor Teroch a ship to remove tokens from) being considered bad.

"Well. Apparently using a common idiom for vulnerability is not allowed. Flagged as a racist word I guess with no consideration for context?" Algorithms are rarely able, if ever, to assess based on context of what is actually typed. They look for letter and word combinations that match a black list and then censor per their programming.

4 hours ago, Frimmel said:

It isn't in this thread but someone broke out Sloane as an example of ignoring a paragraph on a card as argument that Snap Shot can be used in the engagement phase absent the enemy finishing a maneuver text. You can ignore this paragraph why can't you ignore this other paragraph? Any ***** in the armor is going to get stabbed at.

what? we're not ignoring any paragraphs here. this thread is about what an ablity's requirement is. i'll 100% agree that dents in armour will get poked - and that's why we're here. the abilities on these cards have no separate paragraphs, though.

snap shot and sloane clearly have separate paragraphs. i don't see how that has anything to do with defining an ability's requirement, but if you'd like to discuss what constitutes the ability's requirement on snap shot, please feel free to do so. in my opinion the first block of text on snap shot is an ability requirement for performing the attack as a bonus attack at the timing specified. the second block of text is also an ability, but it has an attack: header, so it falls into that category as described in the RR.

4 hours ago, Frimmel said:

If Teroch doesn't need a target why then should Anakin need a target? If Teroch can wait for Ketsu to give him a target why can't Anakin FTC to get a target? Unless you want to take everything on a case by case basis which I'm starting to think a lot of people do. To go reducto ad absurdum I see the conflict here being mostly between restrictions on Anakin being considered good (no FTC into his stress removal ability) while restrictions on Teroch/Ketsu (Ketsu can't tractor Teroch a ship to remove tokens from) being considered bad.

because teroch has a different wording than ensnare and anakin. he has a "may" and there is no clear statement anywhere saying that what follows in his text is an ability requirement. anakin and ensnare have very similar wordings, with ensnare being used as the example in the RR with the new ability queue rules. there are no "you may choose..." or "if you do...", so there is no confusion.

of course every card in this game has to be taken case by case. this game wouldn't be very interesting if all cards and abilities were the same.

would you care to explain how restrictions on abilities being considered good or bad has significance?

9 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Show's over. 🍻

10 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Hey now, Lifting and placing.. not pushing

Lifting is merely upwards pushing. 😜

Posted in the Questions thread.

Quote

Q: What is meant by a "requirement" for an ability?

A: A requirement for an ability is a conditional if-statement, such as "if you are tractored" or "if the defender is in your <bullseyearc>." A ship being in-arc at range for an attack made as part of a triggered ability, such as Snap Shot or Foresight, is also a requirement for that ability.

If an ability's requirements are not met at the time the ability would be added to the queue, it cannot be added to the queue.

If the ability's requirements are not met at the time the ability would be resolved from the queue, the ability is not resolved and is instead removed from the queue.

If an ability instruct you to make a choice, such as choosing a ship, that is not itself a requirement to initiate an ability.

Does that actually answer our questions? Seems kind of wishy-washy.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

Does that actually answer our questions? Seems kind of wishy-washy.

I mean, it seems pretty solid.

Basically if it doesn't use the word if, it's not a requirement.

2 minutes ago, SirToastsalot said:

I mean, it seems pretty solid.

Basically if it doesn't use the word if, it's not a requirement.

If it does use the word if, it might be a requirement. But it also might not be. Maybe.

1 minute ago, SirToastsalot said:

I mean, it seems pretty solid.

Basically if it doesn't use the word if, it's not a requirement.

Or if the ability performs an attack, or if the ability has a cost. Also all requirements need to be checked twice now. Once while triggering the ability and once while resolving the ability. I think it's a stupid ruling that will be make for a lot of different behaviors depending on the context of every situation, but not much point in arguing it now.

5 minutes ago, Maui. said:

If it does use the word if, it might be a requirement. But it also might not be. Maybe.

Almost as if Grammar comprehension is required to read something.

7 minutes ago, Maui. said:

If it does use the word if, it might be a requirement. But it also might not be. Maybe.

I guess. It seems pretty straight forward that a condition if statement that follows the trigger is the requirement. Not something like If you do.

Paying costs isn't technically a requirement, but if you cant pay the cost at the time then you can't add it to the queue either.

I think it seems fine as there's not a ton of times where a requirement would be true when an ability begins to resolve and not be true when it goes to resolve. That's how we all figured it worked before, the only difference is you can no longer trigger an ability like after burners to meet the requirements of another ability.