5 hours ago, AceDogbert said:No reference to BB-8 being able to do a red non-action barrel roll (as that is what logically must occur to argue the next part) or to perform a white boost action.
The boost being white does not imply that the barrel roll isn’t an action. This was covered in a prior post.
5 hours ago, AceDogbert said:FFG really needs to tighten up their technical writing. However, I feel that this is reaching hard to bypass the intent of the developers.
Looking back on the announcement article, the language is exactly the same, "BB-8 can take the Transport Pod in some surprising new directions if he chooses to perform a red barrel roll or boost action during the System Phase". That's it, no further comment. No reference to BB-8 being able to do a red non-action barrel roll (as that is what logically must occur to argue the next part) or to perform a white boost action. Now, FFG love to show off when a ship or pilot can do something patently ridiculous, so why didn't they mention it here?
Do we have any proven examples from FFG where the difficulty stated like this only applies to the first listed action?
No, but we have other examples where it clearly describes both of the available actions being RED (see autothrusters and refined gyrostabilizers above) by putting the difficulty before BOTH actions separately in the text. So yes it may be reaching a little, but fairly so. There are 2 other instances in this game where BOTH actions listed are described with a color so people clearly know what difficulty it is, and that is not the case here. Its just inconsistent writing that was probably intended to have the same intent as autothrusters and refined gyrostabilizers , but this is a game where the wording absolutely does matter (there is an official ruling that says if an actions difficulty is not clearly described, then it is white, see thread for official rule). I would absolutely argue that BB-8's boost action's difficulty is NOT clearly described here just because there are other instances (again, autothrusters and refined gyrostabilizers) where BOTH actions are described as red, separate of each other.
Im honestly never going to use BB-8 so i really dont care what color the action is, that is just how i interpret it. The issue here is that FFG is putting out content that is inconsistent and it is causing confusion among players and it needs to be addressed. #REPRINTBB-8
1 hour ago, Rettere said:The boost being white does not imply that the barrel roll isn’t an action. This was covered in a prior post.
Looking at the previous posts...it wasn't addressed. Which if anything reveals that FFG's writing has been inconsistent from the very start!
If the argument is that BB-8's boost is white as it doesn't inherit the difficulty specified earlier in the sentence (the argument being that it should be defined as a 'red boost action' on the card), then the barrel roll isn't an action (as it lacks an independent statement of it being so). Similarly, this would mean that TIE Interceptors could do the same (the card only specifies the barrel roll as red, not a red action), and RZ-2 A Wings can perform a red non-action boost.
I fully agree that this is a case where the writing could stand to be more consistent, which is why I was hoping there was an example of a ship or pilot ability where the 'white boost' interpretation had been 'proven' by FFG. That is to say, is there another example where a ship or pilot ability grants:
where FFG have directly said that the second option does not have the same difficulty as the first? The example in the FAQ thread (Vizier's ability) doesn't mention a difficulty at all (and only has a single 'option' of performing a coordinate action or not).
Edited by AceDogbertdelete this.
Edited by LyianxIf they were being fully clear and consistent all thigns that specify multiple things like this woudl specify all of them with all of their attendant modifiers separately.
So, 'a red boost action or a red barrel roll action' woudl be the ideal templating. And if the intent was for the action to be white, it would specify white, even though white is the default, just to avoid the lack of clarity.
But honestly, I'd prefer for there not to be a default, and for everything to state what colour it should be.
But we missed that boat a year ago so
He has a red cat and dog.
a. Does it mean he has a red cat and a red dog?
b. Does it mean he has a red cat and a dog?
c. Does it mean he's hallucinating and there is no cat or dog?
My interpretation is b. The adjective describes the noun in front of it, but not any further nouns.
By RAW I'd rule that it's a white boost, specially when you consider the precedent on writing multiple actions into an ability.
7 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:He has a red cat and dog.
a. Does it mean he has a red cat and a red dog?
b. Does it mean he has a red cat and a dog?
c. Does it mean he's hallucinating and there is no cat or dog?
My interpretation is b. The adjective describes the noun in front of it, but not any further nouns.
By RAW I'd rule that it's a white boost, specially when you consider the precedent on writing multiple actions into an ability.
d: the information is incomplete, we cannot assess the colour of the dog.
Also the analogy is incomplete, since the dog needs to have its own modifier which may or may not apply t the cat, too.
So, he has a red cat and dog (alive).
Is the dog red? Is the cat alive?
It is a mystery.
11 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:He has a red cat and dog.
a. Does it mean he has a red cat and a red dog?
b. Does it mean he has a red cat and a dog?
c. Does it mean he's hallucinating and there is no cat or dog?
My interpretation is b. The adjective describes the noun in front of it, but not any further nouns.
By RAW I'd rule that it's a white boost, specially when you consider the precedent on writing multiple actions into an ability.
You may use a red fork or spoon.
a) You may use either a red fork or a red spoon.
b) You may use either a red fork or a spoon of the default color.
c) What @thespaceinvader said
This is what the intent of the card was meant to be, can we agree? - "You may perform a RED (barrel roll or boost) action."
Obviously its not worded that way (and neither is autothrusters or refined GS), but that is the intended verbiage, where both are covered by "red" and "action". Autothrusters and refined GS at least cover each action listed with their own "RED" marker, which i will bring up and the end again.
Everyone is thinking about this way too hard and applying english grammar waaaay too literally/incorrectly (at least for the non-action barrel roll thing...). So ill join in for a brief second lol.
The word "action" does not get separated from the "red barrel roll" part of the text, that is where everyone is getting this confused and thinking that the "red barrel roll" becomes a "non-action" which is NONsensical (buh dum tss)... it very clearly is supposed to be an action, regardless of how literal you read the wording. The word "action" is actually the Noun of that sentence, "red barrel roll" and "boost" are the adjectives that are describing what action it could be. They are then separated by an "or" clause, which effectively breaks the descriptions of that noun ("ACTION") into 2 different types, red barrel roll OR boost. So when its read aloud, it can be read like this, You may perform a red barrel roll action OR boost action. (or red barrel roll action OR red boost action depending on how you see this). Either way, the word "action" always applies to both.
Normally in a real life scenario (like what you guys are posting in the above posts which relates nothing to xwing, which is important) i would absolutely read the text as being red for both just because yes the red SHOULD apply to both. When i hear "i have blue shoes and underwear" yea i absolutely think that man has blue shoes and blue underwear 100%, But the only reason this has become a question is because FFG HAS RELEASED 2 OTHER ABILITIES THAT DESCRIBE BOTH ACTIONS INDIVIDUALLY AS RED and this ability has not. So its not a question of how literally can this be read/translated, its an issue of the formatting of the text being different than what they have put out in the past (something that is ALREADY established in the game) and different text in this game almost always means different abilities/effects/timing. We all know this. Still on that #REPRINTBB-8 train tho 😂 The way this is worded reminds me of 1.0 and that's not okay hahaha.
45 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:If they were being fully clear and consistent all thigns that specify multiple things like this woudl specify all of them with all of their attendant modifiers separately.
So, 'a red boost action or a red barrel roll action' woudl be the ideal templating. And if the intent was for the action to be white, it would specify white, even though white is the default, just to avoid the lack of clarity.
But honestly, I'd prefer for there not to be a default, and for everything to state what colour it should be.
But we missed that boat a year ago so
I think the "white boost" argument is completely and utterly inappropriate, but I do kinda have to point out one thing. If it's using the symbol for the barrel roll or the boost, the word action is kind of redundant, IMHO. FFG has in a bunch of places distinguished between the word "Barrel Roll" and the Symbol "<->" or whatever.
//
42 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:He has a red cat and dog.
a. Does it mean he has a red cat and a red dog?
b. Does it mean he has a red cat and a dog?
c. Does it mean he's hallucinating and there is no cat or dog?
My interpretation is b. The adjective describes the noun in front of it, but not any further nouns.
By RAW I'd rule that it's a white boost, specially when you consider the precedent on writing multiple actions into an ability.
You're wrong in attempting to be so definitive.
"Look at this gif of a cute cat and dog" almost surely means that both the cat and dog are cute.
"It was warm yesterday and today" certainly means that today was warm as well.
Is it possible for there to be a interpretation that the boost is white? Sure. But it's INCREDIBLY presumptive. There'd be something really strange in a card granting a white this action, and a red that action, while not being clear about it. When words are grouped up, people associate them together, and it makes more sense to apply red to both halves, since they weren't spelling out a difference.
//
This debate really show the massive flaw in a lot of RAW arguments, and even the entire "RAW is the only way" philosophy: they fall apart at the interpretation of written language.
There are two ways to read the written words--both RAW arguments. I think the split red/white is a far more destructive reading of the card, bringing a lot more assumptions to the text itself. The red/red reading--probably lining up with intent--is also supported by a 100% valid and RAW way to read the plain text of the card. It takes a lot more work to presume that there's a difference because text which can imply sameness wasn't redundant enough in spelling out the sameness (I don't want to even say BB-8 is implicit rather than explicit. Red Barrel Roll Or Boost *is* explicit language), than it is to presume sameness from a grammatical construction which implies sameness.
Folks have to make a choice between two arguments. There's no "well, this is RAW and I don't have a choice and I'm not applying my own views." Folks don't get to hide, they don't get to lie and pretend they're not making a decision.
So much bitterness in this thread!
First off, I think 99% of us can agree that this whole situation is a result of inconsistent language on behalf of FFG. To my eyes, the INTENT of the ability is that both the boost and barrel roll are red ( RAI ); I don't think anyone is trying to argue anything in opposition to that. The two main questions thus become:
For the first one, the debate seems to have centered on "do we read this statement using traditional conventions of the English language, or using the precise definitions of the game's vocabulary?" Each argument has merit; my opinion happens to fall on the latter side. Parsing the exact, unmodified card text through the specific rules language of the game produces a red barrel roll and a white boost. I absolutely understand the other argument, though, and I think that it simply came about due to writing the card text in a casual manner, and an oversight in proofreading.
The second one is more difficult to determine. In this case, RAI seems clear (at least to me), so defaulting to the RAI interpretation is fully acceptable if all parties agree. However, in many situations, RAI is not clear, or is in dispute. In that case... who decides what is right? The highest authorities at a venue (Tournament Organizer, Marshall, FFG officials) usually have final say, of course, but that still leaves an awkward space in the middle when there isn't someone that's clearly "in charge". In those situations (absent an official ruling or a local authority), when there is both dispute as to intent and lack of consensus on how it should be handled, I think the only responsible thing to do is adhere to the rules strictly as written.
2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:So much bitterness in this thread!
First off, I think 99% of us can agree that this whole situation is a result of inconsistent language on behalf of FFG. To my eyes, the INTENT of the ability is that both the boost and barrel roll are red ( RAI ); I don't think anyone is trying to argue anything in opposition to that. The two main questions thus become:
- As the BB-8 is written ( RAW ), what is the function of the ability?
- If BB-8's (or, for that matter, ANY card's) RAW is not in line with RAI... what is the remedy? How do we decide what definitely is or is not the correct answer?
For the first one, the debate seems to have centered on "do we read this statement using traditional conventions of the English language, or using the precise definitions of the game's vocabulary?" Each argument has merit; my opinion happens to fall on the latter side. Parsing the exact, unmodified card text through the specific rules language of the game produces a red barrel roll and a white boost. I absolutely understand the other argument, though, and I think that it simply came about due to writing the card text in a casual manner, and an oversight in proofreading.
The second one is more difficult to determine. In this case, RAI seems clear (at least to me), so defaulting to the RAI interpretation is fully acceptable if all parties agree. However, in many situations, RAI is not clear, or is in dispute. In that case... who decides what is right? The highest authorities at a venue (Tournament Organizer, Marshall, FFG officials) usually have final say, of course, but that still leaves an awkward space in the middle when there isn't someone that's clearly "in charge". In those situations (absent an official ruling or a local authority), when there is both dispute as to intent and lack of consensus on how it should be handled, I think the only responsible thing to do is adhere to the rules strictly as written.
I'm still inclined to agree with your original argument that, since they set a precedent in past abilities (Autothrusters, ect..), where they DO clearly define each actions difficulty, that i would treat that boost as white until they errata the card text. For all we know, they intended that boost to be white. Perhaps they did want its boost to be easier than the barrel roll since its barrel roll is already red.
14 minutes ago, Lyianx said:I'm still inclined to agree with your original argument that, since they set a precedent in past abilities (Autothrusters, ect..), where they DO clearly define each actions difficulty, that i would treat that boost as white until they errata the card text. For all we know, they intended that boost to be white. Perhaps they did want its boost to be easier than the barrel roll since its barrel roll is already red.
oooo that would be interesting! I highly doubt it, but that would be pretty cool if they actually did this on purpose! 😁
It's not even remotely ****ing possible that it was intended.
I don't know what's worse: that folks could actually believe it, or that they're making the argument knowing that it isn't true.
14 hours ago, theBitterFig said:It's not even remotely ****ing possible that it was intended.
I don't know what's worse: that folks could actually believe it, or that they're making the argument knowing that it isn't true.
Bro clam the **** down 😂 You act like we just insulted your heritage. Its a game and we are just talking about "what if" scenarios lol not making an argument that FFG did this on purpose.
14 hours ago, theBitterFig said:It's not even remotely ****ing possible that it was intended.
I don't know what's worse: that folks could actually believe it, or that they're making the argument knowing that it isn't true.
Well, until they address it, we have no way of really knowing what was intended. Logically, i think it should be red. The problem is, they have already set a precedent by specifically calling out individual action difficulty when you have multiple action options with other cards. Thus telling everyone 'each action will have its own defined difficulty listed, don't worry about assuming one difficulty call out is applied to all the following ones'.
And as most of us know, the competitive community doesnt operate on logic or intent of rules, but on what is strictly written.. word for word. They hang on the very letter of the rules. Meaning what i said before, will be the argument they use to say the boost is white, because the text does not specifically state that its red.
“You May eat a chocolate cake or hamburger.
Do I need to find a chocolate hamburger???
Look, we go by read-as-written for literally everything else.
The only reason you'd argue against this is because you don't want people using RAW
AGAINST
you, making BB-8 a proper scooterboy.
1 hour ago, Lyianx said:And as most of us know, the competitive community doesnt operate on logic or intent of rules, but on what is strictly written.. word for word. They hang on the very letter of the rules. Meaning what i said before, will be the argument they use to say the boost is white, because the text does not specifically state that its red.
This is the problem with folks who think they're RAW purists. They don't understand how reading and writing work.
The card says the boost is red far more clearly than it says it's something other than red. Folks aren't hanging on the letter of the text word for word to treat the boost as white: they're making an interpretive choice. Frequently, it's the much harder interpretive choice they're making too, and pretending that "well, this is just what it says." That's not what it says. Pretty clearly there is more than one way to read this text, so it's actually impossible to do what the card says word for word.
Folks are actively deciding what the meaning is, rejecting other valid meanings, without acknowledging this.
16 minutes ago, Rettere said:“You May eat a chocolate cake or hamburger.
Do I need to find a chocolate hamburger???
To be sure, we can cook up examples where the adjective doesn't apply to both halves of a conjunction. Cake and Burgers are very rarely the same, so it's easy to assume there's a difference. If I were to say "You can have a hot burger or a milkshake" it's pretty easy to assume the milkshake isn't hot. Milkshakes usually aren't hot, burgers aren't usually chocolate--that's why this counterexample is irrelevant. In this game, Boosts granted at strange times are frequently but not always red actions.
But what if we're dealing with a thing where the adjective commonly can apply to both halves of the conjunction? To cook another example: If I'm saying to someone "We can make you a meatless hamburger or hot dog" the context is pretty clear that it's also a meatless hot dog. Any effective communicator would specify "meatless hamburger or regular hot dog" because of the sameness of the two objects. Or perhaps phrase it "hot dog or meatless hamburger." Language is also order--changing the sequence means that meatless clearly no longer applies to the hot dog.
What irks me most is a tendency to latch onto a slim theoretical possibility, treat it as a certainty, and then falsely declare that "well, I didn't have any choice here, I'm not doing interpretation, but following the only way to read the words."
1 hour ago, LilTugBoat said:Bro clam the **** down 😂 You act like we just insulted your heritage.
To the extend that my language is my heritage, folks kind of are.
I'm just so tired of this same roundabout.
38 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:Look, we go by read-as-written for literally everything else.
The only reason you'd argue against this is because you don't want people using RAW AGAINST you, making BB-8 a proper scooterboy.
I'm disputing it because I don't believe that is what's written.
Flip side: folks arguing in favor of BB-8 magically getting a white boost are trying to take something which probably isn't even actually a loophole--and if it is it's the tiniest of loopholes--and fly a whole*** spaceship through it. Granted, it's not a very big spaceship, but still.
8 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:This is the problem with folks who think they're RAW purists. They don't understand how reading and writing work.
The card says the boost is red far more clearly than it says it's something other than red. Folks aren't hanging on the letter of the text word for word to treat the boost as white: they're making an interpretive choice. Frequently, it's the much harder interpretive choice they're making too, and pretending that "well, this is just what it says." That's not what it says. Pretty clearly there is more than one way to read this text, so it's actually impossible to do what the card says word for word.
Folks are actively deciding what the meaning is, rejecting other valid meanings, without acknowledging this.
To be sure, we can cook up examples where the adjective doesn't apply to both halves of a conjunction. Cake and Burgers are very rarely the same, so it's easy to assume there's a difference. If I were to say "You can have a hot burger or a milkshake" it's pretty easy to assume the milkshake isn't hot. Milkshakes usually aren't hot, burgers aren't usually chocolate--that's why this counterexample is irrelevant. In this game, Boosts granted at strange times are frequently but not always red actions.
But what if we're dealing with a thing where the adjective commonly can apply to both halves of the conjunction? To cook another example: If I'm saying to someone "We can make you a meatless hamburger or hot dog" the context is pretty clear that it's also a meatless hot dog. Any effective communicator would specify "meatless hamburger or regular hot dog" because of the sameness of the two objects. Or perhaps phrase it "hot dog or meatless hamburger." Language is also order--changing the sequence means that meatless clearly no longer applies to the hot dog.
What irks me most is a tendency to latch onto a slim theoretical possibility, treat it as a certainty, and then falsely declare that "well, I didn't have any choice here, I'm not doing interpretation, but following the only way to read the words."
To the extend that my language is my heritage, folks kind of are.
I'm just so tired of this same roundabout.
Eloquently stated. He is right.
Is it possible to RAW interpret this as a white boost in good conscience??? Yes. See above.
Should you throw up your hands in dismay and surprise when a judge roles his eyes at you and says, “uh no, dude, it’s definitely a red action...” ??? No, because there is no NECESSARY conclusion that it’s white.
As I said earlier, where’d they put the eye roll reaction??? 🙄 🙄 🙄
1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:I'm disputing it because I don't believe that is what's written.
Flip side: folks arguing in favor of BB-8 magically getting a white boost are trying to take something which probably isn't even actually a loophole--and if it is it's the tiniest of loopholes--and fly a whole*** spaceship through it. Granted, it's not a very big spaceship, but still.
Is it intended to be red? Probably, but please see the argument over 1 device per turn re Paige Tico and Genius and how that turned out... TIE/In, TIE/Vn and RZ-2 all specify the difficulty of the action immediately preceding the action. BB-8 pilot doesn't for the boost. With the current ruling on action difficulty that I linked to previously, those three abilities involving multiple listed actions in an ability and the Paige/Genius ruling (and subsequent editing of the rules) as precedent there is a legitimate argument that as written BB-8's boost from his ability is White.
On 10/10/2019 at 12:26 PM, LilTugBoat said:The word "action" is actually the Noun of that sentence, "red barrel roll" and "boost" are the adjectives that are describing what action it could be.
If we start with the assumption that the "barrel roll" is not its own noun, sure. I don't disagree with your overall interpretation, but this bit of reasoning is just begging the question.
On 10/10/2019 at 12:26 PM, LilTugBoat said:When i hear "i have blue shoes and underwear" yea i absolutely think that man has blue shoes and blue underwear 100%,
Odd. When I hear, "I have blue shoes and underwear," my only thought is, "Why on Earth are you telling me this?"
19 hours ago, theBitterFig said:It's not even remotely ****ing possible that it was intended.
I don't know what's worse: that folks could actually believe it, or that they're making the argument knowing that it isn't true.
Hypotheticals are an abomination now?
4 hours ago, Lyianx said:And as most of us know, the competitive community doesnt operate on logic or intent of rules, but on what is strictly written.. word for word. They hang on the very letter of the rules. Meaning what i said before, will be the argument they use to say the boost is white, because the text does not specifically state that its red.
I know some people find these discussions silly and trivial, but I think there is value in them. Yes, in this case the intent us fairly obvious. The lack of consistency, however, means it is more likely that someday a situation will arise that isn't so clear-cut, which can be pretty bad when you start getting multiple judges ruling differently.
It's not necessarily as much about the specific cards as it is using the cards to highlight the underlying systemic issues.
4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:Milkshakes usually aren't hot, burgers aren't usually chocolate--that's why this counterexample is irrelevant. In this game, Boosts granted at strange times are frequently but not always red actions.
Actually your example with the milkshake is very relevant. Boosts 'usually' aren't red. From the RRG:
Quote"If a ship is instructed to perform an action, the action is white unless stated otherwise."
We assume the milkshake is cold unless you specifically say "hot milkshake." So (per the RRG) we assume the boost is white unless they specifically call out "red boost."
Edited by Rettere49 minutes ago, Rettere said:Actually your example with the milkshake is very relevant. Boosts 'usually' aren't red. From the RRG:
This is NOT what @theBitterFig said.
He said boosts at odd times are usually red:
In this game, Boosts granted at strange times are frequently but not always red actions.
I.e. there tends to be a cost or penalty when you get a boost outside of the normal timing.
Which of course, IS true.
Edited by JBFancourt