45 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Actually your example with the milkshake is very relevant. Boosts 'usually' aren't red. From the RRG:

"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."

This is exactly what I was going to say if no one else did! This rule is what sets the default color as white for BB's boost.

For reference, that quote is from RR (1.0.5) p.3 under Actions

5 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

This is exactly what I was going to say if no one else did! This rule is what sets the default color as white for BB's boost.

For reference, that quote is from RR (1.0.5) p.3 under Actions

Posted same time. See previous post.

2 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

This is not what he said. He said boosts at odd times are usually red. I.e. there tends to be a cost or penalty. Which of course, is true.

Snap Wexley and Afterburners say hello. Assuming the boost is red because 'other boosts at weird times are red' doesn't hold up.

Again,

Quote

"If a ship is instructed to perform an action, the action is white unless stated otherwise."

9 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

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.

Translation, Booting outside of your perform action step.

IE Pilot ability, Ship ability, Upgrade ability, Linked action, ect..

2 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Snap Wexley and Afterburners say hello. Assuming the boost is red because 'other boosts at weird times are red' doesn't hold up.

Again,

He said often not always. Which is still true.

Afterburners you pay a charge.

Snap has a speed requirement.

Also so he was making a linguistic argument. Which was in keeping with the milkshake counter argument.

He is not ignorant of the RR

1 minute ago, Rettere said:

Snap Wexley and Afterburners say hello.

For snap, the cost is Fully Executing a speed 2-4 maneuver
For Afterburners, its fully executing a speed 3-5 maneuver AND spending a charge.

Cost isnt strictly meaning 'pay' cost. It's also opportunity cost.

6 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

He said often not always. Which is still true.

Afterburners you pay a charge.

Snap has a speed requirement.

Also so he was making a linguistic argument. Which was in keeping with the milkshake counter argument.

He is not ignorant of the RR

You can have a hot burger or milkshake.

"Milkshakes are usually not hot so I will assume it is cold."

You can have a chocolate cake or burger.

"Burgers are usually not chocolate so I will assume it is normal flavored"

You may perform a red barrel roll or boost.

"Boosts are usually not red (per the RRG) so I will assume it is white."

just chiming in to say i 100% agree with @theBitterFig .

however, this cards needs a clarification or errata. until then, i guess it's TOs discretion (i believe 99% of organizers or marshals will agree the boost and the barrel roll are both red actions). i will make sure to have it all clarified before playing against it though.

the pods with chewie is a viable list.

16 minutes ago, Rettere said:

"Boosts are usually not red (per the RRG) so I will assume it is white."

Boosting at odd times NORMALLY requires a cost of SOMETHING, so I will read the card and use my full command of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to realize that the cost is gaining a stress.

The argument is not about the RR. We know the RR. The argument is whether the RAI and the RAW states you have to pay a stress for this ability.

It’s certainly not always the case, tho, thus this entire post. However, misquoting each other does not help.

Edit:

Besides, what is a red barrel roll? There’s no such thing. So there are those of us that apply RED and ACTION to both the antecedents.

I would agree RAW (still not RAI) with the opposing view IF the card stated:

You may perform a red BR action or a boost action.

Technically, I should be able to red BR (whatever that is) and then perform the BR action in the action step. Much like Ani. If I can white boost.

I say PHEWIE TO YOU! Action and Red apply to both! 😜 😂 🙄

You white boost??? I raise you 2 BRs each activation!!!

ATTENTION WORLD:

I will now be doing a barrel roll before activating, and, AFTER activation, I will then do a barrel roll ACTION.

Because RAW does NOT state:

“...BR action or boost action.”

😁 😁 😁 😁 😁

34 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

ATTENTION WORLD:

I will now be doing a barrel roll before activating, and, AFTER activation, I will then do a barrel roll ACTION.

Because RAW does NOT state:

“...BR action or boost action.”

😁 😁 😁 😁 😁

@Rettere

Love the pic lol 😂

4 hours ago, Rettere said:

Actually your example with the milkshake is very relevant. Boosts 'usually' aren't red. From the RRG:

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."

*eyeroll*

Milkshakes are essentially never hot, only cold. Hamburgers are essentially never chocolate.

Boosts are as often red as white. Some are white (Sabine-pilot, T-70, BB-8 crew) and this is a default, some are red when the card tells it is is, like with Cad Bane, a HWK or YT-1300, or BB-8 pilot .

Coffee is something that, unless specified, will often be presumed to be hot. But if someone offered me iced tea or coffee, I'm presuming it's iced coffee. If someone offers me hot coffee or tea, I'm presuming it's hot tea. It's a pair of things which are often hot, often cold. If only one adjective is present, presuming it comes before both, the adjective almost surely refers to both. Could someone mean something else? Sure, but it'd be incredibly unnatural to not say "hot coffee or iced tea" if the difference is meant.

The word red is right there at the front. Barrel Rolls and Boosts are of the same class of things. The word should be read as applying to both, because that's how language works.

6 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Hypotheticals are an abomination now?

There are different kinds of hypotheticals.

It's one thing to ponder "what if we had a pilot which did X?" or "what if we had a turret with this set of dice and attack range?" That stuff is all fine and lovely and folks should keep doing it.

I think it's another thing entirely in this case. "Well maybe the devs intended this" feels really foolish or really disingenuous to me. There's something so unnatural about a ship which has a barrel roll on the bar, but cannot boost, being granted a less difficult boost by the same effect which grants a more difficult barrel roll. Folks say "we can't know what the dev intend" and that's just not fully accurate. The devs used a grammatical construction which 95% of the time is going to mean the adjective applies to both conjoined items. Can we be 100% sure the devs inteded a red boost? Not 100%. But like 95%.

That's not a "well, we have no idea what the devs meant." C'mon.

It appears to be one thing (red boost), and red boost is not unequivocally wrong, so we ought to treat it as a red boost, because that's the best information we have. We really aren't clueless--they put the word red right there.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

The word red is right there at the front. Barrel Rolls and Boosts are of the same class of things. The word should be read as applying to both, because that's how language works.

I think the crux of the disagreement is that, according to common sense and common language conventions, you're absolutely correct ... and yet, within the strict context of specific symbolic language of a defined game system, you are actually technically wrong. 95% of the arguments are openly stating that the intent of the ability is that both Barrel Roll and Boost actions are red, while the other 5% are seemingly taking a "we can't truly, absolutely know RAI, so we have to default to precise RAW" attitude... so we pretty much already know what it should be . We're trying to figure out what it is .

All of this dispute comes up when some people read the literal, word-for-word game text, and parse it through the explicit rules & rulings of the game, sticking strictly to the precise text on the card, while other people take a more nuanced approach and try to apply common sense to game text that is not consistent with existing examples.

For what it's worth, I agree with you as to how this card should work, and how I expect it to be ruled by most TOs (and hopefully, ultimately, FFG). My concern is with identifying imprecise wording, and addressing it here, where we can address the problem of this card, which is inconsistent with its predecessors, and try to come to a consensus that we can take to our local groups, and hopefully inform any future decisions by FFG.

36 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I think the crux of the disagreement is that, according to common sense and common language conventions, you're absolutely correct ... and yet, within the strict context of specific symbolic language of a defined game system, you are actually technically wrong. 95% of the arguments are openly stating that the intent of the ability is that both Barrel Roll and Boost actions are red, while the other 5% are seemingly taking a "we can't truly, absolutely know RAI, so we have to default to precise RAW" attitude... so we pretty much already know what it should be . We're trying to figure out what it is .

All of this dispute comes up when some people read the literal, word-for-word game text, and parse it through the explicit rules & rulings of the game, sticking strictly to the precise text on the card, while other people take a more nuanced approach and try to apply common sense to game text that is not consistent with existing examples.

For what it's worth, I agree with you as to how this card should work, and how I expect it to be ruled by most TOs (and hopefully, ultimately, FFG). My concern is with identifying imprecise wording, and addressing it here, where we can address the problem of this card, which is inconsistent with its predecessors, and try to come to a consensus that we can take to our local groups, and hopefully inform any future decisions by FFG.

For the most part we're breaking this down so the issue can be nipped before someone convinces a judge that by RAW they legitimately can use BB-8's Boost to lead into a red maneuver. It does not appear to be what was intended with his design, but FFG has rewritten the rules after the fact to fit the abilities of Resistance pilots before, so we cannot be sure of that either.

Not all of us begin with RAI. I still say RAW the words action and red apply to both.

Otherwise you could legitimately do 2 barrel rolls in a single activation.

Why is no one arguing that? Why only the white boost? If white Boost then by necessity double barrel rolls! Why is no one concerned about the fact that there is no such thing as a red barrel roll (absent the word action)???

Why no worries about this with Sabine??

RAW it states it is a red boost and a barrel roll action. IMHO.

🙄 🙄 🙄

31 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

Not all of us begin with RAI. I still say RAW the words action and red apply to both.

Otherwise you could legitimately do 2 barrel rolls in a single activation.

Why is no one arguing that? Why only the white boost? If white Boost then by necessity double barrel rolls! Why is no one concerned about the fact that there is no such thing as a red barrel roll (absent the word action)???

Why no worries about this with Sabine??

RAW it states it is a red boost and a barrel roll action. IMHO.

🙄 🙄 🙄

Because ongoing precedent has stated that when you see an action symbol, it represents the action itself. Alternately, when you see the name of the action spelled out, it is often a similar effect that is NOT an action.

As an example, when Dutch Vander performs a Lock action (note the symbol), another friendly ship may (conditionally) acquire a lock (note the lack of symbol).

14 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Because ongoing precedent has stated that when you see an action symbol, it represents the action itself. Alternately, when you see the name of the action spelled out, it is often a similar effect that is NOT an action.

As an example, when Dutch Vander performs a Lock action (note the symbol), another friendly ship may (conditionally) acquire a lock (note the lack of symbol).

However, that’s a RAI point, not a RAW point.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree. But nowhere does it state that the symbol equates to the action.

Especially when the bulk of the argument for the white boost have been insisting that “red” must be before each instance of an action, or it is mandatory that it is white.

This is not so. Sabine uses action to apply to both of her abilities. No one states that she can BR then do another BR action.

Also in your example above it gives symbol plus “action”.

It’s a contradiction IMHO to apply the word action to both but say it’s not RAW to apply red to both.

Thus, if they’re separate, and white boost action exists, BB-8 can indeed do 2 BRs since action keyword is never applied to the first.

And still no one is concerned about a red barrel non-action br??

I’ll actually up the ante: in the RR the symbol is give under BR, Boost, et cetera APART from calling it an action.

But under the section entitled Barrel Roll [Symblo], it says when you perform this as an action..... yadayada. BUT it states it’s not NECESSARILY an action.

THUS, Dutch’s ability only procs when he performs the action. Symbol plus action as opposed to say an r3 lock.

10 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

Why is no one arguing that? Why only the white boost? If white Boost then by necessity double barrel rolls! Why is no one concerned about the fact that there is no such thing as a red barrel roll (absent the word action)???

Here's a thing: I tried to debunk the "action is equally problematic" line of argument, but couldn't. My hope was the rules reference was going to help, to show that just the symbol alone was enough to treat it as an action, but couldn't get anywhere.

In the action section of the rulebook, there are two examples. "Word" isn't an action, and not subject to once-per-turn rules. "[Symbol] Action" is an action, and subject to once-per-turn rules. There's no mention [Symbol] without the word "action."

I don't really enjoy the line of argument, since I don't want to accidentally convince anyone that BB-8's Barrel Roll isn't an action. Schrödinger's Cat stands out as a perfect example of something that was intended to be an obviously silly and foolish counterexample, but folks treated seriously.

But for folks want to claim they're being super technical, the "boost is white" side doesn't really have a good answer. If Autothrusters sets a precedent by repeating the word "red," it and Sabine also set precedent by repeating the word "action." So are we stuck with a barrel roll which isn't entirely an action, and a boost which isn't red? I'd suggest that we could just, like, follow a perfectly fine example of English grammar and treat both words as applying to both halves of the conjunction.

//

Say... how does BB-8 get worded in translation? I have no idea how I'd begin to check that.

//

11 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

...so we pretty much already know what it should be . We're trying to figure out what it is .

All of this dispute comes up when some people read the literal, word-for-word game text, and parse it through the explicit rules & rulings of the game, sticking strictly to the precise text on the card, while other people take a more nuanced approach and try to apply common sense to game text that is not consistent with existing examples.

My project here is something kind of a step further back from that. I want to show that ultimately there isn't a huge difference between the interpretive work we're doing. There is no "what it is," there's only what we read it to be. We are always making choices. The literal, word-for-word card text can be read as red or white. I reject completely that I'm not sticking strictly to the text, or that my opponents are somehow being more consistent with text. I think there's a fallacious appeal to authority from a lot of folks claiming to have *the only* RAW argument.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

My project here is something kind of a step further back from that. I want to show that ultimately there isn't a huge difference between the interpretive work we're doing. There is no "what it is," there's only what we read it to be. We are always making choices. The literal, word-for-word card text can be read as red or white. I reject completely that I'm not sticking strictly to the text, or that my opponents are somehow being more consistent with text. I think there's a fallacious appeal to authority from a lot of folks claiming to have *the only* RAW argument.

This. I agree and also maintain that RAW states it is red.

I say this understanding the necessary interpretation of the information given, AND acknowledging that another could also say RAW it is white.

However, both are an interpretation of the information given.

The argument around action is actually a completely separate and equally interesting argument. The problem is that we don't know how to execute a red barrel roll non-action so it breaks the game. But we all know how to execute a white boost action which is what is written on the card.

Now if judges, or other users on this thread, choose to apply their own interpretation, subject to their own biases and linguistic proclivities, to the card and call it a red boost then fine. As long as we are acknowledging that we're not doing what's written on the card and in the RRG.

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

I’ll actually up the ante: in the RR the symbol is give under BR, Boost, et cetera APART from calling it an action.

But under the section entitled Barrel Roll [Symblo], it says when you perform this as an action..... yadayada. BUT it states it’s not NECESSARILY an action.

THUS, Dutch’s ability only procs when he performs the action. Symbol plus action as opposed to say an r3 lock.

God FFG are bad at this.