3 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

What they are saying with the hard-points is (add one of these slots to your upgrade bar), effectively. So yes, they can still be reloaded.

I'm not happy about the way it was ruled, but at least we got clarification

It's effectively two contradicting 'cuz we said so' rulings given in the same update, I would have strongly preferred an errata for WH so that we could consistently ruled this type of language in the future. I'm a little surprised they didn't just errata Weapons Hardpoint since they are apparently in the mood for errata with 7(!) new errata given in this update.

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

11 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

Exactly

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

I think you mean "folks assumed based on a very flawed app and 1.0 precedence." It is nice that FFG clarified it, though this still leave S&V without one of the Black Sun's signature weapons from Shadows of the Empire and neither Resistance or S&V have access to dual slot missiles. Hopefully this changes some time soon.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

As I’ve said before: this is absolutely the place to rules lawyer. Not at the table. It’s good (and not a surprising result) that FFG cleaned up this corner of their rules language.

9 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

You mean loophole hunters. Pretty sure the rules lawyers all assumed it worked how it logically did, which is how FFG ruled it.

15 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

As I’ve said before: this is absolutely the place to rules lawyer. Not at the table. It’s good (and not a surprising result) that FFG cleaned up this corner of their rules language.

Here here! It's disingenuous to assume that people asking about weird rules interpretations or interactions are trying to break the game. A lot of the time, we're trying to CLOSE these loopholes by exposing them! So-called "Rules Lawyers" are just as often trying to protect the integrity of the game, by holding these conversations away from major events, and preparing judges on how to deal with them.

On 1/10/2020 at 4:34 AM, Lyianx said:

You mean loophole hunters. Pretty sure the rules lawyers all assumed it worked how it logically did, which is how FFG ruled it.

In this particular case of rules lawyering, I would prefer to be called a "Consistency Advocate" as my stance was that the same phrase should indicate the same mechanic across different appearances.

I'm glad it's clarified, but I would have preferred an errata rather than a clarification with a concurrent exception.

On 1/9/2020 at 7:09 PM, theBitterFig said:

Oh hey, now it works like folks thought these things worked before the rules lawyers got involved.

On 1/10/2020 at 4:34 AM, Lyianx said:

You mean loophole hunters....

17 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

In this particular case of rules lawyering, I would prefer to be called a "Consistency Advocate"...

Leave it to us, for a conversation to devolve into a dispute over the proper name of someone trying to find and resolve rules exploits.

@nitrobenz @Hiemfire @emeraldbeacon @Lyianx @JBFancourt

I'm genuinely asking how often the rules-lawyering was correct and not the "common sense but not-raw" understanding. If it is as one sided as I expect, then it would be really nice to also acknowledge that during the discussion. I'm all for "I get it shouldn't be that way but currently that's the flawed language". Probably leads to way more amicable discussions, too.

e: I'm talking about the long winded back and forths where there is no clear answer. Of course most questions are simple and can be answered with a short rules reference.

34 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

@nitrobenz @Hiemfire @emeraldbeacon @Lyianx @JBFancourt

I'm genuinely asking how often the rules-lawyering was correct and not the "common sense but not-raw" understanding. If it is as one sided as I expect, then it would be really nice to also acknowledge that during the discussion. I'm all for "I get it shouldn't be that way but currently that's the flawed language". Probably leads to way more amicable discussions, too.

i'm chiming in here because i don't agree with your premise. there are lots of discussions where there are many more than the two sides you describe (rules-lawyering versus "common sense but not-raw").

the rules simply need to be clear and RAW needs to be the same as RAI. that's a big reason for us being here. of course, we also try to answer questions about the rules to the best of our abilities.

i also believe most of the discussions here are very amicable and that in most cases, a majority can agree that some things should probably work as intended, even when the language isn't there.

even when threads go on for pages and pages, there is normally some constructive discourse going on - and even if that's not always the case, nothing is ever perfect.

also, rules lawyer is a term used for individuals at game tables. here in the forums, we're not lawyers. we are the law. or just a bunch of nerds sitting around throwing words at each other.

59 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

@nitrobenz @Hiemfire @emeraldbeacon @Lyianx @JBFancourt

I'm genuinely asking how often the rules-lawyering was correct and not the "common sense but not-raw" understanding. If it is as one sided as I expect, then it would be really nice to also acknowledge that during the discussion. I'm all for "I get it shouldn't be that way but currently that's the flawed language". Probably leads to way more amicable discussions, too.

I haven't checked it, but I would probably say it's around 60-40. There are times where the "common sense" understanding is painfully obvious such as when a card (Rules as Written) does absolutely nothing. Often, a lot of people will feel that an upgrade or rule should work one way and that is their common sense understanding, and upon clarification FFG confirms that is works exactly as it was written. There are also many cases where there is more than one "common sense" view.

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

@nitrobenz @Hiemfire @emeraldbeacon @Lyianx @JBFancourt

I'm genuinely asking how often the rules-lawyering was correct and not the "common sense but not-raw" understanding. If it is as one sided as I expect, then it would be really nice to also acknowledge that during the discussion. I'm all for "I get it shouldn't be that way but currently that's the flawed language". Probably leads to way more amicable discussions, too.

e: I'm talking about the long winded back and forths where there is no clear answer. Of course most questions are simple and can be answered with a short rules reference.

As to the endless back and forth about rules questions or “rules lawyers”:

(1) Some ENJOY finding the EXACT line where the rubber meets the road and participating in enjoyable debate over minutiae. Which one of us took a BR Scyk to a game? I’d wager none. To this day I disagree with @Lyianx about Darth Vader Crew, and yet I play my games using his interpretation mainly because it’s more widely accepted (and a TO made me 😜 ). It’s the EXERCISE that is enjoyable and the reward is either finding a little gem of a rule, defending your views, or making FFG clean up their wording. 😁 😝

2) Participation is entirely voluntary! Don’t like it? Don’t respond or read the conversation! Someone is being a butt? Leave! Or call them out on it and tell them to be a good human (even on the internet) 😁 ❤️ I TOTALLY get that rule lawyering is stressful and not fun for some. The vast majority of X-Wing players are totally and blissfully unaware of this post. It never effected them.

3) People being decent and nice to each other is something independent of rule lawyering. It can be pleasant or have hostile “tones” depending on people’s manners.

4) As to your “we should acknowledge all of this during our pointless discussion” 😉 , me on the first page:

“While I appreciate the sentiment @theBitterFig , and agree that rule lawyering is a detrimental to a gaming experience, I would point out that THIS is the place to do it. Not across the table or at a store event.

Theorizing about rules, meanings, and interpretations is a fun thing to do in forums, myself included. Also acknowledging mishaps in rules writing and construction.

This is NOT an attack on the game or an individual. As such, if it’s rewarding to some to discuss, good, if some are sitting there 🙄 🙄 🙄 , then no biggie. Just another topic in another forum. Not an issue.”

Cheers!! 🍻 😁

@JBFancourt

I get that, I also enjoy reading and, from time to time, participating. The thread with 7th sister is a good example of a topic where it stays very friendly throughout, despite the continued disagreements. There were a lot of other threads where that was not the case. I wish it was, and explicitly stating the motivation behind it would imo help a lot. As you did, for example.

And by the way, I just took the 5 names here defending the rules lawyering in response to bitterFig. I know you are all often involved in these discussions, but I don't remember the how. So if any of those 5 feels slighted, I apologize.

@GreenDragoon thanks for the call out! I feel almost famous whenever I get a tag notification 🤩 Not feeling sleighted, and I'll give a direct response first: I do try to include something like you suggested, but it will get lost quickly when it's one line out of dozens (or hundreds 🙄 ) in a thread and I don't often reiterate it. For minimal offense, I try to keep my responses in a neutral tone with non-direct address (unless I'm looking for a reply from a specific person) but as we can all see here text alone can be difficult to interpret and I see how it could come off chilly and dismissive. I'll talk more about long winded-ness in this long winded post. 😅

Feel free to read on (or not) since this turned out to be a ramble generally echoing parts of the other replies before me:

I do this mostly because arguing over minutiae of games is a past time of mine, which I do enjoy on some level (and during certain moods) as JBF suggested above. As for my preferred stance of 'RAW over RAI, as long as it's functional' that stems from a personal desire for this very large, internationally popular, game to be as consistent as possible across all events. I don't get out as often as I used to, but I like being able to play the same game when I visit a new town without having to argue over the table about the validity of what are essentially house rules and often vary in the details for each local meta. In the real world I only talk rules between games or with a TO beforehand, at the table on casual night I'll usually cede the interpretation to my opponent, ask to roll for it if I feel strongly and can't convince them in less than 30 seconds. I'd rather go on for hours about it when I'm not taking away from anyone's game time.

I agree with Joeschmoe's estimate that there's a general lean towards more RAI rulings but not drastically more, and this last update in particular feels like it pushed more RAW than RAI. I would add a couple further caveats on that estimated distribution: There's a portion of what I would consider RAW rulings that are officially 'clarified' in a way that I had not considered, but don't go against the written rules either; illustrating that even within RAW there's still room for interpretation. Similarly, (but far more often!) in RAI rulings there's multiple interpretations of how it was intended, which requires debate in the absence of official clarification because different groups have different 'common sense' ideas. Then there's hybrid RAW/RAI rulings that are usually made in anticipation of written changes to the rules, sometimes these align with an existing 'common sense' interpretation, but just as often in this category they're all new with few indicators of the actualized intention.

I will also admit that a large part of my personal 'why' is probably an inflated sense of purpose (tragic, I know) from the fact that they often do address the things that get fought about most. Also related to my general stance of 'RAW over RAI, as long as it's functional' I raise such a ruckus when RAW and clear intention clash because I want FFG to take notice of their mistakes in the (possibly vain) hope that they will learn from past mistakes and sloppiness to give us better products in the future, or fix what we already have by way of rules updates and the occasional card errata.

Even if I'm grumpy about the direction of a ruling or the attached 'explanations' I want to emphasize that I am grateful for the attention paid and I'm glad to have it clarified!