1 hour ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

I miss the ARC Caster. I wish it would return, if only because I love the idea of bolting a ******* Teslacoil to the wing of a Scyk.

Screams Revers from Firefly...I approve.

4 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

What's to say that the double missile symbol makes it 2 upgrades?

?

21 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

?

It's the same point I had made:

"From what we can infer, the rules distinguish:

• "missile upgrade card type" upgrades,
  • consisting of single slot missile upgrades and
  • double slot missile upgrades ("missile/missile"),
• then missile upgrade slots,
• and finally missile attacks."

Specifically, his question is probably why "double slot missile upgrades" should not count as "missile upgrade card" for the sake of reloading.

By the way, you do see that it is much more likely to be one of the many rule gaffes as opposed to either the Scyk being able to equip barrage, or Jonus not being able to let barrages reroll, right? This exactly one of those rules lawyering things that might be fun to do, but ultimately really don't matter. No TO in the world will tell you that Jonus won't let you reroll barrages.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's the same point I had made:

"From what we can infer, the rules distinguish:

• "missile upgrade card type" upgrades,
  • consisting of single slot missile upgrades and
  • double slot missile upgrades ("missile/missile"),
• then missile upgrade slots,
• and finally missile attacks."

Specifically, his question is probably why "double slot missile upgrades" should not count as "missile upgrade card" for the sake of reloading.

By the way, you do see that it is much more likely to be one of the many rule gaffes as opposed to either the Scyk being able to equip barrage, or Jonus not being able to let barrages reroll, right? This exactly one of those rules lawyering things that might be fun to do, but ultimately really don't matter. No TO in the world will tell you that Jonus won't let you reroll barrages.

I see allot of inductive reasoning and clinging to 1E.

5 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

What's to say that the double missile symbol makes it 2 upgrades?

25 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

?

The Scyk and the T70 say that they can take 1 upgrade of X,Y or Z. You're assuming they mean card, but it doesn't say card. It could very well be that they mean appropriate symbol. ie if they ever release a cannon again with 2 Cannon symbols, I am guessing they wont be able to take that too.

Entering full blown Nerd Power Rules Lawyer.....

RAW, a ship with a hard point can take B Rockets. But, per the app, we have more evidence that this is not what was intended. TOs should go with the app.

11 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

I see allot of inductive reasoning and clinging to 1E.

The devs never said it didn’t work like that. By the logic you used to defend your position, it’s sound.

Ya, I'm done with this thread. Too much of people adding additional words and phrases to the Rules that aren't actually in there or on the cards themselves.

11 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:

The Scyk and the T70 say that they can take 1 upgrade of X,Y or Z. You're assuming they mean card, but it doesn't say card. It could very well be that they mean appropriate symbol. ie if they ever release a cannon again with 2 Cannon symbols, I am guessing they wont be able to take that too.

Entering full blown Nerd Power Rules Lawyer.....

Ty for clarifying.

Hard point is taken care of by the app. The Jonus issue comes down to if a MM attack doez indeed count as an M attack.

Mickey & Tommy sit on chairs in a waiting room.
The head proctology nurse enters and states: “If your name has an M, please come with me.” What happens next will determine if the Jonus can reroll. 😁

38 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

I see allot of inductive reasoning and clinging to 1E.

21 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Too much of people adding additional words and phrases to the Rules that aren't actually in there or on the cards themselves.

You haven't acknowledged yet the fact that all three "[missile] upgrade" and "[missile] upgrade card" and "upgrade card type" are used. We further know that the rules also use the missile symbol for "[missile] attacks" and "[missile] upgrade slot". Nothing added there.

I guess that they are not all meaning the same thing when using [missile] symbol. But none of us know. So of course there's inductive reasoning and then the addition of additional words and phrases to make sense of it all. What else would you expect?

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I guess that they are not all meaning the same thing when using [missile] symbol. But none of us know. So of course there's inductive reasoning and then the addition of additional words and phrases to make sense of it all. What else would you expect?

Exactly, which why we unfortunately do need a rather silly FAQ here

9 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

You haven't acknowledged yet the fact that all three "[missile] upgrade" and "[missile] upgrade card" and "upgrade card type" are used. We further know that the rules also use the missile symbol for "[missile] attacks" and "[missile] upgrade slot". Nothing added there.

Where do "[missile] upgrade card" and "upgrade card type" appear in rules or cards? I fried my brain reading through this thread because using RAW where it works is something that gets me worked up 😤 😅 🤪

Also, I apologise for the response dump I'm about to commit...

P3 responses

20 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Until you have something concrete from the devs (none of what you just posted qualifies), I don’t think there is anymore to say. I find your arguments unconvincing. Good night.

Unconvinced or not, Hiemfire did find the slot breaking QuickBuild you asked for. Two separate cannons is a far more lenient application of the WH than a single upgrade that has two symbols. To dismiss that (tenuous) counterpoint to your (equally tenuous) pointed question suggests you are no more open to circumstantial evidence than I am. (I acknowledge that my clinging to an unpopular RAW argument requires me to dismiss circumstantial evidence)

15 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

What's to say that the double missile symbol makes it 2 upgrades?

Technically? Nothing! And that's kinda the root of the problem here. As far as I know, the Rules Reference does not even acknowledge the existence of multi-slot/multi-symbol upgrades :( we're all technically just using hearsay from preview articles as guidance that an upgrade with two icons requires that number of icons / both types icons to be on the upgrade bar.

P2 responses

On 12/6/2019 at 7:35 AM, SabineKey said:

Okay. Let’s look at who gets two missile slots. Off the top of my head, the list is TIE Aggressor, TIE Bomber, TIE Punisher, Gunboat, and K-Wing. Of that list, four of the five are heavy ordnance carriers meant to do just that. That does leave the Aggressor as an outlier, but that’s pretty much seems to sum up the Aggressor in general.

Why can't the "most customizable ship" also be an outlier? Much like the TIE/ag it won't carry any other ordnance, in fact it still gets less upgrades than the aggressor (no Torrey for the M3-A). I don't find it unthematic to think a pirate group would strap as many dumb-fire missiles as possible under the wings of their M3-A Scyks. Also for flavor the Resistance is a pretty scrappy Rebellion with better tech but even less political support, I wouldn't put it past then to do the same, or strap an extra high tech missile to the bottom of the fuselage (DBM anyone?). Poe got to strap a SLAM engine to the back of his X-wing for crying out loud!

On 12/6/2019 at 8:07 AM, svelok said:

Given ambiguity, do things the way we've always done things, until FFG says otherwise? Preposterous; the rules are a spellbook and by reading the right incantation they do what I want.

Or until someone points out that you're doing it wrong. This is not the first time that precedent in place has been challenged by rules that were also in place since 2e dropped. Just this weekend there was a question in the rules forum asking, "can a ship really be at range 0 without having overlapped?" And this was in regards to a couple of well respected, long time players in the community (The answer by the way is yes it can) and it's not the first time recently I've seen/heard that argued by experienced players.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:51 AM, Maui. said:

Per the RRG the app is official, so until the app changes/ffg clarifies it's a hard no on barrage scyks.

Obvious counterpoint (ninja'd by @DarthSempai) here is the general state of missed bugs and slow fixes that have generally plagued the official app since its launch. As of this afternoon I could still make a list with both Sidious and Palpatine along with both sides of Chopper in the same list, but I wouldn't try to take that to any kind of event because I know the Setup: header applies even though the app clearly does not know that. As long as the app has bugs that obvious I cannot trust it as a resource for clarification.

On 12/6/2019 at 3:31 PM, GreenDragoon said:

From what we can infer, the rules distinguish:

• "missile upgrade card type" upgrades,
  • consisting of single slot missile upgrades and
  • double slot missile upgrades ("missile/missile"),

I tried, GreenDragon, I really did. My failure to find any reference of any kind to any multi-slot upgrade type or weapon type is why i am now on the side of 'yes, BRockets for WH.' When I first looked at the thread in the Rules Questions forum I was all, "pffft, of course not!" And proceeded to look for a page or rule I could reference to back me up. On not finding any such reference, explicit or implicit, I begrudgingly changed my stance because I generally prefer RAW as long as it is functional and does not break the game.

On 12/6/2019 at 3:31 PM, GreenDragoon said:

• The referenced upgrade on both ships is "1 [missile] upgrade" as opposed to the otherwise used [missile] "upgrade card type"

I don't recall anything on cards or in the rules that uses the term "upgrade card type" except for the anatomy of a card on p 25. Everywhere else "upgrade" is used to describe both cards and the slots they may occupy synonymously. Without an explicit creation of a slot to occupy WH must therefore refer to the class of upgrades independently of any slots.

On 12/6/2019 at 7:41 AM, Whalers on the moon said:

While I agree that the wording on the weapon hardpoint ability should allow for these double missiles, I also agree with the argument from an earlier thread (whose author eludes me), "don't make barrage rockets Poe a thing."

Green Dragon offered the statistical model I wanted to see with the "it's too good on Poe" point:

On 12/7/2019 at 2:10 AM, GreenDragoon said:

DBM double modified rolls 1.6 out of the hand, plus 50% for another hit for every ship at range 0-1 of the target, including the target. That can be simulated by adding 0.5 expected damage, which puts it at 2.1 and above HLC. Another ship nearby adds another 0.5 and 2.6 is massively better.

I do appreciate when data is used to back up a position regarding game balance, thank you for crunching the numbers! If I'm reading this correctly, DBM Poe can do a statistical 2.1(one ship alone) up to 5.1 (foolish cluster of 6 ships all in range 1 bubble) damage once per game compared to HLC Poe doing 1.9 damage multiple times per game. I'm pretty sure people running HLC Poe are getting more than enough use out of it to make up that difference in damage output. As such, it seems to me like a 'choice of flavor' difference that would be used based on meta and playstyle.

Speaking of which, I think I just saw a thread complaining about how overpowered swarms are this week! Those people should be begging for DBM Poe 😜

P1 responses:

On 12/6/2019 at 7:15 AM, GreenDragoon said:

You unironically think that T70s and Scyks were intended to equip Barrage Rockets? You think that's more likely than uncareful language by FFG? Note that the Scyk and T70 do not say "upgrade card type" but only upgrade. That could be a meaningful difference.

I think that playing 'Rules As Intended' is a slippery slope that I only approve of under limited circumstances: A. the card is non-functional when played as written (such as Grappling Struts) or B. the card is game breaking powerful when played as written (I can't think of a current example of this in X-wing, but a point adjustment should be able to fix it anyways)

Neither of those conditions apply to Barrage Rocket Scyks (or a lone DBMscyk for that matter). The card does function when played as written and 5xScyk Barrage is not excessively powerful. It does not even exceed the 5x3 red dice unspoken limit of list building. Indeed a Barrage Cartel comes in at 36 points which is a right around things like naked Sentinel Strikers/Alpha Interceptors(34), Cartel Marauders(38), Sienar Specialist w/Brockets(36), and Barrage Scimitars(37). Of all those only Barrage Scimitars with Jonus have even flirted with being a meta staple so I'm not worried about 5xScyck BRockets. I could be missing some power combo hidden in the scum faction, if there is let us know!

On 12/6/2019 at 7:23 AM, GreenDragoon said:

How would you write it so that only single missile slot upgrades of the missile upgrade card type could be equipped?

Is this a trick question? Because it seems easy, " Weapon Hardpoint: Add 1 [cannon], [torpedo], or [missile] slot." Would be consistent with the wording on a number of other conversion kit/wave 1 cards.

On 12/6/2019 at 7:29 AM, Ccwebb said:

This seems like an easy argument to fix. Go equip BR on Scyk in any app. Cannot be done. Period.

(Ninja'd by @JBFancourt) I can make this in LaunchBayNext as of today:

New Squadron

(28) Cartel Spacer [M3-A Interceptor]
(8) Barrage Rockets
Points: 36

Total points: 36

Bonus post for @SabineKey and @Hiemfire arguing about real world pictures of missile pods, I'd like to contribute this image:

The type of organization that does this is the type of organization (or individual) who would attach dumb-fire missiles to the outside of a "space interceptor". You do it because you can, and it's better than leaving that cheap pile of missiles on the ground when you're backed in a corner faced with the Galactic Empire (or the First Order as the case may be)

1 hour ago, nitrobenz said:

Unconvinced or not, Hiemfire did find the slot breaking QuickBuild you asked for. Two separate cannons is a far more lenient application of the WH than a single upgrade that has two symbols. To dismiss that (tenuous) counterpoint to your (equally tenuous) pointed question suggests you are no more open to circumstantial evidence than I am. (I acknowledge that my clinging to an unpopular RAW argument requires me to dismiss circumstantial evidence)

May I ask for the official source on that Quickbuild card? I can’t find it on the official FFG website. Found a mention of it on a wiki, but no picture. Considering the nature of wikis, I would prefer something more official.

It also wasn’t what I was asking for. I was asking for specifics, which he did not provide. I agree that Quickbuilds aren’t ironclad, but they do stick to the basic functions of the ship. Aside from the potential two cannon Scyk, we see consistent use of single slot options and no double slot. Considering Barrage rockets have been here since the beginning, the fact that not even the rule-bending Quickbuild cards is very interesting to me. This point is not conclusive, but still interesting. And because I found his answers to my other queries deeply flawed, I didn’t bother tackling it or pointing out that I can’t find it officially.

50 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

P2 responses

Why can't the "most customizable ship" also be an outlier? Much like the TIE/ag it won't carry any other ordnance, in fact it still gets less upgrades than the aggressor (no Torrey for the M3-A). I don't find it unthematic to think a pirate group would strap as many dumb-fire missiles as possible under the wings of their M3-A Scyks. Also for flavor the Resistance is a pretty scrappy Rebellion with better tech but even less political support, I wouldn't put it past then to do the same, or strap an extra high tech missile to the bottom of the fuselage (DBM anyone?). Poe got to strap a SLAM engine to the back of his X-wing for crying out loud!

Better. You factored in the T-70 into your argument. The reason I don’t think both ships are outliers is of the nature of the double slot upgrades. As I said in a previous post, I believe that something like the Barrage Rockets requires a lot of ammo. Ammo takes up space and adds weight. Considering that both ships, while modular, still preform the same broad role, just with different tools. That ammo would substantially change how those ships would fly. Look at the vast majority of double missile slot ships. They are heavy duty. Even the Gunboat needs to be specially configured to be able to equip double missile slot upgrades.

Why can’t a customizable craft take heavy payloads? Because it is a light craft that has more in common with a TIE Fighter than a TIE Bomber.

Poe’s SLAM engine is a interesting point, but is also a 1 time use item. A bit like a rocket booster. That is very different from being able to store and fire a bunch of rockets.

and while you might not be surprised if the Resistance would strap extra missiles to the underside of the ship, do you have examples of them doing this?

37 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Bonus post for @SabineKey and @Hiemfire arguing about real world pictures of missile pods, I'd like to contribute this image:

The type of organization that does this is the type of organization (or individual) who would attach dumb-fire missiles to the outside of a "space interceptor". You do it because you can, and it's better than leaving that cheap pile of missiles on the ground when you're backed in a corner faced with the Galactic Empire (or the First Order as the case may be)

But those trucks will have impaired speed and gas mileage from the weight of just moving those guns, let alone firing them while moving. Remember, the RZ-1 A-Wing was stripped down to give it more speed. Weight matters, even in Star Wars.

@nitrobenz

Since you have taken up this mantle, may I ask you some direct questions?

1) If Weapon Hardpoints work as you say, why has it not been talked about or shown on any live stream or article? If this was a new feature of the ship ability, why didn’t they talk it up during that big live stream going through the contents of the Conversation kits? If you can find an example of them doing it, I would love to see it.

2) As my conclusion is that what we are dealing with is an error in wording rather than intent, can you prove that this conclusion is non-viable? Considering FFGs track record and their silence on the subject, it seems like the simpler conclusion to me. What do you see to make you think otherwise?

5 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

May I ask for the official source on that Quickbuild card? I can’t find it on the official FFG website. Found a mention of it on a wiki, but no picture. Considering the nature of wikis, I would prefer something more official.

2.0 Rerelease Expac.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

2.0 Rerelease Expac.

Thank you. Now I better understand. Still unconvinced.

The app's not perfect, but then again what is?

It is clear that being able to equip Darth Sidious in the app is a mistake and should be treated as such; this is an obviously illegal build. It is not at all clear that hardpoints being unable to equip barrage rockets is a mistake; therefore, until there is clarification from the devs, we must assume that the app is correct and that, at least as of now, Scyks and T-70s cannot equip barrage rockets.

10 minutes ago, Maui. said:

The app's not perfect, but then again what is?

It is clear that being able to equip Darth Sidious in the app is a mistake and should be treated as such; this is an obviously illegal build. It is not at all clear that hardpoints being unable to equip barrage rockets is a mistake; therefore, until there is clarification from the devs, we must assume that the app is correct and that, at least as of now, Scyks and T-70s cannot equip barrage rockets.

Agreed. I’m hoping @Hiemfire ‘s question about this gets noticed and answered to put an end to this uncertainty.

On 12/7/2019 at 1:41 AM, Whalers on the moon said:

While I agree that the wording on the weapon hardpoint ability should allow for these double missiles, I also agree with the argument from an earlier thread (whose author eludes me), "don't make barrage rockets Poe a thing."

That was me, and I stand by it being possibly the biggest reason why FFG are never, ever going to say that the Hardpoint abilities allow double-upgrade cards.

I get it, people want to buff their poor little M3-As. I sympathise. I really do. But it's never going to happen, because allowing Poe to run around without even needing to think about his wings for his first 5 shots of the game sounds like a balance nightmare. Not to mention it'd let him deny range bonus, turning him into a combination Soontir & Grand Inquisitor only with twice the HP. This does not sound wholesome.

There is no world in which FFG decide that they'd like to try and figure that out just to give the M3-A a buff. They'll make whatever rules exceptions they have to make to avoid it. I suggest you all make peace with that.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I think that playing 'Rules As Intended' is a slippery slope that I only approve of under limited circumstances: A. the card is non-functional when played as written (such as Grappling Struts) or B. the card is game breaking powerful when played as written (I can't think of a current example of this in X-wing, but a point adjustment should be able to fix it anyways)

I agree. I think the RAW is ambiguous.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Is this a trick question? Because it seems easy, " Weapon Hardpoint: Add 1 [cannon], [torpedo], or [missile] slot." Would be consistent with the wording on a number of other conversion kit/wave 1 cards.

I don't do trick questions and I always (try to) argue in good faith. But I had played Fallen Order until way too late (or early). Can recommend, but shouldn't mix it with rules discussions...

That raises the question why they didn't do that. Which is imo the best argument so far for a barrage/DBM Scyk or T70.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I tried, GreenDragon, I really did. My failure to find any reference of any kind to any multi-slot upgrade type or weapon type is why i am now on the side of 'yes, BRockets for WH.' When I first looked at the thread in the Rules Questions forum I was all, "pffft, of course not!" And proceeded to look for a page or rule I could reference to back me up. On not finding any such reference, explicit or implicit, I begrudgingly changed my stance because I generally prefer RAW as long as it is functional and does not break the game.

I think you misunderstood my list, which is a mix of references and inferences. The first mention of double slot was not in quotations so there's no (rules) reference to it anywhere as far as I know. Instead, that's just something we know exists because of cards like this, which my "missile/missile" referred to: In hindsight, the quotations there were a bad idea I guess.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I don't recall anything on cards or in the rules that uses the term "upgrade card type" [ONE] except for the anatomy of a card on p 25. Everywhere else "upgrade" is used to describe both cards and the slots they may occupy synonymously. [TWO] Without an explicit creation of a slot to occupy WH must therefore refer to the class of upgrades independently of any slots.

1) Why is the anatomy not enough? I'm not going to scavenge the RR, but I'd guess there is at least one other thing that's just mentioned twice (which this one is, though on the same page).
2) That was my point though. I'm just providing a way to read and understand it that's consistent with the app and other pieces of circumstancial evidence. (E: So, WH refers to upgrades and not slots, but just a subgroup.) The following is that reading:

It is sometimes necessary to infer rules, not everything is actually written explicitly. For example, the rules reference p20 says under upgrades the following:
"Rebel/Imperial/Scum: This upgrade can be equipped only to a ship of the specified faction."
What about the new 4 factions? Of course that sentence does not invalidate the restriction for Resistance/FO/Republic/Separatists.

To restate and expand my points a bit, hopefully a bit clearer using colors to indicate which one is meant:

• There are upgrade card type upgrades [combination of the anatomy page25, and missile upgrade card]
  • There are single upgrade cards [every single slot missile]
  • There are double upgrade cards [Barrage Rockets and DBMs]

I suggest that both single upgrades and double upgrades count as upgrade card type upgrades . They are sub categories. Every single upgrade is always of the type , and same for the double upgrades .

In addition to the main category with two subcategories,

• there are slots (or more precicesly upgrade card type slots) [or are there? see below!]
• there are attacks (or more precicesly upgrade card type attacks).

Not every has a attack (thanks to Discord missiles), but every with an attack is a attack . Which, by the way, supports the idea that there are subcategories of things. There are attacks, and every attack is of a certain type. There are upgrades, and every one of them is of a certain type. I'm expanding that for one more level: upgrade types can have sub types, evidenced by the fact that there are single and double icon missile upgrades.

I don't know where in the RR slots are explicitly mentioned. I don't get any results when ctrl+f for "slot" in the RR while there are 113 "upgrade" mentions. I guess that means for you pure RAW guys that Slave I doesn't do anything now 😄 . Instead the RR uses upgrade icons. Under squad building:
Each ship has an upgrade bar which is a list of upgrade icons that limit the number of upgrades and types of upgrades that the ship can equip. The X-Wing Squad Builder will enforce these rules. Additionally, a list of all ships’ upgrade bars is also available at X-Wing.com. [page 19. Also, note the "type of upgrades". And note that the squad builder "will enforce these rules"]
And there is the entry "upgrade icons" on p20

That bit might honestly change things, I don't know yet. Thinking as I write, that means there are no "slots", only " types of upgrades ". I still think it is self-evident that missile upgrades come in two versions, single and double icon:

Both are missile upgrade card type upgrades, or the possibly equivalent missile type of upgrades .

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I'm pretty sure people running HLC Poe are getting more than enough use out of it to make up that difference in damage output. As such, it seems to me like a 'choice of flavor' difference that would be used based on meta and playstyle.

Yes. Note that I only said "It would be good, because closed wing Poe is already a thing with HLC.", not that it would be too good. So I concur, it would rather be a choice of flavor thing.

Actually... going really strictly RAW, why do barrage/DBMs not count as two upgrades?

After all, there is not a single instance of double icon upgrade in the upgrades list. Instead, as quoted above, the upgrade bar "is a list of upgrade icons that limit the number of upgrades and types of upgrades that the ship can equip."

Thus, an alternative reading is that barrage count as 2 missile upgrades.

That explains weapons hard point, but also allows Jonus or reload.

Just going to say that quick builds don't prove anything. They released a limited edition quick build card that had an TIE/LN Fighter with a Missile and the Target Lock action to use it...