I saw a video where a player placed the second exogorth touching the first exogorth. And it ... felt wrong!

I'm no native speaker and sometimes (more often than not) my intuition is wrong, when interpreting the rules. So I would like to read what the wise players and judges think of if!

All we got is a sentence in RitR booklet : "An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles."

• Is that enough to forbid touching a second Exogorth? Otherwise it just could say "touching an obstacle"... Or is " other obstacle " not strong enough?

And the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "The second player places the 2 exogorth obstacles, each touching a different obstacle."

• Technically if I place Exogorth A touching an asteroid field, and then Exogort B touching Exogort B they are touching different obstacles. But I can't imagine that was meant by the Devs.

Or the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "For each exogorth obstacle not in the play area, the second player chooses an obstacle and place 1 exogorth touching that obstacle."

• Same here, also matter of timing. Do I choose obstacle B before or after placing exogorth A?

4 minutes ago, Triangular said:

I saw a video where a player placed the second exogorth touching the first exogorth. And it ... felt wrong!

I'm no native speaker and sometimes (more often than not) my intuition is wrong, when interpreting the rules. So I would like to read what the wise players and judges think of if!

All we got is a sentence in RitR booklet : "An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles."

• Is that enough to forbid touching a second Exogorth? Otherwise it just could say "touching an obstacle"... Or is " other obstacle " not strong enough?

And the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "The second player places the 2 exogorth obstacles, each touching a different obstacle."

• Technically if I place Exogorth A touching an asteroid field, and then Exogort B touching Exogort B they are touching different obstacles. But I can't imagine that was meant by the Devs.

Or the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "For each exogorth obstacle not in the play area, the second player chooses an obstacle and place 1 exogorth touching that obstacle."

• Same here, also matter of timing. Do I choose obstacle B before or after placing obstacle A?

I'm no native english speaker either, but my understanding of the rule of "touching other obstacles" is the same as yours. It could be interpreted both ways, but if they wanted for it to be any other obstacle, including another exogoth, it think it would be worded differently. Like "An exogorth obstacle is placed touching another obstacle".

"Touching other obstacles" seems like speaking of other type of obstacles as I think that by using plural they're generalizing.

Thats inspired 😉 and RAW to my mind.

And also clearly not RAI.

2 hours ago, Triangular said:

I saw a video where a player placed the second exogorth touching the first exogorth. And it ... felt wrong!

I'm no native speaker and sometimes (more often than not) my intuition is wrong, when interpreting the rules. So I would like to read what the wise players and judges think of if!

All we got is a sentence in RitR booklet : "An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles."

• Is that enough to forbid touching a second Exogorth? Otherwise it just could say "touching an obstacle"... Or is " other obstacle " not strong enough?

And the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "The second player places the 2 exogorth obstacles, each touching a different obstacle."

• Technically if I place Exogorth A touching an asteroid field, and then Exogort B touching Exogort B they are touching different obstacles. But I can't imagine that was meant by the Devs.

Or the placement rules from Asteroid Tactics : "For each exogorth obstacle not in the play area, the second player chooses an obstacle and place 1 exogorth touching that obstacle."

• Same here, also matter of timing. Do I choose obstacle B before or after placing exogorth A?

"An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles": I don't think this, in itself, is strong enough. This could be interpreted "The exogorth obstacle in your hand needs to be placed touching an obstacle already in the setup area."

"Each touching a different obstacle": This is pretty strong. The asteroid-exogorth-exogorth example you give feels like someone is just trying to break/bend the rules--If I was judging an event, I would not allow it (in the case of Asteroid Tactics.) I'm also inclined to think the exogorths in Asteroid Tactics have the same timing window, not A-then-B.

Infested Fields, though:
End of Round: For each exogorth obstacle not in the play area, the second player chooses an obstacle and place 1 exogorth touching that obstacle.

Hmm. This one is interesting. I'm not sure how I'd rule it if someone tried to have 1 exogorth touch another. At the end of the round, you definitely can place both exogorths on the same obstacle. I'm not sure about exogorth chains though.

Wow interesting find. I would err thinking the spirit of the game means for no exogorth being placed touching another expogorth.

It just sounds stupid but as written may not officially be against the rules.

So I am going to agree that the rules as intended likely means that an exogorth cannot be placed off another exogorth. Rules as written does seem to allow this as an exogorth is an obstacle.

However, we (John and I) did talk about this prior to filming our episode and discussed it at length. As we both agreed it was allowable under Rules as Written, therefore we played in that fashion. I would recommend discussing this with any opponent before the start of the game though. I can see this causing issues.

I am glad to see this being discussed though. It would be nice for some clarification in the next FAQ one way or the other.

Here's my stance on it.

"An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles."

exogorths are obstacles, but the insert says "other" obstacles, not any

Also in infested fields, in setup its called out that they both must be placed touching a different obstacle

in end of round, you choose an obstacle and place an exogorth on it. But again, the assumption is being implied that you cannot choose an exogorth for an exogorth to be on

Because come on man, does it really have to spell it out?

Some people will say "Doesn't say I can't so I will!"

and if you want to be that guy, do it. But don't show up to worlds expecting that to fly

and in Asteroid Tactics, it states that both exogorths are placed each touching a different obstacle

Largely I feel that you are selecting what obstacles they will go on "simultaneously" but then they are still placed "one at a time"

4 hours ago, Karneck said:

Because come on man, does it really have to spell it out?

Some people will say "Doesn't say I can't so I will!"

and if you want to be that guy, do it. But don't show up to worlds expecting that to fly

Cmon Karneck, if you wanna be the inofficial rules guy you cant say stuff like that. This is an international game played by many non-native speakers and the only common basis for the rules is what is officially written down.

Its obvious that sometimes card text is unclear (HFZ) or does allow things that were not the intent (here). Still, the rules are the rules and its not good to say stuff like "well obviously that rule there is wrong so we will ignore it". Issues like that were addressed in an FAQ previously. It seems they cannot manage those anymore due to reasons, so maybe they can use the rules thread in the forum like they did for Raddus or we will just have to play the unintended rule wrong until we have some official rule clarification like eg was done with RLB.

In some ways, he can say what he wants because it doesn’t Make a difference. Trust me, being an “unofficial” rules guy is just pain.

...

but at least he’s tried.

Abd I mean, You’re still wish listing. “Maybe” they can do this, or “maybe” they can do that.

If Wishes were Starships, Farmers would fly.

In the end, it’s why I’m not doing things anywhere as much as I did in the past.

Why bother interpreting meanings when people won’t believe you because it’s unofficial?

6 hours ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

So I am going to agree that the rules as intended likely means that an exogorth cannot be placed off another exogorth. Rules as written does seem to allow this as an exogorth is an obstacle.

However, we (John and I) did talk about this prior to filming our episode and discussed it at length. As we both agreed it was allowable under Rules as Written, therefore we played in that fashion. I would recommend discussing this with any opponent before the start of the game though. I can see this causing issues.

I am glad to see this being discussed though. It would be nice for some clarification in the next FAQ one way or the other.

Thanks you for bringing up this question. Without your video maybe someone would have brought that up at a tournament leading to lengthy discussions and disturbance. I don't think that was bad played or unfair. It just felt wrong.

5 hours ago, Karneck said:

Here's my stance on it.

"An exogorth obstacle is placed touching other obstacles."

exogorths are obstacles, but the insert says "other" obstacles, not any

I think this sentence is key to the ruling by now. But as far as I understood the discussion its meaning is unclear? It could just say an exogorth must touch another obstacle, because it can't be placed alone. But that would be redundant because Objective Cards specify that anyway. Or it (also) could say it must touch another sort of obstacles, because it is expressed in plural?

42 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

In some ways, he can say what he wants because it doesn’t Make a difference. Trust me, being an “unofficial” rules guy is just pain.

I believe you.

42 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

In the end, it’s why I’m not doing things anywhere as much as I did in the past.

You have said that a lot recently, and I cant blame you. I understand you. It makes me sad, but its your decision.

42 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Why bother interpreting meanings when people won’t believe you because it’s unofficial?

I cant speak for other people so I will tell you what I think. I think its sad that the community has to try to interpret the rules by themselves. I think its great that there are people willing to discuss and interpret the rules in an open forum, it shows people care. I think it is great to have 1/2 people that are considered as unofficial rule judges in cases where cards are unclear. In such cases the rulings of these people should be accepted by the community. I dont think its good to start changing clearly written rules based on the assumption that a card is not RAI without some sort of official interaction, be they emails or talks with designers or whatever.

42 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

but at least he’s tried.

He has, and I respect him for it. Like I said, there is an unfortunate need for unofficial rule judges and I am not criticizing him for stating his oppinion on the intent of the card. It just seems that he also agrees that the written rule is clear but wants to ignore it because he assumes (very likely correctly) that he knows what the rule is supposed to be. This is problematic without some sort of official interaction.

14 hours ago, eliteone said:

Wow interesting find. I would err thinking the spirit of the game means for no exogorth being placed touching another expogorth.

It just sounds stupid but as written may not officially be against the rules.

It could be the game's version of a very large Exogorth :-p.

1 hour ago, Triangular said:

I think this sentence is key to the ruling by now.

Agreed.

The important thing is that “obstacles” is used in the plural, meaning it is referring to the obstacle type rather than numerous instances of an event, which would be described in the singular and with a timing window, probably “when an exogorth is placed, it must touch another obstacle .”*

Source: the consistent wording of the entire RRG. For example, “When a ship overlaps another ship,” is an event described in the RRG, while “when a ship overlaps other ships,” is not.

If an example can be found in the RRG of plural subjects being used to generalize an event with a singular subject, I will stand corrected.

But either way, I feel for now that the onus lies on anyone trying to chain to prove its legality. Since one is never allowed to perform any action the game doesn’t explicitly allow.

*Technically it could mean each exogorth must be deployed touching multiple obstacles, but that’s clearly ruled out in objective wording.

2 hours ago, RapidReload said:

In such cases the rulings of these people should be accepted by the community. I dont think its good to start changing clearly written rules based on the assumption that a card is not RAI without some sort of official interaction , be they emails or talks with designers or whatever.

It seems like you're assuming that we do not have those things.

Often, We do.

And quite often, can't share them.

I mean, I have an over two hundred long email chain with a bunch of questions, rulings and discussions - some of which with designers who don't even design the game anymore!

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It seems like you're assuming that we do not have those things.

Often, We do.

And quite often, can't share them.

I mean, I have an over two hundred long email chain with a bunch of questions, rulings and discussions - some of which with designers who don't even design the game anymore!

I know you do have them, but usually you say that this is the basis for your rule decision, even if you cannot share the email or whatever. At that point there is no discussion - with me (edited after Dras responed 😉 ) .

3 hours ago, Triangular said:

I think this sentence is key to the ruling by now. But as far as I understood the discussion its meaning is unclear? It could just say an exogorth must touch another obstacle, because it can't be placed alone. But that would be redundant because Objective Cards specify that anyway. Or it (also) could say it must touch another sort of obstacles, because it is expressed in plural?

One of the issues I see is that wave rule inserts become part of the rules which can be overriden by (objective) card text.

Just now, RapidReload said:

At that point there is no discussion.

If Only That Were the Case

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Agreed.

The important thing is that “obstacles” is used in the plural, meaning it is referring to the obstacle type rather than numerous instances of an event, which would be described in the singular and with a timing window, probably “when an exogorth is placed, it must touch another obstacle .”*

Source: the consistent wording of the entire RRG. For example, “When a ship overlaps another ship,” is an event described in the RRG, while “when a ship overlaps other ships,” is not.

If an example can be found in the RRG of plural subjects being used to generalize an event with a singular subject, I will stand corrected.

But either way, I feel for now that the onus lies on anyone trying to chain to prove its legality. Since one is never allowed to perform any action the game doesn’t explicitly allow.

*Technically it could mean each exogorth must be deployed touching multiple obstacles, but that’s clearly ruled out in objective wording.

That's actually a really good point--I hadn't thought of it that way. I think I'd agree.

@RapidReload I don't see Karneck saying "that rule is wrong so we're going to ignore it." I don't think he even implied anything like that.

Personally, I really appreciate the opinion of "unofficial" rules guys like @Drasnighta and now @Karneck . We're actually really lucky that they're regular posters, especially since the FAQ is updated so infrequently.

And personally, because of Karneck's position as a judge and his access to FFG, I regard his opinion a bit higher than popular interpretation of rules. He's also willing to change his opinion if someone can clearly show why he's wrong; it's just that this isn't one of those times.

5 hours ago, Triangular said:

Thanks you for bringing up this question. Without your video maybe someone would have brought that up at a tournament leading to lengthy discussions and disturbance. I don't think that was bad played or unfair. It just felt wrong.

@Triangular You're welcome? 😃 It was not our intent to sow discord on the forums. Again both John and I had a good discussion before playing and we decided to play it the way we did. I personally believe that the objective should have the exogorths placed off of two different asteroid field obstacles. That would keep with the thematic approach anyways.

12 minutes ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

@Triangular You're welcome? 😃 It was not our intent to sow discord on the forums. Again both John and I had a good discussion before playing and we decided to play it the way we did. I personally believe that the objective should have the exogorths placed off of two different asteroid field obstacles. That would keep with the thematic approach anyways.

No discord here, just another normal day in the rules forum.

7 hours ago, RapidReload said:

It could be the game's version of a very large Exogorth :-p.

This was my first thought as I started to read this, with out looking at the wording of the rule.

18 hours ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

@Triangular You're welcome? 😃 It was not our intent to sow discord on the forums. Again both John and I had a good discussion before playing and we decided to play it the way we did. I personally believe that the objective should have the exogorths placed off of two different asteroid field obstacles. That would keep with the thematic approach anyways.

I’m trying to stay positive, so I don’t want to even get into the larger questions of why FFG won’t weigh in on this, but I do want to point out that exogorths are totally allowed to deploy next to non-asteroid obstacles. This seems totally intentional; nothing we know about space slugs indicates that they wouldn’t take up residence in debris fields or derelict stations or anything else.

I sincerely doubt, however, that the designers intended to have space slugs living in or on other space slugs, and while I cannot find anything definitive in the rules to prohibit exogorth chaining, I’m personally pretty sure that whenever FFG does update the FAQ, they’ll spell out that you can’t do that. So in the meantime, I’m going to play it as if you can’t, and if I go to a tournament, I’m going to check with the TO about how he’d rule it before I sign my list in.

3 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

This seems totally intentional; nothing we know about space slugs indicates that they wouldn’t take up residence in debris fields or derelict stations or anything else

At the moment exogorth can only attach to asteroids and debris fields; not because there are rules saying they can't live on space stations, dust clouds, rifts or purrgil, but because the only objectives with exogorth only have debris fields and asteroids as other obstacles.

4 hours ago, Grumbleduke said:

At the moment exogorth can only attach to asteroids and debris fields; not because there are rules saying they can't live on space stations, dust clouds, rifts or purrgil, but because the only objectives with exogorth only have debris fields and asteroids as other obstacles.

That’s right. I’ve used Asteroid Tactics, and while I have Infested Fields as the blue in one of my fleets, no one has yet picked it. I couldn’t remember if there was an exogorth-related red objective/what obstacle mix it used, but the rules make it clear that the slugs can attach to any standard obstacle.

I actually had an opponent argue with me the first time my slug popped out of a debris field. He eventually saw it my way, but he thought at first they were for asteroids only.

Yes, any obstables that is not themselves but only what is allowed in the objective. Which so far are only asteroid and debris fields, as the station is removed in Asteroid Tactics and Infested Fields.

If future objective also include the other obstacle types. The exogorths would be able to choose those as well, unless otherwise specified.

10 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I’m trying to stay positive, so I don’t want to even get into the larger questions of why FFG won’t weigh in on this, but I do want to point out that exogorths are totally allowed to deploy next to non-asteroid obstacles. This seems totally intentional; nothing we know about space slugs indicates that they wouldn’t take up residence in debris fields or derelict stations or anything else.

100% agree.