11 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

• The Coordinate errata irks me. Personally, I don't think it was needed, and it seems like the kind of thing that might open other problems later, where a non-action coordinate forces you to coordinate an enemy ship if there aren't friendlies in range. Gee, thanks everyone complaining about Hondo not working. Maybe this is irrelevant right now, but might easily be a bigger problem down the road.

I may be reading it wrong but the word chosen has now been added to the line about failing a coordinate, so does that mean you could not choose a valid ship, such as your example where there are only enemy ships in range, and have the action fail instead?

"While a ship coordinates, the coordinate fails if no valid ship is chosen"

-There is an errata document available, is that new?

Funny thing: it is called VERSION 1.1.0 [01/15/2020], note the date. The web-page says 24th sept 2020 as date.

-" If a ship has multiple green tokens or locks, the player whose effect caused the ship to gain the jam token chooses which green token is removed or which lock is broken. "

That one is huge, if I read it correct (not a native speaker).

-" Q: What is a structure as mentioned on Marg-Sabl Closure
[talent] ?

A: A structure is a... wait a second, I can't tell you that yet! You'll have to wait
and see "

I just noticed that the Cluster Mines are also updated:

”When each of these devices detonates, each ship at range 0 rolls 2 attack dice. That ship then suffers 1 󲁧/󲁨 damage for each matching result.”

🤔

23 minutes ago, Jokkker said:

I just noticed that the Cluster Mines are also updated:

”When each of these devices detonates, each ship at range 0 rolls 2 attack dice. That ship then suffers 1 󲁧/󲁨 damage for each matching result.”

🤔

Did they ran out of clear blue? it’s almost impossible to see the difference

hey, don’t they contradict themselves in the faq?

I'm oftentimes amazed with how little FFG's development teams learn from one another.

Legion is in dire need of X-wing 2's live points system.

Whereas this yet another exhausting rule lawyering discussion we're entering here shows X-wing and it's ridiculously crowded textboxes are in dire need of keywords, as used by Legion.

The new bomb could've simply said:

System Phase: If any of this card's <charge> are inactive, you must Drop (<1 straight>, <1 charge>), otherwise Drop (<1 straight>, <1 charge>).

Then the RR would handle when exactly does "System Phase" window happen, that Dropping is a choice unless card says you have to, that Dropping uses specified template and takes specified number of charges, that ship can Drop once per phase, that ship can Drop only if able, what exactly can or cannot be Dropped... And I bet a structure keyword mechanism would be 10-folds easier to QA before release for any missed parameters (a script could easily be done checking that) than having to "manually" read through all the cards making sure everything necessary to make rulewise sense of it has been written down into a 5cm textbox...

This would improve QA, readability, clean up the textboxes - but most importantly take away a huge burden out of individual card prints, because numerous cards wouldn't have to include all the necessary rule details on them as they could simply reference the RR.

And even if they didn't want to turn the "style" of their textboxes upside down from what we grew used to from 1.0, they've thrown in a slick black column into their card design, taking away even more of the precious textbox away, and why wouldn't the default bomb/mine template simply be embedded into that element like the amount of bombs/mines available for the card is, I've got no idea...

38 minutes ago, Jokkker said:

I just noticed that the Cluster Mines are also updated:

”When each of these devices detonates, each ship at range 0 rolls 2 attack dice. That ship then suffers 1 󲁧/󲁨 damage for each matching result.”

🤔

Ok, that actually softens the price a little . New Emon goals have been set.

36 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Ok, that actually softens the price a little . New Emon goals have been set.

Doesn’t the faq contradict that?

1 hour ago, RoockieBoy said:

hey, don’t they contradict themselves in the faq?

Faq:

Q: What happens when a set of Cluster Mines are dropped such that two or more ships overlap them?
A: The owner of the Cluster Mines first chooses one ship to be affected
by each of the individual Cluster Mine. Then, in an order of that player's choosing, the dice are rolled to resolve the effect of the detonation on each of those ships.

Indeed they do seem to contradict themselves... or this also could be understood to clear only the order of resolving effects. After the first 1-3 ships are resolved the remaining ships at R0 get their share.

8 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

The Concussion Bomb template looks like all the other bomb templates here though.

Yes those bomb tokens look like use-a-template to drop tokens. Are they overall smaller than similarly shaped tokens? If it was meant to be against the base without a template I'd expect more on the line of the buzz droids token which has a fit-in-the-base-nubs lip.

5 hours ago, VelourFogg said:

I may be reading it wrong but the word chosen has now been added to the line about failing a coordinate, so does that mean you could not choose a valid ship, such as your example where there are only enemy ships in range, and have the action fail instead?

"While a ship coordinates, the coordinate fails if no valid ship is chosen"

Maybe. The old text was "the coordinate fails if no friendly ship can be chosen."

"Is" vs "can be" might be a significant difference, but overall, the issue is that in general, if there's a valid target, you can't not-pick-one, and can't choose to fail. Step 2 of the rule " 2. Choose another friendly ship at range 1–2. " doesn't look to me like it's optional.

That's not just me being obtuse, but it's been a long established thing that you can't choose to fail. If this is a revision of that, great.

//

And looking things over, I've found at least one example where this can actually happen, and it's one where I'm sure no one wants it to be happening: General Hux.

Because it's a non-action coordinate, the two ships of the same type can be opponent's ships. Then, because of the *must* the other ships are stuck performing the action as red. Only relevant in a First Order mirror match, but it's still nonsense.

Let's be clear: no one wants this to actually happen. But if we follow through the silly BS that the folks who complained about Hondo

Oh, and Hondo probably isn't even fully fixed, since there's no similar rule in the Jam rules that allows you to jam a Friendly ship.

I'm not mad at FFG here. I'm mad about the silly way folks onhere choose to approach rules interpretation.

19 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

The "ignore obstacles" FAQ question has been updated. (bolding and underlining the additions)

All in all this looks like they went over most everything ever asked about previously and put an answer in somewhere.

Well, that's clear as mud.

29 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Maybe. The old text was "the coordinate fails if no friendly ship can be chosen."

"Is" vs "can be" might be a significant difference, but overall, the issue is that in general, if there's a valid target, you can't not-pick-one, and can't choose to fail. Step 2 of the rule " 2. Choose another friendly ship at range 1–2. " doesn't look to me like it's optional.

That's not just me being obtuse, but it's been a long established thing that you can't choose to fail. If this is a revision of that, great.

//

And looking things over, I've found at least one example where this can actually happen, and it's one where I'm sure no one wants it to be happening: General Hux.

Because it's a non-action coordinate, the two ships of the same type can be opponent's ships. Then, because of the *must* the other ships are stuck performing the action as red. Only relevant in a First Order mirror match, but it's still nonsense.

Let's be clear: no one wants this to actually happen. But if we follow through the silly BS that the folks who complained about Hondo

Oh, and Hondo probably isn't even fully fixed, since there's no similar rule in the Jam rules that allows you to jam a Friendly ship.

I'm not mad at FFG here. I'm mad about the silly way folks onhere choose to approach rules interpretation.

"you may coordinate up to "

I don't think this forces you to coordinate someone else's ship at all.

Edit: misread I think, it wouldn't force you but it would let you.

5 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

And looking things over, I've found at least one example where this can actually happen, and it's one where I'm sure no one wants it to be happening: General Hux.

Because it's a non-action coordinate, the two ships of the same type can be opponent's ships. Then, because of the *must* the other ships are stuck performing the action as red. Only relevant in a First Order mirror match, but it's still nonsense.

Hux isn't giving a ship a non-action coordinate. Hux's ability is saying if you treat a white coordinate action as red you can coordinate up to two additional ships. You can only coordinate friendly ships while performing a coordinate action.

Hux doesn't give you the ability to coordinate without performing a white coordinate action. Hux doesn't let you do his paragraph without the first sentence.

9 minutes ago, Skitch_ said:

Hux isn't giving a ship a non-action coordinate. Hux's ability is saying if you treat a white coordinate action as red you can coordinate up to two additional ships. You can only coordinate friendly ships while performing a coordinate action.

Hux doesn't give you the ability to coordinate without performing a white coordinate action. Hux doesn't let you do his paragraph without the first sentence.

Maybe. I think there's a good case that Hux, while he does an action coordinate on the initial friendly ship, also does two non-action coordinates. Does it need to be ruled that way? Not necessarily.

Here's the thing: Hondo didn't need fixing . An FAQ line that said "Hondo's selection overwrites the standard target selection process, because of the golden rule" and you've fixed it, without opening the door to potential other problems. I think it'd be worth keeping the added line " If it chooses a ship controlled by a different player, the coordinated ship's controlling player chooses the action the ship performs ," but specifically giving non-action coordinate a different set of targets is a mess waiting to happen.

The new status quo around coordinate is worse than it was before, not better, because folks needed handholding and for everything to be spelled out for them.

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

The new status quo around coordinate is worse than it was before, not better, because folks needed handholding and for everything to be spelled out for them.

I'm more and more disappointed with how little does (the rules discussion participating part of) the overall X-wing community want to enjoy a successful tabletop game and how much it wants rather to prove it is sMaRtEr than the dev team when it comes down to the rules of the game.

I've been an active member of the rules subforum but for every post written out of genuine need of help or misunderstanding there's a whole lot of academic digress on a manner that more often than not could be solved by applying a bit of common sense to the known precedence.

I mean, we've all signed up for coming to the table to play with our junk but hey - some of us are bringing their plastic starships and some of us are unzipping their pants to show who's X-wing is the biggest...

22 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

I'm more and more disappointed with how little does (the rules discussion participating part of) the overall X-wing community want to enjoy a successful tabletop game and how much it wants rather to prove it is sMaRtEr than the dev team when it comes down to the rules of the game.

I've been an active member of the rules subforum but for every post written out of genuine need of help or misunderstanding there's a whole lot of academic digress on a manner that more often than not could be solved by applying a bit of common sense to the known precedence.

I mean, we've all signed up for coming to the table to play with our junk but hey - some of us are bringing their plastic starships and some of us are unzipping their pants to show who's X-wing is the biggest...

I mean, nearly every broken rules thing is fine if we just pretend it worked. But that'd require taking agency over our own interpretations, rather than pretending we're "just following the only interpretation." We're always making choices in how we read this language, so we ought to try to make good choices.

19 hours ago, Managarmr said:

-" If a ship has multiple green tokens or locks, the player whose effect caused the ship to gain the jam token chooses which green token is removed or which lock is broken. "

That one is huge, if I read it correct (not a native speaker).

Yup, you got that correct. The player who is jamming is selecting which token is going away.

8 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, nearly every broken rules thing is fine if we just pretend it worked. But that'd require taking agency over our own interpretations, rather than pretending we're "just following the only interpretation." We're always making choices in how we read this language, so we ought to try to make good choices.

There were some good discussions goin on where the choice wasn't obvious. Necessary discussions.

Cova + Leia / R4 was a very vivid disagreement and a great example, during which we were lost in the pitch black. Both "sides" had a reason to voice, both interactions were eligible, both "did" something. FFG's intervention was a necessity .

But people insisting that Hondo (this card designed by FFG), doesn't do a turd because according to the rules (prepared by FFG) of this game (made by FFG) there's this one bullet missing in this one paragraph... They've flipped me over.

How little good will it takes to assume what little has to be assumed in order for this card to work the one way that's clear and intuitive it's supposed to work, bloody ****?

Or what promo kits were distributed for "proving" the card's dead weight, apparently? Did I miss some cool stuff?