I think this would be game breaking. Send the question to FF to settle this argument quick…

I think you guys are thinking too mutch on it. The r 2 unit changes the maneuver dial. Daredevil is an action and it is also a more dificult maneuver so it overides the r2. It is balanced that way.

Buhallin said:

Good point Buhallin.

Both Boost and Barrel roll are concidered ACTIONS that happen to use the maneuver templates.

While Daredevil specificly tells the player to execute a MANEUVER.

I agree - I think the entire reason daredevil is red is to prevent even tycho from being able to perform a 180 degree turn every combat round. Granted, as said above, the rules seem to support the x-wing, engine upgrade + daredevil + r2 combo - but that is 8 points.

Does *anyone* imagine that this will be resolved in anything other than the "red" direction?

It represents pulling a turn so hard that you can actually damage your ship--and as any pilot can tell you, even modern fighter aircraft can execute maneuvers that will damage the *pilot* long before the airframe fails. No generic astromech droid is going to change that. This is just plain and simple rules lawyering.

Grimwalker said:

No, it's really not rules lawyering. It's playing by the rules.

If FFG wants to change it, they can errata it - or even better, pay more attention to their pretty weak rules wording in the first place. I actually expect that they will - I fully believe the intent is that it should always be a red maneuver, with stress. Unfortunately, that's not what the rules actually say, and who can actually know the intent? Maybe FFG has a more impressive view of astromechs than you and I, and think they actually can change that. You don't know - all you're doing is projecting your personal view of it and claiming the devs agreed with you.

If you want to agree with your opponent to play by a different set of rules before you start, that's fine. But you really should skip the insults just because the rules don't happen to say what you want them to say.

Buhallin said:

I'm not saying that it's written well, or even that the RAW vs RAI interpretation doesn't say what people say it does. But that's not the question I asked: "Does *anyone* imagine that this will be resolved in anything other than the "red" direction?" I acknowledge freely it needs clarification. I'd personally go with "An effect that increases or specifies the difficulty of a maneuver takes priority" etc.

But on your other point, yes, if you're looking for corner cases in the rules, looking for poorly-written word choices in order to make min-maxed adjustments to your build, using a particular interpretation in order to DRASTICALLY boost your ship's maneuver envelope with a mere 4-point investment that totally exceeds the ROI of any other enhancement in the game, frankly yes, you're a rules-lawyer, a munchkin, a twink, you're abusing the rules.

Grimwalker said:

And you should probably look a little deeper before you start calling people names.

Would you care to produce the ship that can do this for 4 points? Without blowing itself up 3 uses in, that is. Because there isn't one. Exactly two ships can even manage the combo, and unless you put another 4 points into an Engine Upgrade, they'll annihilate themselves pretty quickly if they use it.

But that shouldn't make a difference. What makes it any more rules-lawyering than using Draw Their Fire on Chewbacca? Or Push the Limit on Soontir Fel? Nothing, honestly, except that you happen to not like it. So anyone who happens to look for the combo becomes a rules-lawyer, munchkin, twink, or worse, at least if they're unfortunate enough to have you as an opponent.

This is exactly why I warn people away from trying to apply RAI. It's all personal, it's all subjective, and when you get too invested in it you break the DBAD rule.

Even thought the bases would overlap the unit would still have to back up since Daredevel says "Execute Maneuver" and in the rules Page 7 Step Three "Execute Maneuver" it states:

"note: If a ship executes a maneuver that causes either its base or the maneuver template in use to physically overlap with another ship base, see "Moving Through a Ship” and “Overlapping Other Ships” on page 17."

As for where I fall with R2, I'm not sure where I stand. If it's a competing rule then it's red if not the R2 turns all 1 and 2 speed maneuvers to green maneuvers.

I wish FFG had an "X-Wing Rules Questions" that they answered and it became cannon. Would beat a lot of discussion and be easy to search.

Buhallin said:

That's a good point about it being an 8 point cost actually, I didn't think through the combo to that level.

Don't assume because I stick to my guns that I'm getting emotionally invested in it, I'm trying to focus on game balance and design. Chewie/DTF, PTL/SF--Where I'm coming from is in my other favorite game, AGOT, which is all about effective combos; you can't just throw good cards in your deck and expect to do well. But at the World Championship 3 out of the final 4 were disqualified in the final round for leveraging a perfectly legal combo in the cards but that went over the line for other reasons. I think there's a difference between interesting interactions and exploiting sloppy templating.

Ken at Sunrise said:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=174&esem=4

This particular question isn't covered yet, but presumably it will be in the next update.

Grimwalker said:

Focusing on game balance and design is not your job. It's FFG's. It certainly doesn't matter whether you're emotionally invested in it or not, at the point you've devolved to namecalling and insults you've crossed the line. The fact that you'll do so over what is a perfectly legal combo that you've decided you don't like - and therefore isn't "intended" - is turning this into an absolute case study for why RAI should never enter into any rules discussion. The rule as it currently stands is clear enough that a good half-dozen of the active rule hounds have agreed that this is the correct way to play it. If FFG feels that it's a broken combo, it's up to them to fix it. It really isn't your job to run around unilaterally declaring a fix for it and trying to enforce that through insults and namecalling.

I'm not sure why you'd even bring up the AGOT issue, since it appears to have been based entirely on an evaluation of collusion between the players. That's a vastly different thing than "You picked Daredevil and an R2 unit because you thought it would all be green, you're disqualified!" and certainly doesn't have anything to do with the reading of interactions like this. If you're worried that you might be disqualified for using it, don't use it, or preemptively ask the TO for a ruling on it.

Buhallin said:

I grow tired of repeating myself.

I was responding to the thread as it had been, and I'm not disputing the state of the RAW. That's what "rules-lawyering" IS. It's leveraging the rules as written to gain a competetive edge. Necessarily this means that IS the way the rule is written and RAI doesn't even enter into that aspect of the discussion. Heck, I plugged the numbers into a squad builder myself to see if Wedge + DD + EU could form the basis of a decent build.

As I saw it, the thread had moved on from "how are the rules written" to "how is FFG going to respond," and at that point it's just canoodling about this, that or the other, and I resent the opinion that one should refrain from discussing game balance when speculating about future directions the state of the game might go in. I'm just spitballing, and your demand of "Focusing on game balance and design is not your job, it's FFG's" is--how to put this politely--not welcome.

And I'm not insulting anybody, I have an opinion about what constitutes good sportsmanship and if you don't like it, sorry, that's on you. I'm not applying that to anyone specifically.

You, on the other hand, aren't taking the discussion forward and are instead now directly sitting in judgement of me personally, even though with every post I show why you're wrong, both on my interpretation of the RAW and the intent of what I'm talking about. The reason I bring up AGOT is to point out that if you think I have some deep-seated objection to potent combos, you're just wrong.

• I think you've said your piece about future game balance by saying it's 8 points with only two current pilots able to consider it, and I fully concur.

• I think you've said your piece about the current RAW by stating it says "execute a maneuver" rather than "treat this as", and I fully concur.

• I've said my piece that if FFG decides to address the issue, I suspect that they will want to include Daredevil in the list of things which "modify" the difficulty of a maneuver as a matter of consistency, but this is mere speculation on my part based on FFG's history of sloppy templating; with no implication onto the current state of the game.

Now, do you have anything more to add, or are we in violent agreement?

Grimwalker said:

What's different in leveraging the rules as written with Chewie+Draw Their Fire to gain a competitive edge? Why isn't that rules lawyering to use that combo, but this one is? You say that RAI doesn't enter into it, but it does - your view of RAI is what draws the line between what you consider good sportsmanship, and what you consider unacceptable rules lawyering that earns insults and namecalling.

You're not just spitballing, and it's not just an innocent discussion of game balance. Innocent discussions of game balance don't include insulting and intimidating of anyone who might disagree with you. It doesn't really matter if you call out anyone by name. You've decided - singularly and without any actual cause - that this is too powerful a combo to be played, that anyone who might use it is displaying bad sportsmanship because they don't adhere to your view of what's too powerful to be played, and have taken to intimidation to try and stop it.

That's what's unwelcome. Abstract discussions of game balance are fine - resorting to namecalling at anyone who might disagree with your opinion of that balance is not. You'll notice that we managed to get through several pages of balance discussion without anyone being called a rules lawyer or similar other insult. It's quite possible, really.

Again, completely ignoring points stated in the clearest, most succinct language possible, mischaracterizing my position in the teeth of explicit statements to the contrary.

You've decided you know me and my opinions better than I do, and you keep explaining them to me at length. Sounds like you know a thing or two about motivated reasoning.

The only opinion of yours I'm claiming to know is based on what you said, and then affirmed. Twice. The difference of opinion here is that you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to insult broad swaths of people by calling them rules lawyers and munchkins, or at the very least have the rather strange opinion that it's not insulting to disparage someone's sportsmanship simply for playing the game they're given.

The bits I've ignored are red herrings. You keep trying to counteract a lot of things I'm not saying. So let's maybe focus it down: Do you believe you're acting courteously and responsibly in labeling people who might use a combo (such as this one) which you feel is more powerful than it should be because of poor wording? That's the simple core of what I'm trying to point out.

What you're ignoring is that I walked back my opinion of this combo after it was pointed out that it's 8 points and not 4, and later affirmed that I was even tinkering with a build to try and leverage it, so your argument that I have some deep-seated objection (and that is what you said) is only so much failure to display reading comprehension.

As for your direct question: I reserve the right to express my opinion that exploiting badly written rules and unbalanced corner cases is distasteful. Again, going back to AGOT--for more than a year one deck archetype in particular was extremely dominant for its speed, efficiency, and ability to handle multiple types of threats (Martell Maesters, for those who are familiar with it.) It didn't win every tournament, but everybody had to guage the deck they wanted to build against *that* archetype. Gradually, as cards were restricted or errata'd, the playing field was leveled, and I approve of this. Had I been a tournament player during that time, I wouldn't go so far as to call you a cheater, but if that's the deck you're playing I definitely will disapprove.

But disapproval on sportsmanship grounds does not mean I'm advocating for a RAI interpretation; I refer you to the very first sentence I wrote in the thread: I see those as potential places for FFG to step in and adjust the game balance. It happens to not be the case here.

Grimwalker said:

You continue to miss the point of my objection. The point I've been trying to make is that applying your personal evaluation to some element of the game in what people should or shouldn't be allowed to play, and then trying to impose that through namecalling and intimidation, is rude and wrong. That you realized you were mistaken about this particular combo does nothing to address the larger issue, which is that you obviously still feel perfectly justified lording your opinions over anyone who doesn't conform to your view of the acceptable.

And that's obviously not going to change. We've been fortunate enough so far not to have a rash of your brand of "You're not allowed to play that" in this game so far. Hopefully it'll stay that way.

Considering I never called anybody any names, I never attempted to say one word about what anyone is "allowed" to play, or "lord my opinion" over anyone who doesn't "conform" to my opinions.

It's a freaking forum, dude. Grow up. People disagree, ZOMG.

It's not that I've missed the point of your objection, it's that your objection has no basis in reality. What you describe as my opinions and my views are not my opinions or my views. I refuse to apologize for things I didn't do, for opinions I don't hold, for arguments I don't make use of.

I'm so done with you. I've said my piece six posts ago, and I'm sick of being lorded over by you and your red herrings, trying to intimidate me for not conforming to your opinions.

Possibly Grimwalkers comment of "frankly yes, you're a rules-lawyer, a munchkin, a twink, you're abusing the rules"

was meant as a friendly joke, rather than a name calling comment which some posters wanting to know the fairest way of interpreting this combo, might take it.

So …. back on topic.

Grimwalker - do you now believe that the 8pt cost of this combo (Engine Upgrade, R2, and Daredevil) justifies the end result being a green maneuver?

If so is it only point cost which makes the difference or is there another factor? (honest question, not a snarky remark)

If you believe this still ends up as a red maneuver, is this due to FAQ relating to conflicting game effects or other in game references?

Thank you

I wouldn't necessarily call it a friendly joke--I meant it more or less as written in that post, but that's just my opinion and any interpretation that I was trying to dictate my outlook to others or say certain things shouldn't be allowed is a wrong interpretation. It would have just been an off-the-cuff remark if other parties hadn't tried to make a federal case out of it. Hell, over on the BGG boards, he and I are on the same side of an argument on the subject of "I can measure range at any time because it only says I specifically can't in this one place," and I think that's consistent with what I said here as well.

So, Yay! On topic!

Being able to make a sharper turn than an X-Wing or Y-Wing is natively capable of is powerful, and being able to make it at the lowest possible difficulty, shedding a Stress Token, is more so. That you could make a green maneuver and at the same time damage your ship is definitely a head-scratcher from a simulation point of view. But, since it does need that 8 points total, we're no longer dealing with the off-the-shelf Incom snubfighter at that point, so I can get behind that. This weekend I'm going to playtest what Wedge can do with being able to make a 135- to 180-degree turn every round , but it's 37 eggs in one basket, so we'll see. Should be fun either way.

If at some point they do publish a fighter or a Pilot who can take an Astromech Slot, an Elite Pilot skill, and native Boost ability, I hope it's appropriately costed, as this combo is likely to be "best-in-slot" as they say over in WoW.

I think that for consistency, FFG could easily say "Generic R2 can only modify basic maneuvers on a ship's maneuver dial" and that would clear up both effects that Increase the difficulty, and those that specify an Increased difficulty. They could just as easily say "nope, working as intended." I hope they also say "we didn't have room to put the clause about measuring a Boost before you commit to the action, so we just worded it the same as Barrel Roll and hoped you all would take the hint." But in both cases, right now the rules are what they all so I'm just canoodling, spitballing, speculating, as ever.

I dunno. When I first spoke my mind, I was thinking it cost relatively little and was definitely nerf bait. We'll find out eventually. I actually have a relatively high level for what gets my Irish up about abusing the rules. You generally have to be playing in the realm where you find something you know will get kicked out of the Nerf tree as soon as it's discovered to exist but damned if you're not going to take advantage before it becomes common knowledge. (I'm looking at you, Hellholt Engineer.) I was up in Minnesota for a tournament at FFG HQ last weekend, talking to the guy who develops AGOT and Netrunner, and he told me to my face that they build in potent combos to be found and used, some obvious, some less so. So maybe this fits into that category. But you can see how maddening it would be to have somebody who doesn't know me telling me how I'm opposed to strong combos and want to impose my views on everybody.

Well, first, you can't use the combo to shed a stress. If the ship starts stressed you can't take the action to get the maneuver in the first place. You can avoid becoming stressed, but that's it.

Now, for the rest, maybe we just have really different impressions of the social impact when you start pulling out derogatory names like rules-lawyer and munchkin. If the point is not to apply social pressure to prevent people from using those combos which you judge to be too powerful, then what is it?

Also can't do it on any Y-Wings currently. They can't take Elite Pilot Skills upgrades.

Right, I included Y-wings because of the potential future design space--some of the pieces of the puzzle are there, but not all. I doubt we'll get an Elite Pilot Y-Wing anytime soon, though.

Buhallin said:

I meant it more or less as written in that post, but that's just my opinion and any interpretation that I was trying to dictate my outlook to others or say certain things shouldn't be allowed is a wrong interpretation. It would have just been an off-the-cuff remark if other parties hadn't tried to make a federal case out of it.

What part of that is unclear to you? For someone ostensibly focused on taking words as written and eschewing speculation regarding intent, you cheerfully wallow in it when you take it into your head to try and convince me I meant what *you* think I meant.