Then perhaps you should simply take it as a lesson in how others will interpret it when you deploy insults for (apparently) no reason. I'm not sure why you think it's better if people think you're resorting to namecalling for no purpose - at least if you claimed a purpose you might be trying to defend the quality of the game from the evil rules lawyers who were out to ruin it.

Let's review exactly what I said, shall we?

Grimwalker said:

I'm not calling anybody names. The word in question is " IF ." In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. It's the generic "you" rather than the directed "you." And I think I've gone into sufficient detail elsewhere that it has to be tantamount to cheating in order to go that far. I've got nothing to apologize for, to anyone.

I'll take it as a lesson in how people can willfully fail basic reading comprehension and derail a thread by trying to browbeat people with false accusations. You're the one who took an off-the-cuff remark and exploded it.

*incorrect interpretation redacted, but the statement stands on its own.

Arguments aside am I understanding that the most of us are apply R2 first and Daredevil second so daredevil wins over r2 until such time as there is an offficaly respons from FFG?

But for some reason no one has heard anything from them. So the next FAQ may contain many pages especialy wave 2 related questions.

Bazinga said:

I think actually the general consensus is that in the rules as written, R2 will end up winning. That said, there seems to be a majority opinion that it's unlikely to stay that way when FFG gets around to addressing it.

I thought the general consensus was with the FAQ stating that when special abilities / circumstances conflict, the one that makes a maneuver more difficult has precedence. This is exactly in line with the Ion Cannon "maneuver" not being green with a generic R2.

The problem is that it is hard to tell what the consensus is vs. who is just yelling the loudest. :-)

KineticOperator said:

Trouble is, that's not what the FAQ states. The FAQ entry deals specifically with effects that change the difficulty of a maneuver, in particular the R2 Astromech vs. the Damaged Engine critical effect. Since Daredevil does not change the difficulty but only says to execute the maneuver, the argument is that R2 overrides this and causes the maneuver to be green, thereby bypassing the stress token.

ziggy2000 said:

Though we don't have a brilliant definition of what it is to change a maneuvers difficulty- and I agree with the opinion that this whole thing comes down to RAI, so - we really need to just wait for a ruling - and until then agree with other players at the start of a game whether this is a valid combination or not until we get something more official.

There's the idea that Daredevil is a set maneuver - so there's no difficulty change, because it's telling us what kind of maneuver to perform. - and thus the FAQ difficulty adjustment rule doesn't matter. It certainly has no language about changing the maneuver, or requiring the ship to be able to perform the maneuver in the first place.

There's also the idea that Daredevil is changing the difficulty of the ships maneuver (from non existant to existant without an icon (and is this a change?) , or from one difficulty to another, if the ship has the icon). Tie fighters have a white 1 turn, so daredevil is certainly more difficult -

Which of these is true? - both, neither? we can't know - because we don't know if this qualifies as a change in difficulty. I think it's easier to argue that it's not a change in difficulty.

There's also the ideas that it's red for a reason, and the intent is that it be red and that you need to put in 8 points to make it work without blowing yourself up and only good pilots can take it - so it's likely balanced. but again, here we're very deep into Rules as intended.

Are you going to run this combination in a tournament? Just ask your TO beforehand in lieu of an official ruling. That's about as far as we can go I think.

Grimwalker said:

Honestly, I read you statements exactly as he did. So if you want to take it as any lesson it may have to be one in regards to your inability to communicate whatever you may actually mean. Because whatever that is got lost in what you actually said, and not just in a lone posters view.

Using degatory terms in order to denote people using the rules of a game in a way you, personally, don't agree with is not a rules argument. Rules as intended can not be interpreted except through developer input or errata. It is an after the fact distinction. We can only go by the rules as they are written.

How about we just take it as read that everyone thinks I'm an ******* and stay the frak on topic because I'm sick to death of explaining a glib remark to exhaustion.

Are you going to run this combination in a tournament? Just ask your TO beforehand in lieu of an official ruling. That's about as far as we can go I think.

Its a little hard when your team has to be submitted before hand or someone objects to you using this combo on the day and then the to realises the problem.

if this happpans will we be allowed to change r2 units?

Keep in mind that if you allow the R2 to take precedence for Daredevil, it must therefore also be allowed to take precedence over the ION cannon effect, as cannon effect forces a specific maneuver (regardless of type of ship and the maneuvers available to it).

dvang said:

Does anyone think the wording on the Ion Token card changes this interpretation? It does NOT say "execute a white [straight 1] manuever", but rather "The owner moves the ship as if it were assigned a white [straight 1] maneuver" (emphasis is mine). We know this wording nerfs placing a siesmic charge, does it make any difference in this case?

ziggy2000 said:

The Seismic Charge isn't restricted because of the wording about how the maneuver goes, it's restricted because the Seismic Charge explicitly refers to revealing the dial. If you're ioned, you have no dial, so the trigger condition for dropping the charge isn't present.

I don't think it affects the interpretation of how an R2 interacts with the ion maneuver, and I think the R2 does change it to green. All Speed 1 and 2 maneuvers are considered green; this is a speed 1 maneuver; the green triggers off executing the maneuver, which the ion'ed ship does.

Same would go for an ionized Falcon with Nien Nunb.

R2 changes 1 and 2 speed maneuvers to green maneuvers. Ion cannon causes ships to lose their maneuver dial, then move as if they had a 1 white stright maneuver.

The wording is actually quite clear, especially when you consider other instances of maneuvering and moving. Performing a maneuver may or may not result in the ship moving at all. Revealing a green maneuver on your dial will remove a stress token regardless of whether or not your ship goes anywhere (due to overlap or whatever). Barrel Rolls move the ship but are not maneuvers, neither are Boosts.

In this case moving your ship as if you had performed a 1 white forward is not performing a 1 white forward maneuver. If that is what was intended, the Ion cannon text would read "The ship then performs a 1 white forward maneuver" rather than "The ship moves as if it had performed a 1 white forward maneuver".

Moving and maneuvering are not the same thing no matter what part of the turn you are in.

Buhallin said:

Well, the reason you don't have a dial is because of the wording on the card - so I'd say that it does play a role in restricting the Siesmic charge…

For the record I agree with you on the R2 interaction, I was fishing to see if anybody felt differently.

You could pretty easily argue that moving as if you were assigned a [speed 1, straight, white] maneuver is not the same as actually preforming the maneuver and is outside of the R2 unit's scope (which only changes maneuvers). Just saying, there is a legit argument there.

KineticOperator said:

If you're going to make an argument that hinges on the precise wording, you should probably make sure you have the words right. Not cherrypicking sentences would be a good idea, too. Here's the correct text, including the very next sentence:

The owner moves the ship as if it were assigned a white {Ahead 1} maneuver. After executing this maneuver , remove all ion tokens from the ship. It may perform actions as normal.

Emphasis mine. It doesn't as "as it it had performed", it says "as if it were assigned…" This is important because, IMHO, it means that you pick up the normal flow for everything after dial assignment. But the next sentence really clinches it - the rest of the rule obviously thinks it was a maneuver. Who are we to argue with that?

If you are going to start being an *******, you should probably make sure you aren't doing exactly what you are accusing someone else of doing.

Back to cherrypicking sentences, the FAQ says when two effects conflict the one that makes something more difficult takes precedence. It takes some pretty spectacular verbal contortions to try and make that say anything other than.

"An effect that increases the difficulty of a maneuver takes priority over an effect that decreases the difficulty."

Ion and R2 are both in effect, they conflict with one another, the more difficult has priority. How the hell that isn't clear is beyond me. Yes, the specific example it lists is not the Ion cannon (or the Daredevil/R2), but if you were right the ruling they gave would ONLY apply in that one situation. R2 is the only effect in the game that makes maneuvers easier, and you are trying to argue that in every situation except for the exact one they use as an example the ruling is the opposite of what they say. Why the hell would they make a general ruling that only works in the one specific example they use but in every other situation works in exactly the opposite direction? Trying to split the sematic hair of "creating" is not the same as "changing" is poor grammar at best.

I will quit, there is no arguing with patronizing pricks like you anyway. I will wait until FFG eventually comes out with a FAQ (or not). I wil leave your own game club to put up with your bull.

KineticOperator said:

Cherrypicking indeed. The word "changing" means something. And you're a jerk.

Wow. Uhm, OK. I know I was a little patronizing, but really, all the namecalling isn't necessary, and the profanity is truly out of place. You made a point that relied on carefully distinguishing terms, and then changed the wording. You literally contradicted yourself in the point you were trying to make - I thought that deserved a bit of a poke. It really wasn't anything that serious.

We're all well aware of the FAQ entry. If you go back and take a look, ziggy referenced it in the second post, and dbmeboy brought up why it doesn't apply in the third. It's been discussed at length since then.

The difference between "creating" and "changing" is not some nitpicky difference, as you suggest, and it's certainly not poor grammer. What makes the ion or Daredevil maneuver any different than any other maneuver? The fact that it's on a card, rather than a dial. That's it. There certainly isn't anything changing the difficulty, because there's nothing to change. If the Ion Maneuver counts as a changed difficulty (so that it fits the FAQ the way you want it to) then what is it changing it FROM? We know it ends up as white, but what does it start as?

You may think that they intended that entry to qualify as a generic "worse wins", but it's really not written that way. Even if it were, it may very well not apply in this case as it's very difficult to find a way to split created maneuvers from inherent dial maneuvers in a way that lets the R2 work on one but not the other.

Buhallin said:

… and this is what I get for going with the wording from a forum post without checking the full wording myself. Hypothetical, devil's advocate argument posted above withdrawn.

I guess I was the one who did the original "cherrypicking", because I failed to consider that last sentence in my question. I didn't think it was important, but as Buhallin points out it kind of is.

I'm actually open to the idea that it's not intended to be changed, but I think that's a much trickier thing than intended.

The problem, as I pointed out above, is that there's really no way to distinguish a maneuver granted by the dial from one that's made available via a card or effect. What makes a white ahead 1 from the ion cannon any different from a white ahead 1 off a dial? What in the wording of the R2 Astromech can make that distinction?

Lacking a general rule that could apply, the card effects would need to be tweaked to limit the effects. I honestly don't see how this goes the way people want it to go without errata of some form or other. I can see two ways it might happen:

1. R2 Astromech: When you reveal your maneuver dial, you may treat any 1- and 2-speed maneuver as green.
2. Add "This maneuver cannot be modified" to the Ion Token and Daredevil. This is obviously a more cumbersome approach.

I think (1) is the easiest way to fix this, if indeed FFG views it as a problem. But failing errata, IMHO the strict wording is very clear.

I have been kind of enjoying following this discussion. First we need to see how the game defines what "Speed" is in reference to a "Speed Manuever".

According to page 6 of the rule book:

SPEED

Speed is indicated by the numbers on the manuever dial and varies between "1" and "5", depending on the options available on its dial. The higher the speed, the more distance the ship travels during its manuever.

Then lets look at cards like Ion Cannon and Daredevil, neither of those effects reference those manuevers as being speed manuevers, but yet the R2 Astromech directly states about turing 1 and 2 speed manuevers to green.

So a speed manuever is tied exclusively to the dial. Meaning that the R2 Astromech only affects those type of manuevers.

Daredevil and Ion Cannon are creating non-speed manuevers aka set manuevers that do not use the dial. It could be argued that the number in relation the manuever that those cards create/set are speed, but it is more of listing a distance that they are traveling, as we know that a Speed Manuever is indicated on the manuever dial exclusively. If you notice the effects of those cards are lacking the keyword of "Speed" to the manuevers they are producing from the effects, plus those cards are not using a dial.

I would be inclined to agree with you on your interpritation if the rulebook did not define what a speed manuever is, or if the R2 Astromech lacked the term speed before manuever.

That's certainly an interesting way to read it, but I think you're putting way too much into what is effectively a descriptive sentence. The Bearing element has identical wording ("depending on the options available on its dial"). Does that mean we have "bearing maneuvers" in addition to "speed maneuvers"?

On the same page, up a bit, there's this:

Each maneuver consists of three elements: the bearing (arrow), the speed (number), and the difficulty (arrow color).

You can't have a maneuver at all without all three pieces, so every maneuver had a speed. "Speed maneuver" is a term that doesn't appear anywhere in the rules, or on any cards. You're trying to latch on to "1-speed maneuver" as something more than "a maneuver that is speed 1". I don't think there's really anything to support that particular interpretation, and there certainly doesn't seem to be anything that indicates that "Speed maneuver" would be synonymous with "dial maneuver".