wow, if you need to insult someone over how to play with your little plastic toys, maybe its time to step away for a bit

If you're talking to me, I don't insult people. I just make observations.

and I was just making a few of my own

Jesus Christ. Do you actually play this game against real humans? I'd like to send them a sympathy card.

@Ken: For someone so concerned with courtesy, you seem awfully willing to accuse someone of rank dishonesty with zero evidence.

WW is not me. I am at Gencon, posting from my phone. That's why I gave up on this silliness pages ago.

FWIW, though, WW is right on all counts.

@Ken: For someone so concerned with courtesy, you seem awfully willing to accuse someone of rank dishonesty with zero evidence.

WW is not me. I am at Gencon, posting from my phone. That's why I gave up on this silliness pages ago.

FWIW, though, WW is right on all counts.

This is what cracks me up about internet debates. Debates are explaining your OPINION of something. It seems there are a lot of people who don't understand what an opinion is. I can see both sides of the arguement and think there definitely needs to be a FAQ to address it. Until then, both sides are simply opinions and should be treated as such. It amazes me that grown men are not able to agree to disagree and have to continue to hammer away at other people saying their way is right and everyone else is wrong. Especially when it gets to the point of calling people stupid because they don't agree with you.

Jesus Christ. Do you actually play this game against real humans? I'd like to send them a sympathy card.

@Ken: For someone so concerned with courtesy, you seem awfully willing to accuse someone of rank dishonesty with zero evidence.

WW is not me. I am at Gencon, posting from my phone. That's why I gave up on this silliness pages ago. FWIW, though, WW is right on all counts.

This is what cracks me up about internet debates. Debates are explaining your OPINION of something. It seems there are a lot of people who don't understand what an opinion is. I can see both sides of the arguement and think there definitely needs to be a FAQ to address it. Until then, both sides are simply opinions and should be treated as such. It amazes me that grown men are not able to agree to disagree and have to continue to hammer away at other people saying their way is right and everyone else is wrong. Especially when it gets to the point of calling people stupid because they don't agree with you.

And no, the purpose of debate is to discover truth, not to explain your opinion. That's not an opinion either, that's historical fact. Look at the Greek philosophers if you don't believe me.

If you read both the card and the rules, it becomes very clear that there is only one interpretation.

That's funny, because if you actually read this thread, you'll see about half a dozen people who have clearly come up with a different interpretation. I understand that your opinion is that these people are not as smart as you, but fortunately that's not the end of the line. No amount of you repeating the same thing you've said over and over and over again is going to change that.

The thing is, I'm not even sure I disagree with your interpretation. As written , it may very well be correct. As intended , I'm inclined to think the opposite ruling is correct. But whether you realize it or not, your holier-than-thou attitude is actually making me hope that you're wrong, just because it would be funny.

Either way, everyone here has stated their opinion and this stopped being a meaningful debate quite some time ago. Nothing short of an official decision on the matter is going to resolve it.

Jesus Christ. Do you actually play this game against real humans? I'd like to send them a sympathy card.

Yes, with the same people I play Magic with, as a matter of fact. We get along just fine, since we're all well versed in applying rules text.

@Ken: For someone so concerned with courtesy, you seem awfully willing to accuse someone of rank dishonesty with zero evidence.

WW is not me. I am at Gencon, posting from my phone. That's why I gave up on this silliness pages ago. FWIW, though, WW is right on all counts.

This is what cracks me up about internet debates. Debates are explaining your OPINION of something. It seems there are a lot of people who don't understand what an opinion is. I can see both sides of the arguement and think there definitely needs to be a FAQ to address it. Until then, both sides are simply opinions and should be treated as such. It amazes me that grown men are not able to agree to disagree and have to continue to hammer away at other people saying their way is right and everyone else is wrong. Especially when it gets to the point of calling people stupid because they don't agree with you.

If you read both the card and the rules, it becomes very clear that there is only one interpretation. I'm not arguing opinions because none are necessary here, nor have I begun a single sentence with "well, I believe..." etc etc. You either get it, or you don't. That's not an opinion. Rules are not opinions, they are deliberately uniform and inflexible for a reason.

And no, the purpose of debate is to discover truth, not to explain your opinion. That's not an opinion either, that's historical fact. Look at the Greek philosophers if you don't believe me.

So, if a FAQ comes out that says the other OPINION on this is the right way to rule, are you going to admit you were wrong? I'm guessing no, you will probably just call the makers of the game stupid too

WonderWAAAGH:

You all agree because you all are not only skilled at interpreting rules text, you are also also approaching rules from the same conceptual framework.

If we were playing MtG your interpretations would be 100% correct, which is how I identified both you and Buhallin as MtG players long before either of you identified yourselves that way. You understand the idea of the "stack". You are accustomed to multiple things being triggered simultaneously, then being placed on the stack in order to resolve them in a particular order. You can imagine 3 different things all being triggered by a single event, then putting their virtual "cards" on a stack in whatever order to resolve their effects. No matter what the first card does, the other cards are already on the "stack" and will resolve their effects in some way.

But that is not the only possible way to resolve multiple events, and we are not playing MtG we are playing X-Wing so there is no requirement to resolve using the "stack". It is entirely possible to imagine a different sort of stack. For example, you place all 3 different cards on the stack in whatever order you wish. When you turn the first card over, you check to see if the conditions on that card are true, and if they are true you execute the rest of the action on the card and if not you discard it. Then, you turn over the second card, check the conditions on that card, and execute/discard as needed. Finally, you do the same with the third card.

Examples:

Woman 1 : If there is 1 apple in the box, eat one apple.

Woman 2 : If there is 1 apple in the box, add an apple.

In MtG, both checks are simultaneous. Both women will look in the box at the same time. The box has an apple or it does not, and that is true before either women look inside. If there is an apple in the box when they look, Woman 1 will eat one and Woman 2 will add one, and you will still have 1 apple left at the end no matter what order the two women perform their actions. You (in charge of the experiment and allowed to decide which woman does her thing first), can have Woman 1 or Woman 2 go first and it won't make any difference because there was exactly one apple in the box when they checked, and once they checked and saw that there was one apple both of them were committed to performing their action.

The OTHER way to do this, is to have the women look in the box one at a time. If Woman 1 looks first, she will find a single apple and eat it. When Woman 2 looks, she will see zero apples and do nothing leaving you with 0 apples. On the other hand, if you have Woman 2 look first she will see one apple and add one. When Woman 1 looks she will see two apples and do nothing leaving you with 2 apples. You (still in charge of the experiment) are still the one deciding which woman goes first. But in this case you are deciding which woman checks the conditions AND performs her action, before allowing the other woman to check conditions and perform her action.

Both of these interpretations are valid ways of understanding the idea that you (the experimenter) decides which woman gets to "go first" but they lead to very different outcomes. So no, you are incorrect that there is only one way to interpret the rules. The problem is that you are stating AN answer, but are mistaking that for the ONLY answer.

If you read both the card and the rules, it becomes very clear that there is only one interpretation.

That's funny, because if you actually read this thread, you'll see about half a dozen people who have clearly come up with a different interpretation. I understand that your opinion is that these people are not as smart as you, but fortunately that's not the end of the line. No amount of you repeating the same thing you've said over and over and over again is going to change that.

The thing is, I'm not even sure I disagree with your interpretation. As written , it may very well be correct. As intended , I'm inclined to think the opposite ruling is correct. But whether you realize it or not, your holier-than-thou attitude is actually making me hope that you're wrong, just because it would be funny.

Either way, everyone here has stated their opinion and this stopped being a meaningful debate quite some time ago. Nothing short of an official decision on the matter is going to resolve it.

but if you state your opinion over and over again, and say that any interpretation other then yours is stupid, doesn't that make you right?????

@KO: the problem with your presentation is that we aren't in a total vacuum

We do have rules concerning when abilities activate, and the order they resolve in. We DON'T have rules that say we check trigger conditions at effect resolution.

If we go by the actual rules we have, abilities trigger, and once triggered, they will resolve because no rule stops it from doing so.

The idea of reckecking conditions is not impossible, but there is nothing in the actual rules that even hints at it. If there is, please let me know what I'm missing.

That is true Buhallin, which brings us around to our other discussion. There are no rules about when we check trigger conditions, period. It would be much, much better if the Devs would state which of the two methods is used, but they did not. So in a way, we are working in a vacuum.

The Adrenaline Rush card says "When you reveal...". So does Navigator. Does this mean that I put the cards one top of another, and execute them one at a time from the very beginning? If so, I could put Navigator on top and use it to change my white maneuver to a red one. Then, I remove the Navigator card and read the AR card. It says that if there is a red maneuver (which there is now) then I treat it as a white maneuver.

OR

Are both cards "looking" at the dial when it is revealed, and the first part of their text executes together? Then I place them one atop another and execute the rest of the card. If so, when AR "checked" the dial was not red so it does nothing.

The problem is that the timing statement "When you reveal.." is not the same as the condition statement "red maneuver". So, if I am able to choose ONLY the order in which the actions are taken then AR is not legal. On the other hand, if I can choose the order in which conditions are checked as well, then AR would be legal. Since the rules state I may resolve the cards in whatever order I wish, I lean towards allowing both condition and action, but there are no explicit rules to that effect nor are there explicit rules to the contrary.

So yes, I understand where you guys are coming from and I wish to hell they would simply put out a definitive ruling on this. It would resolve a great many issues going forward.

One of your choices fits the rules we have. The other doesn't. The rules we have say that when the trigger is met, the ability activates. That's it.

That's not actually a vacuum. The rules we have may feel incomplete, but that doesn't mean that they can't be followed.

If you read both the card and the rules, it becomes very clear that there is only one interpretation.

That's funny, because if you actually read this thread, you'll see about half a dozen people who have clearly come up with a different interpretation. I understand that your opinion is that these people are not as smart as you, but fortunately that's not the end of the line. No amount of you repeating the same thing you've said over and over and over again is going to change that.

The thing is, I'm not even sure I disagree with your interpretation. As written , it may very well be correct. As intended , I'm inclined to think the opposite ruling is correct. But whether you realize it or not, your holier-than-thou attitude is actually making me hope that you're wrong, just because it would be funny.

Either way, everyone here has stated their opinion and this stopped being a meaningful debate quite some time ago. Nothing short of an official decision on the matter is going to resolve it.

So, if a FAQ comes out that says the other OPINION on this is the right way to rule, are you going to admit you were wrong? I'm guessing no, you will probably just call the makers of the game stupid too

I realize I haven't been the nicest guy in the world, but that's no reason to assume the worst of me. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong, but it doesn't happen often.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Buhallin - I value your opinion and enjoy your blog. Still...

The rules say WHEN to check "When you reveal a maneuver", and WHAT to check for "red maneuver". However, there is no explicit ruling stating that cards/effects are "always on", you are assuming that. They could just as easily be "activating" at the time stop indicated, performing the check indicated and action associated with the conditions it finds.

Let me try one more time with an example from MtG, since you guys are very familiar with that rule system.

You are likening it to a card like:

"Near Death Experience" - At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have exactly 1 life, you win the game.

This is a fairly straightforward card. At the beginning of your upkeep (time), if you have exactly 1 life (check state), you win the game (effect). If "Near Death Experience" is in play, the card self-activates at the beginning of your upkeep, checks status, and places its effect on the stack. The only portion of this sequence the player controls is where in the stack to place the effect (if multiple effects are all being put on at that time).

More complex:

"Living Lands" - All forests are 1/1 creatures that are still lands

"Pandemonium" - Whenever any creature comes into play, that creature's controller may choose to have it deal damage equal to its power to target creature or player.

Not as straightfoward, even if you include the implied language (included in the earlier versions, but left out because it became unnecessary with the demise of the interrupt) that only forests IN PLAY are considered lands, the ones in your hand and graveyard are considered cards, neither creature nor land. When you play a forest, it is "not" a creature until it is in play because "Living Lands" only affects cards that are in play. So which comes first, "Pandemonium" or "Living Lands"? Is it even possible to "change a forest into a creature" if it had not at some point been something other than a creature? If it is true that it had to be [not a creature] for at least a moment in order for it to then become a creature, wouldn't that mean the forest was in play, just for an instant, but "Living Lands" had not yet had a chance to change it to a creature? Would that mean that at the very instant it came into play it was not yet a creature, so Pandemonium would not work?

The answer is no, the forest comes into play as a 1/1 creature, "Pandemonium" activates, and then you deal damage. "Living Lands" is not a card that is subject to timing in the way that an activated manland might be. Unlike, say, "Nantuko Monastery" there is no activation point that alters an already existing state. "Living Lands" alters cards WHEN they come into play, not AFTER they come into play.

Similarly, Adrenaline Rush states that is is used WHEN the dial is revealed, not after. It does not require you to reveal the dial, THEN alter the card with Adrenaline Rush, it says to alter the dial WHEN you reveal it. There is no point at which the dial "has been revealed" but Adrenaline Rush has not yet been played. The red/stress check is exactly the same as the Pandemonium check. When the maneuver is revealed (card comes into play), Red/Stress (Pandemonium) checks to see if the maneuver (card) is red (creature), and then activates if it is red (creature).

Two abilities can and do interfere with one another, even in MtG, without recourse to the stack. I am only stating that it is not a safe assumption that all rules in X-Wing do use a stack. It is entirely possible that some actions (like AR) are akin to the old Interrupt in Magic that altered the card as it was played, before placing the effect on the stack, rather than the all-instant method method adopted since then that only alters the effect once it is on the stack.

If you read both the card and the rules, it becomes very clear that there is only one interpretation.

That's funny, because if you actually read this thread, you'll see about half a dozen people who have clearly come up with a different interpretation. I understand that your opinion is that these people are not as smart as you, but fortunately that's not the end of the line. No amount of you repeating the same thing you've said over and over and over again is going to change that.

The thing is, I'm not even sure I disagree with your interpretation. As written , it may very well be correct. As intended , I'm inclined to think the opposite ruling is correct. But whether you realize it or not, your holier-than-thou attitude is actually making me hope that you're wrong, just because it would be funny.

Either way, everyone here has stated their opinion and this stopped being a meaningful debate quite some time ago. Nothing short of an official decision on the matter is going to resolve it.

Right. I know that 2 + 2 is 4. Just because someone else can't comprehend that doesn't make my knowledge on the matter subjective. It's not an opinion.

So, if a FAQ comes out that says the other OPINION on this is the right way to rule, are you going to admit you were wrong? I'm guessing no, you will probably just call the makers of the game stupid too

I realize I haven't been the nicest guy in the world, but that's no reason to assume the worst of me. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong, it just doesn't happen that often. And frankly, I have no stake in the matter. I could honestly care less what the official verdict is.

dang, if you act like that when you "don't care" about something, I would hate to see how you treat people when you do.

Please stop talking about Magic? I don't play it, don't know it, and it really has no bearing on the discussion.

If you can't make your point without citing X-wing's rules, I'm not sure you've got much of a case. Unless your point is that we simply can't know how to play the game, in which case you should probably just give up now, because FFG doesn't seem likely to change it.

Buhallin - I value your opinion and enjoy your blog. Still...

The rules say WHEN to check "When you reveal a maneuver", and WHAT to check for "red maneuver". However, there is no explicit ruling stating that cards/effects are "always on", you are assuming that. They could just as easily be "activating" at the time stop indicated, performing the check indicated and action associated with the conditions it finds.

Let me try one more time with an example from MtG, since you guys are very familiar with that rule system.

You are likening it to a card like:

"Near Death Experience" - At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have exactly 1 life, you win the game.

This is a fairly straightforward card. At the beginning of your upkeep (time), if you have exactly 1 life (check state), you win the game (effect). If "Near Death Experience" is in play, the card self-activates at the beginning of your upkeep, checks status, and places its effect on the stack. The only portion of this sequence the player controls is where in the stack to place the effect (if multiple effects are all being put on at that time).

More complex:

"Living Lands" - All forests are 1/1 creatures that are still lands

"Pandemonium" - Whenever any creature comes into play, that creature's controller may choose to have it deal damage equal to its power to target creature or player.

Not as straightfoward, even if you include the implied language (included in the earlier versions, but left out because it became unnecessary with the demise of the interrupt) that only forests IN PLAY are considered lands, the ones in your hand and graveyard are considered cards, neither creature nor land. When you play a forest, it is "not" a creature until it is in play because "Living Lands" only affects cards that are in play. So which comes first, "Pandemonium" or "Living Lands"? Is it even possible to "change a forest into a creature" if it had not at some point been something other than a creature? If it is true that it had to be [not a creature] for at least a moment in order for it to then become a creature, wouldn't that mean the forest was in play, just for an instant, but "Living Lands" had not yet had a chance to change it to a creature? Would that mean that at the very instant it came into play it was not yet a creature, so Pandemonium would not work?

The answer is no, the forest comes into play as a 1/1 creature, "Pandemonium" activates, and then you deal damage. "Living Lands" is not a card that is subject to timing in the way that an activated manland might be. Unlike, say, "Nantuko Monastery" there is no activation point that alters an already existing state. "Living Lands" alters cards WHEN they come into play, not AFTER they come into play.

Similarly, Adrenaline Rush states that is is used WHEN the dial is revealed, not after. It does not require you to reveal the dial, THEN alter the card with Adrenaline Rush, it says to alter the dial WHEN you reveal it. There is no point at which the dial "has been revealed" but Adrenaline Rush has not yet been played. The red/stress check is exactly the same as the Pandemonium check. When the maneuver is revealed (card comes into play), Red/Stress (Pandemonium) checks to see if the maneuver (card) is red (creature), and then activates if it is red (creature).

Two abilities can and do interfere with one another, even in MtG, without recourse to the stack. I am only stating that it is not a safe assumption that all rules in X-Wing do use a stack. It is entirely possible that some actions (like AR) are akin to the old Interrupt in Magic that altered the card as it was played, before placing the effect on the stack, rather than the all-instant method method adopted since then that only alters the effect once it is on the stack.

dang, if you act like that when you "don't care" about something, I would hate to see how you treat people when you do.

How is it that we're still stuck on the word "when"? That word by no means indicates a simultaneous trigger/resolution. If we're going to keep using MtG as an analogue, then it's clear that the word "when" still infers that the effect resolves afterwards. "When a creature comes into play" and "when you draw a card" triggers are obvious examples of effects that resolve afterwards, without both having to be on the stack at the same time. So, the stack issue is immaterial. There is zero point at which a creature is coming into play, and zero point at which a card is in the process of being drawn. Likewise, there is zero point at which the dial is in the process of revelation. It is either revealed or it isn't. The only exceptions are replacement effects, which Adrenaline Rush is clearly not worded to be, as I have already described several times.

The thing is most miniature games don't use the Magic stack system, heck Magic didn't use the stack system when it came out, I remember playing it before the stack. Knowing a bit about how Fantasy Flight design games, as I work with someone that used to work for them, they aim for their games to be inclusive of new games. With a license like Star Wars this is doubly true.

I really don't think this game is designed to work with stack timing, it would be overkill, like using a Crey supercomputer to play angry birds.

Other things in the way the rules play out in examples and the FAQ also makes me feel they play with discreet events which are resolved one after another. The fact that they say when two events happen at the same time you choose which order to resolve them, this is very much not a stack way of looking at things. The way dice modification works, the fact you can change a dice and then change it again based on what it is now. The FAQ also shows other places where an event modifies something and then another event is done in same Timing Step that uses the new state of the ship, not the original.

I other words, there are more than one way to organise timing in the game, and from what is normal for a miniature game and the other rules in the X-Wing game, I don't think this game uses MtG style stack timing.

I literally just said that X-Wing doesn't need a stack. If you follow the rules, as printed, this is exactly what should happen:

1) You reveal the dial. The dial is red.

2) Both the rule on page 17 and the Adrenaline Rush trigger - but do not resolve - simultaneously. This is the one and only "check" either of them need. The maneuver is still red at this point.

3) The active player has two simultaneous actions to resolve, in whatever order he chooses: letting his opponent change the dial, or treating it as white for the remainder of the turn. Adrenaline Rush says nothing about treating it as if it were white before the card resolves.

Again, there is no stack. Once the red maneuver is revealed, that is a forgone conclusion. The dial has been revealed/resolved, and is no longer in a state of revelation - that is to say, it is NOT on a stack. Everything that occurs afterwards is logically derived from the rules and the card, based on the fact that a red maneuver was revealed.

Now, please don't revert back to the whole "'when' means the same time" argument. I've already explained in considerable detail both how that's a physical impossibility, and how, semantically, a sentence using the word "when" implies a resultant trigger after the fact.

I literally just said that X-Wing doesn't need a stack. If you follow the rules, as printed, this is exactly what should happen:

1) You reveal the dial. The dial is red.

2) Both the rule on page 17 and the Adrenaline Rush trigger - but do not resolve - simultaneously. This is the one and only "check" either of them need. The maneuver is still red at this point.

3) The active player has two simultaneous actions to resolve, in whatever order he chooses: letting his opponent change the dial, or treating it as white for the remainder of the turn. Adrenaline Rush says nothing about treating it as if it were white before the card resolves.

But this is very much a stack way of looking at timing, that you do all the checks for viability and then generate the results one at a time. Another equally valid way of doing it is you take it in turn to Check, activate Effect - Check, activate Effect. However seeing as almost every other timing example in the game takes the later way of looking at it, I would find it very odd if they took the first in this case.

Now I can't know the RAI, and as the rulebook is written conversationally rather than tightly (again because it's for a beginners market) you really can't say for certain which is the correct answer. You definitely can't say it with the certainty you are.

I edited my last post.

It's not a stack way of looking at things, because the game's rules already tell you how to handle this exact type of situation. The only thing that's equivalent to the stack is the fact that the player gets to choose which action to resolve when two events occur simultaneously. Do you deny this?

What you're not grasping is that the player DOES NOT get to choose how the reveal trigger resolves. That occurs indepent of any player input. Once you reveal the red maneuver, you MUST follow both the rule and the card text. I can say that with absolute certainty, because that is how the rules are worded.

OK. Quote where it states this. As far as I can see the only place where a timing conflict, which this is, is clarified in any detail is in the FAQ, where it says

Q: If a player has multiple effects that resolve at the same time, can he resolve them inany order?

A: Yes.

This in no way says or does not say if the effect fizzles if it's criteria is not true when you get to resolving it.

You may be right. But unless you can quote a reference proving your right. Then it's up in the air.

Which part do you want me to quote?

Which part do you want me to quote?

The bit which states you check criteria when the Timing Step starts rather than when you resolve the Effect (to check the Effect is still valid).