CrookedWookie -

Thank you, I always enjoy conversing with people who are able to understand both sides and state their own position clearly.

I don't really disagree with you, nor do I have any confidence that what I suggested is the "right" way. All I am saying is that as weak as it is the only precedent we have is with the Damaged Cockpit / Saboteur interaction. Since that is all we have I think we should go with it for now, allowing Chewie to negate all crits regardless of how they show up.

This doesn't really bother me common sense wise. The rules for Chewie both as pilot and crew reflect his amazing ability to keep the Falcon running. The idea that a ship with him piloting it has been so thoroughly checked that it is resistant to incoming damage and any sabotage committed has been detected and removed makes as much sense to me as the idea that the only way his ship takes a crit is through sabotage.

I don't want to make it sound like I am a wholehearted devotee of the "precedent" I am quoting. I am just saying that as far as I know that is all we have, so we might as well go with it for now.

Common sense is rarely all that common.

Thanks, Kinetic, right back atcha. Always nice to find someone who states a point of view and is willing to consider others and doesn't take a differing one as a personal attack. Sadly rare, but nice!

And as you said - I have one interpretation that I lean towards on my own reading of the rules, but I'm not going to be surprised or heartbroken however they rule it, because I can definitely see the case behind the argument you put forth. And you're right - that is the closest thing we have to a precedent right now.

What's frustrating is that I could point out half a dozen rulings (in general, not apropos of this discussion) and say "see? In every one of these cases the rules lawyers who were twisting logic to fit the precise wording of the card were proven wrong. Common sense wins out!"

But then I could also turn around and point to two or three rulings - the sad case of Dark Curse v. Blaster Turret being the most blatant - where it seemed like even the people who were arguing FOR the rule being possibly interpreted that way seemed shocked that it became official. Like they were just kind of playing devil's advocate and didn't think FFG would take them seriously. I mean I'm *kind* of joking, but that does seem to be one ruling where even the people who were arguing it was possible think it was the wrong decision.

Boosts/barrel rolls versus proximity mines? Definitely common sense over a strict interpretation of the rules. And that's not always a good thing - if you have to flat out overrule your own rules, you probably need to rewrite them so they're in line with your original intent from the get go.

On the other hand, a lot of people felt like Night Beast's ruling (a green move does NOT remove a stress token *before* his free focus action takes effect, meaning he can't use his ability at all when stressed) was maybe technically in line with the rules but not in line with the spirit of his ability.

All of which is a long way of saying at this point I've given up trying to seriously guess which way they'll come down on a given rule, because it seems to be 'however they originally intended, regardless of whether that makes sense to anyone else or directly contradicts their own rules/cards as they are currently written.'

And Buhalin is totally correct - more than likely it'll be 6 months after Wave 3 is officially out, which is like three months after they first started leaking cards and some of these questions first came up - that they'll finally get around to updating the FAQ and settling some of these things once and for all (while in turn raising new questions on three or four cards nobody was confused about UNTIL they randomly ruled on them).

Sorry if i came across a little to harsh, normaly I try to see someone's point of view but as mentioned the rules seem to be clear inthe dealt v flip argument on this one. To me anyway so if I argued a little to much I apologise.

Damage cockpit argument is another thing entirely for that id highlight the word ramdom in the sabatour card and asked would that not apply a quick shuffle and common sense the card would start as of now and play as normal with out having to change existing rules?

Trying to stick to actual rules over "intent" or "logic" may be rules lawyering for some, but many of us do it because it's the only way to maintain a consistent basis for understanding the rules.

Because this is exactly what happens if you don't. If someone didn't actively keep up with the FAQ there would be no way they could possibly interpret that a reroll doesn't count as rolling dice.

I've basically given up trying to interpret X-wing's rules, because they're no longer grounded in anything we're privy to. We don't have anything reliable other than what's printed, and the actual rulings we're getting are so full of contradictions and from-the-ether answers that it is truly impossible to guess how anything's going to come down.

^ Pretty much what Buhalin said. The answers we've gotten are so all over the place it's impossible to guess or deduce what way they're going to come down on any additional questions. Some have taken a hardline stance to a very direct, literal reading of the rules. Some have bent that while hewing to the spirit of the rule. Some have come out of left field and directly contradicted the rules. Some have just flat out said "yeah, I know what the card SAYS - ignore that and do it this way" and not given a whole lot of context for why. Hopefully on some of these they eventually just do an errata or something and start reprinting some of the cards to be reworded so the text matches up with the intent.

I think the problem we run into as a community is twofold. Probably morefold, to be honest.

First, if you try to go by common sense, there's nothing 'common' about it. One guy thinks Chewie's meant to be a hard counter to critical damage in any way shape or form. The next guy thinks that something like Saboteur is actually meant to be a hard counter to CHEWIE, giving you a way to sneak damage past his ability. Both interpretations are equally logical, either could be correct, and you might as well play pin the tail on the donkey and you have as much chance of picking the same interpretation as they wind up doing.

Second, even if you try to go by a letter of the law, RAW interpretation you still run into problems. Terms aren't clearly defined. The order of things isn't always clearly laid out. The same word is used to refer to different things. Different words are used to refer to the SAME thing - except then sometimes they're not. Ruling A sets a precedent one way, Ruling B sets a precedent another way, and then a question comes up about rule C, and A and B could EACH apply but directly contradict one another. Sometimes the exact 'legal' interpretation of the rule is impossible to determine because things relating to it aren't clearly defined. Sometimes the precise 'legal' reading is clearly and obviously against all logic and is probably wrong. Except then sometimes of course, it's not.

Unfortunately there's not really an easy answer, because some of the rules are technical enough that common sense isn't good enough, and other times they're vague enough that an exact, as-written interpretation doesn't work and you have to try and suss it out with some common sense. All too often, both of those are the case, and the common sense people butt heads with the rules lawyers and usually they're both going to be somewhat surprised by the final answer.

I wish there was an easy rule of thumb to go by, but the game, or at least the rulings on the game, seem to thwart that at every turn.

First, if you try to go by common sense, there's nothing 'common' about it. One guy thinks Chewie's meant to be a hard counter to critical damage in any way shape or form. The next guy thinks that something like Saboteur is actually meant to be a hard counter to CHEWIE, giving you a way to sneak damage past his ability. Both interpretations are equally logical, either could be correct, and you might as well play pin the tail on the donkey and you have as much chance of picking the same interpretation as they wind up doing.

I don't know, perhaps its just me or the area I've played in but I've been gaming for years, before college through today and from what I've seen there is a lot common sense among players. To be sure there will always be someone who tears the rules apart looking for every discrepancy but most of the people (not all but the vast majority) understand that nothing is perfect and go with it.

Buhallin gave the example what if the rules stated (paraphrased) 'when damage equals your hull you are destroyed' rather than 'equals or exceeds'. Might someone who received damage greater than their hull say they are not destroyed. Perhaps I've been sheltered and yes someone might, but in my experience these examples are rare (not non-existent but rare). Unless there is a clear cut reason for it to be read as "equals" then there wouldn't even be any debate. Heck, I doubt there would be any discussion in our group let alone a debate; we would think that is simply common sense and as I said before, if someone behaved poorly or insisted on crazy rule interpretations we wouldn't invite them back.

For all the years I've played miniature games the comments about measuring range outside of your firing arc surprised me. I never thought that would even be a question. With all the people I play with no one I currently know would consider measuring outside their firing arc. But we needed a ruling? Because as some correctly noted it's not concisely written that way. Nevertheless it just made sense to us. Maybe we were playing wrong, just not in this case.

I don't always see it as common sense versus lack of common sense. Yes there are people that lack common sense, I don't mean that. I think it is more a matter of preference. I think most everyone would prefer a clear and concise definition of the rules that lack ambiguity. Also few if any like rules that appear as 'hand waving'. We're all (most) on the same page in this regard. The problem (preference) comes in when the rules are not as clear and have possible ambiguities. When they're not clear, some fall back on common sense and others want to follow the rules as written. Neither is really wrong, just a matter of preference (tournaments mentioned in a minute).

The problem actually happens in two areas. First is when the emotional commitment to our personal preference gets too high, this leads to many of the threads we seen here. The other is tournaments. When you're 'playing to win' common sense often takes a back seat as we all want to play on an even field. Sigh... Maybe for tournaments we need a lawyer to review the rules prior to play but generally I think most people can figure things out even when it's not going they way they might prefer.

Having said that you are right, FFG has gone a couple of different ways here; not sure how their game balance is structured. But one thing seems clear we can't always follow their logic. As far as Chewie's ability. I could see it going either way. Only FFG will know for sure, but there are plenty with common sense and even some without. But usually it's just a matter of preference.

[Edited for grammar/spelling]

To clarify, I wasn't saying players don't have common sense, I was just playing with the word common (meaning "shared") to illustrate that what your common sense says and what my common sense tells me may be very different things. I didn't mean common sense is rare, just that each person's common sense may lead them to conclusions at odds with everyone else's.

With the Chewie/Saboteur example, it might be common sense to me that Saboteur bypasses him because that's obviously the intent - Saboteur being the exception to the rule.

You might just as reasonably conclude that Chewie ignores crits, period, so Saboteur falls in line with that, rather than being an exception to it, and to you this is equally obviously the intent.

Both of us used common sense to arrive at completely opposite results. That's all I meant when I said there's no "common" sense - just that what's obvious to one of us is the opposite of what's obvious to someone else, so the idea of a shared, or common, sense of what is correct is kind of a misnomer.

To use your measuring outside the range/arc example, even in my close group of friends we've had some bitter disagreements about range 2 vs. 3, or just barely in/out of fire arc. Usually we settle it quickly and move on, but we've had a couple where it's honestly too close to clearly call, and neither person wanted to concede. Nothing was at stake, nobody was trying to cheat or gain a competitive edge. And yet every now and again we'll butt heads like the fate of the world was riding on the outcome. I think sometimes that's just how gamers do.

But to me that's kind of a separate question, because its usually a case by case, make a decision and move on, kind of deal. Too close to call, could go either way, just roll for it or whatever.

With some of the RULE questions, it matters to have a clear ruling one way or the other. If Fettigator wasn't legal, that could change your whole build. You want to know that before you get to the table. Dark Curse's blaster turret immunity bumps his value up. Night Beast not shedding stress with the same green move that triggers his effect lowers his. Those aren't case by case things - they determine the value of cards, ships, entire builds, and often set 'legal precedent' for interpreting similar or related rules that affect OTHER cards, ships, and builds.

Rumor has it Fettigaor for example, is legal. It's important to have that in writing, explained and clarified to fit within the framework of the rules, or its chaos the first time someone shows up with that build at a tournament and his opponent doesn't believe it's a legal combo and wants to know, if so, exactly how it works in line with the rules. That's much more far reaching than questions of range or whether something is right on the line.

Written for clarity,

When they're not clear, some fall back on common sense and others want to follow the rules as written.

This is the sort of thing that starts to annoy me.

The problem isn't between "common sense" and "play by the rules". The problem is that, as the wookiee says, "common" isn't always as obvious as you think it is.

Consider your range example. "Oh, it has to be measured in the firing arc" seems obvious to you. But it also creates a situation where my shot at you can be clear, but your shot at me can be obstructed. How does that make sense? Is someone who thinks attack symmetry makes more "common sense" wrong?

And that's the problem with going to common sense, and it's why statements like that (and the "rules lawyer" crap that has gotten way too common around here) bother me. Your idea of "common sense" is shaped by your background and preferences, and so is everyone else's. Take a look at the "discussions" on when you can measure - people brought their preconceptions, often violently, and "common sense" meant something different to everyone.

I've played enough games that I'm sick of trying to disentangle all that. Is it "common sense" that boosting into a proximity mine is safe? No. But (barring the stupid FAQ entry) it was the rules. I'd rather deal with that oddity - where we're all dealing with the SAME oddity - than see people get into arguments over whether boosting through it is "common sense" that it should explode, or "common sense" that boost means you're in overdrive and just manage to go quick enough that the sensors don't detect you in time to detonate. Why aren't the complaints about Stealth Device surviving things like obstacle collisions or assault missile splash "common sense" that we should respect and follow even though they aren't right by the rules?

For all the appeals to "common sense" I don't think I've ever seen an unclear rules debate where everyone came to the same "obvious" conclusion. Usually, appeals to "common sense" just mean "This is how I think it should be played, and only a cheating rules lawyer would disagree."

And that was kind of the point I was trying to make, as well - it's all well and good to try and avoid "rules lawyering," if you want to call it that, but even if you avoid getting into a really complicated examination of the 'legalese' interpretation of a rule - which nobody agrees on, or that would be a simple fix - and say "ok, let's just use common sense here" you're still going to get two or more completely opposite judgments.

Clearly neither approach, "rules lawyer" or "common sense" really works or is superior to the other, because neither one settles any arguments about the right way to read a rule. Compounding THAT is the fact that some of the FAQ rulings support one stance, some support the other stance, and still others seem to go by FFG's unstated *intent* for a rule - even when said ruling isn't something the community came up with by using common sense OR a careful analysis of the rules as written. Because on a couple of occasions they've just flat out contradicted a rule or card text in order to make it work the way they want it to.

It's impossible to judge how they're going to interpret a rule officially, when they seem to waver back and forth between what we'd consider common sense and rules lawyering interpretations of the rules. The fact that they also on occasion just flat out IGNORE a rule or card text and say "yeah, I know what it *says* but do it this way anyway" sort of renders any and all debate about how a rule should work pointless - because you don't even know then if you can trust what's WRITTEN, let alone your interpretation of it.

Consider your range example. "Oh, it has to be measured in the firing arc" seems obvious to you. But it also creates a situation where my shot at you can be clear, but your shot at me can be obstructed. How does that make sense?

As someone who has used firearms in both competition and at gun ranges for practice and fun. I can say that to me it make perfect sense that target A can quite easily be obstructed from target B; while target B is completely unobstructed from target A. In WWII tanks went Hull Down which was to give them cover while firing at their opponents who were unobstructed. Happens all the time, quite easily explained and makes sense.

"rules lawyering," if you want to call it that

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. It seems to raise the ire of some. No offense intended.

Clearly neither approach, "rules lawyer" or "common sense" really works or is superior to the other, because neither one settles any arguments about the right way to read a rule. Compounding THAT is the fact that some of the FAQ rulings support one stance, some support the other stance, and still others seem to go by FFG's unstated *intent* for a rule - even when said ruling isn't something the community came up with by using common sense OR a careful analysis of the rules as written. Because on a couple of occasions they've just flat out contradicted a rule or card text in order to make it work the way they want it to.

I agree and that is what I was trying to say. I guess i didn't get that across.

It's impossible to judge how they're going to interpret a rule officially, when they seem to waver back and forth between what we'd consider common sense and rules lawyering interpretations of the rules. The fact that they also on occasion just flat out IGNORE a rule or card text and say "yeah, I know what it *says* but do it this way anyway" sort of renders any and all debate about how a rule should work pointless - because you don't even know then if you can trust what's WRITTEN, let alone your interpretation of it.

Again I thought I was agreeing with this??? Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to argue with anyone, just kind of elaborating on some of that Buhalin was saying. Ruminating as far as my own thoughts as to why a lot of the debate, while interesting, is largely kind of moot. We're all arguing about whether the ball has to break the plane of the goal line, or completely CROSS the goal line, and when FFG finally gets back to us they're all "wrong - field goals!"

For all the appeals to "common sense" I don't think I've ever seen an unclear rules debate where everyone came to the same "obvious" conclusion. Usually, appeals to "common sense" just mean "This is how I think it should be played, and only a cheating rules lawyer would disagree."

I don't think I've ever meant that. That's too bad it is usually that way in your experience.

We have often reached agreements on things we thought were common sense even though we've started at different places. Everyone happy.

Either way FFG will let us know.

I wasn't trying to use 'common sense,' or 'rules lawyering' in a derogatory sense - I know those terms drive Buhalin nuts, for example. They're just kind of the common terms for the two approaches, so I was just using them as turns of phrase to demonstrate why neither approach is reliable (at least not when FFG doesn't use one or the other consistently) because even if we all agreed on the correct way of approaching the rules, FFG seems to go back and forth as far as which way THEY come down on the rules. And sometimes they take a third, "because we said so" approach to the rules that nobody can predict.

I think that's one important thing to keep in mind when we all debate this stuff - nobody is right or wrong until FFG rules, and even then it's more like buying the winning lottery ticket than any great testament to our powers of deduction. There's not much sense in anyone getting too emotionally invested in one point of view or one interpretation because it's pretty much a coin flip - with an abnormally high chance of landing on the edge and balancing so that it's not heads OR tails.

That's kind of an unfortunate position to have to take, because particularly in the tournament scene, these questions matter. They are important. And they are completely and absolutely unpredictable as far as when and how they will be ruled upon.

As someone who has used firearms in both competition and at gun ranges for practice and fun. I can say that to me it make perfect sense that target A can quite easily be obstructed from target B; while target B is completely unobstructed from target A. In WWII tanks went Hull Down which was to give them cover while firing at their opponents who were unobstructed. Happens all the time, quite easily explained and makes sense.

This might very well be the most perfect example of "missing the point" I've seen in a while

It certainly does make perfect sense to you . Will it to everyone? Does someone have to have a background in competition shooting for it to make sense? What if their background is in laser physics, where everything is point sources and vectors and symmetry is pretty much guaranteed? What happens when we start thinking that this is a fast-moving simulation where even though things are stop motion the ships are constantly moving, so if you can hit me I should be able to fire just before you move behind the rock? Or just when the games people have played in the past all measured from a common point (center of the base, counting hexes, etc) such that measurement between two units was symmetrical?

Any and all of that is equally "common sense" to someone based on their personal background. But that's the problem - it's personal. At the point when you start declaring rules interpretation based on "common sense" you're deciding that your preconceptions based on your background are the right ones.

Sticking to the rules strips (most of) that away. People can still come to odd ways of reading the rules, but at the very least everyone's working from the same foundation.

Ironically, Common Sense is NOT Common.

So, has someone sent this in to FFG to be determined? It seems like there isn't a consensus on this one.

I mean, if we go by my conversation with James, we could interpret "dealt" to mean when the card is turned face-up, as was the interpretation of Damaged Cockpit vs Saboteur. So I can clearly choose to flip the face-up damage card in front of me!

But we could also go with the more literal interpretation of the act of dealing a card, which Saboteur does not do, it merely flips the cards you already have. So I can clearly choose to not flip the face-up damage card in front of me!

And of course, getting an answer anytime soon from FFG is inconceivable!!!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, I think he may have it right this time.

Without knowing specifically why the Damaged Cockpit ruling came down as it did, I think it would be a mistake to draw precedent from it. Lacking that, we'd have to fall back on the standard definition of "dealt", which means it only kicks in when it comes from the deck.

Actually, I think he may have it right this time.

Without knowing specifically why the Damaged Cockpit ruling came down as it did, I think it would be a mistake to draw precedent from it. Lacking that, we'd have to fall back on the standard definition of "dealt", which means it only kicks in when it comes from the deck.

That was a joke - he said inconceivable, so I was quoting the Princess Bride.

Actually, I think he may have it right this time.

Without knowing specifically why the Damaged Cockpit ruling came down as it did, I think it would be a mistake to draw precedent from it. Lacking that, we'd have to fall back on the standard definition of "dealt", which means it only kicks in when it comes from the deck.

If this is how we want to play it, that's fine.

Just as long as I have something I can point to when I play it this way.

And I am also not left-handed...