Wow, you can't even do what I asked. By following my structure of actions, you could see that you wouldn't be banking an action, because yet again, you are caught on banking. We all know that when a ship ends its turn, if no actions are assigned, it passed its action phase. Meaning this is the point, here, cut and dry. No actions carry through a ships allotted turn, meaning no follow through of a movement or action for a chain effect. This is all happening in the activation phase window, nothing more, nothing less.

I honestly didnt think some one could be that blatantly ignorant, so the rule book just seriously went out the window?

I love these threads. Strictly from an anthropological standpoint.

Wait so now we ARE allowed to interpret for ourselves what they strongly imply, rather than having it spelled out for us...?

In conversation with Hujoe Bigs he brought up a good point...

Remember how we all thought boosting and barrel rolling through objects was possible because of the interpretation of the rules that was commonly accepted?

Remember that FFG said no, you're wrong and you can't?

What we interpret to be a correct ruling and what actually is may be different.

On a side note, please keep in mind this is a game where half the rules are in symbol form - eyeballs, open explodey things, closed explodey things, squiggly arrows - that aren't named or defined anywhere in the rules. Deliberately. We call them focus, crit, hit, evade, but they don't actually have NAMES. We just have a general understanding of what they represent.

So if you seriously think we'll get an elaborate definition of the timing rules and a concise; thorough glossary of consistently used terms, keep dreaming. We sometimes get rulings. Those rulings sometimes come with some context but often are Yes that works, No that doesn't work; with zero explanation as to WHY it works or doesn't.

We're not going to get any better than that.

Wow. Just wow.

Pg 2 of the rulebook under Component List for the Core Set:

"4 evade tokens

3 focus tokens"

Pg 13 of the rulebook under 7. Deal Damage:

"The hit ship suffers one DAMAGE for each uncanceled (hit symbol) result, and then suffers one CRITICAL DAMAGE for each uncanceled (critical symbol) result."

The ALL CAPS words were actually ALL CAPS in the rulebook so don't say I'm yelling at you.

We SAY "I got two hits and a crit" but those are shorthand terms not found in that context in the rules.

Remember how we all thought boosting and barrel rolling through objects was possible because of the interpretation of the rules that was commonly accepted?

No. Thought that one was spelled out pretty clearly, without need for clarification. Reminds me of another situation that I recently... oh, I see... it's still going on.

Wow, you can't even do what I asked. By following my structure of actions, you could see that you wouldn't be banking an action, because yet again, you are caught on banking. We all know that when a ship ends its turn, if no actions are assigned, it passed its action phase. Meaning this is the point, here, cut and dry. No actions carry through a ships allotted turn, meaning no follow through of a movement or action for a chain effect. This is all happening in the activation phase window, nothing more, nothing less.

I honestly didnt think some one could be that blatantly ignorant, so the rule book just seriously went out the window?

• 19 Action Tokens, consisting of:

- 4 Evade Tokens <---- gives the symbol meaning

- 3 Focus Tokens <---- gives the symbol meaning

- 6 Red Target Lock Tokens (double-sided)

- 6 Blue Target Lock Tokens (double-sided)

Just because they have a symbol assigned to it does not make it not what it means.

Ships with the icon "squiggly arrow" in their action bar may perform

the evade action. To perform this action, place one

evade token near the ship.

Ships with the "eye" icon in their action bar may

perform the focus action. To perform this action,

place one focus token near the ship.

The hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled "hit"

result, and then suffers one critical damage for

each uncanceled "critical" result. For each damage or critical

damage suffered, the ship must lose one shield token.

If it has no shield tokens, it must receive one Damage

card instead (see “Suffering Damage” on page 16).

Sure they don't come out blatantly and say that is what they mean but they are implied so strongly that if you didn't know what they meant, you literally just don't care. For damage I understand because you are not actually damaging the ship till the other ships fails to dodge then it would be transfered to a hit/crit.

But if you are going to be that general, yeah, we should be able to do what ever we want in our turn, even flying off the map and coming back.

You're making my point. You're arguing in favor of "action phase," as granted by Advanced Sensors, Movement Phase, then another Action Phase, using PTL, then Combat. AS let's you take an action, THEN move. PTL lets you follow an action with another action. Nowhere does it say you can flat out split the action phase in two. Move then action is fine. Action, then move is fine with AS. How is action, movement, then more action ok? And then why not action, move, combat, then another action before your turn ends?

On a side note, please keep in mind this is a game where half the rules are in symbol form - eyeballs, open explodey things, closed explodey things, squiggly arrows - that aren't named or defined anywhere in the rules. Deliberately. We call them focus, crit, hit, evade, but they don't actually have NAMES. We just have a general understanding of what they represent.

So if you seriously think we'll get an elaborate definition of the timing rules and a concise; thorough glossary of consistently used terms, keep dreaming. We sometimes get rulings. Those rulings sometimes come with some context but often are Yes that works, No that doesn't work; with zero explanation as to WHY it works or doesn't.

We're not going to get any better than that.

Wow. Just wow.

Pg 2 of the rulebook under Component List for the Core Set:

"4 evade tokens

3 focus tokens"

Pg 13 of the rulebook under 7. Deal Damage:

"The hit ship suffers one DAMAGE for each uncanceled (hit symbol) result, and then suffers one CRITICAL DAMAGE for each uncanceled (critical symbol) result."

The ALL CAPS words were actually ALL CAPS in the rulebook so don't say I'm yelling at you.

But that's my point - yes the tokens have names, yes, we know what they represent. But they are not CALLED "hit symbol" or "crit symbol" anywhere. They just use the closed explosion all over the place. One squiggly arrow cancels one closed explosion, but one open explosion remains - Rookie pilot is hit! The symbols themselves - not the dice, not the tokens, do not have names. We just call them by the game concept they most closely represent.

We SAY "I got two hits and a crit" but those are shorthand terms not found in that context in the rules.

So what you're saying is I should give up on my idea of contacting FFG because this game has a lot more things it needs clarified than just what I'm concerned about, especially what the names of the dice results are. I should believe you because you know for a fact that I am wrong and that to say otherwise will get me nowhere.

Actually the names of the dice results don't matter at all to how the game is played, only what they do. You could play a whole game and call them this and that and the other. As long as you know what they do in the game, (which we do,) then their name isn't much of an issue. We know how they work in the game. That much has been explained at length.

What we haven't gotten a clear explanation of is the exact way certain terms used in the game correlate with the game mechanics. Sure, we don't need that for the dice results, because we know how they work through the rulebook. Instead of getting explanations and no names with these terms, we have gotten the opposite: Names and no definitions.

Until these terms definitions have been stated officially, I don't see a reason to treat the current understanding as a solid fact when it is more of a theory that has not been completely proven.

If I get a simple Yes or No, that is still a Yes or No coming from official channels and it's good enough for me. The designers of the game have the right to explain or not explain, to say yes or no as they see fit. Why does that seem to be bothersome to others if I want to have something confirmed from the original source rather than a third party?

We can see that actions are done only during control of the ship, before moving onto the next ship. There is no proof otherwise from FAQ or rulebook. We can use both the standard Move/Action/End phase for a ship as well as the example of Turr, which allows the use of PtL outside of the normal action phase but still inside the control phase for this ship in the combat phase.

So what if I use Squad Leader on Vader to pass an action to Howlrunner, who has Push the Limit? Seems like that is a Push the Limit trigger that's outside of the "control phase" (fictional term there, BTW) for Howlrunner. How does your system handle that?

In conversation with Hujoe Bigs he brought up a good point...

Remember how we all thought boosting and barrel rolling through objects was possible because of the interpretation of the rules that was commonly accepted?

Remember that FFG said no, you're wrong and you can't?

What we interpret to be a correct ruling and what actually is may be different.

Actually, our interpretation of the ruling was perfectly correct. That's why it required errata to fix it. If we'd been wrong, they wouldn't have had to change the rules to correct the problem.

Is true - we did the prox mine thing exactly as it was written to do. That simply turned out to be not what they WANTED it to do.

On a side note, please keep in mind this is a game where half the rules are in symbol form - eyeballs, open explodey things, closed explodey things, squiggly arrows - that aren't named or defined anywhere in the rules. Deliberately. We call them focus, crit, hit, evade, but they don't actually have NAMES. We just have a general understanding of what they represent.

So if you seriously think we'll get an elaborate definition of the timing rules and a concise; thorough glossary of consistently used terms, keep dreaming. We sometimes get rulings. Those rulings sometimes come with some context but often are Yes that works, No that doesn't work; with zero explanation as to WHY it works or doesn't.

We're not going to get any better than that.

Wow. Just wow.

Pg 2 of the rulebook under Component List for the Core Set:

"4 evade tokens

3 focus tokens"

Pg 13 of the rulebook under 7. Deal Damage:

"The hit ship suffers one DAMAGE for each uncanceled (hit symbol) result, and then suffers one CRITICAL DAMAGE for each uncanceled (critical symbol) result."

The ALL CAPS words were actually ALL CAPS in the rulebook so don't say I'm yelling at you.

But that's my point - yes the tokens have names, yes, we know what they represent. But they are not CALLED "hit symbol" or "crit symbol" anywhere. They just use the closed explosion all over the place. One squiggly arrow cancels one closed explosion, but one open explosion remains - Rookie pilot is hit! The symbols themselves - not the dice, not the tokens, do not have names. We just call them by the game concept they most closely represent.

We SAY "I got two hits and a crit" but those are shorthand terms not found in that context in the rules.

So what you're saying is I should give up on my idea of contacting FFG because this game has a lot more things it needs clarified than just what I'm concerned about, especially what the names of the dice results are. I should believe you because you know for a fact that I am wrong and that to say otherwise will get me nowhere.

Actually the names of the dice results don't matter at all to how the game is played, only what they do. You could play a whole game and call them this and that and the other. As long as you know what they do in the game, (which we do,) then their name isn't much of an issue. We know how they work in the game. That much has been explained at length.

What we haven't gotten a clear explanation of is the exact way certain terms used in the game correlate with the game mechanics. Sure, we don't need that for the dice results, because we know how they work through the rulebook. Instead of getting explanations and no names with these terms, we have gotten the opposite: Names and no definitions.

Until these terms definitions have been stated officially, I don't see a reason to treat the current understanding as a solid fact when it is more of a theory that has not been completely proven.

If I get a simple Yes or No, that is still a Yes or No coming from official channels and it's good enough for me. The designers of the game have the right to explain or not explain, to say yes or no as they see fit. Why does that seem to be bothersome to others if I want to have something confirmed from the original source rather than a third party?

All I'm saying is the only confusion with After was brought up here, and the only conflict it causes is with this hypothetical combination of abilities, which involves, depending on how you look at it, taking two distinct non-adjacent action phases, or breaking your action phase into two, with your movement in the middle. Not taking a second action following the first, or taking your action phase before you move, as directed by the cards. Just...splitting it up however is necessary to make it work. And then complaining its a poor definition of the term After that is preventing it from working and demanding an official clarification.

If we get one, terrific. But there is absolutely nothing in the game to indicate you can split your action phase in two - not take two actions in the same phase, as PTL has always worked just fine - with a movement phase wedged in the middle. Nothing. And it requires CREATING confusion over a term where previously there was none, to make it work the way you suggest. If you don't like our explanation, fine, let us know when you hear back, or come up with one that fits in the game rules without bending them and redefining words until they break to make it fit.

The word is not defined. How can one bend or redefine a word when the word is not defined to begin with? Again it is being treated as a fact that the word "After" is clearly defined from the original source without showing proof. All I have been shown is other player's explanation of how they think it works according to their own interpretation of the game rules. How is that not defining a word that is currently undefined, just as you claim I am doing?

I don't want to define the word myself, I don't want to redefine or bend the word until it breaks. I don't want to create confusion I want to have clarity. I want to know for a certainty that the way I am playing the game is as accurate as possible (according to FFG) in that "after" is only meant to mean immediately after but not as immediate as "immediately after". (That sentence totally makes sense.)

If the only way you're ever going to be certain is with word from FFG, why are you tormenting us? Outside of doing your best to throw wrenches in the works and erode a perfectly functional understanding of the game because it doesn't meet your exacting standards, what exactly is the point here? Why are you even sullying yourself in conversation with us, when your fundamental point seems to be that none of us can possibly ever answer this question?

If the only way you're ever going to be certain is with word from FFG, why are you tormenting us? Outside of doing your best to throw wrenches in the works and erode a perfectly functional understanding of the game because it doesn't meet your exacting standards, what exactly is the point here? Why are you even sullying yourself in conversation with us, when your fundamental point seems to be that none of us can possibly ever answer this question?

My initial question was to see if I was missing something within the rules or faq of the game that proved me wrong and that hopefully one of you fine gents/ladies had knowledge of it. I've come to understand that I need to go to the source to get my answer through conversation with everyone here and now that I know that there isn't much else to say on the subject really. Everyone keeps trying to tell me I'm wrong when there's no facts to backup their ideas. I don't mean to torment anyone about anything, I just don't particularly like being told what's right without proof. Blind faith is not something I buy into, if that makes any sense. I don't intend to throw wrenches into any works, I've made it pretty clear my intention is to get a better understanding of the game so that it can be played more accurately, despite what everyone seems to think here. At the end of the day, I enjoy this game just as much as anyone else. I'm just a bit of a stickler for the rules.

Remember how we all thought boosting and barrel rolling through objects was possible because of the interpretation of the rules that was commonly accepted?

No. Thought that one was spelled out pretty clearly, without need for clarification. Reminds me of another situation that I recently... oh, I see... it's still going on.

I actually wish there was a search function on the forums, but yes it was public opinion that boost and barrel rolls, since not being maneuvers, just using the template could go through a object with out ill effect, hence the FAQ update. And to all the other people, it was a rule that was thought to be correct, but in the eyes of the makers, it was not, which only helps this topic. If it was right, why did they have to change it?

We can see that actions are done only during control of the ship, before moving onto the next ship. There is no proof otherwise from FAQ or rulebook. We can use both the standard Move/Action/End phase for a ship as well as the example of Turr, which allows the use of PtL outside of the normal action phase but still inside the control phase for this ship in the combat phase.

So what if I use Squad Leader on Vader to pass an action to Howlrunner, who has Push the Limit? Seems like that is a Push the Limit trigger that's outside of the "control phase" (fictional term there, BTW) for Howlrunner. How does your system handle that?

That fits in the same way as Turr, you are giving an action to another ship, so that ship now is the one being controlled, or active ship (these are just phrases I'm tossing out to give a better understanding of where I am coming from), once you have done the action, and said that is the final say, and move onto another ship you are now done with that sequence and the ability to chain is no longer there. You all want to keep going and saying there is no clear end, but there is, much like chess, you remove your hand from the piece you are done (but in this example when we are done with our action and say so either via passing or using an action on it).

The thing is, I am encapsulating the phases like they are in the rule book. I am saying all that can be done in a phase before moving to the next, which would cause the end of the chain. So the action phase would allow full control of your ship like normal and the flow for most ships would follow this normal flow. So if you wanted to chain something in it, you would be able to.

I understand interpreting the rules, but again, the thing is you are all acting like interpreting the rules in your manner is the be all, end all. Even after being corrected on different occasions. If there was strong enough evidence to support this, I could see that. We don't have that though, we have evidence of how to use the system as it started, but not as it evolved.

Where in the rules does it state that a ship cannot perform actions after it is no longer active?

Where in the rules does it state that a ship cannot perform actions after it is no longer active?

No where, but again, that is moving more to destroying the system. I am going off interpretations, just like every one else, saying that the wording means it HAS to follow, but really, we have no true defined time that actions must stop, but we do have a phase window we can draw from. So your comment is just a boon to both sides.

And here's the thing - all snark aside, I sympathize. I do. I'd love to have a rulebook that was half again as long and twice as detailed. I'd love to get quick replies to rule inquiries and not wait months for an unexpected FAQ update. One will come, it'll undoubtedly answer some of our questions. It'll almost as undoubtedly raise some new ones nobody knew they had, because that's how they do.

But in a gentler way than Buhalin put it, he's right; if a general consensus isn't going to work for you, and you're unwilling to bend, waver, compromise, or concede, there's not much point in discussing it. I have never once in regards to *anything* seen an FFG staffer step in and respond to a question, no matter how hotly debated. They just don't do that for some reason. There is no 'rules guy' who stands up and takes questions from the class.

In fact, I was in a thread that got shut down by the moderator the other day, because people were getting a little heated, and I swear to you my first thought was "holy sh - we have MODERATORS?" It was like getting told to knock it off by a unicorn, only I think I would have bet on seeing a unicorn first.

So they'll either deign to answer this question in an FAQ update, or they won't. Maybe someone will corner them at some Con and force a secondhand answer from them. But until then I can guarantee it's going to be radio silence on the FFG front. If your stance is sincerely "I will listen to nothing until I hear it from FFG themselves," you might as well go wait quietly someplace, because this ain't going to be where you get that answer.

And here's the thing - all snark aside, I sympathize. I do. I'd love to have a rulebook that was half again as long and twice as detailed. I'd love to get quick replies to rule inquiries and not wait months for an unexpected FAQ update. One will come, it'll undoubtedly answer some of our questions. It'll almost as undoubtedly raise some new ones nobody knew they had, because that's how they do.

But in a gentler way than Buhalin put it, he's right; if a general consensus isn't going to work for you, and you're unwilling to bend, waver, compromise, or concede, there's not much point in discussing it. I have never once in regards to *anything* seen an FFG staffer step in and respond to a question, no matter how hotly debated. They just don't do that for some reason. There is no 'rules guy' who stands up and takes questions from the class.

In fact, I was in a thread that got shut down by the moderator the other day, because people were getting a little heated, and I swear to you my first thought was "holy sh - we have MODERATORS?" It was like getting told to knock it off by a unicorn, only I think I would have bet on seeing a unicorn first.

So they'll either deign to answer this question in an FAQ update, or they won't. Maybe someone will corner them at some Con and force a secondhand answer from them. But until then I can guarantee it's going to be radio silence on the FFG front. If your stance is sincerely "I will listen to nothing until I hear it from FFG themselves," you might as well go wait quietly someplace, because this ain't going to be where you get that answer.

I am still playing my games, and still playing them how the general opinion is (for the most part they make sense), but I just would rather squash ruling bugs with hard fact before they become a problem in league play or that guy at the hobby store that purposely tries to ruin every ones fun with rule questions.

Again though, the rules can go either way and when people say they are right because of general opinion when there have been cases that they were wrong even though they might of interpreted it correctly the first go round.

That's why you should always have a taser in with your templates and dice and stuff.

No where, but again, that is moving more to destroying the system. I am going off interpretations, just like every one else, saying that the wording means it HAS to follow, but really, we have no true defined time that actions must stop, but we do have a phase window we can draw from. So your comment is just a boon to both sides.

You actually don't have a phase window. Yes, phases are a part of the game, but that's it, and they have nothing to do with anything you're claiming. Literally everything else you're trying to use to draw your lines is utterly invented from whole cloth, and it's done with no justification whatsoever other than supporting what you want the end result to be. I swear, there are at least 3 concepts essential to what you're arguing that exist literally NOWHERE in the rules of the game.

So you know, I'm done trying to disprove your insanity. I'm sick to death of arguing with "You can't prove I'm wrong" silliness this week. You know what? YOU prove it. Find me something in the rules, or FAQ, or anything that PROVES your idea. Because you can't, and I'm sick of the bomb-throwing double standard. You want to tear down the work a bunch of us have done to make sense of these rules in the last year? Too freaking bad. Find a contradiction, find a problem, find something that doesn't function under the understanding we've developed. Then there will be a reason to reconsider it.

Because as these rules stand, I'd challenge you to PROVE that I can't drop a pink goddamn elephant on your models and declare victory. Go on - cite me a rule!

So very done with this.

Well and nobody here appreciates being told in big underlined bold text "I WANT PROOF YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME, YOU ARE NOT FFG SO YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT VALID YOU HAVE NO PROOF" so I guess we're all kind of even.

I'm happy to be nice right up to the point where we abandon all pretense of reasoned discussion and declare all opinions null, void, unwanted and unasked for until we have an official ruling. At that point you've declared your position intractable and all attempts to be persuaded pointless, so as Buhalin said - at that point why are you still going on?

If all you will accept is absolute 100% FFG-approved truth, and nothing else will suffice, why bother discussing at this point?

No where, but again, that is moving more to destroying the system. I am going off interpretations, just like every one else, saying that the wording means it HAS to follow, but really, we have no true defined time that actions must stop, but we do have a phase window we can draw from. So your comment is just a boon to both sides.

You actually don't have a phase window. Yes, phases are a part of the game, but that's it, and they have nothing to do with anything you're claiming. Literally everything else you're trying to use to draw your lines is utterly invented from whole cloth, and it's done with no justification whatsoever other than supporting what you want the end result to be. I swear, there are at least 3 concepts essential to what you're arguing that exist literally NOWHERE in the rules of the game.

So you know, I'm done trying to disprove your insanity. I'm sick to death of arguing with "You can't prove I'm wrong" silliness this week. You know what? YOU prove it. Find me something in the rules, or FAQ, or anything that PROVES your idea. Because you can't, and I'm sick of the bomb-throwing double standard. You want to tear down the work a bunch of us have done to make sense of these rules in the last year? Too freaking bad. Find a contradiction, find a problem, find something that doesn't function under the understanding we've developed. Then there will be a reason to reconsider it.

Because as these rules stand, I'd challenge you to PROVE that I can't drop a pink goddamn elephant on your models and declare victory. Go on - cite me a rule!

So very done with this.

Im sorry I don't fit your blogs version for the interpreting the rules. I'm really really sorry. The whole game is actually based off phases:

X-Wing is played over a series of game rounds.

If we look at option number 2, you can see that the phase has defined standard and must be met, what we are doing here is seeing how that phase actually works when an evolution of the game has happened, and the normal flow of the game is altered.

My suggestion my good sir, go breath, come back and then try again.

Edit: Also I am not on the train of prove me wrong, I am on the train of, dear god solve this before it comes an issue. I'm pretty sure that Groggy is in the same boat.