Not a fan at all of the changes. I understand this was a needed fix, but the cards were not errata'ed but basically rewritten! Just look at all of the potential fixes for this- reissue, print on your home printer... Imagine if you are a new player and just bought the core set and learned the rules. They are adding A LOT of potential confusion. I questing the play-testing the designers are doing. I think there was much easier ways to accomplish this without total card rewrites, 1) Just bump up the cost of individual group or an escalating cost as you add more of the same group. (+2, +3 +4 etc.) 2) Limit to 2 groups on your squad

Of course, but passive means not watching a game and correcting every possible error. Self loathing? I wouldn't go that far. However, I'd wager in the vast majority of cases players who hold the view that it's wrong for anyone to allow corrections, takebacks or any form of leniency do so because they don't allow such themselves: if allowing takebacks is wrong then not allowing them is right. It's a natural reaction to feeling socially pressured to allow leniency when you don't. I've seen it described as being "guilt tripped" or "shamed" by players on this forum before. If you feel you're being judged negatively by someone else you'll probably judge them negatively back. In the same vein, the other extreme is likely to drop the WAAC bomb when they're the ones who feel their position is being judged. You could also draw parallels with Extreme B getting angry at not being allowed a takeback: being angry at your opponent for not allowing a takeback means not being angry at yourself: it's mentally shifting the blame. Nah think of it this way, At turn 0, squad facing the wrong way, lets say 95% of players will allow a correction. At turn 1, ship off the board, lets say 75% of players will allow a correction. At turn 2, ship off the board, lets say 25% of players will allow a correction. At turn 8, ship off the board, lets say 5% of players will allow a correction. Now at turn 0 is the 95% wrong for allowing this to happen? Sure as Vanor likes to points you are 'breaking the rule" but that doesnt solve anything, what the question is what is the 'right' thing to do? Turn 0 seems ok for change but what about turn 3? Is there truly a right answer? My point is I dont have an right 'answer' but just consider the situation. What camp is that?

Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you- " There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you. Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that." My point is simply consider the situation. Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world. I fail to see the Irony. My post was simply that Camp 2 acknowledges the rules and that you're not a bad sport or horrible person if you enforce the rules. VanorDM's post was trying to explain that there is no grey area to breaking the rules. The rule says something and if you go against that, you are breaking the rules. He never said that you must always follow the rules, there is no leeway. Just know that by letting a person change their dial after the fact, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES. Do you understand? "Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B." Vanor says this, "If however you're in a tournament then what you do affects everyone else there. Also I don't think it's a huge stretch to say allowing someone to keep a ship that should be destroyed is a form of collusion to change the score, which is explicitly against the rules. " "You are wrong, because it is unfair for someone to pick and chose when to follow the rules and when not to. That's why cheating is considered a bad thing." Fascinating way to characterize your camp.... So what is Camp 2 saying in this tournament setting? Sure sounds like there is only 1 right answer from "CAMP 2" , if your breaking the rules, then Collusion! Where exactly is Vanor allowing the leeway in the tournament setting? And apparently, breaking the rules (Rebel Captive) to correct the prior error is ok because it is an exception. Please do tell is there any more exceptions? I mean the rules are clear on a missed opportunity. Not sure how the example is flawed. If both players forget in the proper timing window- no stress. Putting stress out of the right timing window is quite clearly breaking the rules. What exactly does 'Fly casual" mean to you? Shake hands after the game? Or is it out the window in a all very very important tourney?

My understanding though I could be wrong was TOs needed to be passive and are not a referee. Only if they are asked a question, resolve a dispute, judge on a rule or ambiguity but they not an active participant to call something out. If they are asked to rule, the ship must then complete the maneuver.

That's an overstatement so massive it can be seen from space. NOBODY who'd enforce the orientation of the ship as placed has said a single negative thing? ALL people who'd give a takeback have been hurling insults? Come on now. #NotAllCasuals, dude.Seriously, there's been plenty of defensive histrionic horse**** in this thread from people on both sides of the debate. It doesn't matter whether you'd enforce the rules or give your opponent a take-back. Both of those courses are defensible in good faith, and most people wouldn't always do one or the other in every possible situation. The Very Soul Of The Game doesn't hang in the balance over the One True Answer to this question. What matters is that whatever you decide, don't be a **** about it. And that on the other side you shouldn't expect your opponent to let you break the rules of the game because you ****ed up. tl;dr - TasteTheRainbow had this **** right back on Page 1. I'm sorry for over-exaggerating. The point I was trying to make, was that there are 2 sides. Camp 1 - It was a clear mistake and you should let him change it, if you make him follow the rules you're a bad sport. Camp 2 - It was a mistake, but it's the players mistake and the rules say he flies off the board. However if Player B wants to be super nice and let him do the intended move, that's up up to Player B. Camp 2 has never said "you always follow the rules, there's never any leeway". Camp 2 allows for either action to be taken, and you're not a bad person if you make the player follow the rules. Camp 1 on the other hand - and it has been several (sorry not all, and i'm not going back through 15 pages to sort out who, Force Kin was one), that clearly with not provocation say "The "RIGHT" thing to do is let them change it and you're a bad sport, sh*tty human and horrible person(may not be quoting exactly just paraphrasing) if you make them fly off the board" Any negativity from Camp 2 only came about because they were called bad sports and sh*tty people by a few in Camp 1. Oh the irony for "Camp 2", literally one post before you- " There is nothing in the rules that allow either side to change a legal maneuver once it's been revealed. It's quite clear that per the rules, you must perform it, regardless of how good or bad it is for you. Changing the dial after the fact is only allowed in the case where the maneuver isn't legal, and if both sides allow a legal maneuver to be changed then both sides are in fact breaking the rules. It really is as simple as that." My point is simply consider the situation. Following rules rigidly is sometime not what is best especially in this type of game. (Example- Rebel captive thread- you forgot rebel captive (Ignoring mal intent) and no stress is on the mat and the next ship fired it is a missed opportunity and stress per the rules cannot be retroactively placed if the next ship fired. However, most agree if it is forgotten, you will do what is best to correct it without affecting the game state.) I am sure some might have problems reconciling "following the rules" and doing "what is right" in a black and white world.

It is black and white. The 'spirit of the rules' is highly subjective and what you're trying to argue is the RAI, and no one but the developers can know what the intention behind the rules are. Neither side has any authority to declare "I'm going to do X, even though the rules say I can't, because that's part of the spirit of the rules" You either follow the rules or you don't. Any time anyone brings out the 'spirit of the game' that pretty much always means they know the rules don't support it but feel it should be allowed anyway. There is a point where if both sides agree, the rules can be broken and still have a fair game, but that doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the rules. Edit: The issue here is that when you're playing at a tournament, everyone needs to be playing by the same rules. Otherwise you no longer really have a fair competition. Most of what you mention below is really setup errors and not the same thing as turning the wrong way on turn 2. While I, for the most part, agree with the rest of your post, I don't think it's particularly crazy to assume that it was not the intention of the developers to fly your ship off the edge of the board in turn one. Exactly, they even explicitly put in text to allow you to complete a legal maneuver if you put down the wrong dial for the wrong ship. They understand stuff happens. Otherwise, other people would scream, "Not in the rules!!!!" even though the maneuver may be legal and affect nothing. People are not getting that part. Really, if you want a black and white game with clear cut rules your playing the wrong game, play chess. Xwing has a lot of bumps, error, interpretations, gamesmanship etc and it seems to be driving the A types problems when these issues come up and they dont know how to handle the gray unless there is an explicit rule. Edit: "There is a point where if both sides agree, the rules can be broken and still have a fair game, but that doesn't change the fact that you are breaking the rules." There is a difference between a unintended "goof" and breaking the rules. You have to look at the situation and the circumstances first or you risk being not in the spirit of the game.

They're semi-forgiving now really. I think the problem is that some people get confused on what is truly a missed opportunity, and what isn't. If someone moves a ship and takes no action for it. They can if the other person allows take their action later on. They could even boost or barrel roll if the other guy allows it. The whole point is that it's all at the discretion of the other player. However in the OP's case, there is no rule that allows someone to change the dial after the fact, it's not something that's at the discretion of the players. That said I may allow it myself if I it happened. My issue isn't with people who do that, my issue is when people try to say this should be the default behavior. And make no mistake, most people think good sportsmanship should be the default behavior. Honestly I've never seen anyone set up backwards. I don't think it's actually an issue. As far as first turn fly offs... You make a rule for that, and then people want it for 2nd turn, and then 3rd turn, and then they'll think it should apply when it's the last ship on the table, ect... I've been to 8 or so tournaments so far, store championships, regionals, local ones, and play every other wednesday in a league. I've seen one person that I'd consider to be a truly poor sport in that time. I think far too many people are expecting behavior that just isn't that common. The point is, some people want to see this in a black and white only. It is not in the rules not allowed! People are not understanding there is a lot of gray, especially in a game like this. It really is not a slippery slope, just some common sense and a lot of people do not like that it seems. Let's say the opponent put the wrong pilot on the ship and noticed right after time was started. I am sure 1/2 would say, DQ-ed! Pay more attention next time! Would they be correct and more within the rules? Probably. However, the other 1/2 would say no problem just fix it as they can see the bigger picture here- it is just a game and we want a 'fair' match with. Now let say this happened on turn 8, would the situation change if firing was out of order etc? Of course.

Basically, easy way to sum this thread up. I really not sure if the OP is out just to troll the forums and stir stuff up for his amusement or really that socially challenged as others have observed. I hope the former.

Funny because FF did just that with the cloaking rule and boost.... But that is not the point, what is described is a goof in round 2. I really hope people can see the distinction. If your afraid you are opening a can of worms for the rest of the game and are so worried about now having to let your opponent off every time there is a bump, sounds like a total overreaction to but it is your call. I am glad to see a lot of sportsmanship in Xwing. Tons of example such as the game where a phantom cloaked out of the board before the rule change but the opponent forgave the error and didnt let it happen. The guy won anyway. Or the Bounty hunter list vs X wings and Biggs was removed from the board but allowed to be placed back since it shouldnt have been destroyed. Bounty hunter guy ended up losing. Mind you those were all big important tournaments. Heck, just in Nationals 2015 finals tokens were getting placed out of order after a shot.

Yeah, I think people forget this, it is a game and people should still have fun, even at the "highest" levels. There is another post about taking advantage or not of a goof early in the game. People are losing sight of the bigger picture. There is a difference between fun and competitive and being a d-bag. Lucky,a lot of big time players of the years have set a good example on youtube.

Before you crash your plane into the ship, remember to yell at the top of your lungs, "Sink without fail!" and all the cherry blossoms at Yamaguchi Shrine in Tokyo will smile brightly upon you. Yes, you should have flown your opponent off the map. You robbed yourself of an autowin OP. I always double check my dials so that they're in my intended direction, if your opponent is too incompetent to do that then let that be his downfall. Hence, the phrase "fly casual". He should do whatever he wants, in this case play with gentlemanly sportsmanship. Seems he is regretting due to the OP though. Unlike you who plays to win at all costs.

You seemed confused about what your argument point is. Phantoms beat low pilot skill generic X 4 lists but you come to the opposite conclusion. Phantoms increase list diversity seems the more logical conclusion.

Did you like a particular brand? Gloss or Dull work better?

They literally just stated it was about balance. "Also, we’ve made a ruling on the interaction between XI7 Turbolasers and Advanced Projectors, opting to favor the turbolasers over the powerful defensive retrofit in the interests of future game balance." I agree the conflicting text made for a lot of confusion.

Can you give a better example? Interact is always an action, unless mission rules state otherwise. "Action", RRG, Page 3: During a figure’s activation, it may perform two actions. The available actions are Attack, Move, Interact, Rest, and Special. If I were to wager a guess at what you are referring to, my guess would be that these scenarios utilize the words "Retrieve" and "Claim", which are often overlooked references: "Retrieving Tokens", RRG, Page 22: Some missions allow figures to retrieve specific tokens. A figure adjacent to or in the same space as the token can perform an interact to retrieve the token. Place the token on the figure’s base to mark that the figure is now carrying that token. The token now moves with the figure. A carried token cannot be retrieved by other figures, traded to other figures, or voluntarily dropped. If a figure is defeated, any tokens that it is carrying are dropped in its space. This includes when a hero becomes wounded or if he withdraws. Mission rules specify the effect and purpose of retrieving tokens. At the end of a mission, all carried tokens are returned to the game box. Retrieving a token is not claiming a token. "Claim", RRG, Page 8: When a player claims a token or component, he places it in his play area. The effect of claiming a token is explained in the mission’s rules. At the end of a mission, all claimed tokens are returned to the game box. Perfect, exactly what I was referring to Geonosis Foundry (Weapons project B) I guess I played it sort of right, except in bullet point 2, the experiential weapon is not discarded but only dropped. : / I wish they were consistent with terms so you don't have to refer to another rule, just state "interact" like they did in Mos Eisley Outskirts A: "A figure can interact..."

Interesting... for some reason I thought i read you cannot target the same figure. Anyways since you guys are experts in rules I have another quick question (Off-topic but doesnt need a new thread) about skirmish which way underrated in my opinion. A lot of scenarios rules are vague on the cards such as you can pick a shield or pick up an experimental weapon etc. Explicitly it is not stated you use an action... but do you?

In addition, to clarify you cannot attack the same figure?

Reminds me of the rebel captive situation where it is both players responsibility to play the game correctly, even to your detriment. If the other player had a chance to fire you should have reminded him.

Oh boy, 8 pages of this, VanorDM is right though. Re-roll is the correct answer. The simplest answer is sometimes the best, you rolled a invalid roll- just redo. I really dont like the idea your opponent gets to decide which dice you remove... just imagine adding another layer of complexity to fix a goof. You now sit there for a minute as your opponent decides to remove a focus or a hit to force you to use your focus... and you know there are players that will way overthink it. Plus, you are adding a punishment to the player which does not fit at all with the spirit of the game in my opinion- as the game state is not affected as opposed to the needed rules with red dials and stress of using the wrong dial etc.

I agree, doesnt modify dice, just cancel a result.

One target, otherwise you can triple stress bot a target (Because you declare attack targets X3) and I am sure you cannot! It does not act like a gunner attack where you can declare a 2nd target and double vader crit. Declare target -> Attack (Card lets you attack X 2) but not allow you to declare again.

Not really true, countless popular games and under the radar games take the world by storm. And with the exposure, the sales, and distribution of Armada, there seems to be legitimate issues. It has been described as the biggest FFG release (sales) of all time per the FFG Gencon presentation if I am not mistaken. The serious problems have been already outlined with the state of the game, but they do not reflect the OP reasoning at all. It blatantly obvious why FF is doing the pre-release prize kits for wave 2, they absolutely know interest is waning due to the delays, etc.

Sure First his whole post is a big anecdotal fallacy because he has no facts to back up his claim. For example Armada is not teetering, it is in fact per the last survey taken the 3rd best selling miniature game. The only evidence we have at all fly's directly in contradiction of the opening statement. He also makes the Argument from authority because he is presenting his statements as facts not opinions. "but everyone, even at GenCon, (I was there...) are saying the exact same things." and "If you are playing Imperials, and you use fighters... you're doing it wrong." I could go on but I've made my point. The OP is making statements and not willing to accept any sort of proof to the contrary, because these are all established and immutable facts, not opinions per his post. The OP has a point... it may be selling fine, it just is not hitting the table as much for various reasons.How many people were at US Nationals? 90+? That seems really good for a 5 month old game. I dont understand your point. There is a bit of a difference from Nationals at Gencon to your average gamestore, ya think?

To be fair, the kid's been working in a droid shop all his life. He probably knows a few things about 'em. I never really thought the whole child-building-a-droid thing was too far-fetched. It's not impossible. And I friggin loved the podracing game. Had it on the PC as a kid, would be ecstatic to play it again. Need a flightstick again... Oh it's far-fetched. Think about it: Why did Anakin build a protocol droid? He says in the movie that he built C-3PO to help his mom around the house. But how would a droid that, as C-3PO itself says, is really only useful for translation be able to help around the house? His arms don't even bend. Anakin's mom didn't need translation services, she needed someone to wash the dishes — an activity C-3PO does not appear capable of doing. Basically you are not allowed to think at all if you watch the prequels. Just youtube redlettermedia if you need to be entertained.