Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by haukurv

  1. Thank you very much for this fantastic program. Sure, there are some missing bits and the odd bug around, but it is awesome to get some feel for the handling of ships and to plan out the first couple of rounds for a new list. Very much appreciated!!
  2. Good good. This makes the most sense and is easiest to keep track of. Suspected that this would be the ruling.
  3. I agree @Lyianx that this should be the way to rule this, but unfortunately the term "revealed maneuver" is not clearly defined in the rules and the cards should probably have used "selected maneuver" instead. And I disagree that "actual meaning" is irrelevant, when we have something not clearly defined by the rules we only have "actual meaning" to go by until things are clearly ruled. Just clarifying again, I agree with you on the way the rules "should" handle this, but IMO they don't quite do so, leading to ambiguity which should ideally be officially resolved. with clear rulings.
  4. As I see it, based on language used in the rules it is: a) Reveal dial > this is your revealed maneuver. b) Change dial from revealed to something else > this is not the revealed maneuver anymore as it is no longer the same as you revealed. it was never revealed again but changed. revealed != changed. The actual meaning of "reveal" is to make something secret/unknown/hidden be known/visible. c) Use ability that lets you use a maneuver different from the one on the dial. This is your executed maneuver, not revealed maneuver or currently selected maneuver. So executed maneuver can be any of a, b or c. The only one of these that is visible is b, which would be by far the most convenient one to use when deciding on whether you can use an ability or not. This is however not what the wording of the rules say and could have been worded as "selected maneuver" if that was the intention or "executed maneuver" (which would make most sense when you think about the ability: if I go faster Based purely on the logic and meaning of words this is the logical way to interpret this. It is however rather inconvenient to have to keep track of what happened in a previous phase (you are explicitly prohibited from taking notes during tournament, so you cant even write it down to keep track) in the turn to know whether you can use an ability or not, though this is not the only case (Corrans disarm token comes in the beginning of next round, Sarco Planc needs to know executed maneuver.... to name a couple). So, even if the logical way to read the rules is that revealed maneuver is the one selected on the dial when you revealed it, it would be more convenient to use the selected maneuver for abilities as it is actually visible but would kinda make most sense thematically to use the maneuver that got executed. All 3 cases can be argued for and thus we do need a ruling to make it absolutely clear what "revealed maneuver" means. Until that is the case, the only way IMHO is to use the meaning of the words used to write the rules, which is the maneuver on the dial when it was revealed because when we have nothing better to use, we have to use the rules as written.
  5. Well that is certainly an indicator of how they intend this to work. A ruling stating that the revealed maneuver is the maneuver selected on the dial, after any modifications, would clear that up nicely. But until that is done, we will be having debates on how to handle it.
  6. BTW, just found that you should place the dials next to the pilot card afterwards, which indicates you should not tamper with them afterwards. But yea, there is indeed no record of what maneuver the ship actually performed. These new abilities call for record keeping previously unnecessary. The easiest way would be to use the maneuver set on the revealed dial, as "revealed maneuver" is not defined in the rules and logically that should be the maneuver on the dial when it was revealed but that is inconvenient and calls for information not visible anywhere but relies on history (which can't be recorded according to the tournament rules, as taking notes is expressively forbidden).
  7. Yup, dial is revealed and you execute the maneuver on the revealed dial. You should also place the dial next to the ship being activated. I think this is the first case of that actually being relevant. This is unfortunately very much open for debate as logically the revealed maneuver is the one on the dial when revealed and if it is then changed afterwards it is no longer the maneuver that was revealed. For the game mechanic it would though be a lot move convenient to use the maneuver currently set on the ships dial (after any modifications), as this makes the game state clear. For example in the case of a dispute where one player claims that the other player revealed one maneuver and then changed it to one higher or lower and that player then claims not to have done that, there is no way for a judge to verify this information if the dial has been changed from the "revealed" maneuver. But as currently "revealed maneuver" is not defined anywhere in the rules so TO has to make the call as is. Hopefully we get a rules clarification on this soon.
  8. I agree. A fellow player also pointed out that this could potentially cause very tricky situations for judges, if one player denies having executed a maneuver at certain speed, he could have changed his dial afterwards for example (nothing in the rules disallow that after performing the maneuver) and then the judge can not make a decision based on the board state. On top of that you can't note down the maneuvers according to the tournament rules, so that won't work as a fallback as is. Not that I expect this to happen often, but the possibility is there.
  9. Damnit!! I am so going to have this singing in my head every time I witness Palpatine/Sidious coordinating: "Wipe them out.... ALL OF THEM!"
  10. Aye we know, as seen in the discussion above. Check some posts in this thread where we discuss how easily it can be misinterpreted 😉
  11. No worries (this discussion is btw way more civil than some threads here...)🙂 The reload section is worded very similarly as the boost section but not identically: Boost: "When a ship performs a [boost] action, it boosts. A ship boosts by following these steps:" (coordinate and jam are worded in the same way fyi) vs. Reload: "When a ship performs the [reload] action, it reloads by performing the following steps:" There is subtle difference and if you read the reload it lacks the "... [reload] action it reloads. A ship reloads by..." part. If you only read the reload section and not the other similar ones, it is quite possible to get it wrong. Subtle difference, but makes it more prone to misunderstandings.
  12. It basically boils down to possible misinterpretation of how to resolve the reload action (I misunderstood it myself when I first read through it and explained why in an earlier post). If you misunderstand "reload" (as in the non-action) as "recharge the card" (again, see above) it makes sense not to get a disarm token. It was due to discussion and debate that I saw that I got it wrong the first time. I am pretty sure that I am not going to be the only one to misunderstand it this way and I am also pretty sure that not everyone admits being wrong in the face of evidence either 😉. So IMHO some clarification is warranted to prevent people from playing it wrong.
  13. Interestingly though, you can equip the energy-shells and some bomb, then (provided you can get 2 actions) reload both in the same round, get 2 disarm tokens, that then both pop at the end of the round!
  14. Aye, that is a strong indication that the intent is that "reload" should follow the steps described in the RR.
  15. Indeed. You could however equip the Energy-Shell charges and (IF it had given the ship a reload action) use it to reload bombs 😉
  16. In general, if the rules don't tell you what to do, you are in a limbo. You do not have instructions of what exactly you should be doing. So if stuff is not clear you may have to guess. In this particular case, I personally missed the "it reloads by" part that strongly suggests that you perform all these steps when reloading, but, as I point out in my last post here, there are 2 ways of reading the sentence. The first one lacks the instructions on how to reload, as it is entirely possible to understand reload > recover a charge (which is though poorly supported by the rules) or that these are the steps you follow to reload (and not just for reload action) which has better support in the rules, but to support that conclusion you have to read the rules for other action/non-action "happening" similarities.
  17. Just for analysis purposes, lets look at this. (reminder, I don't have a personal preference, just looking at the clarity of the rules). "When a ship performs the [RELOAD] action, it reloads by performing the following steps:" gives you two options of interpretation: When you perform the reload action you follow these steps to reload (which then lacks any further instructions). When you perform the reload action you reload, and reloading is performing these steps. But because "reload" does not have any further definition, we have only one way of solving this (2). As in other cases we can not be certain of the intent. For example the new rulings on non traditional bomb drops (that circumvent the "one device per turn limit without specifically stating they do.
  18. I actually wrote that I DO NOT prefer either way, just that I thought this was unclear, as others have agreed with (here and elsewhere). So ignoring stuff I do not like is pretty impossible if I do not actually have a preference. But as you mention, the "it reloads by" clause does indeed indicate that the ESC action to reload does follow these steps.
  19. In a discussion elsewhere by comparing to other instances of performing actions that are not specifically [ACTION X] (boosting and coordinating for example) these are handled exactly like the "parent" action with the same restrictions except where specifically stated otherwise. So based on those comparisons you would get a disarm token.
  20. The card reads: Action: Reload this card. The relevant Rules Ref reads: RELOAD ([RELOAD]) Pilots can reload to rearm ordnance tubes by moving around ammo on their ship. When a ship performs the [RELOAD] action, it reloads by performing the following steps: 1. Choose one of the ship’s equipped [TORP], [MISSILE], or [BOMB] upgrade cards that has fewer active [CHARGE] than its charge limit. 2. That card recovers one [CHARGE]. 3. The ship gains one disarm token. Additionally: • If an ability instructs a player to reload, this is different than performing a [RELOAD] action. A ship that reloads without performing the action can still perform the [RELOAD] action this round. The question is: does the ship get the [DISARM] token when performing this action? Arguments for it getting a [DISARM] token is that you are basically performing the [RELOAD] action and therefore follow the same steps, as there are no other instructions on how to reload. Arguments against are that you are not performing the [RELOAD] action and therefore only recharge by flipping one [CHARGE], as the Rules Ref specifically states that reloading by other means is not the same as performing the [RELOAD] action. IMO whichever the intended effect is, it would have been better to use clearer wording either on the card or in the rules reference: On the card: "Action: Recharge this card. you {do|do not} gain a [DISARM] token." On the card: "[RELOAD]: You can only reload this card with this action." In RR: "If you reload by other means than the [RELOAD] action you {do|do not} gain a [DISARM] token." I can see the reasoning for not just adding a [RELOAD] action with the upgrade, as it could cause unintended interaction with bombs and the Hyena seems to be with both missile and bomb capabilities (so adding [RELOAD] by equipping energy-shell charges and then equipping a proton bomb would have allowed reloading of bombs). And finally, just to make it clear: I don't really have a preference on which interpretation is correct, but I would have liked it to be clear. Therefore I think that an official ruling or RR update is in order to prevent mixed interpretations of this.
  21. The Outrider title is the only way I have found to remove orange tokens (which includes tractor tokens) so you could in theory get 3 tractor tokens on YT-2400 (and become tractored and BR/boost), then maneuver and overlap/cross an obstacle, remove one of them (no longer tractored) and then get assigned another tractor token and thus become tractored again (and BR/boost). But I see no reason for why you would want to remove one of these tokens so it is very very unlikely to ever actually happen.
  22. Very true (although calculate and gonk both clearly state: spend 1 to gain/change 1 which is different from focus), but one little rule clause on this would clear the issue up completely. (and btw, now I have leaned a little towards not allowing Ten to change zero results... *sigh*)
  23. In the Rules Reference there is an _additional_ rule for focus tokens: "Additionally: • A ship cannot spend a focus token to change focus results to hit or evade results if it does not have any focus results." Note that this is an addition to the rule for focus tokens as it is written in the rule book, it does not claim to be a general rule. If the intention was to cover similar cases, that is not stated and needs to be clarified. If it had been worded something like "Note: A ship cannot spend tokens to change results if it does not have any results of the appropriate type" Tens ability would clearly not allow him to spend stress for zero effect, but as I would interpret it, he can do this now. I do understand the other side of the argument and have been swinging back and forth on my opinion and agree with that a clarification on this is needed (if I can disagree with myself about it... hmmmm).
  24. Fair enough. Guess that if anything appears if will just be a quick clarification.
  • Create New...