R2, Daredevil, and Pattern Analyzer

[jmswood 2,706]

To VanorDM: I wholeheartedly agree the FAQ should be followed.

To Klutz: While the logic of the R2 FAQ entry is well established, it's logic is based on using R2 Astromech as the only test for the difficulty of the maneuver in question. The logic changes if you apply a test of "which Game Effect makes the maneuver more difficult?" Then logic looks something like this: Is R2 a game effect? Yes. Is Ionization a game effect? Yes. Does the rulebook say the more difficult game effect takes precedence? Yes (on page 10.) Then logically you should make the maneuver white.

The second test is the test I applied in my attempt to sensibly explain the Daredevil FAQ entry. In the process, I realized the R2 FAQ entry does not hold up to the same logic test. I made a statement based on this finding, but at no point did I suggest a player should not do what the FAQ says.

As a player the only logic tests that really matters are these: Does a card say do this/don't do this? THEN if the cadd text is unclear: Does a Rule/FAQ say do this/don't do this?

[Klutz 1,590]

I agree. The FAQ is quite clear. However when compared to the wording of the card, it is also clearly wrong.

Card text: "“Action: Execute a white [Left Turn 1] or [Right Turn 1] maneuver."

Nowhere does the card statue that the difficulty is always white.

 

The FAQ causes confusion, when R2 interacts with DD, rather than help.

 

Ignoring FAQ entries is not always folly. We have several examples of FAQ entries that have been outdated due to rules changes or just plain wrong. And in Tournaments Judges are fully justified in overruling the FAQ if they believe it to be wrong.

 

I personally think that just reading these cards, gives me the answer I need. I do not need to consult the FAQ to resolve the interaction.

 

If we're going to allow that logic, then I'm going to have flip your HLC crits to hits even on re-rolls.

 

"in Tournaments Judges are fully justified in overruling the FAQ if they believe it to be wrong."

So we might as well just ignore everything in the FAQ then, right?

 

 

 

 

 

To Klutz: While the logic of the R2 FAQ entry is well established, it's logic is based on using R2 Astromech as the only test for the difficulty of the maneuver in question. The logic changes if you apply a test of "which Game Effect makes the maneuver more difficult?" Then logic looks something like this: Is R2 a game effect? Yes. Is Ionization a game effect? Yes. Does the rulebook say the more difficult game effect takes precedence? Yes (on page 10.) Then logically you should make the maneuver white.

The second test is the test I applied in my attempt to sensibly explain the Daredevil FAQ entry. In the process, I realized the R2 FAQ entry does not hold up to the same logic test. I made a statement based on this finding, but at no point did I suggest a player should not do what the FAQ says.

As a player the only logic tests that really matters are these: Does a card say do this/don't do this? THEN if the cadd text is unclear: Does a Rule/FAQ say do this/don't do this?

 

You've got me confused... Are you just trying to explain what you were thinking?

Or are you making an argument that R2 should make Daredevil green?

 

Your whole 1st paragraph ends by "logically" stating something we know for a fact to be false... Which kind of proves your line of logic is flawed, no?

 

Your last statement is also plain wrong. As a player looking to play by the rules, you should be applying the correct rules as described in all pertinent game materials to the best of your knowledge. You cannot simply ignore a FAQ entry because you deem it unnecessary. The higher levels of tournament play even explicitly state that "Players should be familiar with not only the game rules, but also the FAQ and tournament regulations".

[jmswood 2,706]

I explained both your logic and mine using Boolean Logic. The first of those Boean Logic examples supports the FAQ: R2 should make an ionized ship's 1-straight green. The second Boolean Logic example contradicts the first. If you really think about it, then examples contradict the FAQ. I know the statement at the end of my first paragragh is false in accordance with the FAQ. I made the statement to prove that without the FAQ, a variety of tests might be applied to determine whether or not the interpretation of a card ability is logical. Up to that point, I am merely entertaining myself.

My final paragraph states my actual position with regard to gameplay: "As a player the only logic tests that really matters are these: Does a card say do this/don't do this? THEN if the cadd text is unclear: Does a Rule/FAQ say do this/don't do this?" The subsequent post from Klutz challenges my statement, with the following: "As a player looking to play by the rules, you should be applying the correct rules as described in all pertinent game materials to the best of your knowledge." If you examine my final statement quoted above, you will see it pays due respect to those same "pertinent materials" referenced in the quote from Klutz. If there are any pertinent materials apart from card text, rules and FAQ, please bring them to my attention and I will amend or retract my statement as necessary. From my perspective, the two statements produce the same result: fair gameplay within the bounds of card abilities and rules.

[Klutz 1,590]

From my perspective, the two statements produce the same result: fair gameplay within the bounds of card abilities and rules.

 

This part of your statement is what I disagree with :

As a player the only logic tests that really matters are these: Does a card say do this/don't do this? THEN if the cadd text is unclear: Does a Rule/FAQ say do this/don't do this?

 

It seems like you're implying that the interaction between R2 and Daredevil isn't unclear, therefore we shouldn't refer to the FAQ.

 

We should always refer to the FAQ if it has any pertinent information, not only if the card is unclear.

[jmswood 2,706]

Klutz, I see what you mean, and it was never my intent to imply the FAQ should not be followed. The sequence of the two questions could be reversed, or they could form a repetitive cycle. The purpose of both questions, together, is to demonstrate my personal approach to understanding "all pertinent materials."

[VanorDM 11,599]

I agree. The FAQ is quite clear. However when compared to the wording of the card, it is also clearly wrong.

When the FAQ and card text disagree then the FAQ trumps the card, you should know this full well by now.

The FAQ causes confusion, when R2 interacts with DD, rather than help.

No it only causes the interaction to behave in a way you don't think it should. There's no confusion, the FAQ is completely clear, Daredevil is an exception to how maneuvers normally work.

I do not need to consult the FAQ to resolve the interaction.

That's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean you're right. Because the FAQ is every bit as binding as the rules themselves, and once again actually trumps the rules or cards. If you're going to simply ignore what the FAQ says then there's really no point in discussing the rules with you.

[VanorDM 11,599]

I made the statement to prove that without the FAQ, a variety of tests might be applied to determine whether or not the interpretation of a card ability is logical.

Without the FAQ I'd say that everyone would agree that R2 changes the turn from Daredevil to green.

My first post here was going to prove that, but then I looked in the FAQ and given the plain text in the FAQ I could no longer do so. The problem is that some people seem to think we can simply ignore the FAQ if we don't agree with it, or think it's wrong.

That is simply folly and leads to inherently unfair games, because then we no longer have everyone playing by the same rules. If the FAQ was unclear, or contradicted itself, then I'd say yes we have grounds to interpret it, to figure out what it really means, or ask FFG for a clarification. But it is neither unclear nor contradicts itself.

 

Does it follow the rules as we know them?  No but that's pretty much the dictionary definition of an exception.  Which is what the FAQ says the maneuver from Daredevil is.

 

The FAQ is quite frankly crystal clear and there's no way anyone could be confused by it.  It is saying that the turn from Daredevil is an exception to how the rules normally work.  Which is one of the main purposes of the FAQ, to give us among other things what exactly the RAI are, when they contradict the RAW.  But since the FAQ is an official document, that means it's one of the few cases where RAI trumps RAW, although I suppose you could argue that the FAQ really turns RAI into RAW.

Edited October 4, 2016 by VanorDM

[Parravon 5,217]

I just wish they'd make the damned text clearer on these cards to start with. Surely when they dream up a new ability that sounds similar to a previous one, someone should ask "How did we word that other one? Maybe we should word this one the same way."

 

Doh!! There I go using logic again.

[VanorDM 11,599]

I just wish they'd make the damned text clearer on these cards to start with.

 

I agree, and at this point the fact that still have cards coming out that need a FAQ on release day is frustrating.  But in the case of Daredevil, to be fair it was in the Tie Interceptor pack from wave 2.  So X-Wing was still pretty new.

 

What I wish is that I'd of kept old copies of the FAQ to I could track changes in ruling.  

[Klutz 1,590]

What I wish is that I'd of kept old copies of the FAQ to I could track changes in ruling.

Should start doing that now, so in a few years when you have the same question you can get back to them

 

And make it public. I suggest you setup a repo on Github and upload the PDFs.

 

Might as well include all the documents while you're at it (FAQ, Tournament Regulations, Epic, etc.).

Edited October 4, 2016 by Klutz

[VanorDM 11,599]

I actually keep all that on my gdrive, so it wouldn't be that hard to share it.  I just end up deleting old FAQ's so I don't pull a old version up by mistake.

 

But it would be nice in cases like this to go back to older FAQ's and see if they had ruled differently at some case, or if the current FAQ is in line with with old rulings.  Or seeing older explanations and such.  Because there are things they've removed from more recent FAQ's.

[digitalbusker 2,248]

I actually keep all that on my gdrive, so it wouldn't be that hard to share it.  I just end up deleting old FAQ's so I don't pull a old version up by mistake.

 

But it would be nice in cases like this to go back to older FAQ's and see if they had ruled differently at some case, or if the current FAQ is in line with with old rulings.  Or seeing older explanations and such.  Because there are things they've removed from more recent FAQ's.

I recently got into the habit of storing old docs in their own folder on my Google Drive. I've only got a few versions back, but it's a start:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bxy-ZidUgYC3V2dFR1lJd2pzdjg

[VanorDM 11,599]

That's great, and the wording in the current FAQ goes all the way back to v323 released on 9/30/2015.  That means it's surived a number of FAQ revisions.

[bgrelle 246]

That's great, and the wording in the current FAQ goes all the way back to v323 released on 9/30/2015.  That means it's surived a number of FAQ revisions.

 

Considering I am still so new to this game I have to ask in regards to this, is it possible it is survived for so long because nobody was using it and so the idea of how it would interact with a droid that made maneuvers green hasn't come up before.  Also to that, how new is the droid?  I honestly don't even know what it comes in.

[jmswood 2,706]

That's great, and the wording in the current FAQ goes all the way back to v323 released on 9/30/2015.  That means it's surived a number of FAQ revisions.

 

Considering I am still so new to this game I have to ask in regards to this, is it possible it is survived for so long because nobody was using it and so the idea of how it would interact with a droid that made maneuvers green hasn't come up before.  Also to that, how new is the droid?  I honestly don't even know what it comes in.

R2 Astromech is in the Y-wing Expansion. Here is a great Wiki to answer similar questions in the future: http://xwing-miniatures.wikia.com/wiki/X-Wing_Miniatures_Wiki

[VanorDM 11,599]

Also to that, how new is the droid?  I honestly don't even know what it comes in.

R2 Astromech comes with the Y-Wing, a Wave 1 ship. Daredevil comes with the Tie Interceptor a Wave 2 ship. That means the combo has been around since Feb 2013...

[Klutz 1,590]

The R2+Daredevil "combo" has been around since wave 2, but it's been pretty much useless without a way to perform Daredevil while stressed, or to defer the "Check Pilot Stress" step until a time where the ship is stressed.

 

(Although I still think VanorDM is correct that R2 doesn't affect Daredevil's maneuver.)

Edited October 4, 2016 by Klutz

[bgrelle 246]

And now I remember the original question with EI and the upcoming release of PA causing someone to get creative with clearing two stress tokens in the same phase as you received them.  That would be some sneaky stuff if it worked, of course it is also kind of expensive (9 points total for the four upgrades) for what you would potentially get out of it. 

 

Edit to correct my number of upgrades and points total since I forgot to include EI.

Edited October 4, 2016 by bgrelle