R3-A2 works no more

[Stoneface 3,750]

 

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Again. Obviously FFG didn't have four years of upgrades and expansions tested, canned and ready to go. The wording on some cards has caused problems. Some just because of the wording, some because of new game effects and some problems were caused when trying to explain or correct other cards. Dark Curse for example. I think we can all agree on this. Hopefully.

My take on R3-A2, and only for R3-A2,is this. When I declare the target of an attack, the "target" becomes the "defender". For R3-A2 only. That's when/where the card supersedes the rules. An exception if you will. If I happen to be attacking Dark Curse with a Blaster Turret, he doesn't become the defender until step v after I've paid the cost to use the BT per the FAQ, errata and timing chart.

As this game grows and expands there's going to be more of these problems. And more of these posts. The mantra of "Do what the card says to do and don't do what the card doesn't say" is going to be less and less useful. A little common sense will go a long way. If it doesn't, go to the forums but remain civil to to one another. Don't become "one of those guys" that hides behind an anonymous screen name.

 

In an ideal world, sure. But the problem with common sense is it isn't really all that common. And even if it was, none of this is an excuse not to point out these problems FFG, or for them to not issue errata solving any problem that is found.

 

I wasn't implying that it was an excuse or we shouldn't point out these problems. I was trying to point out that these problems will continue to grow, common or uncommon sense, goes a long way to figure them out and there's no need to get nasty over something as trivial as a card timing. AND NOW before anyone goes off the deep end and starts calling me names and questioning my lineage remember this is a game but we live in the real world and there are more important things than little plastic space ships.

[NeverTellMeTheOdds 219]

Seriously if some mofo tried this on me at a game I'd be all like shut your face and eat the stress.

Rules Lawyers need to be ejected from the hatch into space.https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/44/dougherty.pdf

I mean call it what you want it's actually just applying the rules per the FAQ. I realize that sometimes people can push how the rules work in their favor but this case is plainly rules as written. That's on the rules, not the enforcers, there's no fiddly stuff here.

Generally speaking we here in the rules forum aim to have things resolve into RAW = RAI rather that having to interpret what unintended or intended interactions are.

Yeah cause I'm sure that's what FFG intended when they created the card...

[VanorDM 11,599]

Yeah cause I'm sure that's what FFG intended when they created the card...

What they intended doesn't really matter much. What matters is that RAW the card is broken and something needs to be fixed.

If we don't point it out to FFG then odds are very good they'll never fix it. It slipped by them for a couple revisions of the FAQ.

If someone came to me as a TO saying that R3-A2 didn't work per the timing chart I'd tell them that I'm overruling the timing chart in this case and the card works, because as a TO I can do that.

 

However if the TO came to me and said R3-A2 didn't work because of the RAW... I'd really not have many options, because the TO is right, and R3-A2 does not work RAW.

 

It's fairly clear to anyone who looks at it that this is a case where the current RAW didn't take into account this card, but that doesn't actually change what the RAW are, or change the need to fix them.

 

That said, has anyone emailed FFG about this?

[Klutz 1,590]

However if the TO came to me and said R3-A2 didn't work because of the RAW... I'd really not have many options, because the TO is right, and R3-A2 does not work RAW.

 

No matter what the TO says, you don't have many options, because the TO gets the final call.

[Dagonet 7,246]

Simplest solution, delete .V, modify .III to read: . Declare target of the attack, it becomes the defender

 

There is no real reason to separate those two steps, or am I missing something?

[WWHSD 9,273]

Simplest solution, delete .V, modify .III to read: . Declare target of the attack, it becomes the defender.

 

There is no real reason to separate those two steps, or am I missing something?

A ship with deadeye, flechette torpedoes (others work, these are cheapest) , and R3-A2 could give stress to every ship its primary arc that is at range 2-3. Potentially, they'd all get infinite stress as well.

1. Choose to fire torpedo.

2. Use Deadeye to make target a valid target for torpedo attack.

3. Target becomes the defender and recieves a stress token.

4. When it is time to pay the cost of the attack you choose not to use Deadeye, are unable to pay the cost for the attack.

5. Go back up to the top and do it all again with another target.

[Dagonet 7,246]

 

Simplest solution, delete .V, modify .III to read: . Declare target of the attack, it becomes the defender.

 

There is no real reason to separate those two steps, or am I missing something?

A ship with deadeye, flechette torpedoes (others work, these are cheapest) , and R3-A2 could give stress to every ship its primary arc that is at range 2-3. Potentially, they'd all get infinite stress as well.

1. Choose to fire torpedo.

2. Use Deadeye to make target a valid target for torpedo attack.

3. Target becomes the defender and recieves a stress token.

4. When it is time to pay the cost of the attack you choose not to use Deadeye, are unable to pay the cost for the attack.

5. Go back up to the top and do it all again with another target.

 

 

Not quite, if the attacker in this case would maintain that he would not invoke Deadeye and would therefore be unable to pay for the attack as instructed in 1.IV, then I would hold him to the rule that if you cannot pay the cost for the chosen weapon you may choose a different weapon and target. 

As far as I know, there's currently no ship capable of carrying multiple secondary weapons and an astromech. .

 

But I see your point. I've often thought the take-backsies mentality of the rules is a bit weird. I declare a boost, oh I actually can't, well then I do a boost, doesn't fit either? Frag, well maybe then I'll take a target lock on that ship, oh, it's out of range, well then I'll take a focus I guess.

 

I would've preferred the action just failed and it's gone. Ah well. 

 

Any other possible problems I may have missed?

[Glucose98 848]

Ironic part is the R4 Agromech timing change is no longer important to combat the Jumpmaster list.

[Arttemis 823]

Ironic part is the R4 Agromech timing change is no longer important to combat the Jumpmaster list.

 

Which makes me hope they go back to a more logical timing chart.  Targeting another player for an attack should make them the defender.

[WWHSD 9,273]

Ironic part is the R4 Agromech timing change is no longer important to combat the Jumpmaster list.

There was no R4 Agromech timing change. They just removed a FAQ entry that had contradicted the rules for almost a year before they did anything about it.

[kopmcginty 609]

Fun thread. /Sigh

Seems clear the wording and chart mean that RAW does not equal RAI.

It's a clever catch and needs a pretty simple revision to prevent the so called "rules lawyering". As simple as changing it to when "declaring a defender" rather than "target"?

[Amraam01 154]

Fun thread. /Sigh

Seems clear the wording and chart mean that RAW does not equal RAI.

It's a clever catch and needs a pretty simple revision to prevent the so called "rules lawyering". As simple as changing it to when "declaring a defender" rather than "target"?

Sematics.  Can't the target be a defender?  Or a defender be a target?  Are these really mutually exclusive?  I dont think there is a glossary defining the terms, so interesting thought experiment that I am sure none one would seriously bring up in a game.  

 

Funny, the latest NOVA squadron episode addressed an issue like this but about the Boba Fett crew card, and the consensus is basically, "Come'on sometimes you have to use a little common sense" and stop with all of the rules lawyer silliness.  I suppose that is why there is a TO, because sometimes rules as written are not 100% perfect and the TO is freed to make a judgment call.     

[jmswood 2,706]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. There is a glossary. It's called the Rules Reference. Top left corner of page 3 says Glossary in big blue letters. Defender is defined on page 9. Target is defined on page 18.

Edited October 28, 2016 by jmswood

[Amraam01 154]

Guilty, I havent touched those things other then getting them out of the way to get to the ships.  Haha. 

[Klutz 1,590]

Sematics.  Can't the target be a defender?  Or a defender be a target?  Are these really mutually exclusive?

This discussions has never been about a target being a defender or vice versa...

Rather about when the target becomes the defender.

 

Guilty, I havent touched those things other then getting them out of the way to get to the ships.  Haha.

 

Maybe you should read them (and the FAQ) before commenting in the rules forum

 

[testobviouslyfalse 577]

simple fix:

R3-A2: Replace the words "defender" with "declared target"

 

[kopmcginty 609]

Fun thread. /Sigh

Seems clear the wording and chart mean that RAW does not equal RAI.

It's a clever catch and needs a pretty simple revision to prevent the so called "rules lawyering". As simple as changing it to when "declaring a defender" rather than "target"?

Sematics.  Can't the target be a defender?  Or a defender be a target?  Are these really mutually exclusive?  I dont think there is a glossary defining the terms, so interesting thought experiment that I am sure none one would seriously bring up in a game.  

 

Funny, the latest NOVA squadron episode addressed an issue like this but about the Boba Fett crew card, and the consensus is basically, "Come'on sometimes you have to use a little common sense" and stop with all of the rules lawyer silliness.  I suppose that is why there is a TO, because sometimes rules as written are not 100% perfect and the TO is freed to make a judgment call.

The problem with that approach is that Xwing has terminology that is set and defined. Some words have very specific meanings. It's not semantics when words are defined.

Look, no one here is suggesting that R3A2 "shouldn't" work. Quite the opposite, Rules As Intended is pretty clear. But Rules As Written say otherwise right now.

Other people find this laughable. I find it laughable that some people don't seem to want clear concise rules that can't be "rules lawyered" which is what we have with this astromech just now.

[erithromycin 2]

I believe the issue comes down to a more narrow definition of "when you declare target" brought about by the current timing chart.

R3-A2 is: "When you declare the target of your attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive 1 stress token to cause the defender to receive 1 stress token."

As I understand it the argument is that "when you declare the target of your attack" refers to 1.iii rather than the whole step 1 (e.g. before attack dice are rolled). The precedent is R4 Agromech because the FAQ uses that timing window to prevent Deadeye/Blaster Turret users from acquiring a target lock because the declared target becomes the defender after the cost is paid. R4 Agromech still has utility on that basis. R3-A2 would not, but that is, as others have suggested, somewhat absurd.

I believe that the intent of the wording is to force the decision to use R3-A2 by gaining a stress to be made before rolling the dice. "When you declare the target of your attack" puts it into the window where a defender is identified. R4 is "when attacking" which can be argued to put it into the window after "when you declare the target of your attack".

In effect, R4 can't work until after 1.v., and for R3-A2 to have an effect it must also occur between 1.v. and 2.  How to codify that without further complicating things doesn't seem to require a huge amount of errata/clarification.

I know that people get antsy about interpretations predicated upon intent, so let's try to avoid that -

The issue, at heart, is that there's a sub-step with the same name as the wider section. Except that (and here I'll go to formatting, 1. is called the "Declare target" step, and the use of quotation marks in the timing chart is clearly a reference to other statements within the rules context. This would mean that "When you declare the target of your attack" (e.g. the "Declare Target" step) refers to that as a whole, all sections 1.i through 1.v. which make up that step.

R3-A2 could therefore be read as "[before the "Roll Attack Dice" step], if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive..." so it fits in before 2, but after a defender is identified.

R4 Agromech is "When attacking" which means it gloms onto the whole timing chart. The condition of "having a defender" must be met before the focus token is spent, so its condition can't be met until after 1.v either.

I'm pretty sure that the extent of the clarification needed is that the decision to use R3-A2 is made in the Declare Target step but before the Roll Attack Dice step. Which would seem, to me, to be covered in the phrase "When you declare the target of your attack", but clearly there's some contention.

 

[nitrobenz 1,369]

Simple fix: change the sub step 1iii "declare target" to "identify target". Bam, problem solved.

I got tired of the back and forth over whether or not this is a problem somewhere on page 3 so pardon me if i got ninja'd

[GrimmyV 7,421]

Remember Night Beast? He can perform a free focus action after doing a green manuever. The way the rules were written in the original core set he couldn't use his special ability if he had started his turn with stress, but now he can since the timing rules for when stress is cleared by green maneuvers was 'clarified'. Perhaps Stressbot will get another clarification, but it might take 6 or so waves.

[Raven19528 158]

I like this thread. It makes me laugh. Here's a simple fix:

1. “Declare Target” step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check

attacker's firing arc

ii. Attacker chooses weapon

iii. Choose target of the attack

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable)

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender

One word change clears this up. C'mon FFG, easy kill here.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Raven19528

[Ubul 887]

I like this thread. It makes me laugh. Here's a simple fix:

 

You probably laughed so hard, that you did notice through your tears that I already suggested this fix on the first page. Also someone else suggested it like 2 posts before you

Edited November 1, 2016 by Ubul

[Raven19528 158]

You probably laughed so hard, that you did notice through your tears that I already suggested this fix on the first page. Also someone else suggested it like 2 posts before you

Yep. Laughing too hard to see that.

Maybe if enough people make the same suggestion, FFG will take a look at it and implement it. Not guaranteed, but I think it improves the chances.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Raven19528

[tk426 160]

Just courious if anyone at worlds is playing R3-A2 and if FFG had to make a ruling on this

[librarian101 277]

As much as I want to have a free win over rebel stress control lists during the upcoming regional season I just submitted a rules 'question' raising this to their attention since I'm pretty sure this has flown under everyone's radar until now. We'll see what happens.

Have you heard anything back from FFG yet.