Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Newguy1984

Rules and how there interpreted

Recommended Posts

Most of my gameing experience rules had to be interpreted as to there meaning and how to play them. Most of my 40k, d and d and pathfinder days full of different rules interpretation. Now is this common in xwing. maybe I bringing wrong mind set and approach to reading the rules. So is there a lot of rules interpretation and different opinions on how rules should work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. The rules are pretty straightforward. What isn't clear from the rules will usually be cleared up in the FAQ. There is an occasional debate when something isn't clear and isn't in the FAQ yet. The whole purpose of the FAQ is to clear up questions so you don't have to interpret the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak of 40k but to me the rules followed for X-Wing are completely different from those followed in most RPGs such as D&D.

 

In X-Wing how the rules are OFFICIALLY interpreted is extremely important.  The reason for this is because it is an adversarial game where two people are playing against each other.  If both players aren't using the same rules then things fall apart quickly.  Maybe a small group could "play the wrong way" but as they expand their player pool they will probably run into people who play "the right way" which will cause many issues.  If you play where a ship can fire all of their weapons during an attack and then run into someone who only makes a single attack there will be hell to pay.  Throw in official tournaments and it's even more important that everyone is on the same page when it comes to the rules.

 

In most roleplaying games the players are cooperating while a DM/GM is providing things for them to do and also serving as a moderator for any kind of rule issue.  There you can often see slightly different rule interpretations between GMs but different GMs can also have many different styles of play which goes into their interpretations.  Now despite all of this freedom if you are going to talk about the rules of an RPG one really should try to conform to the general (most official) interpretations for the rules simply so others have common ground when they offer you input.  I've been part of several RPG forums for many years and there is little that is more frustrating than when someone comes in asking for help with something only to later discover that the "rules" they are using are so far removed from what is expected that it isn't really the same game except in name.  To put it into perspective while there may be similarities is fluff there is a mountain of differences when I'm comparing the WEG version of the StarWars RPG to WotC's first d20 version (OCR and RCR) and their excellent  SAGA Edition (SWSE) and I'm sure to FFG's version of the game;  all may be StarWars Roleplaying but the hard rules between them can make comparisons with game mechanics extremely difficult if not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are pretty straight forward. The reason people have questions about the rules is because they don't understand them. They either didn't take the time to learn the rules or the rules were communicated in such a way to make the not understandable.

 

People learn differently so it is important for FFG to communicate the rules in different ways so everyone understands them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are much more straight forward, rules and FAQ are downloadable under the Products section of FFG.  Once rules mechanics are understood you largely end up referencing the FAQ.   The game is straightforward enough that most game meetups I don't even see someone pull out a rule book or FAQ.  There are a lot of veteran X-wing gamers in my community though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my gameing experience rules had to be interpreted as to there meaning and how to play them. Most of my 40k, d and d and pathfinder days full of different rules interpretation. Now is this common in xwing. maybe I bringing wrong mind set and approach to reading the rules. So is there a lot of rules interpretation and different opinions on how rules should work

It's not proper netiquette to open a lot of threads with the same question.

Anyway, D&D and Pathfinder are roleplaying games more than boardgames. In those games, players say what their characters do, unlimited in the possibilities. Then a Dungeon Master needs to translate what the player say the characters do into the rules and rolls specified in the game system. Because a person can do limitless amount of things in any situation, the Master needs to interpret the rules to choose the closest use of them to represent what the player wants to do. For example, a player can say "My character pulls the carpet the enemy soldiers are standing on, so that they fall to the floor", and then the Master needs to figure out which rules could be applied and how to resolve that situation.

 

We don't have that problem in X-Wing. The players cannot say "My pilot shoots at the asteroid in front of him, so that a chunk of debris comes out of it and hits my pursuer". Or "I tell my R2 unit to redirect all power to the weapons before I shoot".

You cannot do whatever. There is a limited, fix, and known list of things a player can do at every moment. And there is a particular rule or piece of text describing when and how often the player can do it, and how it is resolved, in a precise manner.

 

There is no need for interpretation of the rules. Theoretically, FFG could release X-Wing as a computer game where all the rules are applied automatically by the computer, with absolutely no subjective interpretation of any rule. The rules in X-Wing work as a mechanism. You do A, then B, C, and D happens, 100% of the time, and regardless of who is playing.

Forget about roleplaying games while playing X-Wing. Not even the Heroes of the Aturi Cluster RPG-coop campaign allows for subjective interpretation of the rules.

 

I have never played Warhammer 40000, but if rules are subject to interpretation in a board game, then they don't sound as good rules. They are more like guidelines, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.
FFG are pretty good at writing the rules with a more exacting precision than GW (admittedly not hard - more because there are many years of occasional vague rules, and sometimes the vague bits run into one another at speed).
 
The much quoted "do what the card tells you to do, do not do what the card doesn't tell you to do" is a pretty good rule; there is an FAQ, but most of the time it is just clarifications - things that if you sat down with the rules and worked it out yourself, you'd come to the same conclusion.
 
The thing to note when reading the cards is to carefully read the wording. If FFG have used a specific phrase, it's for a reason - you'll often find that same phrase has a defined meaning in the rules.
 
for example, there are umpty-ump pilots and upgrades which permit broadly similar shenanigans with target locks, but rarely do both of them have the same wording. This is not sloppy writing, it's because rarely do two of them do quite the same thing (you tend to discover the differences when trying to use interactions).
 
Some examples - all of which broadly "give you a target lock you otherwise wouldn't have", but all of which do it in a subtly different manner.

  • Squad Leader and Airen Cracken give you a 'Free Action' which you can use to Target Lock. You can only ever perform each action once per turn (so if you target locked someone, you can't later use a free target lock action to change target), and you can't do it when stressed.
  • XX-23 S-thread Tracers and Fire Control System allow you 'Acquire A Target Lock'. This isn't an action - so you can do so even if stressed, or if you already did a Target Lock action this turn. However, you're still bound by the normal rules for Acquiring A Target Lock, which includes a range limit (so you can't use XX-23s to get a target lock on someone outside range 1-3 of you).
  • Colonel Jendon simply assigns a target lock to a friend. Assigning a token is 'just give the token, no strings attached', so he can pass a target lock on a ship to a friendly who wouldn't be in range to acquire that lock themselves, or even one explicitly prohibited from acquiring target locks (like a ship with Long Range Scanners). However, since the target lock isn't 'acquired' - just assigned - a TIE/v1 Advanced Prototype can't get a free evade off it (their title specifically says 'acquire' a target lock)
  • Shara Bey allows friendly ships to treat her target locks as their own when attacking. So whilst you can only use them when attacking (so can't spend them defensively, in the way Norra Wexley can), you can use them for any offensive game effect. Being a Rebel ship, she wouldn't ever be in a squad with Omega Leader or Darth Vader, but if she could (or a similar rebel ship ever turns up), they get a special effect whilst attacking for simply having a target lock on the defender, not for spending it, and would be able to use their abilities
  • Targeting Co-ordinator allows friendly ships to spend target locks 'for any game effect'. Which means Norra Wexley and Lieutenant Colzet can use their defensive and end-phase target lock abilities respectively, since it's not restricted to 'when attacking'. However, since it only allows you to spend the target lock, not to count it as yours for any other reason, Vader and Omega Leader can't use it.
  • Deadeye allows you to use focus tokens for any attack which would otherwise require a spending a target lock token. Since focus tokens aren't target-specific, and are (broadly) easier to get free, it's a good trick...but you don't get the other benefits of target locks (persisting to next turn if you don't use them, for example), and you couldn't combine it with any of the above, because they specify target locks and not focus tokens..

Taking a more specific example:

  • From the other thread, I remember you saying you use Soontir Fel.
  • Soontir Fel's Pilot Ability is: "When you receive a stress token, you may assign 1 focus token to your ship."
  • Since it's 'assign', it's not restricted by the 'action' rules above - so you can get it when stressed, and can get multiple focus tokens this way.
  • Another Imperial Pilot you may or may not have seen is Captain Yorr (one of the pilots of the Lambda Shuttle).
  • His pilot ability is: "When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 would receive a stress token, if you have 2 or fewer stress tokens, you may receive that token instead."
  • The combination of the two abilities is one people sometimes asked about, but it's not in any way unclear. Yorr can receive the stress token instead of Fel. Fel therefore never receives the stress token, therefore doesn't get his free focus token (although, as a result, isn't stressed, which can be good).
Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my gameing experience rules had to be interpreted as to there meaning and how to play them. Most of my 40k, d and d and pathfinder days full of different rules interpretation. Now is this common in xwing. maybe I bringing wrong mind set and approach to reading the rules. So is there a lot of rules interpretation and different opinions on how rules should work

 

I have never played Warhammer 40000, but if rules are subject to interpretation in a board game, then they don't sound as good rules. They are more like guidelines, then.

That is GWs position. They are supposed to be just a framework that the players can do what they want with.

Means creating balanced rules is not really important.

It's why a lot of folks have moved away from gw to companies like ffg, who actually care about balancing their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most of my gameing experience rules had to be interpreted as to there meaning and how to play them. Most of my 40k, d and d and pathfinder days full of different rules interpretation. Now is this common in xwing. maybe I bringing wrong mind set and approach to reading the rules. So is there a lot of rules interpretation and different opinions on how rules should work

 

I have never played Warhammer 40000, but if rules are subject to interpretation in a board game, then they don't sound as good rules. They are more like guidelines, then.

That is GWs position. They are supposed to be just a framework that the players can do what they want with.

Means creating balanced rules is not really important.

It's why a lot of folks have moved away from gw to companies like ffg, who actually care about balancing their products.

 

 

Well, then I understand that the OP has never played before a game with real rules.

They either had a Dungeon Master that told them what to roll at any time base on his own subjective opinion, or played a game that was more like "You should do this, or not. Do as you wish."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BladeWing24

I think the problem come when ffg changes a core rule or makes an exception rule in the faq. It's annoying and not everyone catches it as there are so many now. I had that problem with Finn's ability adding a dice to no agility. I hate that it violates the idea you had nothing to modify which shuts out other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue really is 'who you expect to play with'

 

If you play in a 'sealed unit' of say four or five mates and dont expect to play strangers or enter competetive play then interpreting the rules is fine as long as you all agree to play them the same way,  Many people do this and call them 'house rules'

 

for example Simon and I much prefer the game to be 'blind' and upgrades only revealed when they are used.. but you could not do that competetively as its open to too much abuse and you'd have uproar if you tried to play that at a tournament.   But we trust each other and play for the fun and the story not to win so its not an option.

 

Now its *theoretically* ok to interpret the rules however you like in a sealed group until one of you disagrees with the interpretation.. then , missing a GM to overide the decision or uphold it, you have a huge argument in potentia.

 

The other issue is that lets say you start playing tomorrow and your 'house' rules work brilliantly for you but then a new wave of models and card come out that affect the game in a minor way (if you're playing by FFGs rules) but using your ruleset they break the game totally.

 

TBH, having *worked* for GW in UK studio and spent a lot of my time either writing rules for campaigns or stopping player arguing over them during events I've found FFGs rules to be relatively clear and unambiguous compared to say 40k.  This is because xwing was written to accommodate organised/competitive play from the ground up....  40k on th other hand started off as a GM's 'catch all, do all' Sci Fi generic RPG, that became a skirmish game with a GM, that then had a massive 'lore' background tacked on to it, that then became a skirmish game without a GM , that then became a mass battle system.... all the time at its core is a ruleset designed for ten models a side and a mate to interpret events...    Now that system is handling hundreds of models aside with no referee and eight or nine 'editions' later it still doesnt work very well.

 

TLDR:   With mates who agree... make up what you want... with strangers... stick to the very simple and clear rules in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem come when ffg changes a core rule or makes an exception rule in the faq. It's annoying and not everyone catches it as there are so many now. I had that problem with Finn's ability adding a dice to no agility. I hate that it violates the idea you had nothing to modify which shuts out other things.

 

That's not an exception, per se, though. The 'roll zero dice is still a valid roll' concept has always existed in X-wing. 'Agility' and 'Number of Green Dice' are similar but not exactly identical concepts.

 

  • Even if agility zero, you still get bonus dice for range, or obstructions (or finn).
  • You cannot reduce your agility below zero (so wedge 'reduces' an agility zero ship's agility to "still zero", and then it gets a bonus green dice for range).
  • Some pilot abilities and upgrades increase your agility (stealth device, countermeasures). Others simply add extra defence dice (Fenn Rau, Lightweight Frame). Both have advantages and disadvantages - for example, a lightweight frame's die cannot be removed by 'reduce your agility' effects like wedge, outmanoeuvre, or tail gunner. On the other hand, it doesn't count towards a ship's agility for things like Proton Rockets.
  • The abilities which get "shut out" by outmaneuver specify that they will - C-3PO's ability specifically says "when you roll one or more evade dice" on his card.

There really aren't many 'changes'. There are maybe four or five cards, total, which have been changed to actually say something different:

 

  • Biggs (so he can't protect epic ships)
  • Tactician (so you can't have a ship with three of them on board)
  • Heavy Scyk (to add the hull point)
  • Deadeye (to make it small ship only)
  • R5 Astromech (so it doesn't require an action).

I genuinely can't think of any other card whose text has been changed. Other than that, the rules are right on the cards in front of you - making referring a lot easier than flicking back and forth in 40k codices, or bolt action armies of the [insert nation here].

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the problem come when ffg changes a core rule or makes an exception rule in the faq. It's annoying and not everyone catches it as there are so many now. I had that problem with Finn's ability adding a dice to no agility. I hate that it violates the idea you had nothing to modify which shuts out other things.

 

That's not an exception, per se, though. The 'roll zero dice is still a valid roll' concept has always existed in X-wing. 'Agility' and 'Number of Green Dice' are similar but not exactly identical concepts.

 

  • Even if agility zero, you still get bonus dice for range, or obstructions (or finn).
  • You cannot reduce your agility below zero (so wedge 'reduces' an agility zero ship's agility to "still zero", and then it gets a bonus green dice for range).
  • Some pilot abilities and upgrades increase your agility (stealth device, countermeasures). Others simply add extra defence dice (Fenn Rau, Lightweight Frame). Both have advantages and disadvantages - for example, a lightweight frame's die cannot be removed by 'reduce your agility' effects like wedge, outmanoeuvre, or tail gunner. On the other hand, it doesn't count towards a ship's agility for things like Proton Rockets.
  • The abilities which get "shut out" by outmaneuver specify that they will - C-3PO's ability specifically says "when you roll one or more evade dice" on his card.

There really aren't many 'changes'. There are maybe four or five cards, total, which have been changed to actually say something different:

 

  • Biggs (so he can't protect epic ships)
  • Tactician (so you can't have a ship with three of them on board)
  • Heavy Scyk (to add the hull point)
  • Deadeye (to make it small ship only)
  • R5 Astromech (so it doesn't require an action).

I genuinely can't think of any other card whose text has been changed. Other than that, the rules are right on the cards in front of you - making referring a lot easier than flicking back and forth in 40k codices, or bolt action armies of the [insert nation here].

 

Daredevil et al which got changed to white move then stress rather than red move.  Which change was made a little pointless when the FA set came out and revised how manoeuvres work anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daredevil et al which got changed to white move then stress rather than red move.  Which change was made a little pointless when the FA set came out and revised how manoeuvres work anyway.

Good catch, thank you.

 

Daredevil being "white, then stress", not "red" does make a difference - try it on Tycho sometime; the ability to use Push The Limit to chain together a straight 5, then daredevil, then boost is faintly ridiculous (J-turning A-wings....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-wing's pretty good for not needing interpretation, GW's rules are garbage frankly they get worse with each edition all talent left to start their own companies.

 

Your not alone coming from 40k and trying to apply that logic to x-wing I did it myself but you need to unlearn that it'll only catch you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Daredevil et al which got changed to white move then stress rather than red move.  Which change was made a little pointless when the FA set came out and revised how manoeuvres work anyway.

Good catch, thank you.

 

Daredevil being "white, then stress", not "red" does make a difference - try it on Tycho sometime; the ability to use Push The Limit to chain together a straight 5, then daredevil, then boost is faintly ridiculous (J-turning A-wings....)

 

*a little* pointless.  Not completely.  But given that the change was originally made because it being a red move was non-functional at the time and failed to make it give stress, and now it being a red move WOULD make it give stress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*they're

 

(Yes, I know I'm a pedant, but grammar is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse; and helping your uncle jack off a horse.)

Then you'll love, "Panda eats, shoots and leaves".

 

 

You mean this?

 

http://www.booktopia.com.au/eats-shoots-leaves-lynne-truss/prod9781592402038.html?source=pla&gclid=CKjM3d7W69ACFVIGvAodOLoMYg

 

Indeed I do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

*they're

 

(Yes, I know I'm a pedant, but grammar is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse; and helping your uncle jack off a horse.)

Then you'll love, "Panda eats, shoots and leaves".

 

 

You mean this?

 

http://www.booktopia.com.au/eats-shoots-leaves-lynne-truss/prod9781592402038.html?source=pla&gclid=CKjM3d7W69ACFVIGvAodOLoMYg

 

Indeed I do!

 

Grammar is the difference between knowing your sh*t and knowing you're sh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...