Why wouldn’t Genius work with Trajectory Simulator?

[theBitterFig 11,598]

5 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

It is not the TO's job to make erratas, it is the TO's job to enforce the rules. You are a judge not a legislator. However, RAW no bombs work.

"To drop a bomb, follow the steps 
below:
1. Take the [? 1] maneuver template and slide it 
between the rear guides of your ship.
2. Place the bomb token indicated on the Upgrade 
card into the play area and slide the guides of the 
token into the opposite end of the template."

All the bombs are worded the same way as Genius, '...drop the x bomb token.' The rules don't specify how to drop a bomb token, only how to drop a bomb.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of TOs and judges.  It's a serious question in sociology, in philosophy of law whether judges (or any people, for that matter) have a duty to uphold unjust laws.  Whether a judge has a duty to justice itself, above the particulars of any given law.  Along those lines, I think a TOs role (other than the logistics of the actual tournament organizing) is to ensure that a tournament is conducted fairly.  Usually, that means fair measuring of arcs in tough cases and basic rules interactions.  However, what should a TO do when there is a conflict between fairness and rules?  It isn't necessarily an easy question in X-Wing, and it's harder in the broader world.

Now, I'm not going to get on folks for not going with this TO's ruling.  There's an argument to be made that, even if they recognize the unfairness of the TrajSim/Genius interaction, they shouldn't allow FFG to pass the buck, and get out of this without a FAQ (or at least a more definitive statement, like "this will be in the next FAQ, but we aren't ready to publish yet").  However, I'm 100% sure that if I were running an event, I'd consider the ruling enough of a headfake from FFG to go with it.  I think removing a fundamentally unfair combination like this is better for the game than allowing it to remain, but I recognize that this isn't something to be taken too lightly.

[muribundi 406]

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of TOs and judges.  It's a serious question in sociology, in philosophy of law whether judges (or any people, for that matter) have a duty to uphold unjust laws.  Whether a judge has a duty to justice itself, above the particulars of any given law.  Along those lines, I think a TOs role (other than the logistics of the actual tournament organizing) is to ensure that a tournament is conducted fairly.  Usually, that means fair measuring of arcs in tough cases and basic rules interactions.  However, what should a TO do when there is a conflict between fairness and rules?  It isn't necessarily an easy question in X-Wing, and it's harder in the broader world.

Now, I'm not going to get on folks for not going with this TO's ruling.  There's an argument to be made that, even if they recognize the unfairness of the TrajSim/Genius interaction, they shouldn't allow FFG to pass the buck, and get out of this without a FAQ (or at least a more definitive statement, like "this will be in the next FAQ, but we aren't ready to publish yet").  However, I'm 100% sure that if I were running an event, I'd consider the ruling enough of a headfake from FFG to go with it.  I think removing a fundamentally unfair combination like this is better for the game than allowing it to remain, but I recognize that this isn't something to be taken too lightly.

No, this is not their role to modify rules to make them more fair. Would it have been their role to decide to modify Jumpmaster to make them less good ?!

[InquisitorM 632]

Well, it's all settled now!

[Drasnighta 26,832]

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

Well, it's all settled now!

Yep. 

 

“Because they say so.”

[SpiderMana 2,606]

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/98/36/9836c96f-69ee-4d31-9f77-d4d071b5fd95/x-wing_faq_v441lowres.pdf That was fast...