Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HanScottFirst

Dash 2.0 and Outrider need an FAQ -- or do they? [Answer: Yes, yes they do lol]

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

If devs did a reasonably good job with Dash, the text on his card would read:

"When you move through or overlap an obstacle, you ignore it's effects. You may perform barrel roll and boost actions that would cause you to overlap or move through an obstacle."

Unfortunately this is not what the card says. It does not tell you to ignore the effects of the obstacles or to ignore the restrictions on repositioning through them. It says to ignore obstacles altogether. While the term "ignore" is not clearly defined, it implies there can be no interaction whatsoever between Dash and obstacles or he would no longer be ignoring them. Moving through and overlapping an obstacle are clearly defined game events resulting from interactions between two objects in the game (a ship and an obstacle) and these interactions simply cannot happen if one of the objects is ignored.  It would be quite different if only the results of those interactions were ignored but again, that's just not what the card says.

This is not "stubborn". This is not anyone "fighting to make Dash unable to use his own ship". This is not bad will on anyone's part. This is simply a pretty logical and coherent reading of what's on the card. Far more logical and coherent in fact, than arguing that ignoring obstacles is limited to only ignoring the negative effects and restrictions associated with them when nothing on the card implies such a narrow interpretation.

If you disagree with these arguments, fine. I'd prefer Outrider to work with Dash too. But I simply do think that the above interpretation is far more convincing than the one you're trying to promote. That does not make me your personal enemy or someone who tries break a ship you like. Please refrain from personal attacks or throwing epithets suggesting the other party is stubbornly attempting to break Outrider for some nefarious purposes. This is simply how we read the card and our interpretation of it is neither illogical nor unwarranted.

I already agreed that that wording would be better.. please read my earlier post.  I don't believe I made a personal attack against you, or made you my 'persona enemy', I certainly didn't intend to.  I'm also not a big fan of Dash.  I much prefer Imperials.  And in fact I learned about this because I was initially on the side of them not being compatible while playing against Dash.  But it was explained that Dash functions While, and outrider functions After (terms that ARE defined in the RRG.)  By Alex Davy no less.  And yeah, it's not official until it's in print.  But come on, that is the next best thing.  I also never said ignoring only pertains to the negative aspects.  But in this case, due to the timing, that is the case.  I am not saying people are tying to break Outrider for some nefarious purposes.  I just think it is silly that people are using the argument that 1 aspect is ill defined to go against the obvious intent.  If 'Ignore' were defined and it said that while ignoring something it should be treated as though it were not in the game in any way for the duration of the 'ignore' then there would be room for discussion.  But the entire argument of those saying Outrider's ability doesn't work is "We don't understand the scope of this word, so the most logical option is that the obvious intent doesn't work."  

It is stubborn as you keep ignoring the words that define the timing.  The words are there whether you acknowledge them or not, just like the obstacles.  Everyone arguing that they don't work keeps pointing out the word ignore.  'Ignore is not clearly defined.' 'Ignore' this and 'ignore' that.  But none of them will acknowledge the 'While' and 'After' aspects.  While he is moving he ignores.  define it how you want.  Even if reality warps and the rock vanishes in some kind of quantum particle physics.  But once he stops moving, he stops ignoring, and that rock pops back into existence.  And like mysterious photon you change the results by observing them.  After the move, he DID move over or overlap that rock.  But the truth is far simpler, Ignore clearly means he ignores the effects that come with obstacles while moving.  Not that the obstacle vanishes from reality.  

It is also stubborn in that even if this is a 50/50 call, it is NOT a RAW situation. And you are choosing to defend a side you know to be the wrong one on the defense of "well that's how I see it could be." We all know how this is going to end.  And yeah, you are arguing that Dash should not be able to use his own ship until you get word from FFG that says he can.  Why not choose the obvious outcome and just agree that the wording could be better, but since it is a bit unclear to go with the intent.  But the RAW lawyers feel they must step in and show they are the true masters of the game and if any words CAN be interpreted opposite from the RAI then they MUST be interpreted opposite.  Isn't it a lot easier and more civil to simply say.. "Hmm, that is poor wording and an argument could be presented that it means something else.  But the intent is clear, so let's go with that."

But no, you must persist with this idea that ignore means it vanishes, despite nothing in the game ever saying that, or ignoring due to one ability means it can never affect another ability.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

But it specifically says "while moving" after performing a manouver is not while moving so outriders effect comes in to play. 

And as people keep pointing out, you cannot ignore something that didn't happen, by ignoring it for rules purposes you are acknowledging that it did in fact happen. So Outriders effect,being outside of the ignoration period, is triggered. The overlap / move DID happen you just ignored it. Now you are no longer ignoring it. 

Dash doesn't ignore Move Through, he ignores obstacles. The only way for the Move Through condition (defined on pg13) to be met is for the template to overlap an object (in this case an obstacle) during movement. If Dash is ignoring obstacles during this time, is the condition met?

This is the fundamental question. It doesn't matter if you stop ignoring the obstacle after movement, because you don't recheck the condition then.

Ignoring the obstacle can imply you ignore any and all rules text that interact with it, in which case you don't meet the condition. It can also imply you merely ignore the effects of the obstacle, in which case the condition is met.

The fact that collision detector specifically instructs you to ignore the effects of obstacles suggests the former. The fact that Dash should work with his Ship suggests the latter.

In either case, it's abundantly clear that inconsistent ability templating and wording is still a problem in X wing 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

Well Dash can't shoot right if he's at range 0 of an obstacle, he can't shoot. But by the ignore logic he never moved in to range 0 of the obstacle so he can still shoot too? 

Better still, if there is no time limit on 'ignore' and obstacles cease to exist for Dash once he ignores them, for the rest of the game he cans shoot though them with no advantage to the defender!  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dash doesn't ignore Move Through, he ignores obstacles. The only way for the Move Through condition (defined on pg13) to be met is for the template to overlap an object (in this case an obstacle) during movement. If Dash is ignoring obstacles during this time, is the condition met?

Yes. You can't ignore it if it doesn't first happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

Dash doesn't ignore Move Through, he ignores obstacles. The only way for the Move Through condition (defined on pg13) to be met is for the template to overlap an object (in this case an obstacle) during movement. If Dash is ignoring obstacles during this time, is the condition met?

you kind of answer your own question.  "Did the template overlap and obstacle?"  That is it.  full stop.  Not "Did the template overlap and obstacle but was ignore due to another ability?"  And Dash's ability does not say remove the obstacle from the board before placing a template.  So when you put the template down, did it or the base of the ship overlap?  The answer is 'Yes.'

You check the condition when the ability tells you to, not before.  In the Outrider's case you check AFTER the maneuver.  

Collision detector is worded better, no one disagrees with that.  

If someone puts a piece of cardboard on top of another piece of cardboard and tell me that one of them isn't there, I'm not the crazy person at that table. lol  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but that definition on page 13 is specifically talking about ships, lets say it's not and it counts for obstacles as a defined rule (even though you are apparently super strict about this kind of thing) but just for arguments sake..

It says "if the template  is placed on top of that ship" talking about a physical interaction happening in the real physical world, are you really suggesting that ignore obstacles means you should pretend that you never physically placed a template on an obstacle? 

I guess if you are, and are arguing that MOVING THROUGH is a rule that never happened then fine, but i think "moving through" is in plain English, not in rules lawyer speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

You're not ignoring the Move Through condition, you're ignoring the obstacle.

So you say that you moved though.. therefore Outrider triggers.  

Did you walk thought the doorway?  
Yes, but I deny the existence of the doorway.
So you didn't walk though a doorway?
I did walk though a doorway, but there was no doorway.

It makes no sense.  you can't admit you moved though something you claim doesn't exist.  

Unless I am confused and you are agreeing that Outrider fully works with Dash.  You seem to be making the point that it does, while implying that you don't think it does.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xbeaker said:

 You check the condition when the ability tells you to, not before.  In the Outrider's case you check AFTER the maneuver.  

 

1 minute ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

I guess if you are, and are arguing that MOVING THROUGH is a rule that never happened then fine, but i think "moving through" is in plain English, not in rules lawyer speak.

Move Through is an explicitly defined mechanic in the RRG. It has it's own **** entry. And it tells you to check while Executing a Maneuver. It is in the rules to the game. I can appreciate some debate, but if you're telling me the explicit written rules aren't the actual rules, I might actually lose my mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

 

Move Through is an explicitly defined mechanic in the RRG. It has it's own **** entry. And it tells you to check while Executing a Maneuver. It is in the rules to the game. I can appreciate some debate, but if you're telling me the explicit written rules aren't the actual rules, I might actually lose my mind

You are telling me you can move though an object that doesn't exist.  I think you have already lost your mind.  (j/k I am not insulting, just trying to add levity :))

And yeah, it is explicitly written.  No where in those rules does it say you didn't move though if you got to 'ignore' it.  As the RAW lawyers say, do what it tells you, not what it doesn't.  The rules say you moved though when you lay down the template and it touches an obstacle.  Dash's ability does not change that you are moving though.  So you are 100% correct.  you DID move though, thus Outrider triggers.  

Edited by xbeaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

 

Move Through is an explicitly defined mechanic in the RRG. It has it's own **** entry. And it tells you to check while Executing a Maneuver. It is in the rules to the game. I can appreciate some debate, but if you're telling me the explicit written rules aren't the actual rules, I might actually lose my mind

Moving through is also when moving a ship with a template such as in a boost or barrel roll action. The Obstacle entry in the Rules Reference on page thirteen makes allowance and outlines both distinctions of moving with regards to obstacles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While you move, you ignore obstacles"

"After you fully execute a maneuver, if you moved through or overlapped an obstacle, you may remove 1 of your red or orange tokens"

Those are the only words we have to question.  "You" "move" "Obstacles" "after" "Fully Execute a maneuver" "moved through" and "overlapped" are all defined.  The only word that leads to ambiguity is "ignore" and frankly, both sides of the argument have valid points.  My experience with game rules in general lends me to believe that Outrider would still trigger, but that isn't relevant as I can think of a few games where it would sway in the opposite direction.  So unless we can define what "ignore" means, as per the game rules, we are really at an impasse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xbeaker said:

You are telling me you can move though an object that doesn't exist.  I think you have already lost your mind.  (j/k I am not insulting, just trying to add levity :))

And yeah, it is explicitly written.  No where in those rules does it say you didn't move though if you got to 'ignore' it.  As the RAW lawyers say, do what it tells you, not what it doesn't.  The rules say you moved though when you lay down the template and it touches an obstacle.  Dash's ability does not change that you are moving though.  So you are 100% correct.  you DID move though, thus Outrider triggers.  

"A ship moves through an object if the template is placed on that object when the ship moves." (Note: obstacles are a kind of object). Couple key words here, when the ship moves. So Dash's ability is explicitly in play here. This much we can all agree on, I think.

Then there are two schools of thought here.

School #1: Ignoring something means you skip all rules references to it. The rules say your template is placed on top of an object, Dash says, we're ignoring the object. Then we don't apply the Move Through condition because we can't meet it if we ignore the asteroid. The maneuver is complete, we ask, "Was the condition met?" and we recall that it wasn't.

School #2: Ignore means you only ignore the effects of obstacles. Then when the game asks, "is the maneuver template overlapping an obstacle?" we answer, "yes, because we're not ignoring it for this purpose." In that case, outrider clearly triggers.

Edited by hargleblarg
autocorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Moving through is also when moving a ship with a template such as in a boost or barrel roll action. The Obstacle entry in the Rules Reference on page thirteen makes allowance and outlines both distinctions of moving with regards to obstacles. 

You are correct; that is the other occasion where Move Through is checked. It doesn't change my point, however, that the check occurs during movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mazz0 said:

 

I think you’re being needlessly confrontational and offensive.  If you think someone’s wrong just argue the point, there’s no need to cast aspersions on their motivation or insult their intelligence.

The lines you've quoted are hardly my casting aspersions (that is a favorite past time of mine, so I'm not saying you won't catch me out doing it, though). There is a fairly consistent cycle that comes with every X-Wing release (and any war game, for sure), and it involves people attempting to find issues while, for the rest of the population, no issue exists. I was very specifically NOT calling out the poster I was responding to, I was simply identifying that the subjective statement of, "This needs an FAQ," holds no weight -- most of the time, it really means "I don't understand." And I was VERY specifically not suggesting that's what the poster in question was doing (but I did get a super petty response, either way -- hey look, I found some aspersions!).

And, as for folks just looking for trouble... That very much describes the entire nature of your post here :) And most folks here have come out and agreed they both see that RAI it was meant to work, and that they fully expect the FAQ to simply clarify that it works. Meaning that the debate is, by and large, folks just looking for something to nitpick/complain about. Which, in a forum setting, is looking for trouble (note that I don't think that is how things SHOULD work, it's just the nature of online public forums).

I've actually rather appreciated seeing people pulling apart different sections of the rule book. The additional interpretations outside of that I'm less fond of, and are what cause things like the FAQ to get bloated.

It was shameful that FFG ignored adding ignore as a game term, however, and I've said since the beginning that that needs to be rectified.

Edit: I just want to be clear, I wasn't counting myself out as being here looking for trouble in some way shape or form. I accept being a jerk, but I'm generally not a hypocrite. Generally.

Edited by ArbitraryNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

...

I actually agree regarding the rules (seems to me one part happens during movement, the other happens after, so they don’t conflict - effectively Dash goes “Oh wow, I moved through a rock!  Lucky I was ignoring it at the time or I’d have suffered some damage.  Now, what effects are triggered *after* moving through a rock...”).

I just don’t agree that you can infer from any disagreement that people are just nitpicking or looking for things to complain about.  I think they genuinely see different interpretations, and it makes sense to talk about them so that people might change their minds and so that FFG knows it’s ambiguous (or rather, a decent number of people think it’s ambiguous) and needs FAQing.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

But it specifically says "while moving" after performing a manouver is not while moving so outriders effect comes in to play. 

And as people keep pointing out, you cannot ignore something that didn't happen, by ignoring it for rules purposes you are acknowledging that it did in fact happen. So Outriders effect,being outside of the ignoration period, is triggered. The overlap / move DID happen you just ignored it. Now you are no longer ignoring it. 

You ignore obstacles. If the text on Dash's card said something about ignoring overlapping or moving through obstacles, you might have a case there. If you ignore obstacles as such though, it's highly doubtful the in-game situation of overlapping/moving through them can occur in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lightrock said:

You ignore obstacles. If the text on Dash's card said something about ignoring overlapping or moving through obstacles, you might have a case there. If you ignore obstacles as such though, it's highly doubtful the in-game situation of overlapping/moving through them can occur in the first place.

I think it occurs, you just ignore it.  If I'm walking past you and I ignore you I might bump in to you.  I can continue to ignore you, but it still happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been waiting since page one for someone to explain how "ignore" becomes "they aren't there." 

I pointed out that we aren't having arguments about how "ignore" on Instinctive Aim is ambiguous . What happens though as soon as there is an effect that triggers off firing a weapon that requires a target lock?

How do you get to be a game designer and not know that "Ignore X then X causes Y" is going to cause an argument? 

Edited by Frimmel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest the following changes...

Version 1: At the beginning of your activation, remove all obstacles from the play area. After your mauever is completed, replace all obstacles.

Or

Version 2: At the beginning of your activation, ignore your opponent’s complaints about how ignored obstacles can’t be moved through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the counter-argument, but I think the case is too strong for Outrider working with Dash to need an FAQ.

"While [Dash] moves, [Dash] ignores obstacles". The 'while moving' part is clear, you are moving when you execute a maneuver or boosting/barrel rolling. What it means by Dash 'ignoring' obstacles is at stake.

Generically 'ignores' would just mean Dash 'refuses to acknowledge'. If you really wanted to get persnickety with the language you could say Dash still suffers all the effects good and bad associated with moving over obstacles (stress, lost actions, etc.). He 'ignores' them, but they still happen, right? But no one wants to do that, at least as far as I know.

Instead the simplest and most effective solution is that Dash ignoring obstacles means not triggering the effects that occur while moving through or on obstacles. So all the things in the RRG that say 'when you move through/overlap an obstacle' (or something to that effect): Dash 'ignores' those effects/clauses. That's how Dash works in isolation to the best of my knowledge: every time he moves over an obstacle he does not make it disappear, he just doesn't trigger any effects during that movement.

But Dash clearly does not 'ignore' any obstacle-based effects/clauses outside of moving: that is definitely not what his card says. Outrider is an effect that triggers outside of movement, so Dash still triggers it (and anything else obstacle-related outside of movement) to his benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

I've been waiting since page one for someone to explain how "ignore" becomes "they aren't there." 

I pointed out that we aren't having arguments about how "ignore" on Instinctive Aim is ambiguous . What happens though as soon as there is an effect that triggers off firing a weapon that requires a target lock?

How do you get to be a game designer and not know that "Ignore X then X causes Y" is going to cause an argument? 

The interpretation is that failing a barrel roll due to overlapping/moving through an obstacle is a property of barrel rolls, not obstacles. Effectively, failing a barrel roll due to an overlap is not an effect of the obstacle; it is a stipulation of the barrel roll itself. Thus, merely ignoring the effects of obstacles is not enough to allow a ship to barrel roll onto an obstacle.

If this is the case, then it can be inferred that when Dash completes a barrel roll onto an obstacle, he has satisfied all the conditions for performing a barrel roll. A barrel roll requires you to not overlap or move through an obstacle, or else it fails. The barrel roll does not fail, therefore Dash did not move through or overlap an obstacle.

This is why Dash and Outrider, as written, are currently unsatisfactory. Outrider suggests that Dash does move through/overlap obstacles; the ability to barrel roll onto obstacles suggests that he does not. It's rather obvious that both are intended to work, so a clearer explanation of exactly how Dash does (or doesn't) interact with obstacles seems warranted.

Part of the issue is that a similar ability exists (collision detector) which uses different (and much more clear) language to achieve a very similar effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Instead the simplest and most effective solution is that Dash ignoring obstacles means not triggering the effects that occur while moving through or on obstacles. So all the things in the RRG that say 'when you move through/overlap an obstacle' (or something to that effect): Dash 'ignores' those effects/clauses. That's how Dash works in isolation to the best of my knowledge: every time he moves over an obstacle he does not make it disappear, he just doesn't trigger any effects during that movement.

To clarify though, the people with an actual compelling argument are saying that the very first thing dash ignores is the fact that his template is on an obstacle, if he ignores that then there's nothing else to ignore going forward.

The rules have Moving Through in bold and have a definition for Moving Through, which specifies that the template must be on top of an obstacle. Technically the Moving Through condition in the rules isn't met because Dash is ignoring the obstacle, meaning there are no triggered effects.

So then when you read Outrider it says (paraphrased) "If you moved through.." this is where it becomes a problem because if you take that Moved Through to mean, 'if you triggered the Moving Through condition' then well he didn't, whereas people that are reading Outrider and using the plain English definition of 'moved through' are saying he did.

I mean technically rules wise you'd expect the Outrider to say "if you triggered the Moving Through Obstacles condition" or similar words. But the rules are quite sloppily worded and a bit too colloquial to really be able to say for sure what the intent is.

A lot of us come from gaming backgrounds where these sorts of interactions and rules "events" are very well defined (MTG is the one that springs to mind) and i'd wager that it's these guys on the side that say the rules are saying they don't work together, but I X-Wing's rule book just does not have that level of 'tightness' you'd need to really be able to rules lawyer it the game in that sort of a way. That can be pretty frustrating for people with a certain approach to these things, understandable so from my POV.

It's obvious from the fact that outrider is Dash's ship and both things have obstacles in their mechanics that they are intend to work together, but I do agree that an FAQ is needed to say "yes they work together"

I don't think the rule-book is tight enough for them to be doing anything other than that though, they could  try to define specifically WHY these interaction mean he does work, but i think the truth is they didn't go in to that much logical pulling apart of the rules for their fun space ship game and so it would be a misstep IMO to try and do that as it could just cause people to use that as precedent for other such ambiguous interactions.

 

Edited by Talonbane Cobra

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...