Ion token vs the Advanced Sensors

[Buhallin 4,563]

<facepalm>

 

What is it with people feeling the need to demolition the entire freaking rules set this week??

Edited September 24, 2013 by Buhallin

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

But they've already established they can and WILL predicate things that way, because otherwise turret weapons don't actually function the way they wrote the rules. So there's actually precedent for predication.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

Er, not really.  Declare a target and the weapon you are using to shoot it with.  Done, finis, no predication required.  "I'm going to shoot Biggs with my HLC", "I'm going to shoot Ibitsam with my Proton Torpedo", "I'm going to shoot Han with my primaries".

 

I still haven't seen anything that seems like a break in that rule, besides the conversation relayed second hand where one of the devs acknowledges that if you are required to declare one before the other there is a problem, and that you should declare the weapon second.  First?  I don't remember.  In any case, if I have the opportunity to get more clarity at Worlds I shall endeavor to do so because as-is that doesn't make any sense.  Which is why I find it so ironic that Buhallin has done an about face and is arguing FOR a rule interpretation that simply cannot hold true under all circumstances.

 

Regardless of which, a hard requirement to reveal a dial blows up the rules in at least one specific case.  Blows up in the sense that there is NO WAY to satisfy all requirements simultaneously, which is pretty much the definition of broken.  I use advanced sensors because I am going to reveal a dial, but I died taking my action so I can't reveal my dial.  Do I take back my Advanced Sensors use then?  If not, why not?  After all, revealing a dial is required in order to use Advanced Sensors....  Regardless of how you do this, you have to ignore something.  I thought CW's point that it seems unlikely the devs intended for people to be able to bank on something they knew beforehand they couldn't accomplish to be compelling, but RaW you would be breaking the rules by dying before revealing your dial (if we interpret it as a requisite, rather than a timing statement).

 

Of course, THAT possibility was only opened up because of another odd ruling (odd in this case being entirely contrary to RaW).

 

My point is that we are all trying to figure out what the Dev's intended, or at least we should be, and in unclear cases like this one all we have is our best guess.  I just object to blanket statements like "Regardless of the intent, it says what it says.  And it says it's dependent on you revealing a dial." in order to shut down someone else's line of reasoning, in this case InvestFDC, when the whole REASON we are having the conversation is that the statement is NOT clear.

Edited September 25, 2013 by KineticOperator

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Buhalin, do you want to explain to him how secondary weapons are all hosed up following the RAW?
You understand that better than I do.

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

I don't really see an issue with the running into a mine and blowing up thing.  Seems like that SOLVES the problem of worrying about having to reveal a dial. 

[Buhallin 4,563]

Buhalin, do you want to explain to him how secondary weapons are all hosed up following the RAW?

You understand that better than I do.

The core question is when you pick which weapon you're going to use for an attack, and what that means.

 

There were two possibilities:

 

1.  Before starting the attack

2.  During Step 2

 

The rules hint at (2).  But the real problem is that either one creates an inconsistency with the various rulings/abilities we have:

 

1.  If it's before the attack then Dark Curse isn't the defender when you spend the focus to attack with a Blaster Turret.  So, this timing contradicts the DC/focus to attack ruling

2.  If it's during Step 2, then it's after target selection.  That means that the turret you want to fire with isn't active during Step 1, when you're picking a target, so its more permissive targeting rules aren't in effect.  Essentially, you have to pick a target in your arc, because the "pick a target outside your arc" ruling isn't active yet.

 

I made no claim as to which was right or wrong, merely that it was impossible for BOTH to be right.  KO preferred to shred the timing rules to try and make both work, but we got confirmation directly from Kniffen at GenCon that secondary weapons are selected during Step 2.  That means that according to a strict reading, turrets are basically nonfunctional.

 

That's why I can't help but shrug at the objection to "before" as a timing element.  I find it somewhat ironic that he's gone from compressing and conflating multiple timing elements to now declaring that we have to follow strict timing.  But either way, we know how both are supposed to be played (and precedented).  I'm content to let him tilt at his windmill.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Buhallin

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Sorry yes, meant turrets specifically, if I misspoke, not secondaries in general.

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

Of course... turrets aren't messed up at all if there are simultaneous actions, or a single action with simultaneous decisions required before commitment.

 

Just a thought.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Ken at Sunrise

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Well I'm guessing since they said "yeah we hosed that part up but it would be too much trouble to go back and errata the whole combat section to make it work right, just do it," that's not the case.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

Actually, 3 possibilities but Buhallin has yet to acknowledge that there is even the possibility of the third, despite the fact that it neatly resolves all potential issues.

 

3 - Declare weapon and target simultaneously.

 

Unfortunately, doing either of the things Buhallin wants to do with Secondary weapons creates issues within the rules system, especially when it interacts with Dark Curse and Biggs.  This was pointed out ad nauseam to him by myself and others, but he insists that his interpretation is not only correct (despite being unsupportable by the rules, and having been repeatedly ruled invalid in the FAQ), but the only POSSIBLE interpretation.  The fact that the Dev's have issued actual FAQ answers showing him to be wrong hasn't even caused him to break stride.  I will also flat out say that since it was Buhallin asking the questions, and knowing that he NEVER, EVER, lets something go even if he has been proven wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the devs just said "yeah, yeah, we are aware just do it that way" rather than argue with a customer at a public venue.

 

Now, we have another rule interpretation by Buhallin that would make it impossible to follow all the rules as written.  Not wierd, but flat out impossible, in at least one situation and probably more if I wanted to continue poking holes in it.  But the fact that I can show one situation where it simply fails, requiring a player to flat out ignore some rules in favor of others, doesn't cause him to reconsider just like our earlier conversation where his position was shown to be unsupportable (and was ruled wrong in the FAQ) did not cause him to reconsider either.

 

I can live with his obnoxious insistence on impossible rules interpretations, but as much as I have tried to remain polite I have grown weary of him ambushing and infuriating people as they come here to discuss rules.  So this time when he jumped on someone, hypocritically accusing him of doing exactly what Buhalllin was doing, I called him on it.

 

He is right, I am tilting at windmills.  Trying to get Buhallin to admit that anyone else may have a valid opinion that runs contrary to his is impossible, and asking him to remain civil has proved equally pointless.  Even so, if he wants to run around like a bully on the playground and treat other people like crap I don't feel any particular compulsion to let it go by without calling him on it.

Edited September 25, 2013 by KineticOperator

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

You can take issue with his tone, but I don't think it's as impossible as you want to believe it is.  

I get where you're coming from, but EITHER interpretation breaks the rules in a way.  Either an ability can predicate, which is wonky timing wise, or you can follow half the text of a card under certain circumstances, knowing full well you're not actually going to be able to meet the requirements of the remainder of the text.

 

Neither one is going to be a clean solution.  I suspect they'll rule on this one, and that much like some of the other rulings it'll raise a few eyebrows no matter which way it goes.  Because one answer makes the game sort of warp space time for a moment, but the other one sets a potentially dangerous precedent as far as other potential loopholes where you don't actually have to follow through on the text of a card.

 

Both options kind of suck.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

 

 

 

You can take issue with his tone, but I don't think it's as impossible as you want to believe it is.  

I get where you're coming from, but EITHER interpretation breaks the rules in a way.  Either an ability can predicate, which is wonky timing wise, or you can follow half the text of a card under certain circumstances, knowing full well you're not actually going to be able to meet the requirements of the remainder of the text.

 

Neither one is going to be a clean solution.  I suspect they'll rule on this one, and that much like some of the other rulings it'll raise a few eyebrows no matter which way it goes.  Because one answer makes the game sort of warp space time for a moment, but the other one sets a potentially dangerous precedent as far as other potential loopholes where you don't actually have to follow through on the text of a card.

 

Both options kind of suck.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed, for the most part.  The point I was making with this rule (as were others) is that the English language (lord help us) can be read in so MANY ways, that the wording on Advanced Sensors could just be a timing statement, rather than a requirement.  If so (and I do mean IF), then we don't have a breakdown in the rules.  Of course that still leaves us with a terribly vague, poorly worded card that lends itself to confusion, but there we go.  As a timing statement all they would have needed to do is say "your reveal maneuver step" instead of "you reveal your maneuver" and we would be golden.  Or better yet, word it exactly the same way they worded bomb drops, so we have clear verbiage AND clear precedents.

 

I still think your argument about how it seems abusive to take an action that at least implies you must reveal a dial immediately after when you KNOW for a fact that you cannot is compelling.  That causes issues with the RaW, but that could easily be an artifact of a loosely worded ability rather than any intent to break the rules on the Dev's part.

Edited September 25, 2013 by KineticOperator

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

And I don't know if it really occurred to them that you can't (logically) create a postrequisite (although I still love that word and am totally keeping it) to an effect, or if they just figured "meh, they'll read the whole card, see that they have to have a maneuver dial later for this to work, and take it from there."  

 

My wife writes code - this would drive her up a wall.  I don't, so to me it's at worst slightly awkwardly worded.  And there are enough other awkwardly worded rules in the game I guess I take it in stride.

 

Either way, this one I would be shocked if they didn't clear it up in the FAQ.  I know how I think it should work, but my hope is that even if I am right, they clear it up in a way that smooths over any confusion - even if that means an errata for the wording of the card.  Not just a flat out "no, do it this way" ruling like we get sometimes which answers that specific question but doesn't address any of the larger problems that the wording of the card creates.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

And I don't know if it really occurred to them that you can't (logically) create a postrequisite (although I still love that word and am totally keeping it) to an effect, or if they just figured "meh, they'll read the whole card, see that they have to have a maneuver dial later for this to work, and take it from there."  

 

And I am totally stealing it.  Just so you know.  

[Buhallin 4,563]

Actually, 3 possibilities but Buhallin has yet to acknowledge that there is even the possibility of the third, despite the fact that it neatly resolves all potential issues.

 

3 - Declare weapon and target simultaneously.

 

Unfortunately, doing either of the things Buhallin wants to do with Secondary weapons creates issues within the rules system, especially when it interacts with Dark Curse and Biggs.  This was pointed out ad nauseam to him by myself and others, but he insists that his interpretation is not only correct (despite being unsupportable by the rules, and having been repeatedly ruled invalid in the FAQ), but the only POSSIBLE interpretation.  The fact that the Dev's have issued actual FAQ answers showing him to be wrong hasn't even caused him to break stride.  I will also flat out say that since it was Buhallin asking the questions, and knowing that he NEVER, EVER, lets something go even if he has been proven wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the devs just said "yeah, yeah, we are aware just do it that way" rather than argue with a customer at a public venue.

Actually, I wasn't the one asking the question.  It was VorpalSword who spoke to James about it.

 

So yeah, you're still wrong on this.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

Was it?  So (watch carefully here, Buhallin) I was wrong about that.

[Buhallin 4,563]

Was it?  So (watch carefully here, Buhallin) I was wrong about that.

Maybe we should take a look at the guy who asked them about Adrenaline Rush at GenCon and reported the answer, and what side of the answer said reporter was on.  Because if I were asking something like that, I'd obviously never have the honesty to report an answer that proved me wrong, and that's assuming that I'd actually accept such an answer in the first place without just browbeating poor James into giving me the answer I want.

 

That guy would probably make a good role model for me though, don't you think?

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

 

And I don't know if it really occurred to them that you can't (logically) create a postrequisite (although I still love that word and am totally keeping it) to an effect, or if they just figured "meh, they'll read the whole card, see that they have to have a maneuver dial later for this to work, and take it from there."  

 

And I am totally stealing it.  Just so you know.  

 

Say what you will about this rule - that is an awesome word.     Someone remember to have the OED credit me next year.

[KineticOperator 2,534]

It isn't about honesty, Buhallin, and I apologize if you thought I was suggesting otherwise.  The problem I have had is that you seem either unable or unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints.  You then follow up by making statements to the effect that yours is the only possible interpretation and imply that others who disagree with you must somehow be mentally deficient.

 

I have never thought you were being dishonest, nor did I believe you were reporting things with bias.  I have only objected to your refusal to consider alternatives, and your rudeness when dismissing others.

 

I have only one more thing to say on the subject.  I read through our various interactions here, and found that you and I have both gotten increasingly less tolerant of one another.  I am not willing to continue down that path, so I will take this opportunity to stop before this goes any further.

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Hug it out?

[Buhallin 4,563]

The problem I have had is that you seem either unable or unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints.

The fact that I don't agree with them doesn't mean I don't consider them.  Am I easy to move on a topic?  No, because I go through issues very thoroughly before I form an opinion in the first place, so opposition views rarely present anything I haven't considered and discarded.  I pretty much never present a view without checking the rules, FAQ, and a self-made searchable list of card text to find side effects.  When I'm wrong, I do admit it - I pushed the AR response even though it countered my understanding.  I blogged the Fettigator response, which I was also wrong on.  I realized I was wrong on the recent question of when Kir Kanos can use his ability, and corrected it directly.

 

I don't (intentionally) ever call anyone stupid or mentally deficient, although I'm sure someone will dig up that one time I slipped and throw it at me.  When I feel someone has an insufficient understanding of how to read these rules I will call them out on that, especially when those people have dug themselves in to a truly horrible interpretation.  The recent question over Kagi's lock is a good example of this - what else do you say to someone who's dead set on reading "if able" as meaning you ignore the entire game state and only apply the baseline rules regardless of any other effects?

 

I do always find this sort of comment amusing when it comes up.  Did you happen to come around to my viewpoint on much of anything?  Not that I know of.  For these debates to get to the point they do, we pretty much have to have two equally intractable sides.  But it's only ever me who refuses to consider the other side, and is unwilling to budge.  <shrug>

Edited September 25, 2013 by Buhallin

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

 

The recent question over Kagi's lock is a good example of this - what else do you say to someone who's dead set on reading "if able" as meaning you ignore the entire game state and only apply the baseline rules regardless of any other effects?

 

I do always find this sort of comment amusing when it comes up.  Did you happen to come around to my viewpoint on much of anything?  Not that I know of.  For these debates to get to the point they do, we pretty much have to have two equally intractable sides.  But it's only ever me who refuses to consider the other side, and is unwilling to budge.  <shrug>

 

 

Feeling directly aluded by this, I have no choice but to answer.

 

First of all, in that topic, I was everything but dead-set. As anyone that takes time to read that topic can verify, I stated on several occassions that 'your' interpretation indeed WAS CORRECT. I never attacked the validity itself of the other posture. I merely pointed that rules COULD ALSO HOLD 'the other' interpretation, being my contribution to merely defend the possible existence of that other interpretation.

 

And if you wonder why it's you the one who always seems to be the intransigent one... Maybe one reason could be that you seem to think at all times that only one solution (usually yours) to the debate should be the valid one. By a Strict RAW line of thinking, If only one answer (yours) can be correct, then, the rest must be necessarily wrong. You chose to be a master of the RAW side. I understand that, and that's why I can indulge such way of thinking, but many people feel 'attacked' and uneasy with that attitude, specially when you don't have precise evidence that they are wrong.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Jehan Menasis

[Profty 1]

How the Eff has this become a 7 page debate when almost everyone agreed at the beginning? 

 

Still in the ion negates advanced sensors camp.

[InvestFDC 127]

Ion only affects movement and specifically states it does not interfere with actions.

[Ravncat 1,989]

Ion only affects movement and specifically states it does not interfere with actions.

 

I think we have to be careful - The ion token card says "... After executing this maneuver, remove all ion tokens from the ship. It may perform actions as normal."

 

The wording suggests that it we treat actions performed after the maneuver as normal. Advanced sensors is telling us to skip the take action step (which happens after the maneuver).  The ion token card acknowledges the standard activation phase order of events.

 

I do not believe we can use the wording of the ion token card to protect the free action granted to us before our maneuver.  Additionally, the advanced sensors card has to be triggered to be used, the condition of that use is dependant upon the dial being revealed. In this sense, it's not the ion token rules that have prevented us from using advanced sensors, it's the advanced sensor card itself.