Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
newmagrathea

Ion token vs the Advanced Sensors

Recommended Posts

I don't think that you will find anyone who would disagree that the rules are a little lacking in covering all of the possibilities. Easy to read and quickly be able to play the game and handle most in-game situations, sure, but it really does fail miserably at covering all of the possibilities introduced by the various upgrades and other corner cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's bothering me is that "reveal your maneuver" could mean the step in which you flip your dial... (kickin' that can o worms!)

 

 

1. Reveal Dial: Reveal the active ship’s maneuver dial by flipping it faceup.

 

This is step 1 of the activation phase. If you were to act before step 1, how would you word it? Before you reveal your maneuver? Before you reveal your maneuver dial?

 

Because we have a precedent with "before you reveal your maneuver dial" the logical tie in is that "before you reveal your maneuver" happens at the same time. So why did FFG make a difference unless there was meant to be one. 

 

I can see where the dial is the actual, physical object, and ion rules state that you don't even get one to use for the round so it is clear on how to rule on it.

 

Would that then mean that "before you reveal your maneuver" applies to the timing right before Step 1 and how is it different if you do or don't have a dial if you are indicating a timing point before step 1?

 

This looks a lot like the "Dutch" argument over acquire a target lock vs acquire a target lock action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points worth considering:

 

- We have examples of what "Before Step 1" would look like.  Swarm Tactics is a good example, as it is used at the start of the phase.  There are also several cards (including Advanced Sensors itself) that reference steps.  If it were the step rather than a singular event, I think it would mention it.

- The wording question with Dutch was easy (IMHO) because we had clarity from previous rulings, including the Expert Handling errata and the R5-K6 ruling.

 

The idea that "reveal a dial" and "reveal a maneuver" are different is not unreasonable.  But there really isn't much to support it.  As I asked above, what's the actual difference in the terms?  How would you execute them differently?  Are there any rulings which rely on there being a difference between the two?

 

In general, I believe that different terms should be assumed to mean different things (see: immediately).  But if we can't identify what those different things are, and how we'd treat them differently - and I can't in this case - there really isn't much left other than to just figure it's poor templating.

 

Thankfully, FFG has given us plenty of poorly-templated abilities.  Makes it much easier to accept that particular theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the fastest response I have ever gotten from FFG.

 

Hi Sergovan,

 

In response to your question:

 

" Does being ioned prevent a ship from using Advanced Sensors before clearing the ioned effect?

Was "before you reveal your maneuver" and "before you reveal your maneuver dial" supposed to mean the same thing?"

 

Yes, a ship that has an ion token cannot reveal a maneuver, so effects that refer to revealing a maneuver cannot be used. 

The language "before you reveal your maneuver" is intended to be the same as "before you reveal your maneuver dial".

 

Thanks for playing!

 

James Kniffen

Associate Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my rule is .. just don't over think it.. if it says... "Before you reveal your Maneuver" I assume that means your dial.. cause that's the only place you have a maneuver.. sorry if I'm blunt here.. but it did seem a simple thing to me.. some people just over think it, and that's fine.. just don't get peeved when someone points out the obvious things.. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with ruling/result in this case, the "Well duh, that's obvious" statement is deeply misplaced.  There's an abundance of rules issues in X-wing that are either not so clear as they might seem, or even outright contradict the text as printed.  R2-D2's timing being different when you fly over an obstacle vs. flying over a proximity mine, for example, or the boost/barrel roll over a proximity mine ruling being the complete opposite of the text as printed.

 

FFG has done an outstanding job of hinting that there's always the potential for an unexpected ruling, even when it seems perfectly clear.  At the very least, there are more than enough examples to counter any broad "Stop overthinking it" generalizations.

Edited by Buhallin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll disagree.. this one in particular.. there is only one movement dial, and hence only one 'maneuver' you can reveal. The thing I saw here was someone wanting to utilize their upgrade cards ability. Unfortunately they got caught in a particular situation (was just inquiring about said situation) and lost the ability to take an action.. they wanted to circumnavigate said situation and inquired about their view. The card and rules on this are very simple and straight forward. Quibbling over verbage doesn't change it.

If you have an Ion token, you must, simply, make a 1 straight maneuver.. since one does not reveal ones maneuver dial (or simply stated 'maneuver') one cannot take advantage of the AS upgrade. So when they finish their move and suffer from the overlap and lose their action that turn they are out of luck.. no action..

Rather obvious in ky book.. not trying to be mean here, but angling and trying to maneuver around it isn't going to work, no matter how you try to spin the rules.. they are quite clear.

These rules are meant to be simple and easy for everyone. Are there rules that are unclear.. possibly.. if one is unfamiliar with games of this nature and you are, maybe, used to more complicated rules systems. I call this a beer and pretzels kind of game.. the kind where the whole family can buzz through the rule real quick and enjoy a fun game in the evening.. the designers didn't want to make it complicated.. and I .. personally.. don't think it is..

Edited by oneway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with oneway on this. the best way to play this game is to read the card as written and not look too much into it. The simplest way is often the right way, it keeps the rules simple and flowing. Most times when rules problems have cropped up in my gaming group we have applied this and it has generally worked. Another way to look at it is not just from a rules point of view but from an intuitive point of view, for example- the ship has been hit by an ion so would this affect computer systems?  Although this is a balanced game there is also the fact that the rules reflect what the card is trying to put across a theme or story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First lets look at the activation phase in the main rule book.  It lists it as a 6 step process:

1. Reveal dial.  If Ionized this step is skipped, but you have something taking place before this step(Advanced Sen)

2. Set templete

3. Execute Manuver(Ionized move also)

4. check pilot stress.

5. clean up

6. Perform action(if allowed)

 

We need to look at the whole 6 step process.  The 6 steps are still there, one is just skipped.  Advanced Sensors is an event that takes place before step 1 that in the case of being ionized is just skipped.  It is still part of the process, but just not used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very similiar to the action section.  You execute your manuver if it creates stress you get no action, you skip it, doesnt mean it is not in the process, just skipped.  Just like running into someone the action step is still there, just skipped over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it does not say "dial" on the AS....

Did you seriously just jump in here and not read the last NINE pages of discussion?

Yes, we know that.  That has been acknowledged like twenty times.  If you had actually read the last two pages of discussion you would have seen that that the game designer effectively quashed that whole point of confusion with a pretty straightforward email reply:

"The language "before you reveal your maneuver" is intended to be the same as "before you reveal your maneuver dial".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!! What a read!!! :wacko: thought i was going to have to take a nap to finish all nine pages..... first of all allow me to say although i do NOT like the ruling. I TOTALLY AGREE with it. An Ion Blast disrupts the energy you use to power your ship, it's navigation systems , computers, firing control systems, and any thing electrical. Including your engines, ( as they do require electricity to be able to burn the fuel.) I also WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that the ion cannon/turrets are very under powered. I like the ideas that have been presented in this topic as putting stress onto ships who have been ioned. However I also would like for a ship who has been ioned not to be able to fire when it has an ion token on it. a couple of weeks ago i was playing with a friend of mine ( whom i met at my lgs ) I Ioned his ship efore he was able to fire, so i thought he wouldn't be able to fire since his ships electronics and electrical systems would have been shut down. but after reading the card for the ion rules and there not being any reference to the firing phase or to be more in game correct combat phase. We asked Hothie for a ruling and yes he said the ship could still attack right after ein ioned and having an ion token on it. OK fine!! we play it that way... but really it just makes me not want to use ion cannons/turrets anymore. So MY official recomendation would be to  make no manuver dials for two turns a 1-white manuver for both turns, ship cannot attack when it has an ion token attached to, and an ioned ship would receive a stress token. also no up grades or abilities would trigger that also needed either power or a reveal manuver, when one cant be revealed or no dial is issued to the ship. I do think this would represent the pilot having to reboot his systems and refire his engines, etc... and would have no other priorities until he got his ship working again. and would make the use of ion cannons/turrets more viable in the game. Also i think the cost of using that upgrade should be raised a point or two maybe three. to balance it out and keep from breaking the game out right. more powerful more deadly and costs much more. Also would make any ship with one an outright target. any thoughts on this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any thoughts on this?

My thought is that your suggestion would be massively overpowered. Ion's are perhaps a little bit underpowered, but not by nearly so much that you should turn them into something like you suggest.

With what you say they should do, a Y-Wing would become the single most powerful ship in the game and completely shut down everything flying against it.

For example... 1 White maneuver for two turns + stress means 3 turns that the ship doesn't get to preform an action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point... a little broken perhaps, then again i did suggest a major points boost to go with it. something to make a player think twice about putting it on a ship at all. do i get the ion turret? or just add another ship to my fleet?  and i would be ok with a one turn movement consequence. but i just don't think you can re fire and reboot a ship that quickly. so the manuver for re firing the engines and then the stress for rebooting systems? i could live with that. as long as the said ship could not fire for both rounds. and a points cost modification to go along with the new power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ions are fine.  They're a little underpowered, sure, but I think that people who point out all of the 'counters' to them - PTL Sabers and whatnot - ignore the fact that you pay an awful lot for the privilege.  And since something like AdvS will not work while Ion'd, even if you're able to boost and/or barrel roll post Ion move, you're still extremely vulnerable to being blocked since the other guy knows exactly where you're going to be and can try and park something in the way so you lose those actions.  In which case having PTL is just doubly painful.  

 

Frankly I suspect it was made a little underpowered intentionally, to be honest.  Better to give it interesting but slightly limited utility than have it be this dominating in-game meta that you're stuck facing every single match.  It's enough of a pain in the rear when somebody shows up with an ion turret or two as it is; if it was any more powerful everybody would work it into every build and the game would become annoying fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ions are fine.  They're a little underpowered, sure, but I think that people who point out all of the 'counters' to them - PTL Sabers and whatnot - ignore the fact that you pay an awful lot for the privilege.  And since something like AdvS will not work while Ion'd, even if you're able to boost and/or barrel roll post Ion move, you're still extremely vulnerable to being blocked since the other guy knows exactly where you're going to be and can try and park something in the way so you lose those actions.  In which case having PTL is just doubly painful.  

 

Frankly I suspect it was made a little underpowered intentionally, to be honest.  Better to give it interesting but slightly limited utility than have it be this dominating in-game meta that you're stuck facing every single match.  It's enough of a pain in the rear when somebody shows up with an ion turret or two as it is; if it was any more powerful everybody would work it into every build and the game would become annoying fast.

I agree with your last paragraph crooked wookie. you have a very valid point. and yes it would break the game. One of my favorite builds came from a fellow player at my lgs a b-wing with HLC Elusiveness and ( I dont have the card with me) a named pilot that gives you a re-roll and not sure if he had advanced on there or not but he always runs it with the hawk that gives him ps12 so he always shoots first. and another b-wing with HLC too. was hard to play against lost the first game then almost won the second when i went after the hawk first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH i do believe the hawk was running an ion turret. I do like the ion turrets but why not just put blaster turrets on instead? might not slow them down for a turn but you could just get them out of the way altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange that people think that ions are underpowered. I love ion turrets. It's my #1 elite pilot killer. Ion it, fly in its way, kill it.

 

Ever ionized a stressed Soontir (or any stressed ship)? Oh the joy! :D

It's especially strong against ships with high defense, since you wouldn't do more than 1 damage most of the time anyway.

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...