Let's say I have Han solo in a Falcon with a recon specialist on board and a hwk 290 with Jan Ors crew member.

can Han perform a focus to get two focus then have Jan convert one to an evade?

Looks doable to me. Nice trick

You don't even need the hwk-290. Since the card doesn't say another ship, she can be on the yt-1300 and still affect it.

You don't even need the hwk-290. Since the card doesn't say another ship, she can be on the yt-1300 and still affect it.

Maybe. While we have seen an email from Frank saying this would work, we have seen 2 of his rulings get overturned in the FAQ. Until it is official in the FAQ I wouldn't count on it 100% (but it's out best guess so far).

You don't even need the hwk-290. Since the card doesn't say another ship, she can be on the yt-1300 and still affect it.

Maybe. While we have seen an email from Frank saying this would work, we have seen 2 of his rulings get overturned in the FAQ. Until it is official in the FAQ I wouldn't count on it 100% (but it's out best guess so far).

The fact that they may change their minds does not make it a guess.

We have word directly from FFG on how it should be played. That's the right way to play it, right up until they decide to change it. No guesswork needed.

Seriously, I don't understand this obsession with questioning email responses all of a sudden. What are you going to do between now and the next FAQ? "Well, we got a response from FFG but it might change when the FAQ comes out four months from now, so let's dice it off"? What might happen to the ruling in four months has no bearing on what the best information we have today is.

That's so true. Why are rulings via email from FFG suddenly not good enough? If you're in doubt about something, email them. When you get a response, print the email. Then it's an official document from FFG. What more do you need?

A FAQ entry would be nice, as would an email that actually addresses the card at hand. I have yet to see one of those myself.

The second FFG overturned rulings from emails they made emails unreliable. That's when emails became not good enough. If Franks emails were 100% accurate then great! But they arent.

My point is, we have an email which is our answer **for now** but until it shows in an FAQ it's not actually official.

My point is, we have an email which is our answer **for now** but until it shows in an FAQ it's not actually official.

Sure it is, it's just subject to change. For that matter, anything in the FAQ is subject to change as well really. I mean ideally it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't.

The second FFG overturned rulings from emails they made emails unreliable. That's when emails became not good enough. If Franks emails were 100% accurate then great! But they arent.

My point is, we have an email which is our answer **for now** but until it shows in an FAQ it's not actually official.

We've had several rulings in the FAQ overturned recently. Does that make the FAQ unreliable too?

Is there a ruling in the FAQ that makes Frank's emails official?

I've had one or two emails from Frank that haven't answered my question clearly. I've just fired a reply back to him asking to explain it further. Considering he must deal with quite a large amount of incoming questions on a daily basis, it's clear he's sometimes trying to keep his answers short and sweet in order to get through them all. When I do get a more explanatory answer, he leaves very little doubt as to how he arrived at the answer. Which is great. And that's official enough for me.

I've played a lot of wargames over the last 35+ years and normally there's little or no after-sales support for the game or set of rules I'm playing.