Tried searching won't work. Anyways can Jan's ability be used on herself? I think yes because Etahn has a similar wording and his can also be used on himself.

Frank did say that a ship is considered within range 1 of itself. We also know that a ship is considered friendly to itself.

So yes Jan (crew) can be used on the ship she's on.

Here's the thread with the email from Frank, it was a question about Targeting Coordinator, but that has the same wording as Jan (crew)

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/111525-targeting-coordinator-on-yourself/

Frank did say that a ship is considered within range 1 of itself. We also know that a ship is considered friendly to itself.

I think you've got that backwards.

I think you've got that backwards.

Ummm no I don't think I do.

Here's the email from Frank, from that thread.

Hello,

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

With the Crew upgrade card "Targeting Coordinator", can you choose yourself? That is, can a corvette using Targeting Coordinator choose itself as a "friendly ship at Range 1-2"?

Thank you for your assistance,

Yes. A card would explicitly call out “choose another friendly ship” if you were not allowed to target yourself.

This is a way for a CR90 to acquire a target lock without spending an action (and just spending energy).

Thanks for asking,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

So clearly you are both within range 1 of yourself, and you are friendly to yourself. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by having that backwards.

Frank's reply is specifically addressing the "friendly" aspect, and his affirmation is to the effect in general. Again, much like the last time we discussed this, I'm just being literal here.

I'm just being literal here.

Ok, but the range 1 issue is also covered under what he says. But I see your point, he doesn't actually mention range 1 in his email.

Soooooo jan affects herself?

Edit: nevermind her card does say "when another friendly ship is attacking" so according to me frank that means another friendly ship not jan haha. Thanks could not find it anywhere or in the FAQ.

Edit: nevermind her card does say "when another friendly ship is attacking"...

Oh sorry, I meant Jan Ore pilot, I thought you meant the crew cards. Because when you said this I thought "no she doesn't..." then I realized we were talking about different cards.

Yes Jan Ors (pilot) does not effect herself, because as you point out it says "another" on the card.

Edit: nevermind her card does say "when another friendly ship is attacking"...

Oh sorry, I meant Jan Ore pilot, I thought you meant the crew cards. Because when you said this I thought "no she doesn't..." then I realized we were talking about different cards.Yes Jan Ors (pilot) does not effect herself, because as you point out it says "another" on the card.

Well if this is true generally then Lone Wolf ceases to function unless what Frank said is specific to Targeting Coordinator.

No because line wolf says other on it, which excludes that ship.

No because line wolf says other on it, which excludes that ship.

I can't see the word other on the card. Of cause FFG has been known to update images in previews before. But the image I have does not say other.

But the image I have does not day other.

The preview doesn't now that I look again. The Wiki has it worded differently but that's an errata I guess. So perhaps the card doesn't say other but they are going to errata it, or hopefully correct it if possible.

What wiki are you referring to? I checked the article and x-wing companion app.

I have the card in hand and Lone Wolf indeed does not say "other." As far as I know, the wiki would not have any particular information about any potential errata FFG may or may not issue in the future.

Yeah, the wiki page says it's been erratad, but is in desperate need of a citation.

But the wiki doesn't overrule FFG, does it? It's clear it should probably read like the wiki says. Franks ruling may require a rewrite of a few cards.

The wiki doesn't do anything besides act as a source of shared information. It is certainly not authoritative, and without a citation to let us know where the supposed errata came from, we can't put any stock in it. If it was a Frank ruling that someone got by email, that information should be properly documented. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is no errata.

Edit: after digging around on the wiki, I discovered that the page was updated with that information by SpectreTrail, whoever that is.

I agree entirely, WW.

Yeah not claiming that the wiki is authortive just saw the text there and didn't bother looking at the card. It's possible it will be errata when the card comes out because with Franks email the card won't work as is. So either the ruling changes or else the card text does.

Or that email was an ad hoc ruling that only applied to the card in question, and can't (or shouldn't) be used as precedent. Either way, Frank's emails should be treated with more reservation than heretofore has been the case.

Either way, Frank's emails should be treated with more reservation than heretofore has been the case.

Which would be true, if we had an alternative. But at the moment Frank's emails are quite literally the only thing we have to go by in between FAQ updates.

The alternative is not to impose rules for one card that we do have an email about on others that we don't. If we're going to impart that much faith in the man, we should be a little more specific (and consistent) about our questions.

The alternative is not to impose rules for one card that we do have an email about on others that we don't. If we're going to impart that much faith in the man, we should be a little more specific (and consistent) about our questions.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment regarding patchy emails from Frank not being loaded up somewhere to an active official FAQ site, I cannot agree with the idea that rulings about 1 card do not apply to others with the same functional rules wording.

A rules system without a precedent setting is doomed to fail when the same linguistic term or phrase has multiple meanings on different cards.