Some local players won't accept anything short of an FAQ entry but has there been any official word on this?

What about it, exactly?

Specifically can Farlander spend the stress even if not focus results are rolled in the attack roll.

Given the reasoning behind us being allowed to spend Focus tokens and TLs to modify no results, there is almost no question: yes. *

* That being said, a curve-ball ruling from FFG is not out of the question. But I'd eat my hat if he isn't allowed to.

Sounds like the same deal as focus to me, so I'd say yes.

How are your local players playing it?

Unsure, we have a decent sized Facebook debate going. Mine and D4raco's opinion are one in the same, but there are a few hold outs. Given that some of those holdouts do run some local events I could see it being ruled differntly at different events.

I see no reason to believe, short of a complete rewording of the ability by FFG, to think that it works any different then the other token spending rules worded in the same fashion.

Absolutely yes. There's no "if you roll at least one [eye], you may..." clause attached to it. It simply says you may remove a stress to change any [eye]s. you're still doing that, even if there's no [eye] results

How do we submit rules questions through official channels? I need to end this debate.

No rulea question shiuld be needed.

FAQ is already quitw clear that you can spens tokena and elect not to modify dice.

How do we submit rules questions through official channels? I need to end this debate.

Top of this page, go to "More...", scroll down to "Customer Service" and you should see the "Rules Question" option. Although, StephenEsven is quite correct. It's in the FAQ, not specifically for Farlander, but that shouldn't be an issue.

How do we submit rules questions through official channels? I need to end this debate.

Top of this page, go to "More...", scroll down to "Customer Service" and you should see the "Rules Question" option. Although, StephenEsven is quite correct. It's in the FAQ, not specifically for Farlander, but that shouldn't be an issue.

That is litterally the point of contention with a few players. Thier line of reasoning is that because the FAQ doesn't specifically mention spending stress tokens in the same way as the others, that until it does that spending stress tokens doesn't work the same way. Despite being nearly word for word with the rules book entry for spending focus tokens. One players has suggested that he doesn't believe the designers would make it that easy to shed stress so he won't believe the ability works that way without an FAQ entry.

Then they should apply the same virwpoint to spending focys tokens, and rhen realize that they woukd be wrong when reading the FAQ. There is a strong trend in the rules and FAQ that rules are consistant. So until the FAQ is updated they should be willing to accept that the rules for spending tokens are as you say. Their personal beleif that this is too easy don't matter. Rules are rules, likebit or not.

Well now that Rebel Aces is out, an email will probably get answered, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an updated FAQ within the next month or so. BUT... whether they specifically make an entry for Farlander, when most players understand how to use him, is doubtful.

To make it into the FAQ, it's got to be a question that's asked frequently (hence the name) and I honestly don't see this one coming up too often. It's pretty simple. If your friend thinks FFG has made a mistake and he's right, he's deluded.

Some local players won't accept anything short of an FAQ entry but has there been any official word on this?

Most common problem of rule disagreements is that both players want a rule in their "favor" as in something that gives them and advantage or disadvantage instead of playing the game. It becomes an argument "tug of war" as players start to look for loop holes to give them an advantage even if it isn't designed for such.

You should not be wasting time playing with people like those. They forget the first "unwritten" rule about playing table top miniature games. Rule # 1 To Have Fun.

^^ This is so true.

^^ This is so true.

If I may, your comment should read, "Sadly this is so true".

Well now that Rebel Aces is out, an email will probably get answered, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an updated FAQ within the next month or so. BUT... whether they specifically make an entry for Farlander, when most players understand how to use him, is doubtful.

To make it into the FAQ, it's got to be a question that's asked frequently (hence the name) and I honestly don't see this one coming up too often. It's pretty simple. If your friend thinks FFG has made a mistake and he's right, he's deluded.

Can you attack a friendly ship made it into the FAQ. The bar is rather low as far as the FAQ goes.

Additionally I think you guys are going a bit far with some of these comments. As I said this is a debate happening over a Facebook Group. There is no play advantage to be gained in the debate. It isn't like this came up during a game and the player across from Keyan is arguing until he's blue in the face just to try and get a bit of an edge. It isn't as if it's strictly Imp players on the other end of the debate either. While I am certainly dumb-founded by the arguments I'm getting from some, I feel your characterizations are very much reaching.

I simply hate playing with people who are so committed to nitpicking rules, trying to get them to work in their favor. Those people aren't playing for the sake of fun, they're being overly competitive. While I'd expect to see that in a tourney (though I still am not fond of it there) I wouldn't be very happy if people were acting that way in a casual game

Additionally I think you guys are going a bit far with some of these comments. As I said this is a debate happening over a Facebook Group. There is no play advantage to be gained in the debate. It isn't like this came up during a game and the player across from Keyan is arguing until he's blue in the face just to try and get a bit of an edge. It isn't as if it's strictly Imp players on the other end of the debate either. While I am certainly dumb-founded by the arguments I'm getting from some, I feel your characterizations are very much reaching.

I simply hate playing with people who are so committed to nitpicking rules, trying to get them to work in their favor. Those people aren't playing for the sake of fun, they're being overly competitive. While I'd expect to see that in a tourney (though I still am not fond of it there) I wouldn't be very happy if people were acting that way in a casual game

If you want to know how the FAQ for farlander would look, read the Garven FAQ. I am pretty sure FFG will use the exact wording for Farlander, substituting stress for focus.

Well now that Rebel Aces is out, an email will probably get answered, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an updated FAQ within the next month or so. BUT... whether they specifically make an entry for Farlander, when most players understand how to use him, is doubtful.

To make it into the FAQ, it's got to be a question that's asked frequently (hence the name) and I honestly don't see this one coming up too often. It's pretty simple. If your friend thinks FFG has made a mistake and he's right, he's deluded.

Can you attack a friendly ship made it into the FAQ. The bar is rather low as far as the FAQ goes.

The Assault Missile card was probably the cause of many questions from unscrupulous players so I can see the reasoning for the "friendly ship attack" question, but Farlander is more straight forward as we've already got Garven doing much the same thing.

I simply hate playing with people who are so committed to nitpicking rules, trying to get them to work in their favor. Those people aren't playing for the sake of fun, they're being overly competitive. While I'd expect to see that in a tourney (though I still am not fond of it there) I wouldn't be very happy if people were acting that way in a casual game

While I agree to a certain extent that rules lawyers are a bane on any game I think that in this case it is quite fair to ask the question.

If you are allowed to spend the stress regardless of whether there are any eyeballs rolled or not (as most assume from the Garven ruling) then Keyan becomes an ultra mobile B-Wing with a small chance of catching himself out if he has nothing to shoot at, probably fair considering the 29 point starting cost.

Now if FFG deem that you cant remove the stress UNLESS you roll an eyeball, the gamble becomes much higher to the point where I would honestly say for the points hes garbage, a 29 point ship with an inconsistent ability is way too much.

Im seriously considering running Keyan in an upcoming event but I will certainly be getting a ruling from the TO prior to the event because of this exact problem, that to be honest has actually been debated for the last 6 months (since Keyan was originally spoiled) and I find it strange that FFG are yet to clarify this issue.

What is with the sudden explosion of nasty around here? And for a whole lot of nothing?

Has this thread really hit two pages entirely on the strength of bashing players who aren't even here?