There is nothing in the ion rule to suggest the presence of the dial matters

There is only the wording "as if it were assigned" to overwrite the presence of the dial

The rule is already covered in RAW , almost as if they had planned ahead or something

Remember "do what the card says not what it doesn't say" what it doesn't say is "ignore if dial is set"

There is nothing in the ion rule to suggest the presence of the dial matters

I'd agree with you, if not for the ruling from Frank.

So either that will be the ruling and conner nets will have the ion effect kick in the next turn. Or else they'll rule some other way, which has happened more then once when all we have is an email.

But until the FAQ over rules the email, if I were a TO I'd go with the ruling Frank made.

There is nothing in the ion rule to suggest the presence of the dial matters

I'd agree with you, if not for the ruling from Frank.

So either that will be the ruling and conner nets will have the ion effect kick in the next turn. Or else they'll rule some other way, which has happened more then once when all we have is an email.

But until the FAQ over rules the email, if I were a TO I'd go with the ruling Frank made.

You shouldn't agree with him, even without the e-mail from Frank. Read the 3rd page of the FAQ about Ion tokens and their effects:

Ion Token Some card abilities, such as the “Ion Cannon Turret” Upgrade card, can cause a ship to receive an ion token. A ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during these phases:

• Planning Phase: The owner does not assign a maneuver dial to this ship.

• Activation Phase: The owner moves the ship as if it were assigned a white [ 1] maneuver. After executing this maneuver, remove all ion tokens from the ship. It may perform actions as normal.

• Combat Phase: The ship may attack as normal.

In the scenario being debated here, the ion token did not come into play until AFTER the planning phase. An Ion token does not take affect until the start of the next planing phase. I've dealt with this one a few times as a TO. It's the same kind of mistake people make with Sensor Jammer in not following proper order of who gets to manipulate who's dice and when.

again, nothing on the card that states that the effect has to come into play during the planning phase. There is no wording at all to suggest it, not on the card nor in the faq.

Here is the only condition related to ionization effects:

"A ship with an ion token assigned to it follows these special rules during these phases"

that's it

There's an entry for Activation Phase right there, and yet nothing about the effects kicking in during the next planning phase. All they're checking for is the presence of the ion token and then listing its effects according to phase.

as long as the token persists, you follow the rules on the card instead of the rules in the rulebook (same way as large ships follow "special rules" when barrel-rolling). When the token is gone, you no longer follow said special rules.

you're going to need an email to claim otherwise

and if anyone asks what the Planning Phase rules are for if the dial doesn't matter anyway, remember we're normally required to set dials. If FFG didn't write that bit in, we'd be setting dials for no reason.

An Ion token does not take affect until the start of the next planing phase.

That's debatable. There's nothing in those rules that require you start the process in the planing phase. You can treat each bullet as a completely separate thing to be processed in each phase.

Planning Phase - Ion token y/n? - if Y then do...

Activation Phase - Ion token y/n? - if Y then do...

It's not like anything is broken by skipping over the planning phase part of the ion rules. The ion tokens are removed when you perform the white 1 straight maneuver, so when you get to the next planning phase there are no ion tokens so you wouldn't do anything special.

Now I agree that based on Franks ruling it seems RAI you have to follow the whole process starting with the planning phase, and since you are past that point it goes into effect next turn. But that is not the only way to correctly follow the rules.

you're going to need an email to claim otherwise

FYI... I posted the email from Frank on post #150.

But again here's the ruling from Frank.

The B-wing would perform a free boost action (receiving an ion token) and then still reveal its maneuver like normal. The effects of the ion token would occur during the next planning and activation phases.

Since the conner net has the same exact effect as using Leebo and advanced sensors (gaining a ion token after setting the dial but before revealing it) then I can see no reason why this ruling wouldn't stand for both cases.

TLT users are like mini super Dash. Except, there is possibly more then one of them. Yes, it's waay too early to say things like this, but, I just have a feeling...

The only ships that can take it (until the Ghost, anyway) are the Y-wing, HWK-290, and K-wing. None of those ships can barrel roll by default, the way Dash can. The Y-wing and K-wing don't have EPTs, like Dash does. And none of those ships can ignore obstacles the way Dash can.

The TLT is really good, but I think we're safe from a wave full of mini Super Dashes.

But with the title the Y-Wing could get 3 attack each turn couldn't it?

you're going to need an email to claim otherwise

FYI... I posted the email from Frank on post #150.

But again here's the ruling from Frank.

The B-wing would perform a free boost action (receiving an ion token) and then still reveal its maneuver like normal. The effects of the ion token would occur during the next planning and activation phases.

Since the conner net has the same exact effect as using Leebo and advanced sensors (gaining a ion token after setting the dial but before revealing it) then I can see no reason why this ruling wouldn't stand for both cases.

I don't see the ruling from frank echoed in the FAQ, the resource that you would give to people to clarify the rules

I saw the rulings for emailed Armada questions (Motti, H9 + warlord, the definition of "attack" etc.) included in the Armada FAQ.

Now true, you had to wait until the updated FAQ to see those official rulings, but the last X-wing FAQ updates was July 2015 but Frank's is nowhere to be found even though "Leebo" was 2 waves (well 1.5 waves) ago.

this suggests to me one of three things:

1. Frank made a mistake (a human making a mistake? the horror! )

2. FFG forgot to FAQ this old-ass card (hell, E.I is faqed and it came in the same pack )

3. FFG changed their minds

they could well reinstate that ion only kicks in during the next planning phase, but I find it curious that they did not since we already have a card (Leebo + sensors) that inflicts ionization after the planning phase and before dial is revealed.

Mind, I agree FFG has the final say but either they're satisfied with the clear RAW that functions just fine even after dials are set, or have horribly mismanaged this interaction

I don't see the ruling from frank echoed in the FAQ, the resource that you would give to people to clarify the rules

Yeah which makes it a gray area thing. It's not an official ruling, but it still is useful for RAI, since it spells out what the intention is. But we have had emailed rulings changed, and even had FAQ rulings changed.

So all we can do is go with what information we have.

1. Frank made a mistake (a human making a mistake? the horror! )

I'm sure he felt that was the correct answer when he sent out that email... That doesn't mean he can't or didn't change his mind. But I don't think he can make a mistake in this case, because the rules are what ever he and Alex say they are. It's not that he's infallible or anything, but he's kinda like a TO in this, because his word is final, up to the point that he changes his mind.

It's possible that he didn't consider what effect his ruling would have on conner nets though. So they may be holding off on updating the FAQ until conner nets are out as well.

But again if I were asked how this works as a TO, I'd have to rule that the ion effect happens next turn based on the email Frank sent out. FAQ trumps emails from Frank/Alex. But until a FAQ contradicts what Frank said, that's IMO the official word on the matter.

As a TO, it KILLS me how 99% of all rule disputes come from players inferring meaning. The Ion rules are clear, the planing stage IS a part of the Ion effect. Glad Frank was able to clear this up for some of you. It is a complicated issue that did not exist prior to Lebo, but is none-the-less covered in the original rules. Arguing whether this is "clear or not" is pointless. I am just continuing my quest to get players to literally read rules and cards without inferring or assuming meaning.

As a TO, it KILLS me how 99% of all rule disputes come from players inferring meaning. The Ion rules are clear, the planing stage IS a part of the Ion effect. Glad Frank was able to clear this up for some of you. It is a complicated issue that did not exist prior to Lebo, but is none-the-less covered in the original rules. Arguing whether this is "clear or not" is pointless. I am just continuing my quest to get players to literally read rules and cards without inferring or assuming meaning.

but aren't you inferring that ion rules kick in only after planning phase after the tokens show up?

It's not written anywhere on the card nor the FAQ the only thing there is "A ship with an ion token assigned to it follows these special rules during these phases"

the ion rules are indeed very clear. They activate when the ship is dealt ion tokens and remain active while those tokens persist (said tokens fall off during the activation, after the ion move).

For example, conventional Ion can activate during combat: (and will continue to do so with ion bombs)

1.) a PS 2 Y-wing shoots and ionizes a PS 1 Tie Fighter, giving him one ion token

2.) The PS 1 Tie Fighter refers to the special rules, which read Combat Phase: This ship may attack as normal. Therefore, he may attack as normal.

There is nothing telling him to remove the tokens, so the tokens persist into next round.

3.) During the Planning Phase he does not set a dial

4.) During the Activation Phase he moves 1-foward and ditches the tokens. He takes actions as normal (as specified in the ion rules)

5.) If he gets ionized again before he shoots, repeat

now if you're higher PS and get ionized, then you've already attacked and sit tight until Planning

that's the reason why the Ion Rules have a Combat Phase section even though it does nothing. If Ion kicked in only during the Planning Phase, they wouldn't need a "Combat Phase" section (it'd start at planning, fall off during activation; no more ion)

there is no inferring here, that is simply what is (very clearly) written. Any intentions to the contrary need to be clarified (ala Frank's email, assuming that decision is still upheld)

As a TO, it KILLS me how 99% of all rule disputes come from players inferring meaning. The Ion rules are clear, the planing stage IS a part of the Ion effect. Glad Frank was able to clear this up for some of you. It is a complicated issue that did not exist prior to Lebo, but is none-the-less covered in the original rules. Arguing whether this is "clear or not" is pointless. I am just continuing my quest to get players to literally read rules and cards without inferring or assuming meaning.

but aren't you inferring that ion rules kick in only after planning phase after the tokens show up?

It's not written anywhere on the card nor the FAQ the only thing there is "A ship with an ion token assigned to it follows these special rules during these phases"

Any intentions to the contrary need to be clarified (ala Frank's email, assuming that decision is still upheld)

There is no need to clarify Franks email. It's quite clear, every bit as clear as the Ion rules. Unless you can produce something official to over rule Frank such as a more recent email or a more recent FAQ that contradicts Franks email, then that's the ruling we should go with.

Unless you're willing to ignore all rules that they email, which is fair, but it really needs to be a all or nothing, you can't just ignore the ones you don't agree with.

In fact... I'll email FFG myself and see if Frank's ruling still stands and what that means for conner nets.

Yes.

Any intentions to the contrary need to be clarified (ala Frank's email, assuming that decision is still upheld)

There is no need to clarify Franks email. It's quite clear, every bit as clear as the Ion rules. Unless you can produce something official to over rule Frank such as a more recent email or a more recent FAQ that contradicts Franks email, then that's the ruling we should go with.

Unless you're willing to ignore all rules that they email, which is fair, but it really needs to be a all or nothing, you can't just ignore the ones you don't agree with.

In fact... I'll email FFG myself and see if Frank's ruling still stands and what that means for conner nets.

you keep saying ion rules are clear when there is clearly nothing on the card or in the FAQ that let it operate in the manner you describe. Yes, the rules are technically clear, which is why Conner Nets should be able to both ionize and rob action step on the same turn.

Frank's email is clear and takes precedent if it is confirmed (which, according to the FAQ, it has yet to be), but it is not in line with RAW

that's all it is. RAW supports conner nets simultaneous effects if it overlaps before the dial is revealed. Frank's email could override RAW, and then FFG could FAQ the rule to confirm.

Frank's email is clear and takes precedent if it is confirmed (which, according to the FAQ, it has yet to be), but it is not in line with RAW

Franks email doesn't need to be confirmed. It's the final word, until it's not. If you want to ignore rules sent via email, feel free. There's a number of reasons why someone may want to do that.

They're not part of an official document, and does require trusting that the source of the email is telling us the truth (which is something I assume.) But if you're going to ignore emailed rulings you can't only ignore the ones you don't agree with.

With that said I did email them about if the ruling and how it works with conner nets.

I trust Frank to tell the truth, what I find odd is that it was not included in the FAQ

The emails to resolve rules questions in threads I have personally been a part of have all made it to the FAQ (not verbatim, mind, but with the intended effect)

The only time the email has to stand on its own is when the FAQ has yet to be updated to address the relevant issue

Leebo's been officially out since (according to the wiki) November 26, 2014. The FAQ has updated as of July 24, 2015. There is nothing in there about Leebo (crew) nor ion.

I should have added, however, that it might not be there just because it wasn't viewed as a big enough issue to include.

I have no interest in Wave 7 except for the Tie Advance fix.

The emails to resolve rules questions in threads I have personally been a part of have all made it to the FAQ

There's a couple cases that haven't made it into the FAQ. In fact one email they sent me not only never made it into the FAQ, they actually reversed the decision when they did put the question in.

The emails to resolve rules questions in threads I have personally been a part of have all made it to the FAQ

There's a couple cases that haven't made it into the FAQ. In fact one email they sent me not only never made it into the FAQ, they actually reversed the decision when they did put the question in.

welp, that sets the precedent then

(potentially) helloooooooooo conner nets and goodbye pre-manuever leebo (though we never saw your ass around, anyway)