oh so this is still going on. My local group just TOed it to following planning phase because **** it if we're explaining to everyone, we just want to play X-wing.

anyway, the only point of contention as I brought up before is the word "following"

as in "a ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during the following phases"

this following either means "the following text" (on the card) or "the following sequence"

so we have two interpretations

a.) the following text, i.e ion does X during these specified phases (planing, activation, combat; no end phase or anything). In this case, ion effect would kick in immediately

"a ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during these specified phases" (the phases specified by the following text)

b.) Ion does X in "the next round of phases," i.e the phases following the acquisition of the token

"a ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during the next iteration of these phases" (the sequence specified by the following phases)

Or, at least, it ought to be.

And that's the rub. Even if we accept your logic that is contrary to what Frank said. Unless you want to argue that the ion token rules behave differently if they don't go into effect until after the activation phase has already started.

That is the only difference between Leebo (crew)/Advanced Sensors and the Conner net. In one case you get the ion token after the activation phase has started, the other it's before.

My issue is that trying to make that argument is a bit tenuous. Because you're saying If X then Y, unless X happens after Z but before Za. It starts to become quite convoluted. Although that's not exactly something unheard of in X-Wing rules.

So unless FFG over rules Frank, or we simply ignore his email ruling... The only way I can read it is that RAI Ion tokens work like "a ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during the next iteration of these phases" (the sequence specified by the following phases) as FGD put it above.

Or, at least, it ought to be.

And that's the rub. Even if we accept your logic that is contrary to what Frank said.

Oh, definitely. Frank ruled as if the ion card said "A ship that starts its turn ionized follows these steps…", and while I actually think that version would be healthier for the game, I don't think the rules support it without actual errata to the reference card.

I don't think the rules support it without actual errata to the reference card.

I agree completely. But I've been going at this from the stance of we know what RAI is in this case so we need to treat Conner nets accordingly.

Myself, I tend to think the Conner net is actually better if the ion effect is delayed. Because that means this turn the ship can't take any actions and next it can only move 1 forward. That means it's limited for 2 turns in a row rather then 1.

Did anyone ever get a response about this if you submitted it to FFG rules support? I submitted last night just in case we don't have a new FAQ for the weekend.

I haven't heard anything about either rule question I've sent them lately.

I'm expecting a giant FAQ update to hit on or about 9/4 and that they are purposely avoiding answering questions due to the new rules reference that is about to drop.