IMHO it sounds like the ion rules need a reworking. Hopefully, something comes out soon.

Well, here is how I see it:

- Maranda does her move and drops the coner's net as described.

- Since it is placed under Talonbane, it detonates immediately. Talonbane recieves 1 damage, 2 ion and must skip his perform action step.

- Now Talonbane activates and he already has a dial, the planning phase is also passed, so that does not take effect here. Talonbane therefore performs his manoeuver as planned, but must skip his perform action step as written. The 2 ion tokens remain since the condition for their removal has not been met.

Next turn:

- Planning phase: Talonbane has ion tokens, so he cannot assign a dial.

- Activation phase: do the 1 white forward, remove the ion tokens as written.

- Combat phase: the ship can attack as normal

- (So overal: he is ionned in the same way that we are used to)

That's how I see it, anyway.

Sounds reasonable; and I assume Talonbane can attack and evade this turn (the one in which he's netted) as well? What about actions and abilities triggered by attacks (e.g. boosts and barrel rolls)? Perhaps it should be called the Conner Can-O-Worms haha.

IMHO it sounds like the ion rules need a reworking. Hopefully, something comes out soon.

Well, here is how I see it:

- Maranda does her move and drops the coner's net as described.

- Since it is placed under Talonbane, it detonates immediately. Talonbane recieves 1 damage, 2 ion and must skip his perform action step.

- Now Talonbane activates and he already has a dial, the planning phase is also passed, so that does not take effect here. Talonbane therefore performs his manoeuver as planned, but must skip his perform action step as written. The 2 ion tokens remain since the condition for their removal has not been met.

Next turn:

- Planning phase: Talonbane has ion tokens, so he cannot assign a dial.

- Activation phase: do the 1 white forward, remove the ion tokens as written.

- Combat phase: the ship can attack as normal

- (So overal: he is ionned in the same way that we are used to)

That's how I see it, anyway.

Sounds reasonable; and I assume Talonbane can attack and evade this turn (the one in which he's netted) as well? What about actions and abilities triggered by attacks (e.g. boosts and barrel rolls)? Perhaps it should be called the Conner Can-O-Worms haha.

I have not spotted anything that mentions that the net prevents attacks, so I believe that Talonbane can attack.

As for other triggers for actions, they should remain unaffected. Skipping the perform action step is not the same as "cannot perform actions steps this turn". You skip your perform action step all the time, like after a bump, but pilots like Turr can still do his boost or barrel roll after his attack.

What I don't like about this is that nothing in the Ion rules seems to suggest that if you have already placed a dial and then get ionized that you shouldn't just override it and perform a 1 straight. That's what it seems to suggest as written, it doesn't say "you must follow all of these phases" or that "ion only takes effect starting in the planning phase."

I know the Leebo ruling exists but the rules as of now don't address this in any reasonable way, or contradict this reading.

This would be a lot simpler if conner net didn't trigger until the ship moved.

or contradict this reading.

Well to be frank... It's your opinion about how the rules work vs the opinion of the games developer.

I get your point of view and would even normally agree with it, but since Frank has told us how the rules should work... We're stuck with his ruling until some official source contradicts it.

It's not like this would be the first time that FFG has made a ruling that seems if not out and out does contradict RAW.

I sent an email off to FFG about this very issue, mentioning how Frank ruled on Leebo and asked if that ruling applied to conner nets. But so far haven't heard anything back.

One thing to consider with the other ruling concerning advanced sensors is that you have already initiated your ships activation when you get the Ion from Leebo. You have already started to reveal your dial. Just done something before hand and then immediately reveal your dial after the adv sensor leebo boost. There is no window for you to perform the Ion move in the middle of it. In short they may appear to be similar interactions but they are in no way the same thing.

You have already started to reveal your dial.

No you haven't.

You have to use Advanced Sensors prior to revealing your dial, in fact you could argue that purely RAW as soon as you flip your dial you've missed the opportunity to use advanced sensors.

So there's no effective difference between using Leebo with advanced sensors and the conner net timing. Both cases you get an ion token after you have set your dial but before you reveal it. Leebo does happen after you activated the ship already, but that's only one step in the process, because you still haven't revealed a dial. So there's no reason why you couldn't skip the reveal dial step and do a 1 white straight.

Turn 1 I get shot with an Ion cannon and get an ion token.

Turn 2 I don't set a dial,. the someone drops a Conner Net on me and I get another 2 ion tokens. I do a one white forward and do I lose 1 or 3 Ion tokens at that time? In one interpretation you would lose 1 of the 3 tokens, in another you would lose 3.

I'm not sure there is more than one way to interpret the phrase "After executing this maneuver, remove all ion tokens from your ship"

So, the effects from a Conner Net dropped before you move are delayed until the next turn. Unless you already had an ion token, in which case they get resolved immediately. Unless you are a large ship with an ion token, in which case they go back to being delayed a round.

This goes back to my previous post.

We don't know.

Conner Nets create so many corner cases, counter intuitive interactions and outright WTF effects that we simply can't accurately judge how they are supposed to work.

Rules As Written, the ion effects says nothing about not executing a maneuver if you somehow have a dial set, so strict RAW, if you get ionized before activating you should move 1 straight, remove all ion counters, then execute planned your maneuver from your dial as normal. Nothing says not to do that. Or maybe it is move as normal then make a 1 straight.

We Don't Know.

You have already started to reveal your dial.

No you haven't.

You have to use Advanced Sensors prior to revealing your dial, in fact you could argue that purely RAW as soon as you flip your dial you've missed the opportunity to use advanced sensors.

So you can trigger something that happens before you reveal your dial that causes you to not reveal your dial, meaning you can't have triggered it in the first place.

Like scuff said a little bit above, the simplest fix is to not detonate the mine until the ship moves.

This was originally how proximity mine worked. It was changed not too long ago to make prox mines a bit more powerful because nobody used them. I'm not sure if going back to that is an option, even if it would simplify the problems with Conner Net immeasurably. Doing so would potentially allow more control over the mine detonation by the victim. The rules would have to be that the first one to move into contact with a mine gets hit. In that case, a low PS ship could trip a mine that a high PS ship was sitting on. that was the problem with prox mines that caused them to change the ruling in the first place.

So you can trigger something that happens before you reveal your dial that causes you to not reveal your dial, meaning you can't have triggered it in the first place.

At best that's in the top 10 of odd rules in this game. I think the fact that turret weapons can't actually fire out of arc per RAW is #1.

I mean based on way some people look at it, Leebo crew used with advanced sensors should cause you to not reveal a dial and do a 1 white straight. Using exactly the same logic that's being used for the conner net.

Yet we have a very clear ruling from FFG telling us how it works for Leebo, and I have yet to see any compelling reason why the ion token from a Conner Net should behave differently then the ion token from Leebo. To be clear, we are talking about the rules of Ion Tokens here, where they come from doesn't really matter.

Like scuff said a little bit above, the simplest fix is to not detonate the mine until the ship moves.

I agree that would be a better fix, and perhaps that's what the next FAQ will say. But until it does, I don't see how we can say Franks ruling doesn't apply here.

Yet we have a very clear ruling from FFG telling us how it works for Leebo, and I have yet to see any compelling reason why the ion token from a Conner Net should behave differently then the ion token from Leebo.

I'm not saying that Frank's ruling doesn't apply, I'm saying that it now causes more problems than it solves.

the Ion tokens from the net behave according to Frank's ruling, unless the ship was already had 1-2 ion tokens (depending on the size of the ship), then they behave like the ion tokens the ship already has, not like Frank says they should.

I'm not saying that Frank's ruling doesn't apply, I'm saying that it now causes more problems than it solves.

That I'll agree with completely. Personally I don't think his ruling makes sense in the first place. And you're right, it could cause odd interactions with ships already having ion tokens.

But there's more then one post in this thread that is trying to come up with someway to to say that Frank's ruling doesn't apply to Conner nets, but I just can't see how his ruling can't.

Well, we are in VERY murky waters. Like I said before, RAW for both Leebo and Conner net should have you performing both your planned maneuver AND the ion maneuver. I'm pretty sure NOBODY is going to actually argue that is what is supposed to happen though, but that means that RAW arguments are pretty worthless in this case.

For what its worth, I just sent this question off to FFG. We'll see what they say.

For what its worth, I just sent this question off to FFG. We'll see what they say.

I sent it to them myself last week, I think. Maybe they'll get around to letting one of us know. But this may fall under the 'we don't make rulings on unreleased cards' policy they have. Because even though Wave 7 was sold at GenCon it's not actually released yet.

For what its worth, I just sent this question off to FFG. We'll see what they say.

I sent it to them myself last week, I think. Maybe they'll get around to letting one of us know. But this may fall under the 'we don't make rulings on unreleased cards' policy they have. Because even though Wave 7 was sold at GenCon it's not actually released yet.

Yeah, I started mine off with

"Now that wave 7 has actually been released...." To kind of remind them that there are people with the ships playing them now.

Using that ruling, it is possible for a small ship to have 2 ion tokens on it, one of which us supposed to effect it this round, one which doesn't effect it till next round.

How so?

Unless I am overlooking something obvious (a distinct possibility ) , Frank's clarification basically stated that if ion token(s) are assigned to a ship that has not yet moved but already has a dial assigned to it, the effect that the ion token(s) have on maneuvering does not come into play until the next planning phase - once the "ion maneuver" has been performed in the subsequent activation phase ALL ion tokens are removed.

So there's really no way for the situation you describe to happen.

unless....

as previously stated.....

I'm overlooking something

Turn 1 I get shot with an Ion cannon and get an ion token.

Turn 2 I don't set a dial,. the someone drops a Conner Net on me and I get another 2 ion tokens. I do a one white forward and do I lose 1 or 3 Ion tokens at that time? In one interpretation you would lose 1 of the 3 tokens, in another you would lose 3.

I'm not sure there is more than one way to interpret the phrase "After executing this maneuver, remove all ion tokens from your ship"

Well, I didn't think there was more then one way to interpret "A ship with an ion token assigned to it follows special rules during these phases" either, but acording to the Frank ruling, it can be interpreted as "A ship with an ion token assigned to it (and no maneuver dial assigned to it) follows special rules during these phases".

Sure - there's enough ambiguity in the sequence to argue for more than one way to interpret how the whole sequence might be resolved - some people argued that you began the sequence from whatever point you were in the game phase when the ion token was assigned - other people (myself included) argued that it only took effect the next opportunity all parts of the sequence could be resolved in the order laid out on the card.

Both made valid points.

However the part about removing all ion tokens once you resolve the "ion maneuver" is unambiguous surely?

Sure - there's enough ambiguity in the sequence to argue for more than one way to interpret how the whole sequence might be resolved - some people argued that you began the sequence from whatever point you were in the game phase when the ion token was assigned - other people (myself included) argued that it only took effect the next opportunity all parts of the sequence could be resolved in the order laid out on the card.

Both made valid points.

However the part about removing all ion tokens once you resolve the "ion maneuver" is unambiguous surely?

Yes, I was mostly leting my frustration about the whole issue shine through a bit there. Sorry about that.

Now let me try my best at actualy do a decent interpretation of what we have instead.

The ion card doesn't say anything about "sequence". It just tells us what to do in any given phase of the game if we have an ion token on our ship.

I'm in the activation phase and have an ion token. I look at the card and it tells me to follow special rules. So I put aside the normal rules for the activation phase and instead do what the card says.

Now I understand that is a problem with Leebo as we have allready started to resolve the activation pahse acording to the normal rules when the ion token arraives. And so we get the Frank ruling about postponing the effect until next turn. Fine with me now that I have analyzed it a bit more.

When it comes to the conner net though, the token arraives befor starting to resolve the affected ships activation phase (if it is droped on the ship and emediatley detonated), so the Leebo problem doesn't acure then. So I see no reason to postpone the effetc of the ion token gained from the net.

If the net detonated due to me moving over it in my activation, then we are back to the Leebo thing, token arraiving during my normal activation and so the effect (of the ion token, not the rest of the nets effect) will take effect next turn.

Sure - there's enough ambiguity in the sequence to argue for more than one way to interpret how the whole sequence might be resolved - some people argued that you began the sequence from whatever point you were in the game phase when the ion token was assigned - other people (myself included) argued that it only took effect the next opportunity all parts of the sequence could be resolved in the order laid out on the card.

Both made valid points.

However the part about removing all ion tokens once you resolve the "ion maneuver" is unambiguous surely?

Yes, I was mostly leting my frustration about the whole issue shine through a bit there. Sorry about that.

Now let me try my best at actualy do a decent interpretation of what we have instead.

The ion card doesn't say anything about "sequence". It just tells us what to do in any given phase of the game if we have an ion token on our ship.

I'm in the activation phase and have an ion token. I look at the card and it tells me to follow special rules. So I put aside the normal rules for the activation phase and instead do what the card says.

Now I understand that is a problem with Leebo as we have allready started to resolve the activation pahse acording to the normal rules when the ion token arraives. And so we get the Frank ruling about postponing the effect until next turn. Fine with me now that I have analyzed it a bit more.

When it comes to the conner net though, the token arraives befor starting to resolve the affected ships activation phase (if it is droped on the ship and emediatley detonated), so the Leebo problem doesn't acure then. So I see no reason to postpone the effetc of the ion token gained from the net.

If the net detonated due to me moving over it in my activation, then we are back to the Leebo thing, token arraiving during my normal activation and so the effect (of the ion token, not the rest of the nets effect) will take effect next turn.

No worries Smuggler - I can come across rather blunt myself sometimes - but that's because I'm an @r53h013 - you don't seem to have that excuse though

You're right that it is not described as a sequence on the card, but that's how I have always interpreted it, as a sequence that needs to be resolved in the order stated on the card when the next opportunity to do so arrives - so if an ion token is assigned at any time after the planning phase, it's not resolved until the next planning phase comes around - the only exception being when a ship that is already ioned and has not been assigned a dial receives another ion token(s) before it activates - under those circumstances the one unambiguous part of the rules (remove ALL ion tokens) comes into play.

Granted it leads to a rather odd mix of delayed and immediate effects, but the Leebo + Adv Sens clarification seems to support this interpretation - admittedly not explicitly, but until we get an understanding of the reasoning behind the "ruling" that's all we've got to go on.

Well, we are in VERY murky waters. Like I said before, RAW for both Leebo and Conner net should have you performing both your planned maneuver AND the ion maneuver. I'm pretty sure NOBODY is going to actually argue that is what is supposed to happen though, but that means that RAW arguments are pretty worthless in this case.

For what its worth, I just sent this question off to FFG. We'll see what they say.

Here's a poser - if a hypothetical ship with a white 1 forward maneuver on its dial receives an ion token after the planning phase but before revealing its dial, would that white 1 forward count as the "ion maneuver" in terms of RAW ?

so the Leebo problem doesn't acure then.

Playing Devils advocate a bit here, but... yes it does. Because in both cases you have a ship that has skipped over part of the ion effect because they have assigned a dial to that ship already.

I don't see how it would matter that in one case you have started the activation phase and the other you haven't. Because if the ion rules are not a sequence, then there's no reason for a ship with Leebo to not follow those rules. Since the ship hasn't revealed a dial yet, there's no reason for it to skip revealing the dial and do the ion maneuver.

The activation phase is simply a series of steps after all that we follow in sequence, there's no good reason I can think of that the Leebo case couldn't skip the reveal a dial step. Although I suppose it is possible that Frank made that ruling to avoid the paradox that Forgottenlore mentioned.

Myself I think Frank made the wrong call here. I think the ion rules don't need to be followed in sequence. But given Franks ruling I do think that doing so is RAI.

The way I see it, the ion rules are not a sequence of phases. They simply tell us what to do in each phase in the event we have an ion token when we get to that phase. I see the ion card as replaceing the normal things to do in each phase.

So if I have an ion token when I start my activation, I follow the ion card instead of the normal activation. So I never get to a reveal maneuver step becouse the ion card doesn't tell me to do that. So if I have a dial assigned or not becomes irrelevant.

The problem is if I have startred resolving my activation using the normal rules and then get a ion token during that resolution. It then becomes unclear what to do for the rest of the activation. Franks ruling helps us in that case and tells us to continue the normal activation process, and that doesn't include removing ion tokens.

This interpretation seems to fitt both the rules we have and the Frank ruling and it's perfecly possible to apply it to any currently known combination of cards (as far as I have seen yet).

Ofcource, it is just my interpretation, and I can not say with any authority that it is correct

They simply tell us what to do in each phase in the event we have an ion token when we get to that phase. I see the ion card as replaceing the normal things to do in each phase.

That's how I'd read them too, but Frank's email seems to contradict that interpretation. Because it seems to treat the ion rules as more then just a series of unconnected steps.

I suppose you could argue that since you already started the activation phase with Leebo (crew) then the ion rules don't kick in.

However per RAW the activation phase rules on the ion card don't cause you to skip your reveal dial step, you simply don't have one so you can't reveal one. Kinda like how having a stress doesn't cause you to skip your perform action step, you just can't perform actions.

So based on Franks ruling, one could argue that the ion rules don't overwrite the dial, but rather only work because you never set a dial in the planing phase. Since you don't have a maneuver set, this is the one you do.

I guess the question is... RAI what is the real impact of the ion token? Is it that it causes you to follow those rules as individual unconnected steps in the correct phase. Or does it simply stop you from setting a dial in the first place and all the rest are there to deal with that effect.

Given Franks ruling I tend to think RAI is the latter. But it is possible Frank ruled that way to avoid the paradox of having an effect triggered by revealing your dial cause you to not reveal a dial. Which could make Leebo a special case and not useful for RAI or precedence. It's not like this would be the first time something like that happened...

I'm a big fan of the theory that Frank was trying to avoid a paradox with the Advanced Sensors Leebo ruling.

It kind of makes me want a WTF (Whadya Thinkin' Frank) blog that posts all of Frank's email rulings and speculates on how he came up whith them.

I like what they were aiming for with the Conner Net, I just wished that it was implemented more eloquently (if thats the right word).

The problem isn't with the Conner Net at all: it's clear and unambiguous. The problem is with the rules for ions: they don't anticipate receiving them at any time other than in the combat phase, so they provide murky guidance at best about what to do when you get ionized in a different timing window.

Rules As Written, the ion effects says nothing about not executing a maneuver if you somehow have a dial set, so strict RAW, if you get ionized before activating you should move 1 straight, remove all ion counters, then execute planned your maneuver from your dial as normal. Nothing says not to do that. Or maybe it is move as normal then make a 1 straight.

This part isn't true at all. The Ion Token reference card says clearly what do to: move the ship as if it were assigned a white 1-straight maneuver.

Applying your argument elsewhere, you're saying the Inquisitor's pilot ability allows him to make an attack at Range 1, and then another attack at Range 2-3. The rules say, in black and (off-)white, that you move your ship as if it had a particular maneuver assigned. It doesn't matter whether there's a dial or what the dial says; it's irrelevant to a ship with an ion token. Or, at least, it ought to be.