This is a prime example of finding loopholes that may not be illegal in the strictest sense, but very obviously go against the spirit of the rules.

Why, though? It's not like a term is being interpreted in a broad or unusual way. The Intel Officer ability is very clearly written, and the "combo" does not change its interpretation at all. While I do agree the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG, it's their responsibility to prevent it (with a simple errata: add "of the defender's") if they feel it should not be allowed. It's not up to us to decide which cards or rules to rewrite in our heads just because they don't "feel right".

I don't disagree that it was probably not intended to allow it. But whether or not it was, the fact is that, as written it does allow it - whether we like it or not. You can't go around making up limitations that aren't in the rules just because you feel they should be.

Sure I can.

I don't have to play with anyone I don't want to, and I'm not required to give any reasoning for it.

In a tournament setting as a TO, I'm also given final authority regarding the interpretation of card interactions. I can say with 100% certainty that I would not allow this without an FAQ, based on the reasoning provided above, and I'd be more than comfortable with someone challenging my ruling.

Fair enough. Your house, your rules. But I believe that, in the absence of a FAQ, RAW is the only reasonable way to play unless there's an obvious error or contradiction (i.e. a situation that cannot be resolved without interpretation - not the case here).

This is a prime example of finding loopholes that may not be illegal in the strictest sense, but very obviously go against the spirit of the rules.

Why, though? It's not like a term is being interpreted in a broad or unusual way. The Intel Officer ability is very clearly written, and the "combo" does not change its interpretation at all. While I do agree the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG, it's their responsibility to prevent it (with a simple errata: add "of the defender's") if they feel it should not be allowed. It's not up to us to decide which cards or rules to rewrite in our heads just because they don't "feel right".

I disagree with this general attitude.

I believe that we, as players of the game, have a responsibility to use common sense and a sense of good sportsmanship to use the least potentially unintended interpretation of the cards in the absence of explicit approval, when it comes to situations like this.

It's not that it doesn't feel right, it's that it doesn't match up mechanically OR thematically, taking into account the time difference between the cards being written, AND the empirical evidence of previous cards being "Broken" due to FFG forgetting to add a simple phrase preventing a less-than-immediately-obvious use (Most Wanted comes to mind).

There are situations in which I'd agree with your reasoning DA. I recently realized, for instance, that there is nothing preventing me from spending all of my defense tokens in the "spend defense tokens step" (As long as I don't spend two of the same type on one attack) even if those tokens don't grant me any benefit. Spending an Evade token at close range, for instance, is not forbidden, so one could have Needa replace one of your Redirects on the ISD and then, over the course of two attacks, no matter the size (even one that does no damage!) you could drop all four defense tokens from the Devastator in one turn.

This is a case of RAW being a little funny but in no way conflicting with a particularly obvious RAI, to my mind.

Now, all that said, we're still in a place of "Well I think" vs "Well I think". So there you have it.

I'd say that's my $.02 but I'd rather put those two cents toward a new Raider so, that's my opinion.

I don't understand a couple things here;

1) Why its so obvious what FFG's supposed intent was here. I think it's pretty clear that if they wanted you to be only able to target enemy defense tokens, they would have said so. "But Madaghmire, what makes you say that?" Well, I'm glad you asked, super inquisitive hypothetical person, I'll tell you. Because every other card that allows you to effect another ship on the field specifies either attacker, defender, friendly or enemy ship. I wont waste my time or yours pointing out the myriad of examples where attacker or defender is mentioned on a card, but I will point out one of each for friendly and enemy, although most of the friendly examples are largely irrelevant unless you specifically wanted to throw the game, save Leia who would be super amazing if she didn't specify friendly;

Friendly- Projection Experts, Leia Organa, Home One, Tantive 4, pretty much all the commanders

Enemy- (and this is waaaaay more relevant) - Director Isaard (which I think specifies enemy just so she never sees the table even in team games) and the big one, in my mind Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams.

2) Why we really care, because, and no offense clon, its a pretty big reach as part of a gimmick list trying to make an over costed title work. And honestly, its not worth it. Creative thinking though, which I very much respect.

This is a prime example of finding loopholes that may not be illegal in the strictest sense, but very obviously go against the spirit of the rules.

Why, though? It's not like a term is being interpreted in a broad or unusual way. The Intel Officer ability is very clearly written, and the "combo" does not change its interpretation at all. While I do agree the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG, it's their responsibility to prevent it (with a simple errata: add "of the defender's") if they feel it should not be allowed. It's not up to us to decide which cards or rules to rewrite in our heads just because they don't "feel right".

I disagree with this general attitude.

I believe that we, as players of the game, have a responsibility to use common sense and a sense of good sportsmanship to use the least potentially unintended interpretation of the cards in the absence of explicit approval, when it comes to situations like this.

It's not that it doesn't feel right, it's that it doesn't match up mechanically OR thematically, taking into account the time difference between the cards being written, AND the empirical evidence of previous cards being "Broken" due to FFG forgetting to add a simple phrase preventing a less-than-immediately-obvious use (Most Wanted comes to mind).

The thing is, there's no "interpretation" to be made. The card is clear. It doesn't say what you think it should say, but there's no doubt whatsoever about what it says.

This puts the onus on the challenger to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it should say something else, and moreover exactly what that "something else" should be.

You claim it doesn't work mechanically or thematically, but that's a broad and vague statement with which I cannot agree:

-Mechanically, nothing breaks (by becoming unclear, contradictory, overpowered, neutered, etc). What's the problem?

-Thematically, I can't see how an "Intel Officer" would be less qualified to affect his own ship's behaviour than an enemy's.

You bring up Most Wanted, and it's a good point, but one which I believe backs up my main point: the card was errata'd, not clarified, because it was clear to begin with. Against RAI? Debatable. It's also entirely possible that they originally intended to provide the bonus to squadrons, too, and later changed their mind. Same here. Is Intel Officering your own token against RAI? Maybe, maybe not. But it's definitely allowed according to RAW, and in case of doubt that's what we must go with.

For the record, Intel Officer (as written) would also work let you nominate one of Jan Ors's tokens. According to your proposed interpretation, it would not.

EDIT: Well, of course, it would let you nominate any token on the board. But there's a specific interaction with Jan Ors's ability.

This is a prime example of finding loopholes that may not be illegal in the strictest sense, but very obviously go against the spirit of the rules.

Why, though? It's not like a term is being interpreted in a broad or unusual way. The Intel Officer ability is very clearly written, and the "combo" does not change its interpretation at all. While I do agree the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG, it's their responsibility to prevent it (with a simple errata: add "of the defender's") if they feel it should not be allowed. It's not up to us to decide which cards or rules to rewrite in our heads just because they don't "feel right".

No wargame that I know of has managed to create a watertight ruleset that cannot be exploited by inventive individuals. The fact that you think the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG (and pretty much any reasonable person will come to that conclusion) is the essence of going against the spirit of the rules: not intended by the designers.

I'd like to turn your argument around: that if the designers feel that this cunning 'use' of Intel Officer with Vader with Devastor is allowed, they should include that with a simple errata: add "either the defender's or the attacker's"

You bring up Most Wanted, and it's a good point, but one which I believe backs up my main point: the card was errata'd, not clarified, because it was clear to begin with. Against RAI? Debatable. It's also entirely possible that they originally intended to provide the bonus to squadrons, too, and later changed their mind. Same here. Is Intel Officering your own token against RAI? Maybe, maybe not. But it's definitely allowed according to RAW, and in case of doubt that's what we must go with.

Errata-ing IS clarification.

The card was meant to work one way. It didn't. They clarified their wording to ensure it functioned as intended, just as I am fairly confident Intel Officer will be clarified (Assuming we get around to asking rather than arguing unprovable positions ad infinitum).

My point, ultimately, is that this DOES NOT EVER need to come down to a maybe it is, maybe it isn't scenario.

You yourself admit that this scenario is unclear. There is room for disagreement.

With that in mind, we have an easy solution: Email FFG and ask.

Until then, what are we even talking about? Not to cast aspersions, but when I see someone more willing to argue about a rule than to just go to the source and get a final word, I see someone who is more interested in tomfoolery than gameplay (A slightly more dignified form of tomfoolery). Ain't got no time for tomfoolery (Except all the time I clearly do have for tomfoolery).

I read the card. Its totally legit. That is all.

magadhmire pretty much summed it all up

No wargame that I know of has managed to create a watertight ruleset that cannot be exploited by inventive individuals. The fact that you think the combo was probably not foreseen by FFG (and pretty much any reasonable person will come to that conclusion) is the essence of going against the spirit of the rules: not intended by the designers.

Now now, "unintended" and "undesirable" are entirely different concepts. Just because a particular interaction was not (or rather, might not have been) foreseen by a designer it doesn't mean it's against the spirit of the rule. If (and again, it's still an if) James Kniffen hasn't considered it, there's still a reasonable chance he will say "cool, I didn't think of it - but it's totally legit" when asked. Until we know what his answer will be, there's no basis for interpreting a card based on imaginary wording.

We (well, you) are inferring that Intel Officer cannot interact with Devastator because Devastator was released later. Would you have the same opinion if the cards had been released together, or in the reverse order? You're only assuming that FFG did not intend Intel Officer to work on tokens other than the defender's, but there are no solid grounds for that assumption other than gut feeling.

I'd like to turn your argument around: that if the designers feel that this cunning 'use' of Intel Officer with Vader with Devastor is allowed, they should include that with a simple errata: add "either the defender's or the attacker's"

It's already clear. Why would they need to errata a card to say exactly the same thing as it says already? (well, almost: this wording would explicitly exclude Jan Ors)

Errata-ing IS clarification.

It most certainly is not. Clarification is explaining how something works. Errata is changing its text. A cursory look at the FAQ document will illustrate the difference.

You yourself admit that this scenario is unclear.

No I don't! I think RAI is impossible to ascertain. But the way the card works is perfectly clear.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the default assumption should be that the cards/rules are correctly written. And that, if you believe a card is wrong, it's up to you to prove it or to ask FFG for an errata.

Unilaterally changing the behaviour of a card because you feel it should work differently amounts to house rules. Which is totally fine as long as you're clear about it.

Just my two cents here; This was almost certainly unintended, but my question is, "So what?"

Is this going to break the game? Nope. Is it that weird that an intelligence agent might provide information that might allow a ship to make a risky but potentially devastating decision in combat? Not to me, no. So I don't think FFG really needs to errata this. It's enabling a fun interaction without doing anything game breaking, so we might as well leave it.

Seems legit to me. It could easily be a tie in for devastator.

Most cards are specific and say "opponent" or "friendly ship" , etc. it is NOT specifically an offensive upgrade, but rather an officer spot which are both offensive, defensive and command style.

It seems to be raw supported and only effective in a very tight focused build currently. No reason to get up in arms about it. Play against it and see how it rolls,

One side is using exactly what the card says with no conflict whatsoever with the wording,

the other side is saying "I don't think that is necessarily what the original intent was, so I think we should alter what it says"..

IF we were to disallow it with Vader officially, we would need FFG to say so. A TO is within his rights to house-rule where it only works on opposing ships tho, I suppose.. but I would recommend such alterations be put in up front and not wait for someone to try it mid-game.

With that in mind, we have an easy solution: Email FFG and ask.

Until then, what are we even talking about? Not to cast aspersions, but when I see someone more willing to argue about a rule than to just go to the source and get a final word, I see someone who is more interested in tomfoolery than gameplay (A slightly more dignified form of tomfoolery). Ain't got no time for tomfoolery (Except all the time I clearly do have for tomfoolery).

How dare you suggest an actual solution in a online forum

I would recommend such alterations be put in up front and not wait for someone to try it mid-game.

100% this anytime you are thinking of building a list around "questionable" synergy ("questionable" being a 1% chance that a TO could rule against you, not whether or not you think the case is pretty cut and dry)

I think I'd have to agree with clondikebartrooper5 that it might be a valid play. The timing would be very exacting. Gather pool, roll pool, trigger intel officer, trigger Vader, trigger Devastator.

Then once you had Devastator as fully pumped with discards as you like, it would be gather pool, roll pool, trigger intel officer (on the enemy this time), trigger Devastator, trigger Vader.

Largely because Intel Officer seems to trigger before you get to the modify dice step that Vader and Devastator activate in.

Not sure I'd ever use it, seems awful risky, but certainly interesting.

Thematically, I could see it like this:

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Lord Vader, according to Devastator's design specs, if we take this defense system offline we should be able to boost power to the main turbo-laser batteries substantially."

Vader: "Proceed commander and commence fire with all forward weaponry!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "My Lord, gunnery crews report minimal damage on the enemy ship!'

Vader: "Tell your crews to double their efforts, or I will find new ways to motivate them!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Yes m'lord, firing all remaining batteries."

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Crews report heavy damage to the enemy ship, but we've taken substantial damage to decks four through six from flanking fire!"

Vader: "You have failed me for the last time commander!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: (gurgle) (choke) (thud)

I think I'd have to agree with clondikebartrooper5 that might be a valid play. The timing would be very exacting. Gather pool, roll pool, trigger intel officer, trigger Vader, trigger Devastator.

Then once you had Devastator as fully pumped with discards as you like, it would be gather pool, roll pool, trigger Devastator, trigger Vader, trigger intel officer (on the enemy this time).

Largely because Intel Officer seems to trigger before you get to the modify dice step that Vader and Devastator activate in.

Not sure I'd ever use it, seems awful risky, but certainly interesting.

Thematically, I could see it like this:

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Lord Vader, according to Devastator's design specs, if we take this defense system offline we should be able to boost power to the main turbo-laser batteries substantially."

Vader: "Proceed Commander and commence fire with all forward weaponry!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "My Lord, gunnery crews report minimal damage on the enemy ship!'

Vader: "Tell your crews to double their efforts, or I will find new ways to motivate them!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Yes m'lord, firing all remaining batteries."

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Crews report heavy damage to the enemy ship, but we've taken substantial damage to decks four through six from flanking fire!"

Vader: "You have failed me for the last time commander!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: (gurgle) (choke) (thud)

I think I'd have to agree with clondikebartrooper5 that might be a valid play. The timing would be very exacting. Gather pool, roll pool, trigger intel officer, trigger Vader, trigger Devastator.

Then once you had Devastator as fully pumped with discards as you like, it would be gather pool, roll pool, trigger Devastator, trigger Vader, trigger intel officer (on the enemy this time).

Largely because Intel Officer seems to trigger before you get to the modify dice step that Vader and Devastator activate in.

Not sure I'd ever use it, seems awful risky, but certainly interesting.

Thematically, I could see it like this:

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Lord Vader, according to Devastator's design specs, if we take this defense system offline we should be able to boost power to the main turbo-laser batteries substantially."

Vader: "Proceed Commander and commence fire with all forward weaponry!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "My Lord, gunnery crews report minimal damage on the enemy ship!'

Vader: "Tell your crews to double their efforts, or I will find new ways to motivate them!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Yes m'lord, firing all remaining batteries."

Commander Bahd Ideea: "Crews report heavy damage to the enemy ship, but we've taken substantial damage to decks four through six from flanking fire!"

Vader: "You have failed me for the last time commander!"

Commander Bahd Ideea: (gurgle) (choke) (thud)

this made my day

I had to edit to correct an order error, but otherwise I had fun writing it

Logic dictates Intell officer cannot be used on your own ship as the silly fairy dust hope runs dry quick on that one. It is just plain simple logic that it was never in a million years intended that way, but then again we Americans are all now regarded as "a well regulated militia" so intent is clearly not the banner of logic but whether or not you believe it.

So believe on. Sometimes things are just as simple as they appear, and all the reading into won't change it.

But nice try. However, if your friends are cool with you doing that and you feel cool with doing that, by all means do it. You house p, your friends, your rules mate. It is your world, we are just living in it. Out

Logic dictates Intell officer cannot be used on your own ship as the silly fairy dust hope runs dry quick on at one. It is just plain simple logic that it was never in a million years intended that way, but then again we Americans are all now regarded as "a well regulated militia" so intent is clearly not the banner of logic but whether or not you believe it.

So believe on. Sometimes things are gust as simple as they appear any all the reading into won't change it.

But nice try. However, if your friends are cool with you doing that and you feel cool with doing that, by all means do it. You house p, your friends, your rules mate. It is your world, we are just living in it. Out

However, per the text of the card:

"While attacking, after you roll your attack pool, you may exhaust this card to choose 1 defense token. If that token is spent during this attack, discard that token."

It's never specifically stated that the token has to be the target's token.

Now if it were worded this way:

"While attacking, after you roll your attack pool, you may exhaust this card to choose 1 of the defender's defense tokens. If that token is spent during this attack, discard that token."

There would be no argument.

If only FFG had any history in other cards of specifying you or your opponent, or even say, if any ship means your ship or another ship....

The card text is crystal clear, if FFG makes an errata for it that's fine, but if they don't it's a house rule to alter the card to only affect the opponent.

It's hardly game breaking and makes a pretty suck title only suck less, not like Devastator is going to be as good as the other titles for the cost because of this.

You're nuking one of your own tokens to make Devastator only slightly more effective....

I dunno, I don't think the card should work this way. I'm trying to find ways that it shouldn't work, but I don't think it's clearly outlined in the rules. This seems like an interaction that the designers had not considered before releasing the card.

Even if they had seen it Its one of those things that if it happens, it's not game breaking. Again, your harming the defensive ability of your own ISD going into combat. I think I might allow it if I was TO, even though I wouldn't want to.

Logic dictates Intell officer cannot be used on your own ship as the silly fairy dust hope runs dry quick on at one. It is just plain simple logic that it was never in a million years intended that way, but then again we Americans are all now regarded as "a well regulated militia" so intent is clearly not the banner of logic but whether or not you believe it.

So believe on. Sometimes things are gust as simple as they appear any all the reading into won't change it.

But nice try. However, if your friends are cool with you doing that and you feel cool with doing that, by all means do it. You house p, your friends, your rules mate. It is your world, we are just living in it. Out

How... is any of that relevant or logical?

Logic dictates Intell officer cannot be used on your own ship as the silly fairy dust hope runs dry quick on at one. It is just plain simple logic that it was never in a million years intended that way, but then again we Americans are all now regarded as "a well regulated militia" so intent is clearly not the banner of logic but whether or not you believe it.

So believe on. Sometimes things are gust as simple as they appear any all the reading into won't change it.

But nice try. However, if your friends are cool with you doing that and you feel cool with doing that, by all means do it. You house p, your friends, your rules mate. It is your world, we are just living in it. Out

How... is any of that relevant or logical?

I don't think he quite processes that stating (obliquely) that he knows the intent of the developers is not a logical assertion. It would require the capacity to read minds, and then demonstrate that the information gained by doing so were accurate and factual, which in itself is about as fairy dust as an idea gets.

Is there some degree of probability that the intent he posits is correct? Of course. But it is not, at this moment, a certainty.

Now if he were, perhaps, to ask them, and then copy and report said response here, then we would indeed know the intent of the writers as they would have stated their intent in said response and clarification. Which is an entirely logical, rational course of action.

As far as the veiled pro-gun/anti-gun argument and condescension in his tone are concerned, all I can say is , don't come here if you can't be polite, and leave your political views at the door.