I like that Jan rule. I wouldn't have ever thought about that scenario until I played her.

Makes sense, though. Allowing you to apply accuracy results to another Squadron's tokens would set a weird precident.

The interesting question is whether Intel Officer can target one of Jan's tokens before shooting at another squadron (I say yes, others have argued no).

Has Akbar been fubarred?

Ackbar works just the way he always did: you can take two extra red if you only shoot out the side(s).

Yeah - I just wanted to say it

Ackbar works just the way he always did: you can take two extra red if you only shoot out the side(s).

Yeah I don't get why they needed to clarify that. Ackbar's text is pretty straightforward

Ackbar works just the way he always did: you can take two extra red if you only shoot out the side(s).

Yeah I don't get why they needed to clarify that. Ackbar's text is pretty straightforward

It was a question that got asked frequently. So they added it to the list of Frequently Asked Questions.

They also clarified that you can't look at face-down damage card. Half of any FFG FAQ is blatantly obvious stuff. You can always find someone that is going to try and tell you that the sky really is green.

Also still need Nav Team + Ozzel interaction!

--

Tractor beam should have been written: "...that ship must spend a nav token if it has one. If it does not, it reduces its speed by 1 to a minimum of 1."

This. The way this card is written is directly contrary to the ruling. There is nothing on the card that says option B (reducing speed) is dependent on the ability to do option A. If that was indeed the intent, then it is very poorly written. As least there is a ruling to work from now, but I am surprised that they made this big of a mistake in the text of the card as FFG is usually good about that sort of thing.

I think you're talking about Tractor beam wording, in which I completely agree. Its extremely poor writing. And honestly, I don't see why they HAD to rule it that way.

Correct. I was saying that if their intent was for it to work the way the FAQ is written, then they did a poor job wording the card the way they did.

Been thinking about this - is it such an advantage?

I guess it is better to be able to reliably negate the NAV token.

But say we have a speed three demolisher with engine techs coming at us. Unless he is crazy he is going to have a nav command banked.

So we hit him with the Q7s. He loses his nav token. (I guess that makes wulff sad if he is relying on him). He is still at speed 3 with a nav command when he activates so he can still manuvre and engine tech.

I don't think it gets much better if you hit him with a second Q7.

So really, we cost him a nav token, or the opportunity cost of not being able to use say, concentrate fire or engineering.

Honestly, I think that, wording aside, the ruling actually strengthens the card. Not allowing the defender to have a choice about how something affects them is always a good thing. You never want to allow your opponent choices in games like this, because it allows them to make the least painful choice for them.

Oh man, I was right about the Phylon Q7 Tractor beams. You MUST lose a Navigate token. If you cannot, then you lose 1 speed.

Muhahahaha I was right!

Now I am extremely happy over this. . . Yes. . . Very happy

I just read that and thought you'd be happy to hear... obviously you already saw it Well done Lyr

I like that Jan rule. I wouldn't have ever thought about that scenario until I played her.

Makes sense, though. Allowing you to apply accuracy results to another Squadron's tokens would set a weird precident.

The interesting question is whether Intel Officer can target one of Jan's tokens before shooting at another squadron (I say yes, others have argued no).

Also still need Nav Team + Ozzel interaction!

--

Tractor beam should have been written: "...that ship must spend a nav token if it has one. If it does not, it reduces its speed by 1 to a minimum of 1."

This. The way this card is written is directly contrary to the ruling. There is nothing on the card that says option B (reducing speed) is dependent on the ability to do option A. If that was indeed the intent, then it is very poorly written. As least there is a ruling to work from now, but I am surprised that they made this big of a mistake in the text of the card as FFG is usually good about that sort of thing.

I think you're talking about Tractor beam wording, in which I completely agree. Its extremely poor writing. And honestly, I don't see why they HAD to rule it that way.

Correct. I was saying that if their intent was for it to work the way the FAQ is written, then they did a poor job wording the card the way they did.

Been thinking about this - is it such an advantage?

I guess it is better to be able to reliably negate the NAV token.

But say we have a speed three demolisher with engine techs coming at us. Unless he is crazy he is going to have a nav command banked.

So we hit him with the Q7s. He loses his nav token. (I guess that makes wulff sad if he is relying on him). He is still at speed 3 with a nav command when he activates so he can still manuvre and engine tech.

I don't think it gets much better if you hit him with a second Q7.

So really, we cost him a nav token, or the opportunity cost of not being able to use say, concentrate fire or engineering.

Honestly, I think that, wording aside, the ruling actually strengthens the card. Not allowing the defender to have a choice about how something affects them is always a good thing. You never want to allow your opponent choices in games like this, because it allows them to make the least painful choice for them.

I like that Jan rule. I wouldn't have ever thought about that scenario until I played her.

Makes sense, though. Allowing you to apply accuracy results to another Squadron's tokens would set a weird precident.

The interesting question is whether Intel Officer can target one of Jan's tokens before shooting at another squadron (I say yes, others have argued no).

It states "a defense token" not "a defenders defense token" so I am with you on this.

Seems reasonable to me. Same logic that one guy used to target his own token with intel to discard it with vader. Perfectly valid RaW

And in fact, FFG writes a LOT of their cards poorly.

They should hire a lawyer to review their verbiage. It is often inconsistent and tends to rely on "common sense" which is a terrible thing to rely on when people in a competitive environment start rules lawyering to make something align to their advantage.

I think tractor beam was weaker then they thought it would be so they took the opportunity to rule it this way.

May have even been something as daft as this was how they played it internally, how it was intended to be, but the final proof read of the card before print was poor. So when peeps saw it and went with the choice option, they thought, "Oops, that's not what we meant !"

Amazingly the FAQ answered exactly zero of the questions I really had about the rules.

Thanks FFG.

Only FFG Editors are so precise.

Got a list?

And in fact, FFG writes a LOT of their cards poorly.

They should hire a lawyer to review their verbiage. It is often inconsistent and tends to rely on "common sense" which is a terrible thing to rely on when people in a competitive environment start rules lawyering to make something align to their advantage.

Not that this would be unique to FFG, but I agree. Either take a lawyer or the most evil rule-stretching powergamer for hire and let him come up with interpretations to each card.

I am willing to work for ships.

And in fact, FFG writes a LOT of their cards poorly.

They should hire a lawyer to review their verbiage. It is often inconsistent and tends to rely on "common sense" which is a terrible thing to rely on when people in a competitive environment start rules lawyering to make something align to their advantage.

Not that this would be unique to FFG, but I agree. Either take a lawyer or the most evil rule-stretching powergamer for hire and let him come up with interpretations to each card.

OR an evil powergaming lawyer. but we all know what would end up happening is 4pt text on cards to make all the legalese fit and 20pg monthly FAQ releases. lol. lawyers...

Also for those who never played X-Wing... FFG has a tendency to rule that a card works how they want it, regardless of if the wording on the card, or the rules themselves actually support that.

They can come off as the worse sort of RaI types... Expect in this case they actually know what was intended.

For example, until the TFA core set, with the new rules came out, turrets in X-Wing did not actually work RAW.

Because the rules stated that an eligible target was a ship inside the attackers arc, only after you selected a target did you pick what weapon to attack with. That means RAW, you could never actually target a ship outside your firing arc.

RAI was very clear, and so they said 'it works like this because we said so'. But RAW they still didn't actually work.

Also for those who never played X-Wing... FFG has a tendency to rule that a card works how they want it, regardless of if the wording on the card, or the rules themselves actually support that.

They can come off as the worse sort of RaI types... Expect in this case they actually know what was intended.

For example, until the TFA core set, with the new rules came out, turrets in X-Wing did not actually work RAW.

Because the rules stated that an eligible target was a ship inside the attackers arc, only after you selected a target did you pick what weapon to attack with. That means RAW, you could never actually target a ship outside your firing arc.

RAI was very clear, and so they said 'it works like this because we said so'. But RAW they still didn't actually work.

RAI? RAW?

Rules As Intended
Rules As Written

"Unless Jan Ors herself is defending, her defense tokens cannot be targeted by an accuracy icon’s effect"

But I though only Hit icon's have any effect on squadrons??? and accuracy and Critical have no effect.

common misconception. Accuracies do affect defense tokens of unique squadrons.

Please where is this rule?

where is this rule?

The rules state that crit icons don't effect fighters. Other than that, all the normal rules for attack dice apply. So why WOULDN'T accuracy results work vs fighters?

It is a VERY common mistake. The rules say crits don't effect fighters, and generics don't have tokens so accuracies don't effect them, so people start thinking "only hit icons effect fighters", when that isn't what the rules actually say.

"Unless Jan Ors herself is defending, her defense tokens cannot be targeted by an accuracy icon’s effect"

But I though only Hit icon's have any effect on squadrons??? and accuracy and Critical have no effect.

common misconception. Accuracies do affect defense tokens of unique squadrons.

where is this rule?

The rule says crit doesn't count, nothing more. The problem is that ships have defense tokens but regular squadrons don't. Our minds make the job, badly.