Is Crack Shot too good in the current timing window?

Probably not. I bet they won't change that ruling.

Would it really be so bad if you could drop a seismic/proton/thermal when you slammed?

I think there's a chance this might be reversed. It would certainly put a damper on a lot of the current popular builds.

Can anyone think of any other rulings they want to see reversed or that might potentially be reversed?

Nah. The game is pretty much wide open right now. Rules are in a good state, minor clarification maybe, but no reversals.

i mean for the sake of OL i WANT HLC to no matter what be turned to hits, but i mean every superman needs kryptonite...

i mean for the sake of OL i WANT HLC to no matter what be turned to hits, but i mean every superman needs kryptonite...

2 b-wings is kryptonite to OL.

How are you so sure that there will be a new FAQ soon? It's not like we didn't have other waves that weren't accompanied by a new FAQ for quite a while.

i mean for the sake of OL i WANT HLC to no matter what be turned to hits, but i mean every superman needs kryptonite...

2 b-wings is kryptonite to OL.

for the low low cost of 42 points you too can counter a 26 point ship.

How are you so sure that there will be a new FAQ soon? It's not like we didn't have other waves that weren't accompanied by a new FAQ for quite a while.

Store champ season + several new mechanics on competitive ships. Even if we don't get it this week they'll certainly get it out by regionals, right?

Eh, being targetted by more than one ship full stop is basically kryptonite to OL. Making him spend his evade before he shoots also.

How are you so sure that there will be a new FAQ soon? It's not like we didn't have other waves that weren't accompanied by a new FAQ for quite a while.

If there's not I'd be very disappointed, there's a LOT of stuff in wave 8 that isn't entirely clear from cards and that we either have dev rulings via email or no clear consensus on. And that's just from the previews.

How are you so sure that there will be a new FAQ soon? It's not like we didn't have other waves that weren't accompanied by a new FAQ for quite a while.

Store champ season + several new mechanics on competitive ships. Even if we don't get it this week they'll certainly get it out by regionals, right?

I remember the Crackshot ruling taking forever to arrive.

How are you so sure that there will be a new FAQ soon? It's not like we didn't have other waves that weren't accompanied by a new FAQ for quite a while.

Store champ season + several new mechanics on competitive ships. Even if we don't get it this week they'll certainly get it out by regionals, right?

There is usually a new FAQ before Regionals.

We had better get a FAQ quickly. I doubt we get one this weekend and a lot of TO's will have a hell of a time with SC's.

I really do hope they reverse the Slam ruling that you can't drop a bomb. I don't see it being game breaking at all. The ship slamming cannot fire that round and the K-wing is capped at PS 8. So against most aces Miranda will still be bombing blindly.

There are some interesting new rules to be clarified that will be on popular upgrades and some we are still waiting on "officially" that may change from how they are:

When the tractor beam moves a ship onto a rock does it roll for damage?

Does the Inquisitor negate autothrusters?

Neither are supported by RAW but could be changed based if the intent of the cards was different. The tractor beam is the first thing that can cause something to land on a rock that isn't a maneuver.

Neither are supported by RAW but could be changed based if the intent of the cards was different. The tractor beam is the first thing that can cause something to land on a rock that isn't a maneuver.

I think you just answered your own question here. It's not a maneuver.

And the Inquisitor only has range 1 shots, AT clearly states for beyond range 2.

I think both of your examples are clear in terms of RAW. I'm not sure there are outstanding things that don't follow the RAW, but I agree it would be nice for them to appear in an FAQ.

And the Inquisitor only has range 1 shots, AT clearly states for beyond range 2.

Autothrusters works on (at Range) ship range, an absolute measurement of closest to closest between ships. Attack Range is Range in arc. We already have the precedent for these to mismatch: for example, Tactician for a R3 attack in arc that at Range 2 out of arc also triggers Tactician. Inquistor treats his attacks as Range 1, but he's still physically at Range 3 from an autothrusting ship.

How do you know there's a new FAQ coming?

Uhm, do you not measure in general from closest to closest for range of an attack and not just within arc?

In other words, measuring range and checking arc are two different action steps.

But feel free to correct me here.

edit:

iirc this was important for determining is a target is obstructed by obstacles as well. If something is in the way while measuring range than you get the extra dice for cover, even when non obstructed parts are in arc as well.

Generally, there is one after a new release. Also, an update going into Regionals.

Uhm, do you not measure in general from closest to closest for range of an attack and not just within arc?

In other words, measuring range and checking arc are two different action steps.

But feel free to correct me here.

No, for attacks which are locked into arc, you measure the distance to the closest point that is in arc, and that is the range of the attack. Which is why with some odd angles it's more than possible for a ship to attack at range 2 but defend at range 1 against the same ship, even withou the Inquisitor being involved.

Uhm, do you not measure in general from closest to closest for range of an attack and not just within arc?

In other words, measuring range and checking arc are two different action steps.

But feel free to correct me here.

When a ship makes an attack that relies on its firing arc, the range of the attack is always measured to the closest point of the defender that's in the attacker's firing arc.

Turret attacks always measure from closest point to closest point.

ETA: Ninja'ed!

Omega Leader deffinately needs a clarification, i had someone swear blind at me that C3P0 works vs him. Even a TO support this decision until I spent ten minutes (of round time) going over the cards and relevant sections of the rules. Thinks like Tarns Bot and palp need discussing with this too so it's crystal clear as there are too many opinions being mistaken as rules at the moment

And the Inquisitor only has range 1 shots, AT clearly states for beyond range 2.

Autothrusters works on (at Range) ship range, an absolute measurement of closest to closest between ships. Attack Range is Range in arc. We already have the precedent for these to mismatch: for example, Tactician for a R3 attack in arc that at Range 2 out of arc also triggers Tactician. Inquistor treats his attacks as Range 1, but he's still physically at Range 3 from an autothrusting ship.

I guess you can read Tactician as "After you perform an attack against a ship at Range 2 that is inside your firing arc, that ship receives 1 stress token." But in any case, it doesn't matter for Inquisitor vs. Autothrusters. I see that as very clear cut. During that attack, you consider the attack to be happening at range 1.

And the Inquisitor only has range 1 shots, AT clearly states for beyond range 2.

Autothrusters works on (at Range) ship range, an absolute measurement of closest to closest between ships. Attack Range is Range in arc. We already have the precedent for these to mismatch: for example, Tactician for a R3 attack in arc that at Range 2 out of arc also triggers Tactician. Inquistor treats his attacks as Range 1, but he's still physically at Range 3 from an autothrusting ship.

I guess you can read Tactician as "After you perform an attack against a ship at Range 2 that is inside your firing arc, that ship receives 1 stress token." But in any case, it doesn't matter for Inquisitor vs. Autothrusters. I see that as very clear cut. During that attack, you consider the attack to be happening at range 1.

You and a lot of other people, but there's another camp that believes equally strongly the other way. Both have strong points on their side and neither are willing to back down and can we please not rehash the argument again in yet another thread?

This is exactly why the Inquisitor needs an FAQ entry.

Neither are supported by RAW but could be changed based if the intent of the cards was different. The tractor beam is the first thing that can cause something to land on a rock that isn't a maneuver.

I think you just answered your own question here. It's not a maneuver.

And the Inquisitor only has range 1 shots, AT clearly states for beyond range 2.

I think both of your examples are clear in terms of RAW. I'm not sure there are outstanding things that don't follow the RAW, but I agree it would be nice for them to appear in an FAQ.

Oh, I agree, but several people on Vassal have been rolling for the rock and the "trail" for the inquisitor ruling is an email from a developer. So, both of these cards could have been intended to work differently but weren't parsed out as well as they could have been.

Omega Leader deffinately needs a clarification, i had someone swear blind at me that C3P0 works vs him. Even a TO support this decision until I spent ten minutes (of round time) going over the cards and relevant sections of the rules. Thinks like Tarns Bot and palp need discussing with this too so it's crystal clear as there are too many opinions being mistaken as rules at the moment

i had a TO rule that adding evade tokens was okay. i had forgotten my rule book at home, still won. took longer

You and a lot of other people, but there's another camp that believes equally strongly the other way. Both have strong points on their side and neither are willing to back down and can we please not rehash the argument again in yet another thread?

This is exactly why the Inquisitor needs an FAQ entry.

Hold on, buddy! I wasn't in the other thread, I couldn't imagine that there was an argument about this.

I agree that everything that has an argument against it (however flawed) should have a FAQ entry, you know, because it's probably a frequently asked question.