Are destroyed systems still eligible for named system missions? For example, if the Imperial player destroys the Dagobah system, can the Rebels still play the Seek Yoda mission card?

Per the rules, yes you can.

Per the rules, yes you can.

Can you cite where in the rules?

Per the rules, yes you can.

Can you cite where in the rules?

What I meant is that the rules on how destroyed systems are treated differently are very specific. Since it doesn't say anything about attempting missions in those systems, it would still be allowed.

Unless I'm missing it, of course.

Per the rules, yes you can.

Can you cite where in the rules?

What I meant is that the rules on how destroyed systems are treated differently are very specific. Since it doesn't say anything about attempting missions in those systems, it would still be allowed.

Unless I'm missing it, of course.

Thank you

It isn't clear and is something that is currently debated.

I am leaning towards yes, you can but that does seem thematically wierd and the marker is called a "destroyed system marker".

What I find interesting is that Mission Cards is listed in Related Topics under Destroyed Systems, though there's no reference to mission cards in the write-up on Destroyed Systems. To me, this suggests one of two things.

1) There is supposed to be a rule in Destroyed Systems that affects the normal rules for mission cards, but it was accidentally left out.

Or 2) An earlier draft had such a rule and it was removed.

RAW, it does seem legal to play this mission after destruction. But I expect this to be addressed in the first errata.

Does Fantasy Flight ever come into forums like this to give the official word or will we have to wait for errata?

Does Fantasy Flight ever come into forums like this to give the official word or will we have to wait for errata?

They never respond directly on the forums, how ever there is a link some where under "contac us" or something (don't remember exactly) where you can send in rules questions and get answeres per email. These answeres are the closest thing to an official answere there is after the actual errata/FAQ.

[Edit - https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/customer-service/ You will find the rules question links on that page]

At this point I am leaning towards a Destroyed System being a "System" but nothing else. Obviously not loyal or subjugated, or even remote or populous, or even whatever name it was before destruction.

So if you have a mission that tells you just to resolve/attempt it in a "System" and "Destroyed System" would qualify but you'd be unable to resolve a mission that say called for the "Dagobah System" as there is no more "Dagobah System" just a "Destroyed System" where it use to be.

But I imagine we'll get a clarification from FFG soon after release, though I'd bet a fiver on my interpretation being correct.

Has anyone seen how much of the planet and such is covered by the destroyed system template? If the name is obscured, I think that would be your answer. As the name of the system is no longer in the "field of play", the system no longer exists. If the template does NOT obscure the name and such, well, then I gots nothing

I'm pretty sure the template covers the name and everything of even the biggest planets.

If this is the case, then I would think the intent was that the system is no longer in teh game.

The system is considered the planet, any space stations, moons and other planets in the system as well. So destroying the planet does not prevent missions from being performed there. It just cant be controlled and ground units cant be moved there.

Ground units cant land there, they can be moved there as they are on the ship.

The system is considered the planet, any space stations, moons and other planets in the system as well. So destroying the planet does not prevent missions from being performed there. It just cant be controlled and ground units cant be moved there.

Yes, all those things are the system. And the card says "Destroy this system" and the Rules Reference says "destroy an entire system." All those things are destroyed leaving nothing to land on, which is why you can no longer land ground troops in that system.

You can still do missions there. There is nothing in the rulebook that says you cant do missions in destroyed system. Also when system is destroyed is does not affect heroes there. And space battles can still take place there.

You can still do missions there. There is nothing in the rulebook that says you cant do missions in destroyed system. Also when system is destroyed is does not affect heroes there. And space battles can still take place there.

So put simply a Destroyed System is a System, but has no other characteristics like a name, populated or remote, loyalty etc.

You can still do missions there. There is nothing in the rulebook that says you cant do missions in destroyed system. Also when system is destroyed is does not affect heroes there. And space battles can still take place there.

Yes, you can still attempt/resolve missions there that call for a System as a Destroyed System is still as System. But you would not be able to attempt/resolve missions that call for say the Dagobah System as there is no more Dagobah System only a Destroyed System in the place where the Dagobah System once was.

So put simply a Destroyed System is a System, but has no other characteristics like a name, populated or remote, loyalty etc.

Can you quote where it says that, because I cannot find it in the ruleset. I see where it can't have loyalty but not name, remote, populous etc.

Actually my apologies, it seems as if every Destroyed System is inherently Remote as it meets the criteria of lacking a loyalty space and resource icons. And is also is inherently Neutral as it meets that criteria as well. But with a Destroyed System marker in place everything else is no longer there as the marker is just a blank space. The name, resource icons, and loyalty space or no longer present on the board to be referenced.

I think that the point he is making is that if you have a mission card that needs to be performed in a specific named system (Dagobah System) then there needs to be a system on the board with that name. If the name is no longer visible (hidden beneath a destroyed system marker) then it's no longer the Dagobah System. It's now Destroyed System. Still a system for the purposes of any mission card prerequisites other than name, but untargetable by name (unless there's a mission card which has to be resolved in a destroyed system)

I think that the point he is making is that if you have a mission card that needs to be performed in a specific named system (Dagobah System) then there needs to be a system on the board with that name. If the name is no longer visible (hidden beneath a destroyed system marker) then it's no longer the Dagobah System. It's now Destroyed System. Still a system for the purposes of any mission card prerequisites other than name, but untargetable by name (unless there's a mission card which has to be resolved in a destroyed system)

What you're saying makes logical sense. However, strictly speaking, you're extrapolating from logic, not citing the rules per se. At this point, there are certain things that are no longer true (like loyalty) but there's nothing that explicitly states that the system (in this case, Dagobah) ceases to be Dagobah. You're working off inference, which makes sense but it's strictly necessary. It seems to be implied, but that still leaves some room for doubt.

If they intended for the system to no longer be its name, I am sure that would have been in the rulebook. The reason a system is considered to be all bases, moons and other planets in the system is so that the destruction of the planet would not destroy attempts to do missions there. The Dagobah system has more planets than just Dagobah. But there is not even a hint in the rules that there is any effect to missions.

Also if it were the case that you could not do missions after the destruction of the planet, it would effect several rebel missions that they kind of need to win. Of the top of my head, I know there is a Dagobah and a Mon Calamari mission.

If they intended for the system to no longer be its name, I am sure that would have been in the rulebook. The reason a system is considered to be all bases, moons and other planets in the system is so that the destruction of the planet would not destroy attempts to do missions there. The Dagobah system has more planets than just Dagobah. But there is not even a hint in the rules that there is any effect to missions.

Also if it were the case that you could not do missions after the destruction of the planet, it would effect several rebel missions that they kind of need to win. Of the top of my head, I know there is a Dagobah and a Mon Calamari mission.

The card doesn't say you destroy the planet, though, it says you destroy the system, meaning all the bases, moons, other planets, etc.

I think you taking it to literally. System also counts as space around it. Yet you can have battles there. You can move there. Characters are not affected there. The reason the card doesnt say planet, is because nothing in the game says planet. Only time planet is used in rulebook is to refer to other planets being in each system.