What if you (as the Imperial player) decide to go on a planet-wrecking spree and indiscriminately blow up the system where the Rebel base is in before the Rebel base is revealed?

I know that sounds like a silly strategy, but what if you have no troops near the Death Star and can't gain loyalty where you think the base is? Could you blow up the system without revealing the base? Would you then win?

You could blow up the system without revealing the base, and yes, that would be a win. Pretty sure the rules actually specifically call out this scenario.

You could blow up the system without revealing the base, and yes, that would be a win. Pretty sure the rules actually specifically call out this scenario.

The "Learn to Play" p.11 says if the Death Star blows up the Rebel base system, the Imperials win. So I figured that settled it, but the question is does the base not being revealed affect that rule? I'd so no, but I'd rather see it in an FAQ.

You could blow up the system without revealing the base, and yes, that would be a win. Pretty sure the rules actually specifically call out this scenario.

The "Learn to Play" p.11 says if the Death Star blows up the Rebel base system, the Imperials win. So I figured that settled it, but the question is does the base not being revealed affect that rule? I'd so no, but I'd rather see it in an FAQ.

I think it's pretty clear: "If the Death Star destroys the system where the Rebel base is located, the Imperial player immediately wins the game."

It's the quickest way the Empire can win and why the Death Star is so scary.

You could blow up the system without revealing the base, and yes, that would be a win. Pretty sure the rules actually specifically call out this scenario.

The "Learn to Play" p.11 says if the Death Star blows up the Rebel base system, the Imperials win. So I figured that settled it, but the question is does the base not being revealed affect that rule? I'd so no, but I'd rather see it in an FAQ.

I think it's pretty clear: "If the Death Star destroys the system where the Rebel base is located, the Imperial player immediately wins the game."

It's the quickest way the Empire can win and why the Death Star is so scary.

There's a potential contradiction. Just read through the Rules Reference, and p. 14 under "Winning the Game" says "The Imperial player can win only if the Rebel base is revealed." I think that takes precedence, so I guess I answer my own question.

However, that raises another question: If destroyed the system with the Rebel base happens before the base is revealed, what happens to the Rebel base? Did the Imperials just lose all chance of winning?

I'm gonna try and not be insulting, but why is there always "that person" who insists on abandoning all logic and common sense to find a loop hole in a game's rule system. Is it to suck the joy out of other's experience or does it help to reassure one's superior intellect over the game's developer?

Page 11 of Learn to Play: "When a Death Star destroys a system, place a destroyed system marker in the system and destroy all Rebel ground units there. If the Death Star destroys the system where the Rebel base is located, the Imperial player immediately wins the game."

I'm gonna try and not be insulting, but why is there always "that person" who insists on abandoning all logic and common sense to find a loop hole in a game's rule system. Is it to suck the joy out of other's experience or does it help to reassure one's superior intellect over the game's developer?

There seems to be a lot of rules lawyering going on with this game. Not sure if it happens to all of them since this is the most I've been involved in a board game forum's discussions, but over on BGG especially there are myriad threads of it.

Learn to Play says Empire wins if DS blows up the Rebel Base's system. Rules Reference says Empire ONLY wins if Rebel Base is revealed. By strict reading, this means destroying the base with DS doesn't win the game unless the base is revealed (since RR takes precedence according the "Golden Rules")

I'm about 99.9% positive that this was an oversight on the part of the developers and will be corrected when the Errata/FAQ comes out. In the meantime a few people will insist on being unreasonably pedantic... the rest of us will keep on playing according to rules that make sense.

Learn to Play says Empire wins if DS blows up the Rebel Base's system. Rules Reference says Empire ONLY wins if Rebel Base is revealed. By strict reading, this means destroying the base with DS doesn't win the game unless the base is revealed (since RR takes precedence according the "Golden Rules")

I'm about 99.9% positive that this was an oversight on the part of the developers and will be corrected when the Errata/FAQ comes out. In the meantime a few people will insist on being unreasonably pedantic... the rest of us will keep on playing according to rules that make sense.

It's not pedantic. At first it was just an interesting question, but there is a real conundrum here.

If you could win by blowing up the Rebel base before revealing it, that would be a real possible strategy. If you can't win that way, then you have to be careful to have loyalty or ground troops wherever you want to blow up or you could put yourself in a no-win scenario.

If you don't have worthwhile things to a contribute, go read something else, trolls.

What if you (as the Imperial player) decide to go on a planet-wrecking spree and indiscriminately blow up the system where the Rebel base is in before the Rebel base is revealed?

I know that sounds like a silly strategy, but what if you have no troops near the Death Star and can't gain loyalty where you think the base is? Could you blow up the system without revealing the base? Would you then win?

Arent there only 3 superlaser online cards. Thus you could only really go on a 3 planet spree.

Not much of an empire if it stands only on dust.

Plus, aren't the rebels likely to be bake to score major reputation points if the imps do decide to blow up planets?

Yes their is an objective card that allows you to score points based on destroyed systems. Max 3 points due to only having 3 Super laser on line missions. I feel eventually that objective card will have limited use since the imperial player has complete control if any objective points will be scored by choosing to blow up systems or not.

There's been discussion about what can and can't be done on destroyed systems. If a future FAQ states that once a system is destroyed no further missions can be attempted there, then that makes Degobah a high priority target for the Empire, but may cause the imperial player to think about that decision knowing later on that destroyed system will come back to haunt them.

The way I see it there are only a few instances when blowing up a system can be advantageous to the Empire.

1. Deystroy Degobah to prevent seeking yodah missions (IF FFG rules that missions can't be attempted in destroyed systems)

2. Easy removal of a heavily fortified rebel system (even if it isn't the rebel base)

3. To prevent rebel player from building units you don't want them to.

The last 2 are situational and knowing a rebel player may score objective points off them would probably just mean the Empire will only destroy the system the rebel base is in.

However, that raises another question: If destroyed the system with the Rebel base happens before the base is revealed, what happens to the Rebel base? Did the Imperials just lose all chance of winning?

In this theoretical situation (of course, I do not claim to have any insight into designer's intention):

No, they didn't, Imperials can still win.

They have to reveal the Rebel base by bringing at least 1 ground unit into the system - then destroy all Rebel space units in combat (if any). There are no ground battles in destroyed systems, so any Rebel ground units are irrelevant.

Yes their is an objective card that allows you to score points based on destroyed systems. Max 3 points due to only having 3 Super laser on line missions. I feel eventually that objective card will have limited use since the imperial player has complete control if any objective points will be scored by choosing to blow up systems or not.

There's been discussion about what can and can't be done on destroyed systems. If a future FAQ states that once a system is destroyed no further missions can be attempted there, then that makes Degobah a high priority target for the Empire, but may cause the imperial player to think about that decision knowing later on that destroyed system will come back to haunt them.

The way I see it there are only a few instances when blowing up a system can be advantageous to the Empire.

1. Deystroy Degobah to prevent seeking yodah missions (IF FFG rules that missions can't be attempted in destroyed systems)

2. Easy removal of a heavily fortified rebel system (even if it isn't the rebel base)

3. To prevent rebel player from building units you don't want them to.

The last 2 are situational and knowing a rebel player may score objective points off them would probably just mean the Empire will only destroy the system the rebel base is in.

I think you are discounting the +1 loyalty from using the death star's laser, its the empire most reliable method to gain loyalty without having to have troops in a system. It can create a rather large swing in production (+2 for imps, -2 for rebs or -4 for rebs). It also can really quickly rule out half of any regions spaces as locations of rebel bases since you can swing a neutral system to loyal and blow up a rebel system, this allows you to move on to scouting other regions quicker. Also by swinging a rebel loyal system to neutral, you can negate a deployment area for the rebellion. There is also eliminating the location as potential future location for a rebel base, which depending on your probe hand, may rule out an entire sector for you.

I agree all your reasons are good reasons, but there are other reasons that I listed above. I am not sold on destroying Dagobah as worth it, Jedi Luke is nice and the most powerful leader (5 skills, reroll and 3/3) but he is hardly game swinging. He is marginally better than other leaders, but not so much that will matter most of the time and it takes an action to train him. Now if destroying Dagobah has other strategic value, then yeah go ahead. If Dagobah was in my probe hand, I wouldn't even consider doing it, let the rebels waste time training Luke, using the superlaser later in the game will just let me hunt down their base quicker.

Habeas Corpus

The Learn to Play does say blowing up the system where the Rebel Base resides is a win, but the Learn to Play is a summary and clearly left out the requirement that the Rebel Base must be revealed.

I think I'll put my Rebel Base on Dagobah, then when the Rebel player blows it up to deny me Luke (Jedi), I'll flip my Rebel Base Probe card and declare victory!!!

A lot of people seem to confuse "Playing by the Rules" as being a bad thing.

Also...

Here is the definition of a Rules Lawyer, for those that clearly do not know...

A rules lawyer is someone who takes an ambiguous rule and turns it so it benefits themselves. There is no way to be a rules lawyer during a rules discussion unless they are stating some examples and explaining how they would "rules lawyer someone during a game..."

A GOOD rules lawyer is able to take that same rule in the same game and claim it means something completely different to gain a subsequent benefit.

But please don't confuse people who can parse the English language and enjoy doing so with a rules lawyer. Very different.

Also...

Here is the definition of a Rules Lawyer, for those that clearly do not know...

A rules lawyer is someone who takes an ambiguous rule and turns it so it benefits themselves. There is no way to be a rules lawyer during a rules discussion unless they are stating some examples and explaining how they would "rules lawyer someone during a game..."

A GOOD rules lawyer is able to take that same rule in the same game and claim it means something completely different to gain a subsequent benefit.

But please don't confuse people who can parse the English language and enjoy doing so with a rules lawyer. Very different.

Thanks for the condescension and the very limited definition that only includes one subset of the variations of rules lawyers. A rules lawyer is somebody who takes the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules. Much like the example you gave about blowing up Dagobah and then claiming you win, or your example of manipulating ambiguities to your benefit.

I'm gonna try and not be insulting, but why is there always "that person" who insists on abandoning all logic and common sense to find a loop hole in a game's rule system. Is it to suck the joy out of other's experience or does it help to reassure one's superior intellect over the game's developer?

There seems to be a lot of rules lawyering going on with this game. Not sure if it happens to all of them since this is the most I've been involved in a board game forum's discussions, but over on BGG especially there are myriad threads of it.

There's always that ONE guy... and unfortunately my playgroup has one.

I'm gonna try and not be insulting, but why is there always "that person" who insists on abandoning all logic and common sense to find a loop hole in a game's rule system. Is it to suck the joy out of other's experience or does it help to reassure one's superior intellect over the game's developer?

There seems to be a lot of rules lawyering going on with this game. Not sure if it happens to all of them since this is the most I've been involved in a board game forum's discussions, but over on BGG especially there are myriad threads of it.

There's always that ONE guy... and unfortunately my playgroup has one.

It's you, isn't it.

I'm gonna try and not be insulting, but why is there always "that person" who insists on abandoning all logic and common sense to find a loop hole in a game's rule system. Is it to suck the joy out of other's experience or does it help to reassure one's superior intellect over the game's developer?

There seems to be a lot of rules lawyering going on with this game. Not sure if it happens to all of them since this is the most I've been involved in a board game forum's discussions, but over on BGG especially there are myriad threads of it.

There's always that ONE guy... and unfortunately my playgroup has one.

It's you, isn't it.

I'm not the one arguing that Leia completed a Sabotage mission and put the 2nd Death Star in a never-ending time paradox just because of some make believe rule loophole.

I'm not the one arguing that Leia completed a Sabotage mission and put the 2nd Death Star in a never-ending time paradox just because of some make believe rule loophole.

Don't worry, my group has one of those people too, and it's definitely me.

I guess Tarkin was doing it wrong in ANH. Even if Yavin IV had been destroyed, the Empire would have still lost because he didn't land ground units first

No. He would just have to transport some ground troops into the system... Causing the Rebel player to reveal the Base's location. Once he does that, he has Habeas Corpus and can confidently let Vader know that the Base has indeed been destroyed.

In my opinion the Base must be revealed for the Empire to win. This can be done either befor or after the Death Star strikes.

In my opinion the Base must be revealed for the Empire to win. This can be done either befor or after the Death Star strikes.

Page 11 of Learn to Play reads: