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.

How would that grant habeas corpus? I'm not sure Vader would care about habeas corpus. Could you define how you're using it? I've never seen it used that way.

Prove the base was there. Find something in the debris.

I'm using the Latin, not the common law term. (Wouldn't want to be confused with a lawyer.)

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.

I play against a rules lawyer, so information is key here

You keep saying "rules lawyer". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

Thank you KoalaXav.

Page 11 of Learn to Play reads:

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

Case closed...

In my opinion, this is ambiguous enough that it requires errata. Clearly, the intent is that if the Death Star destroys the system that contains the Rebel base, the Imperial player immediately wins regardless of whether the base is revealed or unrevealed.

However, that piece of information, which is from the Learn to Play Guide, is actually in contradiction with the passage in the Rules References that states the base must be revealed in order for the Imperial player to win. And the Golden Rule states that the RR trumps the L2P Guide.

Is that so-called "rules lawyering?" Well, this is a forum on which the minutia of rules are discussed. I would think that if that sort of thing annoys someone, that person might want to consider spending his or her time doing something else other than reading these forums.

In my opinion, this is ambiguous enough that it requires errata. Clearly, the intent is that if the Death Star destroys the system that contains the Rebel base, the Imperial player immediately wins regardless of whether the base is revealed or unrevealed.

However, that piece of information, which is from the Learn to Play Guide, is actually in contradiction with the passage in the Rules References that states the base must be revealed in order for the Imperial player to win. And the Golden Rule states that the RR trumps the L2P Guide.

Is that so-called "rules lawyering?" Well, this is a forum on which the minutia of rules are discussed. I would think that if that sort of thing annoys someone, that person might want to consider spending his or her time doing something else other than reading these forums.

You've perfectly summed up the argument. And yes, it is "rules lawyering" because the argument is based upon the fact that technically the situation clearly covered in the Learn to Play book is not in the Rules book. This was a HORRIBLE over-site by FFG and is so because of the "golden rule" you stated.

Clearly, FFG makes their intent clear. The loophole is just that... and to take advantage of a loophole is textbook "rules lawyering".

I personally have sent an e-mail about this to FFG to bring this to a close. As you put, it needs to be addressed not because we don't know what the errata is going to be, but to close the loophole.

In my opinion, this is ambiguous enough that it requires errata. Clearly, the intent is that if the Death Star destroys the system that contains the Rebel base, the Imperial player immediately wins regardless of whether the base is revealed or unrevealed.

However, that piece of information, which is from the Learn to Play Guide, is actually in contradiction with the passage in the Rules References that states the base must be revealed in order for the Imperial player to win. And the Golden Rule states that the RR trumps the L2P Guide.

Is that so-called "rules lawyering?" Well, this is a forum on which the minutia of rules are discussed. I would think that if that sort of thing annoys someone, that person might want to consider spending his or her time doing something else other than reading these forums.

You've perfectly summed up the argument. And yes, it is "rules lawyering" because the argument is based upon the fact that technically the situation clearly covered in the Learn to Play book is not in the Rules book. This was a HORRIBLE over-site by FFG and is so because of the "golden rule" you stated.

Clearly, FFG makes their intent clear. The loophole is just that... and to take advantage of a loophole is textbook "rules lawyering".

I personally have sent an e-mail about this to FFG to bring this to a close. As you put, it needs to be addressed not because we don't know what the errata is going to be, but to close the loophole.

This is the place for discussing rules question. I'm not saying it's a "HORRIBLE over-site [sic]" but a legitimate contradiction between the L2P and RR and should be clarified.

If you don't want to discuss rules questions here, then go find some better use of your time. Otherwise, stop complaining when people find unintended mistakes and ask for clarification.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

It's neither definitive or irrefutable. He only quoted the L2P, which is contradicted by the RR.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

It's neither definitive or irrefutable. He only quoted the L2P, which is contradicted by the RR.

Please show me, in the Rules book, where it DIRECTLY refers to what happens when A Death Star blows up a system where the unrelieved Rebel base is.

This is just ridiculous. I don't remember this scene.

Imperial gunner: The rebel base is now in firing range.

Tarkin: Excellent. Land our ground units then blow it up.

I'd hate to be in THAT trooper division.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

It's neither definitive or irrefutable. He only quoted the L2P, which is contradicted by the RR.

Please show me, in the Rules book, where it DIRECTLY refers to what happens when A Death Star blows up a system where the unrelieved Rebel base is.

The Rules Reference *doesn't*, and that is exactly the issue.

L2P page 11: If the Death Star destroys the system where the Rebel base is located, the Imperial player immediately wins the game.

RR page 14: The Imperial player can win only if the Rebel base is revealed.

If the Imperial player destroys the system where the unrevealed Rebel base is located, the L2P says he wins. But the base is unrevealed, so the RR says he can't win. We have a contradiction between the two rule books.

RR page 2: If information in this Rules Reference contradicts the Learn to Play booklet, the Rules Reference takes precedence.

So by the letter of the rules, the Imperial player doesn't actually win.

Now, I said it up above and I'll say it again: I believe that if the Imperial player destroys the system containing the UNREVEALED Rebel base, he does, in fact, win the game. But by strict RAW interpretation, he actually does not win. In other words, there is more than enough there to fuel a discussion with people on either side of the issue.

I will continue to play the game assuming he does win. If, by some really odd turn of events, FFG comes out with an official ruling that he does NOT win if he destroys the system with the unrevealed Rebel base, I will grudgingly accept it and switch to playing that way. But I seriously doubt that will happen.

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

It's neither definitive or irrefutable. He only quoted the L2P, which is contradicted by the RR.

Please show me, in the Rules book, where it DIRECTLY refers to what happens when A Death Star blows up a system where the unrelieved Rebel base is.

If the RR had such a specific ruling, we wouldn't be having this discussion. RR p. 14 (as already referenced in this thread) states "The Imperial player can win only if the Rebel base is revealed." That's pretty absolute language, and thus it's in need of clarification.

This is just ridiculous. I don't remember this scene.

Imperial gunner: The rebel base is now in firing range.

Tarkin: Excellent. Land our ground units then blow it up.

I'd hate to be in THAT trooper division.

There are plenty of rules that might be necessary for the mechanics of a board game that don't make much sense thematically. Besides, Imp ground forces don't blow up with a planet anyway.

Thematically, it could be necessary for the Empire to send scouts to ensure the existence of the Rebel base prior to firing the Superlaser, so that they are sure they destroyed the real base and not an abandoned one. Sounds an awful lot like what happened in ANH with Dantooine.

I'm just worried that if we keep on nitpicking rules, over ridiculous situations we're going to give people undecided on the game the idea that the rules are too confusing to be playable.

Let me ask this. Let's say the interpretation that the Imperial player immediately loses the game if he blows up the rebel base without it being revealed is the correct one. Is there anyone here who would actually prefer to play it that way?

You wiped out the rebellion leadership but can't prove it. Rebels win.

Unless there's someone here who WANTS this to be the correct answer, I feel it's pointless arguing over it.

I'm just worried that if we keep on nitpicking rules, over ridiculous situations we're going to give people undecided on the game the idea that the rules are too confusing to be playable.

Let me ask this. Let's say the interpretation that the Imperial player immediately loses the game if he blows up the rebel base without it being revealed is the correct one. Is there anyone here who would actually prefer to play it that way?

You wiped out the rebellion leadership but can't prove it. Rebels win.

Unless there's someone here who WANTS this to be the correct answer, I feel it's pointless arguing over it.

I don't think that anybody ever argued that the Imperials lose the game if they destroy the system containing the unrevealed Rebel base. I think the argument is that they don't win the game at that time (again, it's not my argument, but it's a legitimate argument based on RAW).

Well, at this point all the rebels have to do is run out the clock to win. I only see two scenarios that could prevent it.

1. The empire later moves ground units into the system.

2. The rebels later reveal their base

Stone37 provided a clear definitive irrefutable answer from the rulebook. There's no ground for rules lawyering here. Case closed. Appeals denied. Next case.

It's neither definitive or irrefutable. He only quoted the L2P, which is contradicted by the RR.

Please show me, in the Rules book, where it DIRECTLY refers to what happens when A Death Star blows up a system where the unrelieved Rebel base is.

The Rules Reference *doesn't*, and that is exactly the issue.

L2P page 11: If the Death Star destroys the system where the Rebel base is located, the Imperial player immediately wins the game.

RR page 14: The Imperial player can win only if the Rebel base is revealed.

If the Imperial player destroys the system where the unrevealed Rebel base is located, the L2P says he wins. But the base is unrevealed, so the RR says he can't win. We have a contradiction between the two rule books.

RR page 2: If information in this Rules Reference contradicts the Learn to Play booklet, the Rules Reference takes precedence.

So by the letter of the rules, the Imperial player doesn't actually win.

See, I'd argue the other way. Yes, the Rules book takes precedence over the Learn book, but the Rules does not mention the scenario in question! Only the Learn book does, therefore there is nothing in the Rules book that contradicts or changes the rule in the Learn book.

It is very clear to me that the L2P book does not contradict the RR book. I can see how some people may see a contradiction, but I do not think they are reading it correctly. This is the entire crux of the disagreement, whether you read it a as a contradiction or not. There is not really anyway to convince the other side as its not as simple as a basic rules reading, its an opinion on intent. I think the best way to approach this is to state both readings and state which way you read it.

Also, there are no sides in this, we are all just trying to understand the rules of a board game. Its not a rule lawyer-y attempt to gain an advantage over an opponent by understanding the rules better than them and applying the rules only when they favor you. I think this discussion could really benefit from that mindset.

Wow how this ever became a discussion is beyond me. Common sense should really shine through on this one the base is revealed pretty much the same time it blows up ..... you know why ... ? no .... well I would hazard a guess the Rebel Player has to reach across the board and take all his pieces off the rebel base ....

I'm on board with the RR rule over-riding the LtP one, but...

If a planet is destroyed then ground units are destroyed, if the planet is the rebel base then does the rebel player have to make these adjustments in the rebel base box there and then?

I'm on board with the RR rule over-riding the LtP one, but...

If a planet is destroyed then ground units are destroyed, if the planet is the rebel base then does the rebel player have to make these adjustments in the rebel base box there and then?

Yes. Because they are all dead! See how this makes the argument rather moot?

Ok, I may have a fix for this. I am working under a couple assumptions. The big one is that everyone believes the SPIRIT of the rule is that you super laser teh Rebel base and the imps win. Agreed? At least for argument sake? If you disagree, in spirit, stop reading now.

So, to counter the rules lawyers, if they try and tell you that you haven't won yet. You super laser the rebel base, BUT, the imps can't win until the rebel base is revealed. You leave the DS in that system until you can get a ground unit there. As soon as the Imps have a ground unit in the rebel system, it is revealed, Imps win as all rules are covered, no more contradiction. If they try and mobilise, they have to reveal the Rebel base. If that happens, again, Imps win. All rules covered, no contradiction. Kinda bass ackwards and convoluted, but, so is the idea that blowing up the Rebel base isn't enough to win the game.

The other solution to the rules lawyer getting silly is take the DS and WHIP IT AT HIS HEAD FOR BEING OBSTINATE.

Ok, I may have a fix for this. I am working under a couple assumptions. The big one is that everyone believes the SPIRIT of the rule is that you super laser teh Rebel base and the imps win. Agreed? At least for argument sake? If you disagree, in spirit, stop reading now.

So, to counter the rules lawyers, if they try and tell you that you haven't won yet. You super laser the rebel base, BUT, the imps can't win until the rebel base is revealed. You leave the DS in that system until you can get a ground unit there. As soon as the Imps have a ground unit in the rebel system, it is revealed, Imps win as all rules are covered, no more contradiction. If they try and mobilise, they have to reveal the Rebel base. If that happens, again, Imps win. All rules covered, no contradiction. Kinda bass ackwards and convoluted, but, so is the idea that blowing up the Rebel base isn't enough to win the game.

The other solution to the rules lawyer getting silly is take the DS and WHIP IT AT HIS HEAD FOR BEING OBSTINATE.

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying from the beginning?

And to counter the other argument about what to do with the units in the Rebel Base... Look up the rules, the units are not placed on the map until the Base is revealed. Once they are, any excess ground units above transport capacity would be removed, and of course ion cannons and shield generators. But they aren't Revealed, so they just sit there. All this is in the rules.

I still say this is the most ridiculous and pedantic debate on the forum. I've not yet seen someone say they would rather play with the interpretation that blowing up the rebel base when not revealed does not win the game. "Oh, no. I would never play it that way, but TECHNICALLY..." *rolls eyes*

Let's just make a houserule that if the death star is about to turn the rebel base to gravel, they HAVE to reveal. I can't imagine why they wouldn't. (Shhhh, everyone be quiet and maybe it will go away. / But sir. It's charging its superlaser! / I said be quiet!)