ok. The next time "the ship" wants to get up and walk over and discard my upgrade, I will be glad to let the ship flip the card and not the token.

It must be fun playing with you. I really would like to see your ships rolling dice, placing maneuver templates etc. Can you please post a video?

This interaction has been discussed at the Stele open and the ruling was that the EM tokens are to be considered a duplicate of the card the token is on. Removing EM does nothing in that case and discarding a card with an EM token on it just removes one of the two proton torpedoes equipped.

Restated for Clarity: According to the ruling made at the Stele Open. If a shipped equipped with proton Torpedoes and Extra Munitions places a token on the Proton Torpedo that token is for all intents and purposes another Proton Torpedo card. If Boba Fett is triggered then, you may target EM if you choose but it will not get rid of the tokens which count as a duplicate. You may target the proton torpedo but it will not discard the copy of proton torpedo provided by EM.

Now will that be the FFG officially rules? I don't know but that is how it is currently being ruled in high level events in Northern Virginia.

What a terrible ruling. Nowhere on EM does it say the tokens count as duplicates of the card it is placed on.

I said for all intents and purposes it acts as a duplicate version of the proton torpedo. Meaning Extra Munitions protects the torpedo card itself from being discarded. By that thinking the token also protects EM from being discarded by Boba Fett.

Criticize the ruling if you wish it's not a FFG official ruling however, I'd think that with FFG playtesters and Paul Heaver himself in attendance there would have been a huff about it if that ruling wasn't considered an acceptable ruling until FFG puts out an official ruling.

I think it's quite logical actually. There's been more than a few rather silly theories behind this whole topic, and this "ruling" is the closest thing to making sense that I've read so far.

I think it's quite logical actually. There's been more than a few rather silly theories behind this whole topic, and this "ruling" is the closest thing to making sense that I've read so far.

Really? It's more logical to make up a whole new rule rather than just read the cards and do what they say?

OK, I put a token on EM. Now because I have two copies of EM, I can put two tokens on every munitions card. Hell, that even includes EM, so let's put a third on there. Now I have three copies!

Feel free to load up as many tokens as you like on the Extra Munitions card, because they've never been any use in the past and I think the logical intention is to place tokens on the weapons only. But if you want to make ridiculous assumptions about the way you think it should work, carry on.

But if you want to make ridiculous assumptions about the way you think it should work, carry on.

I personally consider pretending a token is a second copy of a card, rather than what the card describing the token says it is, to be ridiculous.

I think it's quite logical actually. There's been more than a few rather silly theories behind this whole topic, and this "ruling" is the closest thing to making sense that I've read so far.

Really? It's more logical to make up a whole new rule rather than just read the cards and do what they say?

OK, I put a token on EM. Now because I have two copies of EM, I can put two tokens on every munitions card. Hell, that even includes EM, so let's put a third on there. Now I have three copies!

That's definitely not legit, the extra munitions upgrade is "Limited".

That's definitely not legit, the extra munitions upgrade is "Limited".

Ah, but you do only have one copy at squad-building time, which is when restrictions like that matter...

I said for all intents and purposes it acts as a duplicate version of the proton torpedo. Meaning Extra Munitions protects the torpedo card itself from being discarded. By that thinking the token also protects EM from being discarded by Boba Fett.

Criticize the ruling if you wish it's not a FFG official ruling however, I'd think that with FFG playtesters and Paul Heaver himself in attendance there would have been a huff about it if that ruling wasn't considered an acceptable ruling until FFG puts out an official ruling.

First, what's the Stele Open and why should I care about how a TO there ruled any more than how a TO at any other tournament has ruled? Other TOs have ruled that the cards interact exactly as the rules and card text say that they do.

Second, why would any of those people have raised a stink about about this ruling unless it directly affected them? I don't know that I've ever considered Paul Heaver as an expert on the minutia of X-Wing rules and I don't think he's ever presented himself as such when I've heard him on podcasts.

First, what's the Stele Open and why should I care about how a TO there ruled any more than how a TO at any other tournament has ruled? Other TOs have ruled that the cards interact exactly as the rules and card text say that they do.

Because Stele open has in attendance the people that make the rules. Therefore, the implication is their presence and ability to weigh in on the TO's decision increases the accuracy of the TO's judgement.

Second, why would any of those people have raised a stink about about this ruling unless it directly affected them? I don't know that I've ever considered Paul Heaver as an expert on the minutia of X-Wing rules and I don't think he's ever presented himself as such when I've heard him on podcasts.

Because Paul Heaver designed the Boba Fett card in question, and thus if the ruling went against his intended effect, he would have vocalized it to the TO and/or community. Generally, if the designer of something is ok with it, there is a good bet that it is the right call.

Because Stele open has in attendance the people that make the rules.

But that doesn't mean they had any input. Did the TO talk to anyone from FFG about it? Did they even know that the ruling was made?

Because Paul Heaver designed the Boba Fett card in question, and thus if the ruling went against his intended effect, he would have vocalized it to the TO and/or community.

Was Paul involved in the ruling? Did he even know about the ruling or what it was? Also Paul came up with the concept of the card, but he wasn't the one who designed it. He talked about it once, and said he comes up with the idea but he isn't the one who writes the text for it.

The ruling the TO made is the ruling the TO made, but nothing I've seen mentioned so far rises it to the level of even a email from one of the developers. That doesn't mean they got the ruling wrong, just that no one else will feel compelled to use it. If someone from FFG was involved in the ruling, then that's something else of course.

does anyone know in which game this ruling was made. Would be interesting the watch that game footage.

Do what the card says. The card says to discard an upgrade CARD,not a token.

Do what the card says. The card says to discard an upgrade CARD,not a token.

It's really not that simple.

I can see both sides of the argument here, and although I'm leaning towards the side that says Boba works against EM. The EM card says when instructed to discard an upgrade card you may discard the token instead.

So it comes down to if you're being instructed to discard that upgrade, or if Boba allows the other player to discard it directly.

So you can't simply do what the card says, without some interpretation and a bit of RAI. Because simple RAW leaves both sides of the argument with fairly valid points.

wow alot of anger for something ruled on at the Stele Open. I wasn't speaking for Paul Heaver nor was I speaking for the playtester that was present at the tournament. What I am saying is that you can easily presume that the TO and Judges would have run this by either or both of them before or during the event. Paul iirc wasn't playing in the x-wing event but he was sitting behind the judges table for awhile so he may have been involved in some of these rulings or maybe he wasn't. I don't know for sure.

What I do know is that the ruling used at Stele seemed to make sense as a reasonable interpretation of the rule until FFG officially releases their ruling.

Again, I originally chimed in here because I thought some perspective from a higher level event such as Stele would be useful in this discussion.

wow alot of anger for something ruled on at the Stele Open.

Anger? I didn't pick up on anything bordering on anger in any of the posts about the Stele Open.

I wasn't speaking for Paul Heaver nor was I speaking for the playtester that was present at the tournament. What I am saying is that you can easily presume that the TO and Judges would have run this by either or both of them before or during the event.

Why would you presume that? What were the circumstances around the ruling that would cause that to be the presumption?

Was it a ruling that the outcome of the final round hinged on? I could maybe see a judge consulting with someone not involved in the tournament but that might still be a little odd.

Was it a ruling made during swiss where neither player was sure how to handle it that didn't particularly impact the game too much one way or the other? I'd be extremely surprised if the judge consulted spectators for their opinion in that case.

I presumed so because I got the ruling from a TO early in the day and later in the day I asked the playtester who was there his opinion and he corroborated it. (Figured that since both a TO and Playtester were on the exact same page about a ruling they more likely than not discussed this ruling previously)

Oh and I wasn't saying you were angry.... take it personally if you wish but the tone conveyed in many on these posts is rather angry.

What I do know is that the ruling used at Stele seemed to make sense as a reasonable interpretation of the rule...

But it is also a ruling that a lot of people disagree with, and while I could see FFG making that ruling it is not the only way it could go. Since there's never been an effect that lets the other guy discard an upgrade. We have no precedence or a truly firm RAW to go upon.

While it's interesting how it was ruled on there, that ruling was no different than the opinion of a number of people, and it lacks any real authority in terms of how other TO's should rule in a similar circumstance.

Also as WWSD points out, there is no reason to presume that the TO in question asked anyone from FFG's opinion, or even that the people from FFG that were there are really the best source to make that decision in the first place.

Ignore it if you so desire. Which I'm sure you all will do. I do believe a judge at the Stele Open and an x-wing playtester have a much better grasp of the rules than you do but hey it's a game do what you want.

Until FFG releases their official ruling.

I do believe a judge at the Stele Open and an x-wing playtester have a much better grasp of the rules than you do

Considering your post here is nothing more than a not so subtle jab at us all... Because some of us don't agree with one person's ruling, and don't consider it to be authoritative... Well I'm not sure if I need to spell out what we think of your opinion on the matter.

But for the record, not only do the people who post here have a much better grasp than many TO's I've met, we actually have a better grasp of them then some of the people who work for FFG.

...

But for the record, not only do the people who post here have a much better grasp than many TO's I've met, we actually have a better grasp of them then some of the people who work for FFG.

That is a statement that can be very true but is also very hard for some to accept.

I do believe a judge at the Stele Open and an x-wing playtester have a much better grasp of the rules than you do

Considering your post here is nothing more than a not so subtle jab at us all... Because some of us don't agree with one person's ruling, and don't consider it to be authoritative... Well I'm not sure if I need to spell out what we think of your opinion on the matter.

But for the record, not only do the people who post here have a much better grasp than many TO's I've met, we actually have a better grasp of them then some of the people who work for FFG.

I don't know how many times FFG have made a FAQ "ruling" on something and a lot of folks here have dissected and discussed that ruling and how it interacts with other elements of the game and come to a more logical, rules-based conclusion of how it should work (that differs from FFG's original), then emailed FFG for an explanation, only to have FFG change their "ruling" to the more logical, rules-based version that everybody came to. Valen Rudor was the most recent example. For some reason, he defied the initiative rules in one FAQ and then after much debate here about how and why, he complied with them in the next. I asked FFG why they had a contradiction in the FAQ regarding a damage card and an upgrade. One said a player could do something whilst the other said he couldn't. I got an email that said "we're looking into that for the next FAQ" and it got promptly changed.

The guys at FFG are only human and can and do make mistakes from time to time. Some of these might be because they have been known to rotate their staff around various different projects, so there's a fresh take on things. That may be a good thing, as newcomers have fresh ideas. It may also be a bad thing, as inconsistencies start coming in. Most of us here consider Frank Brooks to be an authority on the game, mainly due to the fact that he currently answers the majority of questions that are emailed in and has done so for many years now. But if you check the acknowledgments and credits at the back of either rulebook, you won't see his name listed there. Most of us would consider Alex Davy as an authority as well, because he's now listed as one of the game developers, but there's been more than one occasion when Alex and Frank haven't been on the same page over something. At the end of the day, they're just another two gamers trying to get it right.

As for judges, there's no qualification for anyone to be a judge. So sometimes you may get a very knowledgeable person that knows their rules, and sometimes you may get a complete muppet that will just get it wrong and insists that his word is final even if it's wrong. And that happens too. Until they turn this plastic spaceship game into a professional game, we're all just a bunch of amateurs playing with our ships. The fact that some of us have been playing with said ships longer and more often than some of the staff at FFG probably gives us a better grasp of the rules than some of the FFG staff.

Seriously, did someone write an email to FFG about this concern? There were a lot of rule questions in the past and FFG clarified them per mail even before new FAQs were released.

So are we waiting for a response or just philsophizing the same arguments again and again?