Fair call, Gowtah.

I'll provide the official TO ruling on BCC and Jamming Field tonight.

Okay! Official TO ruling time!

Bomber Command Centre: a Bomber may only benefit from a maximum of *one* BCC during its attack, regardless of how many might be in range.

Jamming Field: This upgrade card is *always* in effect, i.e. it cannot be "turned off" by the controlling player to benefit their own squadron's attacks.

(going with the original article, and the thematic idea that a dogfight is a constantly fluid affair that would not allow for such simple manipulation of the upgrade)

I've updated the second post on this thread with these rulings. Please let me know if there are any other upgrades that have unclear/contentious rules.

I actually think we should be placing bets at this point on how bcc ruling will turn out once ffg gets around to it... I'm way on the multiples stack side of the wager... like dras said, if multiples didn't stack, they would have made it unique

Yeah, they're definitely going to rule it stacks. There is simply no basis for them not to.

The damage increase from multiple successive tells is marginal. Extremely marginal. One reroll on a black nets you +.25 damage; the next one nets you .6; the next is .1.

You're paying 8 points for each. This is a terrible return on investment.

Most importantly, there is no basis or precedent for the idea that just because two effects' cards have the same name, it is the same effect. There is, by contrast, precedent for them not to be the same effect: the effects of two ongoing criticals with the same name stack.

Anyway, I've said my piece much more completely elsewhere, and I do have a horse in this race, so doob's word goes.

Question, though: if FFG clarifies this during the course of the tournament, are we switching rulings mid-tourney?

Oh, also, even though it seems clear to me and pretty much everyone else, should probably go ahead and clarify Tagge/Devastator interaction ahead of time.

I hope people Enjoy the Tournament.

I think FFG will read what occurs here and base their judgements off of that. As for Jamming Fields. . . This makes it one of the worst Fleet Support cards. All you are doing with it is extending the time the squadron war goes on and the need for an Intel ship so you can negate their advantage of locking you up. It also means that Dengar Boosted TIE Bombers are pointless in their own field. Same for TIE Advanced supported by Dengar.

I will say that Jamming Fields does not say anywhere on it that is stays on (like Slaved Turrets do).

Oh well, that's the ruling let's see how many people take multiples of BCC and how many people actually use Jammie Fields.

Can someone flick on the FFG bat symbol??? They must have thought about this before printing... we can't be beta testing here...

They've all been submitted to FFG; the only ones that have been answered have been "wait for the FAQ" to avoid situations like is happening with Instigator right now where we have conflicting answers from FFG.

I think FFG will read what occurs here and base their judgements off of that. As for Jamming Fields. . . This makes it one of the worst Fleet Support cards. All you are doing with it is extending the time the squadron war goes on and the need for an Intel ship so you can negate their advantage of locking you up. It also means that Dengar Boosted TIE Bombers are pointless in their own field. Same for TIE Advanced supported by Dengar.

I will say that Jamming Fields does not say anywhere on it that is stays on (like Slaved Turrets do).

Oh well, that's the ruling let's see how many people take multiples of BCC and how many people actually use Jammie Fields.

"Extending the time the squadron war goes on" is EXACTLY what it is supposed to do. Especially if you are running a limited fighter screen, say 3x-wings plus Jan.

It has counter synergy with Dengar, Dont take dengar...

It also doesnt say it can "turn off"

I think FFG will read what occurs here and base their judgements off of that. As for Jamming Fields. . . This makes it one of the worst Fleet Support cards. All you are doing with it is extending the time the squadron war goes on and the need for an Intel ship so you can negate their advantage of locking you up. It also means that Dengar Boosted TIE Bombers are pointless in their own field. Same for TIE Advanced supported by Dengar.

I will say that Jamming Fields does not say anywhere on it that is stays on (like Slaved Turrets do).

Oh well, that's the ruling let's see how many people take multiples of BCC and how many people actually use Jammie Fields.

jamming field is 2 points it should be the "worst" fleet support and why would it be better then Gallant haven? Which is 8 points and unique

"Extending the time the squadron war goes on" is EXACTLY what it is supposed to do. Especially if you are running a limited fighter screen, say 3x-wings plus Jan.

It has counter synergy with Dengar, Dont take dengar...

It also doesnt say it can "turn off"

It doesn't have to.

The Rules let you do that.

Can someone flick on the FFG bat symbol??? They must have thought about this before printing... we can't be beta testing here...

I think FFG will read what occurs here and base their judgements off of that. As for Jamming Fields. . . This makes it one of the worst Fleet Support cards. All you are doing with it is extending the time the squadron war goes on and the need for an Intel ship so you can negate their advantage of locking you up. It also means that Dengar Boosted TIE Bombers are pointless in their own field. Same for TIE Advanced supported by Dengar.

I will say that Jamming Fields does not say anywhere on it that is stays on (like Slaved Turrets do).

Oh well, that's the ruling let's see how many people take multiples of BCC and how many people actually use Jammie Fields.

jamming field is 2 points it should be the "worst" fleet support and why would it be better then Gallant haven? Which is 8 points and unique

"Extending the time the squadron war goes on" is EXACTLY what it is supposed to do. Especially if you are running a limited fighter screen, say 3x-wings plus Jan.

It has counter synergy with Dengar, Dont take dengar...

It also doesnt say it can "turn off"

It doesn't have to.

The Rules let you do that.

Yup the rules state "unless otherwise specified" which is why Slaved Turrets is the example used.

Not sure why this is even questioned.

Aaaanyway, I also hope that everyone enjoys the tournament.

Here are some rules things to be aware of:

• If FFG releases FAQ during the tournament that contradicts decisions made by the TO, in the interest of fairness to all players, the TO decision will stand as a "house rule" until the next opportunity to submit a new fleet build arises; at that time, the FFG rules will take effect.
• For the purpose of Tagge/Devastator, a recovered token is no longer considered to be discarded. I will update this on the second post on this thread.

Please let me know about any other rules queries you would like ruled on for this tournament.

Thank you for the clarifications, Doobleg. I think your rulings are correct.

My reading of BCC is against stacking. The event is the attack, not the card, no matter how many cards. "A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event." The effect (BCC) is resolved during the specified event (the attack roll) and cannot occur again during that instance. So while many bombers may benefit from BCC, they may do so only once. If you need precedence, I would say its the same as not being able to equip more than one version of any upgrade on a ship, even if it has multiple upgrade slots (ISDI, MC80a). And I feel FFG made BCC non-unique to allow for a large field of coverage, not multiple re-rolls.

Looking forward to the event...now I just need to stop stalling and build a fleet....

As of 2 minutes ago, grudge match declarations are open!

Vipcard3's fleet has arrived. Time to press the offensive. I'm in on this attack

Vipcard3 brings our player count up to 47... can we reach 50?!?

(if you've posted to this thread asking to play, and either I've missed it or it's stuck in moderation purgatory, just email me and I'll add you to the list)

If we start with an odd number of players, unfortunately someone will have to take a bye in each round (random in round one, lowest ranked player in rounds two through four).

Just one more reason to make a grudge match challenge - guaranteed game in round one!

Doobleg, would you mind ruling on the Madine/Nav Token interaction for the tournament, for me, please?

Link below, but basically, how does Madine work with Nav Tokens, because his ability says: "When a friendly ship resolves a Nav command, if it spent a Nav dial it may increase 1 additional yaw value by 1. If it spent a Nav token, it may either change its speed or increase 1 yaw value by 1." Since it is not specifically a replacement of the Nav token speed up/down, is it in addition to or is it a replacement of (just poorly worded)?

As reegsk says below the Token Speed + Speed/Yaw is very potent, but the ability suggests that that's actually how it works.

Would appreciate a TO ruling before I run it one way or the other, as I plan to run Madine

Madine will make things. . .tricky. From the way it is written, it's hard to tell whether the Madine ability replaces or augments what your Nav tokens do. I'm leaning toward the first, replace. Otherwise, a single Nav token could increase/decrease speed by two and give you an additional yaw, giving you three effects. Your Nav dial would allow you to increase/decrease speed by one and give you two additional yaw, giving you three effects. I doubt they'd have Madine make Nav tokens as effective as Nav dials, because dials are always supposed to be significantly better.

In my interpretation, Madine is essentially Nav Teams for every ship AND an additional click of yaw with a Nav dial. But think about that. An MC30c with Raymus Antilles at Speed 3 can go 2-2-2 every **** turn. A Speed 3 CR90 can do it every turn with just a dial.

I wonder if they were drunk at FFG when they came up with this. "Hey, y'know what super-dodgy Rebel fleets need? TO GET MORE DODGY!!!" "F***ing brilliant, Jim!"

Ummmm. . . He is worded like Mon Mothma. A replace ability would flat out say so, an augment to a standard rule doesn't say so, so he is just adding in clicks. Lots and lots of click.

If it was an Additional effect, it would say "In Addition" or "by 1 Additional" like it says earlier

He also has the same wording as nav teams

"[Nav]: Your [Nav] tokens can either change your speed or increase your yaw value by 1."

Ummmm. . . He is worded like Mon Mothma. A replace ability would flat out say so, an augment to a standard rule doesn't say so, so he is just adding in clicks. Lots and lots of click.

If it was an Additional effect, it would say "In Addition" or "by 1 Additional" like it says earlier

Hah, two different opinions immediately. At least you validated my asking for a TO ruling

He also has the same wording as nav teams

"Icon Command Navigate.png: Your Icon Command Navigate.png tokens can either change your speed or increase your yaw value by 1."

Actually, he doesn't have "[Nav Icon] [colon]" it's just straight up talking about what the things do, which is why it's a bit of a grey area.

He also has the same wording as nav teams

"Icon Command Navigate.png: Your Icon Command Navigate.png tokens can either change your speed or increase your yaw value by 1."

Actually, he doesn't have "[Nav Icon] [colon]" it's just straight up talking about what the things do, which is why it's a bit of a grey area.

Nav teams: Your nav tokens can either change your speed or increase your yaw value by 1.

Madine:... If it spent a Nav token, it may either change its speed or increase 1 yaw value by 1."

Why is there doudt?

Clon and Lyraeus agree with each other here.