I have a question regarding the sabotage card.

It explicitly allows to be resolved in any system (not any populous system how one would expect). Therefore, I suppose it is not against the rules to attempt a sabotage in a remote system. Even rules reference p. 13 confirms any system. Is that a correct assumption?

Why to do that? Here is one example. You as a rebel play first and assign your leaders to a mission. Late game, so imps may have a very good idea where your base is. You have a base in a remote system. Than you notice the imps have assigned leaders strong in spec ops on a mission. You worry a planetary conquest in your base so you attempt a sabotage in your base on a remote system simply to get a leader with spec ops there thus allowing you send another one from the pool to prevent the planetary conquest.

Another thing I noticed is Constructing a death star problem. Death star under construction is "gain" so no problem gaining it in a sabotaged remote system, however completing death star says "deploy", thus allowing the interpretation that once imps begin construction of the death star, rebels may simply sabotage the system and imps are unable to complete the death star (unless removing the sabotage which would not be possible - no loyalty in a remote system). Probably a legal loop hole in the rules (the death star issue) but it is there :-)

"The Sabotage mission is intended to work only in systems that have a resource icon. If the Rebels could use this in a remote system then the Imperial player would be unable to remove the sabotage marker.

That's an official dev response. There was a huge back and forth on this a couple months ago.

Construct Death Star vs Sabotage missions

Thanks, I probably missed that.

But that´s a rather strange answer though :-) .... The "sabotage is intended to work" . I don´t really care about the intention but about the actual rules. Since there are cards stating "attempt in a remote system" and "attempt in a populous system" than I think I can safely assume that "attempt in any system" is not a subject to interpretation. It simply means remote or populous, otherwise the author would use populous should it have such intention.

So what Corey probably should have replied was sorry we made a mistake and the sabotage card should have said "attemt in any populous system". I am little dissapointed now because it simply means there is a mistake and I will have to specificaly mention this card to every new player explaining that in this case it isn´t any system but on other cards any system really is any system. Reprint with the correct wording would be nice.

They pretty much did admit to a mistake.

There would be no reason to sabotage your own system...you can active a system without moving units, so you could just stick a leader on a system if you wanted to stack them for later.

The Death Star under construction element is what sparked the question to the Dev. All it really takes it to point out this element if it comes up.

Agreed it's a mistake but disagree that you should feel there's a burden to clarify this to each new player. Most players are not going to see a tactical advantage in sabotaging systems that lack production and can't be claimed by the empire. They will use the card as intended.

I've done it once on Dagobah not to place the sabotage marker (simply because i thought you cant place one in a remote anyway) but more to send a leader there to save my Luke being captured and turned to the darkside since i had no one in the leader pool to oppose.

As kmanweiss mentioned, the sabotage was unnecessary. You could simply 'activate' Dagobah to place your leader there. Moving units during your activation is optional.

I think he is saying he had already assigned someone to sabotage, and decided he needed someone there so performed it there to provide the assistance to Luke.

I don't understand the confusion here. I side with the developers in not seeing this as an issue. If there are no resource icons, there is nothing to sabotage ergo, you cannot sabotage a remote system.

As I said and as also Irokenics and games mentioned the problem is not when you have a leader in the leader pool but when you don´t, or when you assign one you need on a mission (you realize that only after imps assign). You can´t activate a system with a leader you assigned on a mission.

The only way you can get him to the system you need him to be is to attempt that mission there. Thus, in case of a sabotage you may really need to sabotage a remote system (not really caring about the sabotage marker).

And there is our problem. Card and rules says attempt in any system. But the imp player says you can´t do that. You can´t attempt a sabotage in a remote system (because he realizes you are trying to prevent expected planetary conquest in your base for example).

As I said and as also Irokenics and games mentioned the problem is not when you have a leader in the leader pool but when you don´t, or when you assign one you need on a mission (you realize that only after imps assign). You can´t activate a system with a leader you assigned on a mission.

The only way you can get him to the system you need him to be is to attempt that mission there. Thus, in case of a sabotage you may really need to sabotage a remote system (not really caring about the sabotage marker).

And there is our problem. Card and rules says attempt in any system. But the imp player says you can´t do that. You can´t attempt a sabotage in a remote system (because he realizes you are trying to prevent expected planetary conquest in your base for example).

I am still not seeing that as a major issue. It makes one card slightly less versatile. FAQs happen all the time in games.

As I said and as also Irokenics and games mentioned the problem is not when you have a leader in the leader pool but when you don´t, or when you assign one you need on a mission (you realize that only after imps assign). You can´t activate a system with a leader you assigned on a mission.

The only way you can get him to the system you need him to be is to attempt that mission there. Thus, in case of a sabotage you may really need to sabotage a remote system (not really caring about the sabotage marker).

And there is our problem. Card and rules says attempt in any system. But the imp player says you can´t do that. You can´t attempt a sabotage in a remote system (because he realizes you are trying to prevent expected planetary conquest in your base for example).

i think spiritually we are sabotaging the mission instead of the system now! ahaha