This is the place for discussion of what should go into a living document that describes the current issues and card interactions. If you have a rules question, such as movement, ramming, attacking, etc., these will not be included because there is already a post about that. I want this Known Issues document to cover unresolved conflicts that will likely need an FAQ from FFG. This is not an FAQ and I do not want any bias put into this. Simply raw data and discussion.

If you think this is a bad idea, say so. If it's a good idea, say so. If you have a suggestion for the format, say so. If you think something should be included, say so. This is supposed to benefit the community, and I want input on how this should be done.

That being said, for the format of this document, I was thinking along the lines of posing the problem, the arguments on both sides, and a link to the specific thread. For example:

Jamming Fields

• Is this upgrade always on, or can you turn it on and off?

Always On

• The preview article appears to imply that it is always on.

Turn On and Off

• It can be turned on and off, as stated in the RRG:

1. "A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event." (pg.5)
2. "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified." (pg.5)
3. It is clearly specified in the Upgrade Cards section (pg.13) that Jamming Field is an upgrade card.

Link

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/228226-jamming-fields-wait-are-these-insanely-good/

This is just a skeleton of what I would like. Both sides should be fleshed out, and honestly I would prefer if I could get input from the people in the discussion (no names will be given out). When we get an FAQ, I will be delete anything covered because it is no longer needed.

If you want to share a link to a thread, please copy the title of it and what the topic is about. And please try not to double post topics.

There are a lot of discussions out there, and I will need help finding it all.

I want to reiterate this is not an FAQ, simply a document for people to read over the current issues players have found in the game.

Once the Known Issues thread is created in the rules sub forum, please do not post things that should be added there. Post them here. I want it to look nice and neat, and it will be changing for ever wave and FAQ released.

I am sure I forgot to mention something, but let me know what you think. If the community as a whole does not like this, we will not have to go forward with it.

A committee of our best and brightest is being assembled for these very questions, they are our best chance at finding the answers we need...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/230720-preliminary-discussion-for-the-creation-of-an-unofficial-faq-committee/

A committee of our best and brightest is being assembled for these very questions, they are our best chance at finding the answers we need...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/230720-preliminary-discussion-for-the-creation-of-an-unofficial-faq-committee/

If you read through the entire post, you would read that this idea came out of that...because it was suggested and I decided to do it. And again, this is not about finding answers. It is about letting people come to their own conclusion based on what other people think. Unbiased information straight from the source in an easily accessible manner. Once the FAQ drops, they will have thier answers.

Although probs this should go rules forum?

Jamming field is always on because the squadron is next to it triggering the while.

I would only assume optional if it has "may" in it.

Once the Known Issues thread is created in the rules sub forum, please do not post things that should be added there. Post them here. I want it to look nice and neat, and it will be changing for ever wave and FAQ released.

Although probs this should go rules forum?

It will. This is the place to discuss what will go in.

Edit: I want to know there is enough support behind this before I carry through with it, hence why it is in the general stuff, not the rules forum.

Jamming field is always on because the squadron is next to it triggering the while.

I would only assume optional if it has "may" in it.

I don't want this to blow up into how the cards work. And Jamming field has like 11 pages in 1 discussion, so I think it has merit to fall into this document. And besides, that as an exmaple. As I said, For exmaple:...

I think this is a good start.

You will notice that the two sides are read as intended and read as written.

If memory serves me right, drop Ard and Eastern King messages to get differing opinions.

I'm firmly in the camp that were overanalyzing.

Yes, RAW seem to suggest that JF i optional, because all upgrades are optional to resolve.

This, however, isn't supported by the way a host of other cards work. You cannot turn off Rieekan, for example.

RAW in this case I think is intended to underscore the voluntary nature of cards with "can" or "may" or similar in the text.

Because otherwise RAW breaks down the entire game.

I've started the thread - https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/230901-known-issues-a-thread-where-no-one-agrees-on-anything/.

Sorry to be blunt, but I don't care about your opinion on any of the topics, and I don't want to discuss them. No need to yet another flame war. I am trying to be as unbiased as I can in my interpretation and copy/paste.

If you want to see something added, post it here! If you contributed to one of the topics and think I got your argument wrong, let me know!

Suggested question:

When using Fire Control Teams, do cards dealt directly by a critical effect (such as Assault Proton Torpedoes or Assault Concussion Missiles) get modified by or count against modification limits by critical effects which deal the "First X" cards face-up? What happens if 2 "First X" card effect are in use?

Affected:

• Cards that are dealt by critical effects count as the first damage cards dealt by an attack, and count against limits on effects that flip the first X cards face-up. For example, Assault Proton torpedoes counts as the first card dealt face-up when a player also uses the Standard Critical Effect and the second card dealt is dealt face-down. If XX-9 Turbolasers and the Standard Critical Effect are used, only the first 2 cards are dealt face-up.

Unaffected:

• Cards that are dealt by critical effects are not affected by effects like the Standard Critical Effect, and do not count as the first damage cards dealt by the attack. In this scenario, Assault Proton Torpedoes trigger, and then the next damage card can also be dealt face-up by the Standard Critical Effect. If XX-9 Turbolasers and the Standard Critical Effect are used, 3 damage cards are dealt face-up.
  
  

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/223760-xx9defaultfire-control-team-discussion/

Can you and Moodswing reserve multiple posts in the thread before I start bumping please.

Can you and Moodswing reserve multiple posts in the thread before I start bumping please.

How do I do that? I'm still pretty new to all the mechanics on posting

Can you and Moodswing reserve multiple posts in the thread before I start bumping please.

How do I do that? I'm still pretty new to all the mechanics on posting

Just comment on the thread with multiple posts that say "reserve".

That way when you come to edit them later they are at the top of the thread. At some point the first post may become too long and need splitting into multiple posts.

Can you and Moodswing reserve multiple posts in the thread before I start bumping please.

How do I do that? I'm still pretty new to all the mechanics on posting

Just comment on the thread with multiple posts that say "reserve".

That way when you come to edit them later they are at the top of the thread. At some point the first post may become too long and need splitting into multiple posts.

2 reserved for me. Just gotta wait for Moodswing.

I posted a reserve in the new thread. Ill go look at the original articles on the jamming field to get an idea on what was coherent discussion and what fell into "I've played table top for 40 years..." BS. I like the idea of having just the relevant RAW vs. logic, then posting a link to go discuss it elsewhere. I think that will be very useful.

One thing, how should we handle things that are eventually FAQ'd? Do we just edit the original post with a link to the new FAQ? The issue with that is that I have found that the link changes when they have a new FAQ, so it breaks references we make, meaning ALOT of work come new FAQ day.....

When the FAQ is released, everything addressed will be deleted. No need to have it because we have our answers.

Aside from BCC and Jamming Field, have I missed any other problems?

And does anyone think the thread for Jamming Field has merit to actually be called an issue? I get the feeling the main argument it can be turned off is the option to effectively ignore upgrades, but I don't think that argument can hold water for 2 reasons. 1. That means every upgrade can be turned on/off which simply breaks the game. 2. "Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified." This second sentence refers to singular card, not other cards. This means the other card effects are referring to the card in question. If that makes sense.

These are my thoughts on it, and I'm willing to put it in. I just need someone to frame the arguments so it does not appear that every upgrade can be turned on/off because that will devolve into another problem, like if Motti can give the extra hull to the ships when I decide it, not all the time. Or if I need to discard Officer Montferrat when I overlap something because I choose to turn off that upgrade.

I'm going to Dump a fresh steaming load of opinion here, so forewarned





If you are truly wanting to be objective on collecting and collating known issues, then you cannot have thoughts on the matter .

If you do have thoughts. You can't voice them.

In doing so, you are inherently biasing the discourse and discussion.

The whole reason why I havn't gone and done what you were attempting to do, is I am as biased as all hell to these questions.

The simplest and quickest way, is to do a search for something like "ask FFG", which, ironically, I don't think you actually can do based on search parameters, and go and find every question and discussion box that has that down.

The Current ones from discussions (arguments and abuse) I have had for Wave 3/4 are:

G8 Timing re: Nav Token

Jamming Field Off/On

Targeting Scrambler / BCC Stacking (Discussed as BCC, same issue for Targeting Scrambler)

Fire Control Teams - Default Crit + XX9s, and also, ACMs+XX9s on Unshielded Hull Zones.*

General Madine + Nav Team - Stacking or providing redundant effect

General Tagge + Devestator - Is post-recovered still discarded, definition of 'recover' effect.

Ones where a consensus was reached, but people still ask (and argue) against:

Flotilla Size re: Small Ship for Motti

* Luke Skywalker and "treat as having no shields" for Critical effect, as a flow on from "is damage Cards from ACM on unshielded zones 'the first damage cards this turn'.

There is more. But I have no Coffee right now, and thus, no search-fu. But there's some further talking points for you.

And of course, the whole diatribe at the top is just purely utterly my opinion, and thus, can be entirely discarded if you please

The important bits are what I bolded at that point, since that's what you actually asked for.

...

Why doesn't anyone actually ask for diatribes?

Also, that's an awesome word.

Diatribes.

I want opinions on this matter! What goes into the document is as unbiased as I can be about it, so all my thoughts and opinions go here. I am diligent in separating my feelings from logical arguments, so don't worry about me biasing anything

The reason I bring this up though is the ramifications it has on other cards. The issues we have currently, except Jamming Field, pertains to 1 or 2 cards, and a specific timing/interaction, so it is easy to grasp what is happening.

The difference about Jamming Field is what the argument is actually about. From what I gather, it is the wording about upgrade cards and being able to optionally resolve their effects. It actually has nothing to do with the card itself, but Jamming Field brought this issue to light. The argument is actually what cards have mandatory effects, and which ones are optional, and Jamming Field is being pushed as an optional upgrade, because people are misinterpreting the second sentence of that rule, as I have stated already.

When I get some more free time I will have another go at the other issues you have listed.

Fighter Coordination Team:

Is the squadron movement from FCT normal squadron movement, triggering

• Station obstacle repairs (RAW no? "When a ship or squadron overlaps an obstacle after executing a maneuver ")
• Mauler Mithel's ability (RAW yes? "After you move ... "; doesn't say executing a maneuver)

FCT card text:

"After you execute a maneuver, you may select a number of unengaged friendly squadrons up to your squadron value at close-medium range. Those squadrons may move up to distance 1."

Fighter Coordination Team:

Is the squadron movement from FCT normal squadron movement, triggering

• Station obstacle repairs (RAW no? "When a ship or squadron overlaps an obstacle after executing a maneuver ")
• Mauler Mithel's ability (RAW yes? "After you move ... "; doesn't say executing a maneuver)

FCT card text:

"After you execute a maneuver, you may select a number of unengaged friendly squadrons up to your squadron value at close-medium range. Those squadrons may move up to distance 1."

So I have seen this before and a squad doesn't execute a maneuver, it simply moves along the range ruler. Ships execute maneuvers, hence the maneuver tool. I think this needs to be fleshed out more before it can go in, namely what is the keyword for movement for squadrons. Is it move, or maneuver? But it is interesting.

If the topic simply summarizes uncertain interpretations, lays out both sides, and maybe also links to debate thread, then I support the thread wholeheartedly.

This summarizes issues and arguments while presuming no authority and awaits FAQ for guidance.. That committee idea presumes authority where none exists.

If the topic simply summarizes uncertain interpretations, lays out both sides, and maybe also links to debate thread, then I support the thread wholeheartedly.

This summarizes issues and arguments while presuming no authority and awaits FAQ for guidance.. That committee idea presumes authority where none exists.

You can find it here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/230901-known-issues-a-thread-where-no-one-agrees-on-anything/

Otherwise I don't know what you mean. This thread is the place to discuss and identify the issues we have while we wait for the FAQ, and the problems will be consolidated into the other thread. And you are correct, I presume no authority and do not intend to over ride the FAQ. People can come to their own conclusion.

And this is entirely separate from the council idea, which ironically, gave birth to this one.

Why doesn't anyone actually ask for diatribes?

Also, that's an awesome word.

Diatribes.

It is a most bodacious word. I often wonder why people don't come up to me and ask me for my diatribes. I have many that must be shared.