Another card that is IMO in dire need of clarifications is Collision Detector.

How so?

There are a number of issues, including but not limited to:

Does The Inquisitor trigger Fenn Rau's pilot ability when he attacks at range >1? What about the COncord Dawn Protector title?

What happens if you decloak over an asterdoid using Collision Detector - do you skip your action step as if you manoeuvred over it?

I'm sure there are a couple of others but they're not coming to mind right now.

No Fenn ability and title doesn't trigger. Inquisotor ability makes him being like at range 1, not the other ships. And just for dice modification (else inquisitor could shoot a procket at R3).

Decloak is not a maneuver, so no it doesnt trigger asteroid.

I'd agree on the second, but not the first - because of the Autothrusters precedent. It's not as clear cut as you think, or there wouldn't have been pages of argument about it in Rules Questions.

There's a reason I suggest that an FAQ is necessary for certain elements.

Also because peoples' strongly held assertions about what the rules interactions of new elements absolutely must be, have been proven wrong many, many times before.

Decloak, Boost and Barrel Roll are not maneuvers and therefore do not trigger obstacle effects. Tractor Beam only does because it was explicitly ruled to: otherwise it would not.

Which is why it is normally not permitted to happen (because you can't boost/barrel roll/etc into an obstacle without the Collision Detector or without being Dash Rendar).

You still forfeit your shot.

Not a maneuver, ergo does not meet the condition "when a ship executes a maneuver". You can freely boost or barrel roll over obstacles with Collison Detector at no harm to yourself provided you don't set yourself up to then maneuver into it. I believe you'd still be unable to shoot if you end up sitting on the asteroid.

The same is true of Tractor Beam and Rigged Cargo Chute, hence the rules for those effects having to explicitly add that they can trigger obstacle effects.

Why ignore one negative effect and apply the other? It says "it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle:" Then the effects follow.

If I understand you right, only the first effect that causes damage is ignored but the second effect is applied.

What is the basis to ignore one and apply the other?

Inq is very clear - he treats the range of the attack as range 1. Autothrusters work on range of the attack, Fenn Rau and Carnor Jax work on physical distance between ships, which Inquisitors ability doesn't tuch.

Inq is very clear - he treats the range of the attack as range 1. Autothrusters work on range of the attack, Fenn Rau and Carnor Jax work on physical distance between ships, which Inquisitors ability doesn't tuch.

Fenn's wording - and CDP's - are the same as the old wording of Autothrusters. THat's why I expect them to work the same way. The wording change to AUtothrusters was meant to make it such that the range of the attack was the only range considered when attacking - and both Fenn and CDP are 'when defending' which implies that the range of the attack is what should be considered.

Inq would be a lot less difficult rules-wise if he just got the range 1 combat bonus at all ranges rather than monkeying with attack range

And that is precisely why Autothrusters got a new wording. IMHO, with the examples and explanation in the FAQ, the range effects are explained quite clearly.

And that is precisely why Autothrusters got a new wording. IMHO, with the examples and explanation in the FAQ, the range effects are explained quite clearly.

And that's why I wouldn't be surprised if Fenn and CDP got errata, tbh.

It strikes me that the Autothrusters wording change came about after they went to the printer...

Suffice it to say, there's enough unclarity that clarification would be appreciated before any major tournaments take place...

Another card that is IMO in dire need of clarifications is Collision Detector.

How so?

Whether you suffer any obstacle effect whn you boost/barrel roll over obstacles.

Per RAW you don't, as you suffer obstacle effects when you land on them as part of a maneuver (written in the game rules) or when you get pushed with a Tractor Beam (written on the Tractor Beam rules reference). Boosting/barrel rolling is neither of these 2, so you suffer no effect.

On the other hand it's been argued that currently maneuvers and Tractor Beam are the only ways to land ships on obstacles and they both give you obstacle effects. Therefore it's FFG intention that everything that lands you on an obstacle gives you obstacle effects, unless explicitly stated otherwise

Another card that is IMO in dire need of clarifications is Collision Detector.

How so?

Whether you suffer any obstacle effect whn you boost/barrel roll over obstacles.

Per RAW you don't, as you suffer obstacle effects when you land on them as part of a maneuver (written in the game rules) or when you get pushed with a Tractor Beam (written on the Tractor Beam rules reference). Boosting/barrel rolling is neither of these 2, so you suffer no effect.

On the other hand it's been argued that currently maneuvers and Tractor Beam are the only ways to land ships on obstacles and they both give you obstacle effects. Therefore it's FFG intention that everything that lands you on an obstacle gives you obstacle effects, unless explicitly stated otherwise

But you used RAW (Read as Written) and went on to say "FFG intention"

If you use RAW then only the card text and rules matter not FFG's intention, shouldn't it?

Another card that is IMO in dire need of clarifications is Collision Detector.

How so?

Whether you suffer any obstacle effect whn you boost/barrel roll over obstacles.

Per RAW you don't, as you suffer obstacle effects when you land on them as part of a maneuver (written in the game rules) or when you get pushed with a Tractor Beam (written on the Tractor Beam rules reference). Boosting/barrel rolling is neither of these 2, so you suffer no effect.

On the other hand it's been argued that currently maneuvers and Tractor Beam are the only ways to land ships on obstacles and they both give you obstacle effects. Therefore it's FFG intention that everything that lands you on an obstacle gives you obstacle effects, unless explicitly stated otherwise

But you used RAW (Read as Written) and went on to say "FFG intention"

If you use RAW then only the card text and rules matter not FFG's intention, shouldn't it?

The problem is that a significant number of people seem to assume the 2nd interpretation is correct. Likely, some of these people are TOs. This means it's likely in some tournaments this interpretation will be used, much like Boba Fett vs. Extra Munitions pre FAQ.

Another card that is IMO in dire need of clarifications is Collision Detector.

How so?

Whether you suffer any obstacle effect whn you boost/barrel roll over obstacles.

Per RAW you don't, as you suffer obstacle effects when you land on them as part of a maneuver (written in the game rules) or when you get pushed with a Tractor Beam (written on the Tractor Beam rules reference). Boosting/barrel rolling is neither of these 2, so you suffer no effect.

On the other hand it's been argued that currently maneuvers and Tractor Beam are the only ways to land ships on obstacles and they both give you obstacle effects. Therefore it's FFG intention that everything that lands you on an obstacle gives you obstacle effects, unless explicitly stated otherwise

But you used RAW (Read as Written) and went on to say "FFG intention"

If you use RAW then only the card text and rules matter not FFG's intention, shouldn't it?

He's stating both sides of the argument, hence him saying "on the other hand".

Considering how close Wave9 and Wave10 and HotR is i'd be kinda surprised to see a FAQ between these releases. We already have a ton of questions about hotr and wave10 that need a faq, wave9 is somewhat tame on them (collision detector/debris and revealed red maneuver being the big ones). Biggest thing i'd like to see is an errata but i know that wont happen (make the fang's cards require PRIMARY firing arcs but i know that wont ever happen)

Stilgar, is there FAQsign?

Right now if you reveal a red maneuver while stressed you hand your dial over to your opponent since it is an illegal maneuver. A few of us (including me) thinks that this breaks the spirit of the same since you dialed in a legal maneuver and never broke the game rules. Handing over your dial has only been a punishment for breaking the rules.

By the way, this has been in the game for some time now. Same condition can happen with Proxy mines dropped on your ship. If you roll and pull a crit that gives you stress you could reveal a red maneuver which was legal when dialed in. It was much less likely to happen though.

I've sent a question in to the official page. Hopefully we get resolution on this.

I wouldn't expect any change in the rules, though. The ship with the rigged cargo chute was there, in a position to move in and drop the debris, and you dialed in a red maneuver. It is now illegal.

It could just as easily happen with a stressed ship taking a 'hard turns are now red' critical.

Given that it is an effect which has been in the game for a long time, I don't see why a new way of triggering it changes matters.

Yes, having your opponent set your dial when already stressed hurts, but not inherently more than had that been a connor net, which essentially does the same thing.

It COULD happen from a hard turns red crit from a proxy mine, but that was so rare as to be almost nonexistent. Rigged cargo chute is far easier to set up. And conner net can't change your dial to fly you off the map if you weren't already facing directly at it.

There are a number of issues, including but not limited to:

Does The Inquisitor trigger Fenn Rau's pilot ability when he attacks at range >1? What about the COncord Dawn Protector title?

What happens if you decloak over an asterdoid using Collision Detector - do you skip your action step as if you manoeuvred over it?

I'm sure there are a couple of others but they're not coming to mind right now.

No Fenn ability and title doesn't trigger. Inquisotor ability makes him being like at range 1, not the other ships. And just for dice modification (else inquisitor could shoot a procket at R3).

Decloak is not a maneuver, so no it doesnt trigger asteroid.

I'd agree on the second, but not the first - because of the Autothrusters precedent. It's not as clear cut as you think, or there wouldn't have been pages of argument about it in Rules Questions.

There's a reason I suggest that an FAQ is necessary for certain elements.

Also because peoples' strongly held assertions about what the rules interactions of new elements absolutely must be, have been proven wrong many, many times before.

Inq is very clear - he treats the range of the attack as range 1. Autothrusters work on range of the attack, Fenn Rau and Carnor Jax work on physical distance between ships, which Inquisitors ability doesn't tuch.

Fenn's wording - and CDP's - are the same as the old wording of Autothrusters. THat's why I expect them to work the same way. The wording change to AUtothrusters was meant to make it such that the range of the attack was the only range considered when attacking - and both Fenn and CDP are 'when defending' which implies that the range of the attack is what should be considered.

Inq would be a lot less difficult rules-wise if he just got the range 1 combat bonus at all ranges rather than monkeying with attack range

Fenn's wording is the same as the "old" wording of autothrusters. That's the key. They changed autothrusters and added a whole new section to the faq on being "in arc at range x" to make it not owrk against the inquisitors ability.

Only the range of the attack is treated as Range 1. Any abilities that reference the range of ships, such as Carnor Jax or Scum & Villainy Boba Fett, are not affected by The Inquisitor’s ability.

Fenn's ability is 100% using the range of ships, not the attack. The CDP title is more questionable. It's using the wording of "in arc AND at range 1". The question being whether the AND breaks up the "in arc at range x" that disables autothrusters into two separate checks "am I in arc" and "am I at range 1". That one I could buy going either way, but fenn dfeinitely does not get his extra attack die.

In the debate of Fenn (and title) vs Inquisitor, the wording is subtle enough that I'd like it to be in a FAQ. I would rather point to an article, have it done and move on then have to deal with this at every tournament (and probably have it put back on the table every month afterwards because someone new did not know about it or simply forgot).

If collision detector works so that it does not trigger the effect of an obstacle upon boosting, then this changes its inherited value by a LOT. I could totally see pairs of IGs setting up the board and dropping debris in the first few rounds only to turn around and then strike back, planning their boost as to land in the middle of the field, but avoiding the stress.

In any case, updated FAQs are always good.

So anyone seen or heard of an update to the FAQ? Typically we get an update with the release of a new wave but nothing seems to have been published yet.

FFG may be holding out till the "11 day stand down" for the new wave to be tournament legal, though this would be less than ideal especially as we are due to have our national championship event in my country on the weekend of the 8-9th of October and in all likelihood one of the first if not the first national event with W9 legal.

Ideally we would like as much notice as possible, but I guess we will just have to wait.

They'll probably put out a new FAQ after all the Nationals are finished up. At this point, I doubt they want to shake things up and screw with those last few tournaments.

So anyone seen or heard of an update to the FAQ? Typically we get an update with the release of a new wave but nothing seems to have been published yet.

FFG may be holding out till the "11 day stand down" for the new wave to be tournament legal, though this would be less than ideal especially as we are due to have our national championship event in my country on the weekend of the 8-9th of October and in all likelihood one of the first if not the first national event with W9 legal.

Ideally we would like as much notice as possible, but I guess we will just have to wait.

They'll probably put out a new FAQ after all the Nationals are finished up. At this point, I doubt they want to shake things up and screw with those last few tournaments.

But that's the point, there are I believe enough unanswered or vague rules that need clarification that they really need an update before those events not wait till after they are done

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

Is there a specific build that could be very dangerous with collision detector? I can't see a reason not to use a 0 point upgrade, but I'm curious if there is a strategy that capitalises on it.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

Is there a specific build that could be very dangerous with collision detector? I can't see a reason not to use a 0 point upgrade, but I'm curious if there is a strategy that capitalises on it.

I would say that anything with a TIE Phantom in it that could ignore all effects of obstacles while decloaking would be frightening.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

I actually agree that the intention of collision detector is to still suffer the effects of boost/br/decloak onto an obstacle, it just allows to to actually do it if you choose to do so. The ruling on effects only triggering on maneuvres is already iffy due to things like tractor beam and rigged cargo chute. I do think an FAQ would be good to clarify which way they intend though.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

I actually agree that the intention of collision detector is to still suffer the effects of boost/br/decloak onto an obstacle, it just allows to to actually do it if you choose to do so. The ruling on effects only triggering on maneuvres is already iffy due to things like tractor beam and rigged cargo chute. I do think an FAQ would be good to clarify which way they intend though.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

I actually agree that the intention of collision detector is to still suffer the effects of boost/br/decloak onto an obstacle, it just allows to to actually do it if you choose to do so. The ruling on effects only triggering on maneuvres is already iffy due to things like tractor beam and rigged cargo chute. I do think an FAQ would be good to clarify which way they intend though.

TB and Rigged cargo are exceptions because they explicitly state on the card that they trigger obstacles. If they did not state it on the card, obstacle effects would not happen because the rules only say you suffer effects when performing a maneuver that overlaps an obstacle. RAW, Collision Detector does not trigger obstacle effects because boosting, barrel rolling, and decloack get over obstacles are not maneuvers. They may FAQ it, but for now, CD avoids rolling for obstacles.

Neither says on the card in game. Tractor beam says it on the reference card (was a new type of token, needed a reference card), rigged cargo chute says it in the reference card for the shadowcaster (new game effect, needed to be explained). Collision detector doesn't have either of those because it's not really adding new things to the game, just letting you do something you couldn't do before. I'm not saying you're wrong RAW, I'm just saying I think the intention was for it to cause the effects, and I agree we need an FAQ to tell us either way.

They'll probably put out a new FAQ after all the Nationals are finished up. At this point, I doubt they want to shake things up and screw with those last few tournaments.

They could always release now but set the effective date to after the tourney.

Our Nationals are this coming weekend and our TO has ruled that Collision Detector does not mean that you avoid any of the effects of the obstacle. He justified this by saying "it would be too powerful for a zero cost card" and just ignored what the rules state about the effects triggering on maneuvers. Even a pre-FAQ ruling on this would be great from FFG as this has the potential to become a nasty debate at our Nationals.

I actually agree that the intention of collision detector is to still suffer the effects of boost/br/decloak onto an obstacle, it just allows to to actually do it if you choose to do so. The ruling on effects only triggering on maneuvres is already iffy due to things like tractor beam and rigged cargo chute. I do think an FAQ would be good to clarify which way they intend though.

TB and Rigged cargo are exceptions because they explicitly state on the card that they trigger obstacles. If they did not state it on the card, obstacle effects would not happen because the rules only say you suffer effects when performing a maneuver that overlaps an obstacle. RAW, Collision Detector does not trigger obstacle effects because boosting, barrel rolling, and decloack get over obstacles are not maneuvers. They may FAQ it, but for now, CD avoids rolling for obstacles.

Neither says on the card in game. Tractor beam says it on the reference card (was a new type of token, needed a reference card), rigged cargo chute says it in the reference card for the shadowcaster (new game effect, needed to be explained). Collision detector doesn't have either of those because it's not really adding new things to the game, just letting you do something you couldn't do before. I'm not saying you're wrong RAW, I'm just saying I think the intention was for it to cause the effects, and I agree we need an FAQ to tell us either way.