If I have a ship with Boba Fett (crew), deal a face-up card that takes the defender down to 1 hull, then have Boba fly out and pry off the extra hull plating, is the ship considered destroyed? Only reason I ask is because destroying a ship has always been a matter of dealing damage cards or driving it off the board, not reducing its maximum hull value to the damage already dealt out.

My guess is yes.

"A ship is destroyed when it has a number of Damage Cards equal to itss hull value..." Rules page 10. It doesn't matter how the number of Damage Cards became equal to Hull Value. The two numbers are equal, the ship is destroyed.

The Hull Upgrade allows a ship to "hold" one more damage card before destruction. If removed it loses that capacity but does nothing to cards the ship already has.

Boba taking off a Hull Upgrade is a lot like Boba causing an extra point of damage.

The Hull Upgrade allows a ship to "hold" one more damage card before destruction. If removed it loses that capacity but does nothing to cards the ship already has.

Boba taking off a Hull Upgrade is a lot like Boba causing an extra point of damage.

I'm on the fence about this. There's a big difference between removing an ability or weapon or destroying a ship.

I'm on the fence about this. There's a big difference between removing an ability or weapon or destroying a ship.

How are you on the fence? Are you on the fence about the rule, or the explanation of the rule by StevenO?

I'm on the fence about this. There's a big difference between removing an ability or weapon or destroying a ship.

How are you on the fence? Are you on the fence about the rule, or the explanation of the rule by StevenO?

They've FAQd his card for R2-D6 and a couple of other upgrades and I wonder if HU will be in the next release.

The FAQ applies explicitly to cards which allow additional cards to be equipped, not cards that change a printed value. A-wing Test Pilot, Royal Guard TIE, B-Wing/E2 are other examples of cards which benefit from the FAQ.. This is to prevent Boba Fett from discarding two upgrades for the price of one. A Hull Upgrade ceases to increase Hull Value if the card is discarded, Veteran Instincts ceases to add 2 to Pilot Skill, etc. An interesting card interaction is Mist Hunter title. The FAQ both applies and does not apply. If Boba Fett forces the discard on that title, then the G-1A loses Barrel Roll from upgrade bar, but keeps the equipped Tractor Beam.

The FAQ applies explicitly to cards which allow additional cards to be equipped, not cards that change a printed value. A-wing Test Pilot, Royal Guard TIE, B-Wing/E2 are other examples of cards which benefit from the FAQ.. This is to prevent Boba Fett from discarding two upgrades for the price of one. A Hull Upgrade ceases to increase Hull Value if the card is discarded, Veteran Instincts ceases to add 2 to Pilot Skill, etc. An interesting card interaction is Mist Hunter title. The FAQ both applies and does not apply. If Boba Fett forces the discard on that title, then the G-1A loses Barrel Roll from upgrade bar, but keeps the equipped Tractor Beam.

Where's the ruling on the Mist Hunter to be found? I've looked but couldn't find.

It's the exceptions you listed that have me on a fence. I'm not expressing myself well tonight so bear with me. The card, as written, makes perfect sense. BUT losing an upgrade and a ship is much worse than losing two upgrades. Hell, I've been wrong before and this could be another one of those times but I think this got missed in play testing.

The FAQ: "If Boba Fett is used to discard a card that allows an additional upgrade card to be equipped during squad building (such as Royal Guard TIE, R2-D6, or Mist Hunter), any additional equipped cards are not discarded.

"card that allows an additional upgrade card to be equipped" is the qualifier for FAQ to apply. Hull Upgrade does no such thing; the FAQ does not apply.

Mist Hunter is listed as an example in the FAQ. Mist Hunter title: "Your action bar gains the [barrel roll] action icon. You must equip 1 "Tractor Beam" Upgrade Card (paying its squad point cost as normal)."

Tractor Beam is an additional upgrade, which meets the qualifier for the FAQ entry. The other, separate and fully independent effect of Mist Hunter is, "Your action bar gains the [barrel roll] action icon." The barrel roll action icon is not an additional upgrade card, therefore the FAQ does not apply to this effect. When Mist Hunter is discarded, the effect adding the barrel roll icon is no longer in play, the G-1A (no longer titled Mist Hunter) no longer has a barrel roll action icon.

The FAQ: "If Boba Fett is used to discard a card that allows an additional upgrade card to be equipped during squad building (such as Royal Guard TIE, R2-D6, or Mist Hunter), any additional equipped cards are not discarded.

"card that allows an additional upgrade card to be equipped" is the qualifier for FAQ to apply. Hull Upgrade does no such thing; the FAQ does not apply.

Mist Hunter is listed as an example in the FAQ. Mist Hunter title: "Your action bar gains the [barrel roll] action icon. You must equip 1 "Tractor Beam" Upgrade Card (paying its squad point cost as normal)."

Tractor Beam is an additional upgrade, which meets the qualifier for the FAQ entry. The other, separate and fully independent effect of Mist Hunter is, "Your action bar gains the [barrel roll] action icon." The barrel roll action icon is not an additional upgrade card, therefore the FAQ does not apply to this effect. When Mist Hunter is discarded, the effect adding the barrel roll icon is no longer in play, the G-1A (no longer titled Mist Hunter) no longer has a barrel roll action icon.

I'd have no problem with Fett stripping the HU card but for Fett to strip the card and thereby destroying the ship seems a little excessive.

For what it's worth... this same thing exists in Armada, one of the Commanders increases the hull of all ships, but if the flagship is destroyed which removes the commander, all ships lose that extra hull, which can mean the rest of the fleet could blow up.

This is fallacious thinking... removing it right on the first dommage or on the last to blow it does nothing different in the end. The ship still lost one point of Hull. There is absolutly no logical other way you could rule it.

A funny thing may be that if you couldn't remove a Hull Upgrade to destroy a ship using Boba then you probably wouldn't bother using Boba anyway. "Oh look, that Hull upgrade is saving that ship which will need one more damage event/card to destroy. Thank goodness Boba can't sabotage that now and kill us even if he could have ruined it earlier."

Has there been a ruling on what happens if Boba removes VI?

I didn't see anything in the FAQ about VI and Boba, but this should be the same thing.

Has there been a ruling on what happens if Boba removes VI?

I didn't see anything in the FAQ about VI and Boba, but this should be the same thing.

I would say the FAQ ruling regarding Altered Pilot Skill should cover it. The example given is for the "Damaged Cockpit" Damage Card. It seems clear that losing Veteran Instincts will alter the pilot skill.

It seems clear that losing Veteran Instincts will alter the pilot skill.

Likely but I think I could argue otherwise.

VI is considered to have altered the printed PS on the card before the game starts. Which is why you deploy it based on the PS + VI and not at the printed PS, then VI goes into effect.

That's why something like Damaged Cockpit has the effect it does, because it like VI changes the PS score directly. As an interesting aside, if there was an effect that provided a temporary - to the PS, it would be likely the PS would return to the original value which would be PS + VI.

I could also argue that since things like Royal Guard TIE or R2-D6 allows you to keep the attached upgrade, VI and Hull Upgrade could be treated the same. Since they like those other cards effectively change what's printed on the card itself. PS, Hull or an Elite Talent slot.

Flechette Torpedoes are based on "the defender's starting hull value (including any equipped Hull Upgrade card" meaning that it's effectively treated the same as VI, it's a permanent change to the value printed on the pilot card.

I'm not sure I feel strongly about this, and if I were asked to make a ruling on VI or HU as a TO I'd likely rule that the effects go away if the card goes away. But there really is no clear cut ruling that states that and I think one can make a reasonable argument that Boba could remove the upgrade but that doesn't change anything.

Edit: I know that all seems to contradict what I said in post #11. But that was more about developers intent, and less about how the rules work. Based on Armada I think it's clear that the Dev's are ok with ships spontaneously blowing up due to a change in the hull value. But that doesn't mean that removing Hull Upgrade actually changes the value of a ship in X-Wing.

This is fallacious thinking... removing it right on the first dommage or on the last to blow it does nothing different in the end. The ship still lost one point of Hull. There is absolutly no logical other way you could rule it.

It wasn't meant as a logical argument just a gut feeling.

It seems clear that losing Veteran Instincts will alter the pilot skill.

Likely but I think I could argue otherwise.

VI is considered to have altered the printed PS on the card before the game starts. Which is why you deploy it based on the PS + VI and not at the printed PS, then VI goes into effect.

That's why something like Damaged Cockpit has the effect it does, because it like VI changes the PS score directly. As an interesting aside, if there was an effect that provided a temporary - to the PS, it would be likely the PS would return to the original value which would be PS + VI.

I could also argue that since things like Royal Guard TIE or R2-D6 allows you to keep the attached upgrade, VI and Hull Upgrade could be treated the same. Since they like those other cards effectively change what's printed on the card itself. PS, Hull or an Elite Talent slot.

Flechette Torpedoes are based on "the defender's starting hull value (including any equipped Hull Upgrade card" meaning that it's effectively treated the same as VI, it's a permanent change to the value printed on the pilot card.

I'm not sure I feel strongly about this, and if I were asked to make a ruling on VI or HU as a TO I'd likely rule that the effects go away if the card goes away. But there really is no clear cut ruling that states that and I think one can make a reasonable argument that Boba could remove the upgrade but that doesn't change anything.

Thank you! I'm glad you can express the argument clearer than I can.

FYI....

I just emailed FFG a question about this and will post the reply when/if I get one.

I'm absolutely positive that wehn upgrade cards that change printed values (eg: VI, Adaptability, Hull Upgrade, Punishing One, Shield Upgrade, Stealth Device, etc) are discarded, their effect is immediately ignored and does not persist.

Same goes for cards that grant actions (Vectored Thrusters, Engine Upgrade, Cloaking Device, etc).

There simply is no concept of "it changed the printed value, so the effect persists after the card is gone" in X-Wing.

Someone is bound to bring it up so...
The closest we get is with "Your upgrade bar gains the X icon" upgrades. The simple explanation for these is not that they "added it to the card" and therefore the icon remains after the card is gone. The explanation is that the upgrade cards / upgrade icons restriction is part of squad building, and losing upgrade icons during a game has no effect.



I think the rules support this quite clearly.

Proof #1: Rules Reference, under Upgrade Cards

When an Upgrade card is discarded, it is flipped facedown. The card is out of play for all purposes except when determining the total squad point cost of the ship to which it was equipped.

If the card is out of play, the ship it was equipped to no longer has +2/+1/-1 Pilot Skill, +1 Hull, +1 Shield, +1 Agility, +1 Primary Attack, etc.


Proof #2: Stealth Device

Stealth Device card text:

Increase your agility value by 1.

If you are hit by an attack, discard this card.

The card doesn't say "If you are hit by an attack, discard this card and reduce your agility by 1" because it doesn't have to - simply discarding the card reduces your agility back to its initial value.

I see absolutely no reason why the following cards would work any differently than Stealth Device:

• Stealth Device: Increase your agility value by 1.
• Hull Upgrade: Increase your hull value by 1.
• Shield Upgrade: Increase your shield value by 1.
• Punishing One: Increase your primary weapon value by 1.
• Adaptability: Increase your pilot skill value by 1.
• Veteran Instincts: Increase your pilot skill value by 2.
• Shield Upgrade: Increase your shield value by 1.

They are all worded exactly the same way as Stealth Device. They just don't have a trigger to discard them.

And I see no reason why discard Stealth Device via its card text would be any different than discarding Hull Upgrade via Boba Fett's card text.

Good points Klutz. I think you're most likely right, but you're still interpreting the rules and so there is no clear cut answer to this, just various interpretations. I again think I agree with yours, but I don't think the argument I made is without any merit so it's worth asking FFG.

When you discard an upgrade card that prints something or adds something to the action bar, the added thing is no longer there. The fact that you can keep upgrades granted by the discarded one is just, as previously said, because thats relevant only during squad building.

Theres no interpretation on saying that when you lose stealth device you no longer have +1agi. And when you perform a SLAM action and lose Burnout SLAM, you no longer have that action available in your bar. Thats following the rules (and being logic).

Pretending to do something that no upgrade you have equipped allows you to do, thats interpretation and thats not legal.

Good points Klutz. I think you're most likely right, but you're still interpreting the rules and so there is no clear cut answer to this, just various interpretations. I again think I agree with yours, but I don't think the argument I made is without any merit so it's worth asking FFG.

I don't see much that's really open to interpretation in the arguments I made. They seem pretty water tight to me.

The problems I see with your argument are:

• "I could also argue that since things like Royal Guard TIE or R2-D6 allows you to keep the attached upgrade, VI and Hull Upgrade could be treated the same."
  • That argument doesn't make much sens though.
  • If VI and Hull upgrade worked like that, discarding Stealth Device wouldn't affect the ship's Agility.
  • The only logical conclusion is that cards that add Upgrade Icons do not work the same way as cards that change printed values.
• "Flechette Torpedoes are based on "the defender's starting hull value (including any equipped Hull Upgrade card" meaning that it's effectively treated the same as VI, it's a permanent change to the value printed on the pilot card."
  • I don't really understand the argument here...? I'd actually argue that the text enforces my opinion.
  • If a Hull Upgrade card is discarded, it is no longer equipped, and therefore doesn't help the defender avoid Flechette Torpedoes' stress.

"If it wasn't the last hull remaining, I'd have no problem with Fett stripping the HU card but for Fett to strip the card and thereby destroying the ship seems a little excessive. This could be a situation of "unintended consequences". "

I know this is from Stoneface and not you (VanorDM), but I think it shows the main problem at the root of a lot of these rules discussions.

People look at the effect and think "well that seems a little excessive, it's probably not what they intended", and then they try and twist the RAW to try and support what they've decided the RAI are.

The problems I see with your argument are:

If VI and Hull upgrade worked like that, discarding Stealth Device wouldn't affect the ship's Agility.

That is a good point, and I think you're correct and VI and HU would work the same way, I was/am mostly playing devil's advocate.

People look at the effect and think "well that seems a little excessive, it's probably not what they intended", and then they try and twist the RAW to try and support what they've decided the RAI are.

I agree completely and I said as much in post #11 because that's how it works in Armada. Myself I don't try to figure out what the intention is based on my opinion of what seems "fair".

"This could be a situation of "unintended consequences".

I think I missed this line last time, and I wanted to expound on it a bit.

Because we had a recent discussion, about the debris fields from the Shadowcaster that one side used this line of logic. That what the FAQ said was maybe wrong, because the person writing it used wording that was stronger than intended.

I found that line of thinking to be massively flawed, because if we go down that line of thinking the FAQ, hell the whole rule set becomes nothing more than suggestions open to whatever someone interprets the RAI to be. This leads to there being no objective rule set.

I was honestly approaching this question as more of a mental exercise to avoid a flabby frontal lobe... Trying to work out an argument that would make VI and HU work a given way. But I think my best argument really does fall flat based on the arguments you and other have made since then.

I'll admit I didn't even consider Stealth Device when I was thinking about it, and if I had I think that would of put an end to that line of thinking.

Once again I have to say that you are a wise and discerning dinosaur.