We got an e-mail reply to this one a few months back. While the answer was a bit controversial at the time, at least they have stuck with that answer.

That's why I brought it up. I thought they had reversed that. Now I wonder what the point of that clarification was.

So

"When an effect instructs a ship to execute a maneuver outside of its usual Execute Maneuver step, what is that ship’s speed? : While executing that additional maneuver, the ship’s speed is temporarily set to the speed indicated by the effect that is resolved."

But

Thrust Control Malfunction : "This card only affects maneuvers executed at the ship’s current speed (the number on its speed dial)."

I told you this was gonna get funny.

So for G8, you declare during the Determine Course step, but if using it on Engine Techs, it is before Determine Course step of that maneuver. Guess you still get the standoff for using nav token/dial to increase or decrease speed vs using G8 to decrease speed.

Solve it with a Slap Fight.

I'm generous enough to declare I'm going to use it first and let them figure out the rest.

That's how I've done it. I just declare I'm using it and give them a chance to use their nav command to react as they want. It's just so much easier that way than to get into a game of chicken with figuring out whether the determine course step is ending.

Well since this is the correct way as laid out by the rules well done mate!

Nothing about multiple triggers of the same type/bomber command :/ Disappointed I was really hoping we'd get the ruled one way or the other officially...

Probably because they don't need to clarify BCC, and same with the XX-9/APT combo.

You roll the dice, you use BCC 1 to reroll that dice.

You don't like what you got.

You use BCC 2 to reroll that dice again.

I don't understand what the justification is for the notion that they can't do that. Just because it doesn't seem like they should be able to?

If you have vader and leading shots on a ship, you can reroll all of those dice multiple times? Why wouldn't BCC x2 work?

For the second one, you have two distinct critical effects that you resolve separately. You use APT to give them a damage card. It's not an extra damage that you deal face up before dealing damage from the related attack. It's a distinct critical effect separate from the other damage effects. XX-9 does the first two damage cards faceup on a crit. Also a distinct effect.

There should be no confusion that they can and do work together to give 3 faceup damage cards on a successful attack that does 2 hull damage and allows for the resolution of both critical effects.

And this^^^^^^^ is why the G8 timing should have been clarified, or at least documented in detail, ion the FAQ!!!!

Agreed. It really is a FAQ. Doesn't help that I think it's pretty clear if there are lots of player who don't. Bad FFG, bad!!!

I just don't get how the "before" timing isn't clear, it's defined in the RRG. We talked endlessly about how the G8 misunderstanding hinges on the misinterpretation of the word "resolve".

But then, the FAQ now has the sentence "This effect is resolved before the Determine Course step of that maneuver" in the G8 entry.

That has to be pretty clear, no? Like, you could literally call that an explanation of the timing, omg!

Want some fun? Go check the reactions to the X-wing FAQ... =)

Hard FAQ Fixes/Nerfs. DAAAAAAAMN!

Hey, they did fix the concession thing if you have more than 8 point MOV, though.

This would have saved my opponents (and me) several hours combined in the Vassal Cup Qualifier. I was clearly beaten by 140 points or more, was about to be tabled, but we played it out so I my opponents wouldn't lose points. A welcome correction!

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

"If a player that has access to hidden

information about the game or a card and chooses to verbally

share it with his or her opponent, that player is not required to

tell the truth."

I can lie to my opponent. The rules said so.

Me: "I have the most incredible play behind my "Maneuver Dial"! You might as well concede."

Opponent: "What in the #$*& is a Maneuver Dial?"

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Actually, the FAQ seems to point in the opposite direction.

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Actually, the FAQ seems to point in the opposite direction.

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

How do you figure?

NO.

ANSWER.

TO BCC.

WTF.

Because it's really simple. Two cards are two effects.

They didn't really answer the Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs, although I guess we can reasonably interpolate it interacts the same way as XX-9s + standard crit effect. I guess FCTs are just not meant to be decent. Hopefully wave 5 gives us some more crit cards to make FCTs worth the slot.

What's to answer? You have two critical effects and you can resolve them in what order you wish. If you want to deal the first two face up and then add a potential third face up, go ahead!

So just to clarify: If someone concedes, the minimum amount of points the winner can get is 8 tournament points with an MOV of 140, correct? If the winner has more than this, they get that amount of MOV and tournament points? Something seems off here......

Am I missing something?

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Actually, the FAQ seems to point in the opposite direction.

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

It points in that way...*maybe* but APT really should be on a different timing. I do *not* like the only 2 criticals face up with XX-9 and FCT + standard crit effect. It really neutered the card.

Of interest for those Rieekan fans: ..."These ships or squadrons are removed before resolving any “end of round” or “end of game” effects"

So Fire Lanes and Contested Outpost aren't quite as good for him. Or was that already how people were playing him?

So for G8, you declare during the Determine Course step, but if using it on Engine Techs, it is before Determine Course step of that maneuver. Guess you still get the standoff for using nav token/dial to increase or decrease speed vs using G8 to decrease speed.

No because you have to have your speed set before determine course. Just play it as soon as they place the manever tool in the Grove you can slow down their speed if you want too

Then you would be doing it illegally, as if they have placed the maneuver tool on the table , In PREPARATION for locking it into the Groove...... They are already OUT of the Determine Course step, and you've missed your opportunity.

Before an enemy ship at distance 1-5 resolves the Determine Course step, you may exhaust this card to temporarily reduce its speed by 1 to a minimum of speed 0 until the end of the maneuver.

So...for ordinary movement you declare G-8 before your opponent start fiddling his man tool and considers his speed options...should be pretty obvious. I mean, it can probably be argued differently, but that's the way it works/should work/whatever.

For ET move, that's when your opponent taps (ok, exhausts) his ET card.

Simple.

Oh I misread the ruling they made.

When this effect is resolved on an enemy ship and that ship changes its speed dial during the Determine Course step, the ship’s speed is temporarily reduced by 1 from the current speed on its dial.

I skipped the line that says the ship changes its speed " during the Determine Course step" and read " When this effect is resolved on an enemy during the Determine Course step " as FFG changing the timing for G8 to be during the step instead of before the step. My bad.

So you are correct.

So just to clarify: If someone concedes, the minimum amount of points the winner can get is 8 tournament points with an MOV of 140, correct? If the winner has more than this, they get that amount of MOV and tournament points? Something seems off here......

Am I missing something?

That is how I read the change. I personally think that when MOV > 140 it should be like 10-1, in order to encourage people to concede rather than play out a futile game just for one point. Rules should encourage sportsmanship, not penalize it. Though, this is a huge step in the right direction.

Of interest for those Rieekan fans: ..."These ships or squadrons are removed before resolving any “end of round” or “end of game” effects"

So Fire Lanes and Contested Outpost aren't quite as good for him. Or was that already how people were playing him?

I thought that was already how it was played.

Of interest for those Rieekan fans: ..."These ships or squadrons are removed before resolving any “end of round” or “end of game” effects"

So Fire Lanes and Contested Outpost aren't quite as good for him. Or was that already how people were playing him?

I thought that was already how it was played.

There was no definition of "end of round" specifically spaced out.

So some people went in with the attitude of "until I'm told otherwise, this is how I'm doing it."

But this is further clarification of the point that I have always argued - that the Four Phases are within the round, and that the Round must Start before the first phase Starts, and the Round must End after the Last Phase has Ended....

Note: This is a roundabout way of clarifying Titus' timing, too.

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Actually, the FAQ seems to point in the opposite direction.

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

It points in that way...*maybe* but APT really should be on a different timing. I do *not* like the only 2 criticals face up with XX-9 and FCT + standard crit effect. It really neutered the card.

If anything, it neutered xx9... since they're the only upgrade impacted by this ruling.

And really, how often do you do three damage and really need that third card face up?

FCT is just as good now as it was yesterday except in one edge case...

Guys..... Apt takes place prior to the other damage cards. It's not counted as part of those damage cards at all. So both cards can work with FCT

I find this FAQ lacking.

• Fire-Control Teams + XX-9s + APTs : Nothing?

Resolve APT.

Resolve XX-9 (the result of APT being irrelevant).

Actually, the FAQ seems to point in the opposite direction.

Which sucks, because I really don't want to talk about this card any more beyond whether or not it's any good.

It points in that way...*maybe* but APT really should be on a different timing. I do *not* like the only 2 criticals face up with XX-9 and FCT + standard crit effect. It really neutered the card.

If anything, it neutered xx9... since they're the only upgrade impacted by this ruling.

And really, how often do you do three damage and really need that third card face up?

FCT is just as good now as it was yesterday except in one edge case...

I see XX-9's use only when you want to bypass the Contain defense token. So, fighting Large ships or interdictors...

XX-9s paired with XI7s are amazing and do a ton of heavy lifting. The ruling for the standard crit effect isn't super surprising for me, and probably has more to do with the logic of the card wording than any sort of game balancing.

NO.

ANSWER.

TO BCC.

WTF.

Because it's really simple. Two cards are two effects.

While I emphatically agree with your interpretation, there are many others who emphatically do not.

If it were interpreted this way in every tournament, it wouldn't need clarification. It's not, so it does.