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

You believe that, and I believe that, but there are people out there that believe that Luke Skywalkers ability to ignore shields makes a drawn Projector Misaligned Card worthless...

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

You believe that, and I believe that, but there are people out there that believe that Luke Skywalkers ability to ignore shields makes a drawn Projector Misaligned Card worthless...

Key work being "believe". I've yet to encounter one of these people so they must be few and far between. Or producing an argument just because they can, not because they actually believe it.

One person is seemingly all it takes to make a question "FAQ" worthy as a demand... That's all I go by these days.

... I'm really showing how disillusioned I am now, aren't I?

I suppose one person making multiple email accounts and asking FFG about the same question could qualify as "FAQ worthy". But if it is only 1-2 people that ever ask, it is likely they do not fully understand the rules, or want the rules to work in their favor. When I first started playing, I was at fault for both of those so it happens.

And if FFG saw a thread about it, rumor is they lurk on the forums, and they didn't address it in an email or FAQ, there is no need to question it. After all, they have had since the core set to fix the issue.

Or, what if it was FFG themselves who planted the question....

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.

It would work just fine. The APT faceup card is not one the the cards being dealt by damage from the attack. The standard crit effect, and xx-9s both instruct the first card dealt from the attack to be faceup.

Probably because they don't need to clarify BCC

I'm going with this. Right now I'm interpreting this lack of anything on BCC as saying that they stack. There really isn't anything that says otherwise. If it didn't stack, wouldn't it have made the FAQ?

After all my own FAQ was not this bad.

Jamming Field: Check

Comms Net: Check

Devestator (General Tagge): Check
Fire Control Team: Check
G-8 Experimental Projector: Check
General Madine: Check
Grav Shift Reroute: Check
MS-1 Ion Cannons: Check

Only on the Veteran Gunners are not solved, but i guess they are (thanks god) not as i wrote them first. And it dont need a FAQ because of this.

But this timing and the G-8 Timing are not 100% clear for me (clear as in accurate ruling, not as in how it work).

G-8: "before.. resolve..".

Is it before it the Determine Course Step starts or before is is executed.

It is still a question of timing and initiatve, when "before..resolve" means before the maneuver is done.

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...

The annoying thing is that it was specifically mentioned in the preview article as allowing 3 face-up damage cards...but now I guess they realized the rules didn't support that. Sorry Dodonna Liberty fans! You'll have to find other ways to exhaust your opponent's damage deck!

The annoying thing is that it was specifically mentioned in the preview article as allowing 3 face-up damage cards...but now I guess they realized the rules didn't support that.

Is it annoying because it happened , or is it annoying because it happened again?

Because its hardly the first time....

After all my own FAQ was not this bad.

Jamming Field: Check

Comms Net: Check

Devestator (General Tagge): Check

Fire Control Team: Check

G-8 Experimental Projector: Check

General Madine: Check

Grav Shift Reroute: Check

MS-1 Ion Cannons: Check

Only on the Veteran Gunners are not solved, but i guess they are (thanks god) not as i wrote them first. And it dont need a FAQ because of this.

But this timing and the G-8 Timing are not 100% clear for me (clear as in accurate ruling, not as in how it work).

G-8: "before.. resolve..".

Is it before it the Determine Course Step starts or before is is executed.

It is still a question of timing and initiatve, when "before..resolve" means before the maneuver is done.

When you declare G-8, give your opponent a chance to adjust their course and decide if they want to use their nav token. Play it that way and you'll be fine. It doesn't conflict with the way the card is written, and any other way will cause grief.

The annoying thing is that it was specifically mentioned in the preview article as allowing 3 face-up damage cards...but now I guess they realized the rules didn't support that.

Is it annoying because it happened , or is it annoying because it happened again?

Because its hardly the first time....

Yes.

"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?"

Beat me to it Ninja. I had a laugh when I read this:

"This includes facedown damage cards (even if they were previously faceup), facedown maneuver dials , cards within the damage deck, etc."

​We all know which game they love best

"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?"

Beat me to it Ninja. I had a laugh when I read this:

"This includes facedown damage cards (even if they were previously faceup), facedown maneuver dials , cards within the damage deck, etc."

​We all know which game they love best

ahah, that is kind of sad :S

Copy-paste ftw!

Maybe I'm just being clumsy as I am stupid...but can someone explain the Madine FAQ to me. You have to spend a nav token and a dial to get benefit out of his ability?

The command and token for Madine stack his abilities, but the token doesn't get to double stack off of having nav team as well.

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.

I have also seen it ruled for stacking and against from FFG in different E-mails in different threads.

The command and token for Madine stack his abilities, but the token doesn't get to double stack off of having nav team as well.

Ah I see. Thanks mate

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.

Bevause Vader and leading shots are two different effects, 2 BCC are not same effects but different source and you cannot resolve the same "while" effect more than once during the same timing window (its in rules reference)

I have also seen it ruled for stacking and against from FFG in different E-mails in different threads.

right, but there are two "while" effects here, hence the two cards. Problem solved....

With this derived info thing, during the Determine Course step, could I ask my opponent for a specific maneuver to see the outcome? Or does this only apply to maneuvers already executed?

Derived information is any information about the game, game state, or ships all players have had the opportunity to learn through card/game effects or through the process of deduction using open information.

I suppose you could, but don't really see the point? Because he or she has final say on a maneuver anyway, so he or she shows you, and then is like cool so I'm just going to do what I was going to do in the first place.

With this derived info thing, during the Determine Course step, could I ask my opponent for a specific maneuver to see the outcome? Or does this only apply to maneuvers already executed?

Derived information is any information about the game, game state, or ships all players have had the opportunity to learn through card/game effects or through the process of deduction using open information.

Through the process of deduction using open information.

You could ask to see the maneuver tool in a certain way, perhaps... Maybe even hold it over the ship in question - but certainly, that tool shouldn't hit the table in that state, unless its a desired outcome from the person doing the maneuver.

Also you have to be wary to not be slowing your opponents turn by making the request , nor being seen to be attempting to distract them into making a mistake, a missed opportunity or a poor choice.

The safest bet is not to ask, and just attempt to visually deduce - but of course, that's tricky for some people (like me, I struggle to visualise)

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.

Over in the rules discussion area, I've already shared the email clarification that FFG sent on this. They stack. Afraid that's the best you'll see as far as "definitive" for the next six months perhaps.

Over in the rules discussion area, I've already shared the email clarification that FFG sent on this. They stack. Afraid that's the best you'll see as far as "definitive" for the next six months perhaps.

And (as unfortunate as it is), people have really latched onto the fact that emails are not legal for tournament play , when it comes to it... ::sigh::

Which leaves us, again, with nowhere but Common Sense to guide us, and that is something I just cannot advocate for, any more.

I start questioning my own sanity when that happens. And not in the fun "ha, ha, I'm goin' Bom-bad Crazy!" way... The actual depressive shrink in a corner and not communicate to the outside world way.

I suppose you could, but don't really see the point? Because he or she has final say on a maneuver anyway, so he or she shows you, and then is like cool so I'm just going to do what I was going to do in the first place.

With this derived info thing, during the Determine Course step, could I ask my opponent for a specific maneuver to see the outcome? Or does this only apply to maneuvers already executed?

Derived information is any information about the game, game state, or ships all players have had the opportunity to learn through card/game effects or through the process of deduction using open information.

Through the process of deduction using open information.

You could ask to see the maneuver tool in a certain way, perhaps... Maybe even hold it over the ship in question - but certainly, that tool shouldn't hit the table in that state, unless its a desired outcome from the person doing the maneuver.

Also you have to be wary to not be slowing your opponents turn by making the request , nor being seen to be attempting to distract them into making a mistake, a missed opportunity or a poor choice.

The safest bet is not to ask, and just attempt to visually deduce - but of course, that's tricky for some people (like me, I struggle to visualise)

I was thinking more along the lines of the timing on G8. Yes, it says "Before" but also states "Resolves". And we already know about that thread. So if you fall into the before the resolution of the step, you could ask for a potential maneuver, and then decide to use G8.

I plan on playing G8 before you go into the step, simply to speed up the game and I am getting better at anticipating where a ship can land at it's current speed.