Can a cloaked ship activate EMP?

EMP device:

"During the Combat phase, instead of performing any attacks, you may discard this card to assign 2 ion tokens to each ship at Range 1."

Yes. EMP Device is not an attack. A cloaked ship cannot attack, but it still becomes the active ship in the combat phase on it's turn in the pilot skill order.

I'm inclined to say no actually, I don't know exactly where it is written but I believe a precedent has been set with ACD and the blinded pilot critical whereby you cannot flip it over if you did not have the opportunity to attack (because of the cloak).

I would argue that this is the same situation

No. You don't make attacks when cloaked, so you have nothing to do it instead of.

Considering Feedback Array was faq'd to say you cant do it when you are on an asteroid or have a weapons disabled token you wouldnt be able to do EMP while cloaked, since you are unable to even attempt attacking.

I see a few great opinions in counter to my post. I actually agree with the principle that a cloaked ship cannot resolve any "instead of attacking" ability. However, I cannot find any written rule to explicitly prohibit a cloaked ship frim triggering EMP Device, which is why I posted the answer above.

The thing that would really prevent this card interaction is more functional. No current ship can cloak and equip EMP Device.

I see a few great opinions in counter to my post. I actually agree with the principle that a cloaked ship cannot resolve any "instead of attacking" ability. However, I cannot find any written rule to explicitly prohibit a cloaked ship frim triggering EMP Device, which is why I posted the answer above.

The thing that would really prevent this card interaction is more functional. No current ship can cloak and equip EMP Device.

True, actually. They're both Illicits and the only ship that can equip two is Large so no cloak.

There's no written rule that explicitly prevents it, but there doesn't have to be. There's no opportunity to attack whilst cloaked, so there's no trigger point for EMP.

I'm inclined to say no actually, I don't know exactly where it is written but I believe a precedent has been set with ACD and the blinded pilot critical whereby you cannot flip it over if you did not have the opportunity to attack (because of the cloak).

I would argue that this is the same situation

Not relevant. The reason for that FAQ is because a Adcanced Cloaking Device triggers after attacking. Blinded Pilot prevents attacking, so the timing window for the upgrade never happened.

Considering Feedback Array was faq'd to say you cant do it when you are on an asteroid or have a weapons disabled token you wouldnt be able to do EMP while cloaked, since you are unable to even attempt attacking.

Feedback Array is relevant because it is both an Illict Upgrade and has the same condition for activating as EMP Device, therefore an EMP device should be held to the same standard. Weapons Disabled and Cloaking both prohibit attacks, but they are different game effects with different rules, therefore Weapons Disabled is not relevant to cloaking. .

There's no written rule that explicitly prevents it, but there doesn't have to be. There's no opportunity to attack whilst cloaked, so there's no trigger point for EMP.

Let's assume for a moment that a ship could both cloak and equip a card with the condition, "instead of performing any attacks" such as Feedback Array or EMP Device. Explicit rules may be necessary in this case, because there is in fact a question of opportunity. Is there a timing window between becoming the active ship in the combat phase, and making an attack/using an ability? It is not explicitly defined in the rules, but this window inherently exists for a few reasons:

1 - a ship may choose not to attack: this decision may made before any of the steps in the attack timing chart, after becoming the active ship in the combat phase

2 - a ship may choose to attack, but be otherwise prevented from attacking. Example: A ship chooses to attack, measures range range, checks firing arc and has no legitimate target. (It is important to note this scenario still allows the Blinded Pilot card to be flipped face down.)

3a - a ship may choose to resolve an ability "instead of performing amy attacks." Because Feedback Array may also be used, "while you have the Blinded Pilot damage card" a player could choose to resolve the card ability after becoming the active ship, before executing any attack steps.

3b - a ship may choose to resolve an ability "instead of performing any attacks." This decision may also be made by the player after choosing to attack. Example: choose to attack, then determine during step 1 of the attack that there is no target to attack, but there is an enemy ship outside of firing arc, at range 1. Trigger Feedback Array or EMP Device.

Because of the inherent timing window, the statement "there's no opportunity to attack whilst cloaked" has no basis in fact. The choice to use an "instead of performing any attacks" card ability happens before actually attacking or not attacking, whether or not a ship is cloaked.

I must admit I am constantly bemused by players not understanding the text "Instead of Attacking".

When that statement is part of rules text you must have been able to attack to activate that ability, it's really that simple.

You cannot do "something" instead of "something else" unless you could actually do that "something else" to begin with.

Both cloacking and weapons disabled are placed before and are using word CANNOT which is stronger than "instead of attacking you may". Please, note how weird Feedback seemed to be FAQ'ed but now that seems more clearer for me:

You can use it when touching another ship (also on that ship)

You cannot when overlapping asteroid.

You cannot when having weapons disabled token.

Both the asteroid and weapons disabled has the same effect as Cloacking in that matter and it means you CANNOT perform an attack, which means you cannot trigger abilities used instead of attacking.

Both cloacking and weapons disabled are placed before and are using word CANNOT which is stronger than "instead of attacking you may". Please, note how weird Feedback seemed to be FAQ'ed but now that seems more clearer for me:

You can use it when touching another ship (also on that ship)

You cannot when overlapping asteroid.

You cannot when having weapons disabled token.

Both the asteroid and weapons disabled has the same effect as Cloacking in that matter and it means you CANNOT perform an attack, which means you cannot trigger abilities used instead of attacking.

This is concise and reasonable. Thank you for providing clear, factual statements with refernces to written rules instead of broad assumptions like this one:

I must admit I am constantly bemused by players not understanding the text "Instead of Attacking."

When that statement is part of rules text you must have been able to attack to activate that ability, it's really that simple.

You cannot do "something" instead of "something else" unless you could actually do that "something else" to begin with.

Patronizing comments and thinly veiled insults are unnecessary. You might be "bemused" by this discussion, but you haven't contributed in any constructive way.

The argument "you cannot do X instead of Y, unless you are allowed to do both X and Y" is logical, but nothing more than an assumption unless you back it up with factual examples from the rules.

Both cloacking and weapons disabled are placed before and are using word CANNOT which is stronger than "instead of attacking you may". Please, note how weird Feedback seemed to be FAQ'ed but now that seems more clearer for me:

You can use it when touching another ship (also on that ship)

You cannot when overlapping asteroid.

You cannot when having weapons disabled token.

Both the asteroid and weapons disabled has the same effect as Cloacking in that matter and it means you CANNOT perform an attack, which means you cannot trigger abilities used instead of attacking.

This is concise and reasonable. Thank you for providing clear, factual statements with refernces to written rules instead of broad assumptions like this one:

I must admit I am constantly bemused by players not understanding the text "Instead of Attacking."

When that statement is part of rules text you must have been able to attack to activate that ability, it's really that simple.

You cannot do "something" instead of "something else" unless you could actually do that "something else" to begin with.

Patronizing comments and thinly veiled insults are unnecessary. You might be "bemused" by this discussion, but you haven't contributed in any constructive way.

The argument "you cannot do X instead of Y, unless you are allowed to do both X and Y" is logical, but nothing more than an assumption unless you back it up with factual examples from the rules.

I apologize if you took offence, I was merely pointing out that the text is very clear in terms of what must be able to be done I.e. being able to attack, to trigger the effect.

My bemusement was that I had spent 3-4 pages of arguing with several other posters on the double feedback array issue that was literally just ruled on in the FAQ Yesterday as being only able to be used once in the attack phase. This is pretty much exactly that same base question regarding the meaning of "instead of Attacking".

Just pointing out that this keeps coming up even though precedent has been set in the FAQ already

I apologize if you took offence, I was merely pointing out that the text is very clear in terms of what must be able to be done I.e. being able to attack, to trigger the effect.

My bemusement was that I had spent 3-4 pages of arguing with several other posters on the double feedback array issue that was literally just ruled on in the FAQ Yesterday as being only able to be used once in the attack phase. This is pretty much exactly that same base question regarding the meaning of "instead of Attacking".

Just pointing out that this keeps coming up even though precedent has been set in the FAQ already

I'm not holding gany grudges. I said earlier that I agree with the same position you presented, but the case in favor of that opinion was weak from my perspective. I was digging for something more concrete. SaszaPL made a great point clarifying the FAQ entry for Feedback Array