I have an question about cards that have "discard this upgrade from play". Are they simply discarded to discard pile? If yes, you could make weird loops with Second Chance (!), Thermal Detonator and Infantry Grenades with Starship Graveyard. If no, why does other similiar upgrages (like Hunker Down) have just "discard" in it's effect.

There's no difference in these two phrases, and you can indeed leverage Starship Graveyard to cycle them all back in.

There's no difference in these two phrases, and you can indeed leverage Starship Graveyard to cycle them all back in.

There's no difference in these two phrases, and you can indeed leverage Starship Graveyard to cycle them all back in.

So if there is no difference between them why this difference exists in text? I mean - card games usually do not use "extra unnecessary words" ^^ Also last game my opponent was cycling **** Second Chances (he had two of them) about 4-5 times (soaking 20-25 dmg) and prolonged the game for about 30 minutes (we both were on last characters and it was difficult to deal 5 dmg then deal 5 extra the same turn -,-).

There's no difference in these two phrases, and you can indeed leverage Starship Graveyard to cycle them all back in.

So if there is no difference between them why this difference exists in text? I mean - card games usually do not use "extra unnecessary words" ^^ Also last game my opponent was cycling **** Second Chances (he had two of them) about 4-5 times (soaking 20-25 dmg) and prolonged the game for about 30 minutes (we both were on last characters and it was difficult to deal 5 dmg then deal 5 extra the same turn -,-).

There's no difference in these two phrases, and you can indeed leverage Starship Graveyard to cycle them all back in.

recycling second chance just sounds evil

It is evil, indeed. xd

Because FFG generally does a poor job of templating their cards.

So if there is no difference between them why this difference exists in text? I mean - card games usually do not use "extra unnecessary words" ^^ Also last game my opponent was cycling **** Second Chances (he had two of them) about 4-5 times (soaking 20-25 dmg) and prolonged the game for about 30 minutes (we both were on last characters and it was difficult to deal 5 dmg then deal 5 extra the same turn -,-).

Consistency isn't always FFG's strong suit. Some abilities get rule reminders (Redeploy) and some don't (Ambush). It's not even consistent within the same card - Holdout Blaster gets the reminder for Ambush, but most others don't (Infamous). Some times it's just a matter of how much text will fit.

As for the play, your best bet there is to knock it down and then claim the battlefield. Aggressively going after Disrupts to reduce his resources is a good play too - Second Chance is expensive to keep playing down again.

Consistency isn't always FFG's strong suit. Some abilities get rule reminders (Redeploy) and some don't (Ambush). It's not even consistent within the same card - Holdout Blaster gets the reminder for Ambush, but most others don't (Infamous). Some times it's just a matter of how much text will fit.

Yeah, but keywords are different stuff here. Ambush is ambush, whethever it has it's text on the card or has not. But yeah, it may be the lack of consitency.

However I hope it would get errated one way ("discard this card from GAME") or another (spaceships graveyard returning only non-ability upgrades [like General Grievous] ), because this particular combo seems a little unhealthy, especially in a card game that just have been released and that has relatively small card pool.

However I hope it would get errated one way ("discard this card from GAME") or another (spaceships graveyard returning only non-ability upgrades [like General Grievous] ), because this particular combo seems a little unhealthy, especially in a card game that just have been released and that has relatively small card pool.

I don't think it's nearly that bad, you just have to play around it a bit. Rather than doing 5 in a turn, do 4 - then you have to do 6 next turn. Or do the 5, then claim the battlefield so he can't get it back. Or claim (even if you short your turn for it) so you've got initiative and can hit his resources before he gets it back into play, as 3 is a pretty vulnerable cost.

Or if it's that frustrating, build against it. There are a number of different cards which will mess with upgrades, try some of them.

Also if your deck is built requiring a certain battlefield be used you are going to have a bad time.

Consistency isn't always FFG's strong suit. Some abilities get rule reminders (Redeploy) and some don't (Ambush). It's not even consistent within the same card - Holdout Blaster gets the reminder for Ambush, but most others don't (Infamous). Some times it's just a matter of how much text will fit.

Yeah, but keywords are different stuff here. Ambush is ambush, whethever it has it's text on the card or has not. But yeah, it may be the lack of consitency.

However I hope it would get errated one way ("discard this card from GAME") or another (spaceships graveyard returning only non-ability upgrades [like General Grievous] ), because this particular combo seems a little unhealthy, especially in a card game that just have been released and that has relatively small card pool.

Isn't the point of a collectible game to have broken combos for the players to exploit? There's never a perfect unbeatable deck or combo. If you know what your opponents are working towards you can find a weakness. This game is going to evolve drastically with each new set. Even in just the 174 cards so far there are endless possibilities for competitive team and deck options.

If the word 'Discard' is used I would think the intent is always that the card goes to your 'discard pile', that is the place for discarded cards. If the intent is that the card is removed from the game then I would expect wording to that effect, e.g. 'remove the card from the game', I know other FFG card games use this phrasing.

If the word 'Discard' is used I would think the intent is always that the card goes to your 'discard pile', that is the place for discarded cards. If the intent is that the card is removed from the game then I would expect wording to that effect, e.g. 'remove the card from the game', I know other FFG card games use this phrasing.

This is actually in the rules, although not in the most obvious of places.

Page 10, Discard Pile: The discard pile is a faceup pile near a player’s deck where they place their discarded cards.

This is a very big non-issue.

Similar to an issue with Gains and Given on another post. I imagine just like this issue its more a matter of sentence structure, it would seem word flow is more important than literal meanings of words.

Edit: Literal meaning has taken precedence in this market over word flow, which is why it is creating such a problem.

Now I've got wrecked today on a tournament by a plyer reviving Han 4 times like that. I mean... should I just give him a free win if he get's his battlefield? I think the problem is with FFG stating that "remove from the game" is the same as discard (in the recent rules). IMHO a big mistake as some cards just seems perfect for removing from the game after use (it's "second chance" not third, forth etc. or granades, how can that sh** be reusable xD). Well I'm looking forward for errata. I don't mind strong decks and I don't mind loosing but I think if this uncommon is that powerful, ppl on tournaments will just abuse it. Even Holocrons are not that strong or Crime Lord , and these are rare and legendary and might not always win you the game. Since I prefer as little errata and tournament ban as possible I think the only clarification should be "remove from the game" is a permanent effect.

Now I've got wrecked today on a tournament by a plyer reviving Han 4 times like that. I mean... should I just give him a free win if he get's his battlefield? I think the problem is with FFG stating that "remove from the game" is the same as discard (in the recent rules). IMHO a big mistake as some cards just seems perfect for removing from the game after use (it's "second chance" not third, forth etc. or granades, how can that sh** be reusable xD). Well I'm looking forward for errata. I don't mind strong decks and I don't mind loosing but I think if this uncommon is that powerful, ppl on tournaments will just abuse it. Even Holocrons are not that strong or Crime Lord , and these are rare and legendary and might not always win you the game. Since I prefer as little errata and tournament ban as possible I think the only clarification should be "remove from the game" is a permanent effect.

Problem: the cards say "discard from play", not "remove from game".

Ok I have this translated but anyway... yes this is the problem . I mean... if a card has "discard" than it is clear, but here we have "discard from play" and in the rules it is clear that the meaning is the same. I just think the intention was different . Like I said, "secon" not "third" . But I guess we'll have to wait for official response. I just hope it's going to be soon .

However I hope it would get errated one way ("discard this card from GAME") or another (spaceships graveyard returning only non-ability upgrades [like General Grievous] ), because this particular combo seems a little unhealthy, especially in a card game that just have been released and that has relatively small card pool.

I don't think it's nearly that bad, you just have to play around it a bit. Rather than doing 5 in a turn, do 4 - then you have to do 6 next turn. Or do the 5, then claim the battlefield so he can't get it back. Or claim (even if you short your turn for it) so you've got initiative and can hit his resources before he gets it back into play, as 3 is a pretty vulnerable cost.

Or if it's that frustrating, build against it. There are a number of different cards which will mess with upgrades, try some of them.

This, so much.

Doing 1 to pop it and then 5 to kill him in one turn really is quite easy for most decks. But as mentioned, there are cards which directly remove the upgrade/breakup the interaction if required. Confiscation? Pulling the Strings? Jedi Council? Hyperspace Jump?

Pet Peeve: when people complain about an interaction, but do nothing to try and get around it and just assume its broken and will get an errata. Especially when simply playing around it intelligently will get the job done.

Sadly yes this is allowed.

If the rules didn't specifically state this - "From play" is short for "from the in play area." Then the card would be removed from the game because your discard pile is in the play area,

You will just have to try and save your damage actions for last, then when he uses his action to use second chance, you need to claim the battlefield.

I was playing against Finn Ackbar deck that was running Second chance and Thermal detonator with the Starship Graveyard battlefield.

I played with 2 troopers and phasma. He got Thermal off on second roll doing 3 damage to everything I had and claimed it back. Next few rounds I was able to control Thermal detonator, but after few rounds he got special again (focus from ackbar or something along those lines). I rerolled it and he got it again (oh well). Both of my troopers went down and phasma took another 3 damage. When Finn was close to dying he just cycled second chance again and again. I lost the first game, but we played another one and I won that.

It is surely and annoying deck, but there are ways to make it suck a little as in not finding thermals, or second chance etc. Or just simply controlling those dice. Damage output is rather low if thermal doesn't go off. Or just simply claim battlefield before he can...

Or win initiative and play entirely different battlefield instead

I am not complaining that I can not overcome this because I did. I am talking about huuuge influence of combo Starship graveyard + Second Chance. When my opp rolls higher for initiative I am way more screwed than if I was the one who wins it - and it is decided mostly by luck (i know there are different sides on dice). I was thinking about battlefield's special rule of being something extra instead of having gamechanging eff. The cost of card should reflect cards power and in my opinion Second Chance (with option to recycle) is a little overpowered at cost of 3. Second Chance should be second one, not third etc, like someone previously said.

And sorry but something "You could include this and that card" does not solve the situation. Participating in 12+ player tournament and having a card in your deck that is directed against particular combo played by 1-2 players that you may have not encounter is a bad choince in my opinion. This game should not have been paper, rock, scissors, right?

And again - in case of Grievous someone thought it may have been too OP getting all kind of upgrades, so he's restricted to non-ability ones. Also it fits thematically. I would like to see that Starship Graveyard get errated with the same restriction. Second Chance is good card on its own anyway.

Of course it is only my opinion.