I think this is a question for an FAQ (Already sent an e-mail to JKniffen)...
I hope you sent it to the Rules Link, and not to him Directly.
Because he doesn't answer Rules for Armada anymore.
oh, is there another email address I should send it to? All I found was JKniffen's email in some other thread about the G8 nonsense.
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/customer-service/
Dropdown Box "Rules Questions"
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/customer-service/
Dropdown Box "Rules Questions"
Thanks, just submitted the form.
I don't think EF is intended to boost ET. Speed 4 pickles and speed 5 Demo and Libertys are crazy. Speed 6 CR90s would be neat though. Cuz who doesn't like the Rieekan ramming CR90+ET nonsense. Now they get to you quicker!
But we can only speculate at the intent.
Conversely, its intended to let the phoenix home keep up with liberties, guppies, and CR90s.
Demo can't do this since its Imperial, and they don't have a speed bonus outside of Navigation (and you can't activate ET without using your one and only navigation order for the activation)
herp derp you're right about DEmo
There is no f*cking way that this will be allowed post FAQ.
There is no f*cking way that this will be allowed post FAQ.
No way this was the intent either.
i don't read EF as temp speed change, i think the intent was to have you change the speed dial. needs FAQ.
i don't read EF as temp speed change, i think the intent was to have you change the speed dial. needs FAQ.
I didn't read ET as a temp speed change... I think the intent was to have it work like a normal maneuver, but with a new speed dial. needs FAQ.
ET is just a speed one move. It has no move dial to change, and no matter what the ship's top normal speed is, the ET is still only speed one.
"After you execute a maneuver, you may exhaust this card to execute a speed-1 maneuver"
and
Changing it's speed, which is on the dial. If EF can affect ET, why can't a nav token or command?
Per the rulebook: "When a ship is determining course for movement, it may spend it's nav command to increase or decrease it's speed by one"
and has no mention of the speed dial in the rule for the navigate command itself.
Each wave. Each wave there spawn another 5-10 new topics disputing the intent and meaning of new upgrades and abilities, and rightfully so as the wording is not as clear-cut as it should be. Come on FFG, how difficult can it be to hire a few rule-lawyers on a consultant basis under a non-disclosure agreement to discuss these matters before you print something?
Just take the top 5 or 10 guys from the forum - with my vote for Dras as the wingleader -, provide them with your new concepts for abilities and upgrades for the next wave and have those guys turn on each other (in gentlemenly manner!), tearing each word apart to grasp its very essence and gnawing on rules conjunctions to verify its integrity. If those rules and abilities survive that carnage those few chosen could bring it sure says something.
You could probably even pay them in new wave stuff, saving money on the go!
I think the intent is only to change the dial, ET only ever being a temp speed 1 maneuver no matter what... but the wording does leave it open to lawyering.
I would happily be wrong and have a speed 5 Lib though
ET is just a speed one move. It has no move dial to change, and no matter what the ship's top normal speed is, the ET is still only speed one.
"After you execute a maneuver, you may exhaust this card to execute a speed-1 maneuver"
and
At the start of the Ship Phase, you may discard this card or spend a
Changing it's speed, which is on the dial. If EF can affect ET, why can't a nav token or command?
Per the rulebook: "When a ship is determining course for movement, it may spend it's nav command to increase or decrease it's speed by one"
and has no mention of the speed dial in the rule for the navigate command itself.
You can't use a nav command or token on ET because you need to use one to trigger ET, and you can't do the same command twice.
The rules do say a Nav command/token alters the speed dial on page 11.
A ship’s speed determines how far it must move each activation; the ship’s current speed is tracked on its speed dial. A squadron’s speed value indicates the farthest distance band that the squadron can move into.
In regards to the speed 1 maneuver, the FAQ states:
Q: When an effect instructs a ship to execute a maneuver outside of its usual Execute Maneuver step, what is that ship’s speed?
A: While executing that additional maneuver, the ship’s speed is temporarily set to the speed indicated by the effect that is resolved. The ship executes the maneuver by completing the Determine Course and Move Ship steps. The ship’s current speed is still tracked by its speed dial, and the ship does not count as having changed its speed.
In regards to G8:
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. This effect can be resolved on an enemy ship that is executing a maneuver from an effect such as Engine Techs. This effect is resolved before the Determine Course step of that maneuver and reduces the ship’s temporary speed by 1 to a minimum of 0.
So here we have the FAQ stating an extra maneuver grants a temporary speed set to whatever the effect says. In this case, ET sets a temporary speed dial to 1. And then we have G8 which says you can alter a temporary speed dial, in this case it is referencing ET. So it is not that far of a leap to say EF can alter the speed of a temporary speed dial, since you can still resolve the effect legally.
I don't think this is the intent of the card. But this is supported by the RRG and FAQ.
I don't think it's supported by the RRG.
Unless it's ruled otherwise, if you change your speed with EF! during the determine course step of your ET move, you will increase your speed by 1.
This isn't your temporary speed, this is your speed. (Speed is a really silly word btw, when you type it a bunch and look at it for a bit.)
At any rate, engine techs tells you to execute a speed 1 maneuver. This sets your "temporary speed" to 1. Whatever your dial reads is largely irrelevant during this maneuver.
The only thing I can see that provides some support for the notion that you can use EF! for an ET boost is the G8 ruling on temporary speed, which "clarified" (err... actually, added to the rules) the notion that any game element can have an actual effect on "temporary speed".
I guess there are two schools of thought here, one is that the FAQ rulings on certain cards are somewhat precedential and can/will/should/do affect the way that cards with similiar effects on the game state work. This school of thought, in my mind, assumes that the rules of the game are fixed and that the FAQ just illuminates ambiguities or vagaries in the rules universe.
The other school of thought, and the one that I personally ascribe to, is that the FAQ represents specific rulings on specific cards or rule interactions that either were not contemplated by FFG during the design process, or are unclear due to poor word choice on upgrade cards. In this view, a ruling on the way specific cards work (i.e. "this effect" in the G8 ruling) actually does little to explain how other effects work, even similar ones. (For example, the application of a Hyperspace Assault ruling being applied to RLB, or G8 being applied to EF! and ET).
I think we can all agree though that FFG needs to either make better word choices or broaden their playtesting efforts to try to weed this stuff out earlier.
I might slap the first person I meet who tries to do a speed 5 liberty.
Edited by EggzavierI've already considered the FAQ can be topic-to-topic based issues, and the rulings are not supposed to spill over into other rulings.
If G8 is entirely it's own rule, then yes, EF will not be allowed to boost ET, and I have a feeling that is how the new FAQ will come down as.
But if we follow that logic, what about the FAQ on Hyper Space Assault and how RLB should deal with undeployed squads?
The logical assumption is the squads are destroyed and your opponent scores for them, but RLB doesn't say that and there is no other ruling on this. So if each FAQ cannot be related to any other card interaction, where does this leave us? Are squads with RLB scored and destroyed? Or are they never a part of the game?
So there is this messy grey area on how we can interpret and translate the FAQ rules to the RRG and new card interactions.
Too much to consider with these new card interactions...
I've already considered the FAQ can be topic-to-topic based issues, and the rulings are not supposed to spill over into other rulings.
If G8 is entirely it's own rule, then yes, EF will not be allowed to boost ET, and I have a feeling that is how the new FAQ will come down as.
But if we follow that logic, what about the FAQ on Hyper Space Assault and how RLB should deal with undeployed squads?
The logical assumption is the squads are destroyed and your opponent scores for them, but RLB doesn't say that and there is no other ruling on this. So if each FAQ cannot be related to any other card interaction, where does this leave us? Are squads with RLB scored and destroyed? Or are they never a part of the game?
So there is this messy grey area on how we can interpret and translate the FAQ rules to the RRG and new card interactions.
Too much to consider with these new card interactions...
This is precisely the reason why we need a regularly updated FAQ. Either they need to write more inclusive rules or they need to give us an FAQ every month or so.
Honestly, it should not. be. this. difficult.
One thing is clear, they (FFG) can't put all the information needed on the card because of the space on it (those card are small). But... one thing that they can do in future is to put more information on the credits sheet they put in each box. When they released the no-ctrits defense token, they put it this way. Why not the same for the new modification.
One thing is clear, they (FFG) can't put all the information needed on the card because of the space on it (those card are small). But... one thing that they can do in future is to put more information on the credits sheet they put in each box. When they released the no-ctrits defense token, they put it this way. Why not the same for the new modification.
Because it has the potential to escalate space.
I mean, let us assume that they did this - put info on the Card for Rapid Launch Bays.
...
So now, if we have a future ship come out - let's say its the Rebel C9900.. And it also includes the Rapid Launch Bay card.
You are now automatically having the insert needing to have:
Experimental retrofit Slot Detail
Contain Token Detail
Rapid Launch Bay detail.
And that's just assuming one upgrade card gets that detail. If you're doing it for one, you have precedence for doing it with others...
Imagine it also had fleet command- kind of a, one varient is experimental, one varient is command - the explanation of the fleet command Icon also has to go there..........
Its limiting as much as possible , especially sicne Upgrade Cards have the potential to be ubiquitous amongst sets.
Because you could accidentally find that one ship suddenly has to explain 7 things on its insert....
The FAQ will be "Good enough" for explanatory purposes... When it arrives ...
Once its here, then its set and done.
Edited by DrasnightaOr, and stay with me here, they can make it all available on the internet at regularly spaced intervals that happen when the wave is released.
They could even keep the document around and add to it as the game progresses.
Sort of like a progressive rules document that contains all of the rules.
Or, and stay with me here, they can make it all available on the internet at regularly spaced intervals that happen when the wave is released.
They could even keep the document around and add to it as the game progresses.
Sort of like a progressive rules document that contains all of the rules.
Only if the rulings are as convoluted and poorly written as the cards.
Otherwise we don't need no progresso soup in this corner of the interwebs.
The problem is maybe just there... Is it so difficult to keep the FAQ update regularly? Once per year, it's maybe not enough FFG
4-6 weeks after a release of a new wave would be at least the minimum.