I hope they going to have a printable errata on the station card?

I will be making a photocopy of the card, and then use a hobby knife and glue stick to carefully paste a correction on my card.

So Silver Crane mentioned in the Snipe ruling thread that Michael Gernes said you can snipe so long as you are not engaged with an escort squad.

Did you hear about this while there?

No mention of this, we'll probably have to wait for an FAQ

As a caveat, all these question were answered on the spot, and one even reversed through the conversation. It's possible these answers could change in an FAQ after more serious discussion, these are just the best answers we have for now!

Thanks for posting this,

Clears up a lot.

That station errata tho.

Makes me feel vindicated for misreading it when the card was first spoiled

Caldias and I played the Station with that AA value, and it was silly.

I never even looked at the station icons, I just assumed it was 4 v ships and 1 v squads. That's funny.

I am mildly surprised by the answer to number 3. Having the Bonus Value on the map in a +0, +1, +2, format makes it seem like it is meant to be an addition. Omitting the "+" sign would have made it more intuitive.

Unless there is some card effect that would add or subtract from that value. I have not yet read the CC rules. If it didn't have +0 we might still end up asking if the modifier applied there. My intuition says +0 provides zero but does provide where leaving it off means the base doesn't ever provide anything. So it is to me a subtle but important distinction between +0 and not having a value.

The only time the +X bonus is used is if the assaulter wins a battle where there is a base/outpost.

Since base = auto base defense objective, it's usually safer to put bases on valuable worlds, since you'll have an easier time defending them.

Put an outpost on a +2 system and the enemy scores plenty of points for winning the assault. Put it on a +0 system and they gain nothing by taking it out (other than what damage they may have done to your fleet).

I hope that clears up why #3 is a design feature: rebels establish outposts (or even bases) in the boonies, imps gain very little by flushing them out of said outposts (bases).

The only time the +X bonus is used is if the assaulter wins a battle where there is a base/outpost.

Since base = auto base defense objective, it's usually safer to put bases on valuable worlds, since you'll have an easier time defending them.

Put an outpost on a +2 system and the enemy scores plenty of points for winning the assault. Put it on a +0 system and they gain nothing by taking it out (other than what damage they may have done to your fleet).

I hope that clears up why #3 is a design feature: rebels establish outposts (or even bases) in the boonies, imps gain very little by flushing them out of said outposts (bases).

Not sure that's right - if you attack a Rebel Presence you reveal whether it is a Base or an Outpost; if the latter you treat the location as Unoccupied which means the victor will get 1VP.

You may be better putting bases on +0VP planets and the enemy won't gain any VP and they're harder to take. Put the Outposts on the +2VP planets and then the Imps will only get one if they win.

The only time the +X bonus is used is if the assaulter wins a battle where there is a base/outpost.

Since base = auto base defense objective, it's usually safer to put bases on valuable worlds, since you'll have an easier time defending them.

Put an outpost on a +2 system and the enemy scores plenty of points for winning the assault. Put it on a +0 system and they gain nothing by taking it out (other than what damage they may have done to your fleet).

I hope that clears up why #3 is a design feature: rebels establish outposts (or even bases) in the boonies, imps gain very little by flushing them out of said outposts (bases).

Not sure that's right - if you attack a Rebel Presence you reveal whether it is a Base or an Outpost; if the latter you treat the location as Unoccupied which means the victor will get 1VP.

You may be better putting bases on +0VP planets and the enemy won't gain any VP and they're harder to take. Put the Outposts on the +2VP planets and then the Imps will only get one if they win.

Where does it say that?

Trying to learn the rules here, and p. 10 Determine Battle Effects is quite specific: assault, base or outpost, gain +x points.

Wait, you're thinking about page 8? That's just the choose objectives bit - basically, if there is an outpost, you don't play Base Defense.

The only time the +X bonus is used is if the assaulter wins a battle where there is a base/outpost.

Since base = auto base defense objective, it's usually safer to put bases on valuable worlds, since you'll have an easier time defending them.

Put an outpost on a +2 system and the enemy scores plenty of points for winning the assault. Put it on a +0 system and they gain nothing by taking it out (other than what damage they may have done to your fleet).

I hope that clears up why #3 is a design feature: rebels establish outposts (or even bases) in the boonies, imps gain very little by flushing them out of said outposts (bases).

Not sure that's right - if you attack a Rebel Presence you reveal whether it is a Base or an Outpost; if the latter you treat the location as Unoccupied which means the victor will get 1VP.

You may be better putting bases on +0VP planets and the enemy won't gain any VP and they're harder to take. Put the Outposts on the +2VP planets and then the Imps will only get one if they win.

Where does it say that?

Trying to learn the rules here, and p. 10 Determine Battle Effects is quite specific: assault, base or outpost, gain +x points.

Interesting!

Page 8 Choose Objectives states "If the location is an outpost, treat the location as unoccupied."

However, you are correct - this will only affect the objectives chosen and not the actual VP gained. You are correct in your original post

Example, Centerpoint Station:

If there is a Imp/Reb base: play Base Defense

If there is a Reb outpost or otherwise unoccupied: play independent station or 1 other objective

Edit: If it's a Special Assault (reb only) the system can't have a base or reb presence.

The only time the +X bonus is used is if the assaulter wins a battle where there is a base/outpost.

Since base = auto base defense objective, it's usually safer to put bases on valuable worlds, since you'll have an easier time defending them.

Put an outpost on a +2 system and the enemy scores plenty of points for winning the assault. Put it on a +0 system and they gain nothing by taking it out (other than what damage they may have done to your fleet).

I hope that clears up why #3 is a design feature: rebels establish outposts (or even bases) in the boonies, imps gain very little by flushing them out of said outposts (bases).

Not sure that's right - if you attack a Rebel Presence you reveal whether it is a Base or an Outpost; if the latter you treat the location as Unoccupied which means the victor will get 1VP.

You may be better putting bases on +0VP planets and the enemy won't gain any VP and they're harder to take. Put the Outposts on the +2VP planets and then the Imps will only get one if they win.

Where does it say that?

Trying to learn the rules here, and p. 10 Determine Battle Effects is quite specific: assault, base or outpost, gain +x points.

Interesting!

Page 8 Choose Objectives states "If the location is an outpost, treat the location as unoccupied."

However, you are correct - this will only affect the objectives chosen and not the actual VP gained. You are correct in your original post

I remembered being confused a bit re. the objectives during my first read-through, so I went back and checked and now everything made more sense

Good find Green Knight. We've been playing this wrong, aka, treating outposts as unoccupied for the victory points.

I hope they going to have a printable errata on the station card?

I will be making a photocopy of the card, and then use a hobby knife and glue stick to carefully paste a correction on my card.

I hope they going to have a printable errata on the station card?

I will be making a photocopy of the card, and then use a hobby knife and glue stick to carefully paste a correction on my card.

If you have printer label paper, I would print the card as is, cut out the 2 block for AS and battery and stick them over the card. This is what I do for all card and map errata and it works very well.

That is essentially what I did. Now that it is in the sleeve it is very difficult to tell I made the correction.

I am mildly surprised by the answer to number 3. Having the Bonus Value on the map in a +0, +1, +2, format makes it seem like it is meant to be an addition. Omitting the "+" sign would have made it more intuitive.

My only conclusion was that this was a late change in playtesting (after the map was finished) where they decided that 3 points was too much to get for one battle. Kinda like how the victory point stuff on page 10 disagrees with the implication from page 8. Looks like a last minute change to me.

Nebula Outskirts:

The third part of the card reads: "The total number of command dials that must be assigned to each of the second players shipts during each command phase is decreased by 1."

This should be added to the end: " to a minimum of 1"

second player always gets the objective buff - not being able to assign dials to your 1 command value ships would be terrible.

Nebula Outskirts:

The third part of the card reads: "The total number of command dials that must be assigned to each of the second players shipts during each command phase is decreased by 1."

This should be added to the end: " to a minimum of 1"

second player always gets the objective buff - not being able to assign dials to your 1 command value ships would be terrible.

Or maybe it works as written, with the intent to be to get people to use more large ships?

Nebula Outskirts:

The third part of the card reads: "The total number of command dials that must be assigned to each of the second players shipts during each command phase is decreased by 1."

This should be added to the end: " to a minimum of 1"

second player always gets the objective buff - not being able to assign dials to your 1 command value ships would be terrible.

Or maybe it works as written, with the intent to be to get people to use more large ships?

No. It's a minimum of 1.

Nebula Outskirts:

The third part of the card reads: "The total number of command dials that must be assigned to each of the second players shipts during each command phase is decreased by 1."

This should be added to the end: " to a minimum of 1"

second player always gets the objective buff - not being able to assign dials to your 1 command value ships would be terrible.

Or maybe it works as written, with the intent to be to get people to use more large ships?

No. It's a minimum of 1.

And where is that written? Or is it just your opinion?

its called common sense. The game breaks if you dont have a command dial at all.

There's a rule apparently in the RRG that says ships must be assigned a minimum of one command dial in the command phase. Which makes sense as a guard against stacking such effects till you break your own ship with beneficial upgrades, like the ship title that does the same thing.

Mmmmm, 1-dial ISDs...

Mmmmm, 1-dial ISDs...

That's why I'm taking Relentless in my CC list.

Can't wait for a Nebula Outskirts game.