I'm not sure I understand what the eye roll is supposed to represent.

21 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I'm not sure I understand what the eye roll is supposed to represent.

Probably because it seems like you're looking for problems that don't exist. The core rules still expect you to perform as much of a card's rules text as possible. The 'second half' of a card's rules text would still need to be resolved. I see nothing in the rules that even hints at permission to ignore the 'second half'.

I'll admit that it's an interesting question, but I think it has a simple answer... If a card has two effects and the first doesn't impact game state, while the second does... overall, it counts as a change in game state and NOT as a pass. Effectively, if you don't take the Ambush action, you haven't fulfilled as much of the card's rules text as possible and would be breaking the rules.

Of course, we need a definition of "game state". We can't have an informed conversation until we have one.

I'm not looking for problems that don't exist, I'm anticipating situations that will arise when someone is actually sitting across the table from me. Maybe the resolutions to these scenarios are obvious to you; I'm open-minded enough to expect that a judge, TO, or marshall could be persuaded in either direction during an event. There's just enough room for doubt to give the wisest of us pause, and 35 minute rounds aren't exactly conducive to last minute research. Why shouldn't I, at least, be prepared for that eventuality?

6 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I'm not looking for problems that don't exist, I'm anticipating situations that will arise when someone is actually sitting across the table from me. Maybe the resolutions to these scenarios are obvious to you; I'm open-minded enough to expect that a judge, TO, or marshall could be persuaded in either direction during an event. There's just enough room for doubt to give the wisest of us pause, and 35 minute rounds aren't exactly conducive to last minute research. Why shouldn't I, at least, be prepared for that eventuality?

Completely fair. I just think that in this situation, if an opponent claims "OMG DOUBLE PASS!", you can just calmly point to the rules saying that you have to resolve as much of a card's rules text as possible and then proceed to take your Ambush action. As such, it feels like a non-issue. But again, there's really no point in discussing any of this when the answer is going to be "depends on what they mean by change in game state". We're all guessing at this point. The only thing we know for sure is that playing Noble Sacrifice without a blue character counts as a pass. We're guessing for almost every other card.

46 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

But again, there's really no point in discussing any of this when the answer is going to be "depends on what they mean by change in game state". We're all guessing at this point. The only thing we know for sure is that playing Noble Sacrifice without a blue character counts as a pass. We're guessing for almost every other card.

Yeah, very much this. I sent a question to FFG already; we'll see what they say.

Re-rolling dice definitely seems like a change of game state, but I am not sure why they don't just rule you can't play cards/actions like Noble Sacrifice without legal targets.

Was hoping for Hyperloop errata somewhere in this update but I guess that is wishful thinking :-)