Lets play spot the change, a revision of the FAQ was released today.

I don't have 4.3.0 saved and don't see anything that looks different.

Any change in Palp's wording? Seems the most likely.

Wasn't the 'effective from' date wrong on the original? (From memory it was in the past.)

Palp still the same as far as I can tell -

Quote

"Once per round, before a friendly ship rolls dice, you may name a die result. After rolling, you must change 1 of your dice results to the named result. That die result cannot be modified again."

I noticed that they still haven't changed the wording for what happens when a stressed ship reveals a red maneuver in the Activation Phase entry in the Rules Reference. They changed the wording in the Stress entry, but not the Activation Phase entry.

I think the only change from 4.3 to 4.3.1 was the wording for Hotshot Copilot; it was cleaned up a fair bit.

I don't see the difference. The wording for Hotshot Co-Pilot is still terrible.

21 minutes ago, jmswood said:

I don't see the difference. The wording for Hotshot Co-Pilot is still terrible.

Yes, yes it is.

I didn't see a difference in any of the red text. I wonder if they decided to increment the version number due to the date change? Having two different versions of the most recent version of the FAQ seems like it might be potentially confusing.

You know what kind of bothers me? For the Coruscant Invitational 77 voting thing, one of the B-wings has Tactician, but the card that FFG put up was the original, not the erratum that says " Limited ." Not a biggie because the B-wing can only have one crew member anyway, but it still kind of bothers me. Mostly because there seem to be a lot of new players joining this game in my area who may be unaware of altered card text. I'm looking forward to those new cards that citruscannon is making.

2 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I didn't see a difference in any of the red text. I wonder if they decided to increment the version number due to the date change? Having two different versions of the most recent version of the FAQ seems like it might be potentially confusing.

FFG had upload (1 or 2 days after) a corrected version with the right date on it.

I don't spot any differences too.

In 4.3.1, on page 17, the wording for the Emperor Palpatine card has been corrected, but it is still wrong elsewhere in the document.

On page 17, the card now says (its instead of yours)

Once per round, before a friendly ship rolls dice, you may name a die result. After rolling, you must change 1 of its die results to the named result. That die result cannot be modified again.

17 minutes ago, le12ro said:

In 4.3.1, on page 17, the wording for the Emperor Palpatine card has been corrected, but it is still wrong elsewhere in the document.

On page 17, the card now says (its instead of yours)

Once per round, before a friendly ship rolls dice, you may name a die result. After rolling, you must change 1 of its die results to the named result. That die result cannot be modified again.

Yeah, strangely they changed the text on the card in the FAQ section, but did not update the actual Errata entry on page 3.

The only other change I noticed was a slight asjustment to the kerning for C-3PO that resulted in his name dropping a line. (Pg 16)

I'm just really confused why they nerfed the not as good Han Solo

11 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

I'm just really confused why they nerfed the not as good Han Solo

Han's the new Valen Rudor

33 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

I'm just really confused why they nerfed the not as good Han Solo

They didn't nerf him. Nothing changed in regards to Han. That's the way the rules always had you handle deploying Han on an obstacle. In most cases, FAQ entries are just things that FFG believed that some players would need clarification on. When something gets added to the FAQ that is consistent with the rules it's just a verification that the rules as written are working as intended.

Here's the bit of rules that make Han take damage when deploying on an obstacle.

FAQ, pg 2:
"After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the
overlap is not from executing a maneuver, it suffers an effect based on the
type of obstacle:
• Asteroid: The ship rolls 1 attack die. On a [HIT] result, it suffers one
damage; on a [CRIT] result, it suffers one critical damage. While a ship is
overlapping an asteroid, it cannot perform any attacks.
• Debris Cloud: The ship receives 1 stress token. Then, the ship rolls 1
attack die. On a [CRIT] result, it suffers one critical damage."

Even though the new FAQ is more than one wording for Palp. They edited the article text and card picture with the correct wording.

32 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

I'm just really confused why they nerfed the not as good Han Solo

A lot of the FAQ entries are clarifications not a nerf. Stuff that works the way its suppose to but because of odd wording or a unique interaction its fuzzy.

We already knew that hotr han had to deal with the rock if he deployed on it, but since it was even a remotely fuzzy thing and easily slapped in there to clarify it they mentioned it.

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

They didn't nerf him. Nothing changed in regards to Han. That's the way the rules always had you handle deploying Han on an obstacle. In most cases, FAQ entries are just things that FFG believed that some players would need clarification on. When something gets added to the FAQ that is consistent with the rules it's just a verification that the rules as written are working as intended.

I see your point, but here's the thing. My choice in using the word "nerf" may not be correct as you have pointed out, but most people would say the original Han is better than the new Han. This was an opportunity to make the new one better and FFG didn't take it. Some of FFG's rulings don't always..... never mind....

Still no Targeting Synchronizer entry? Ugh...

Just now, Moneyinvolved said:

I see your point, but here's the thing. My choice in using the word "nerf" may not be correct as you have pointed out, but most people would say the original Han is better than the new Han. This was an opportunity to make the new one better and FFG didn't take it. Some of FFG's rulings don't always..... never mind....

But it wasn't an opportunity to make him better because there was nothing they could change. It was a clarification. According to FFG, the rules of the game say he should suffer the effects of the obstacle. It's similar to the times they "nerfed" Fel's Wrath with a clarification. They can't make Hero Han better with a FAQ clarification to allow him to do something wrong, because then when there is some other game mechanic that performs similarly, they will have to go back and say "oh, btw, we were kidding about Hero Han. He does have to roll after all".

So to clarify- Obviously he doesn't need a nerf, but to assure it is clear how they intend this sort of interaction to work now and in the future, they have to rule, regardless of the usefulness of the ship, as they intend the scenario to be played out.

14 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

They didn't nerf him. Nothing changed in regards to Han. That's the way the rules always had you handle deploying Han on an obstacle. In most cases, FAQ entries are just things that FFG believed that some players would need clarification on. When something gets added to the FAQ that is consistent with the rules it's just a verification that the rules as written are working as intended.

Here's the bit of rules that make Han take damage when deploying on an obstacle.

FAQ, pg 2:
"After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the
overlap is not from executing a maneuver, it suffers an effect based on the
type of obstacle:
• Asteroid: The ship rolls 1 attack die. On a [HIT] result, it suffers one
damage; on a [CRIT] result, it suffers one critical damage. While a ship is
overlapping an asteroid, it cannot perform any attacks.
• Debris Cloud: The ship receives 1 stress token. Then, the ship rolls 1
attack die. On a [CRIT] result, it suffers one critical damage."

As far as your portion that mentions overlapping obstacles, in the FAQ it mentions where that entry should go. In the area of the rules under obstacles, were the FAQ entry is supposed to go, it mentions "when a ship executes a maneuver". Placing Han isn't a maneuver would be my argument. So in my opinion, the rules never should have worked like that and this was an opportunity, even if a very small one, to make new Han better

7 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

I see your point, but here's the thing. My choice in using the word "nerf" may not be correct as you have pointed out, but most people would say the original Han is better than the new Han. This was an opportunity to make the new one better and FFG didn't take it. Some of FFG's rulings don't always..... never mind....

Allowing Han to deploy on obstacles without suffering their effects would have required an errata to the Han Solo card or a change to the obstacle rules.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

But it wasn't an opportunity to make him better because there was nothing they could change. It was a clarification. According to FFG, the rules of the game say he should suffer the effects of the obstacle. It's similar to the times they "nerfed" Fel's Wrath with a clarification. They can't make Hero Han better with a FAQ clarification to allow him to do something wrong, because then when there is some other game mechanic that performs similarly, they will have to go back and say "oh, btw, we were kidding about Hero Han. He does have to roll after all".

So to clarify- Obviously he doesn't need a nerf, but to assure it is clear how they intend this sort of interaction to work now and in the future, they have to rule, regardless of the usefulness of the ship, as they intend the scenario to be played out.

As you added your entry I also added another. I disagree that's how it's supposed to work in my post before. FFG just pulled the biggest "just Kidding" in the latest FAQ already, I'm sure any future ruling on Placing a ship before the game start allowing people to place a ship on an asteroid would not be game breaking

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Allowing Han to deploy on obstacles without suffering their effects would have required an errata to the Han Solo card or a change to the obstacle rules.

How so? The obstical rules only mention taking damage while executing a maneuver. Placeing him at the start of the game isn't executing a maneuver