I'm going to agree with most people on point 2 and 3. Point 1 I'm going to put up an argument tho. In the FAQ entry for "Move" as a game effect, it states that you must have a valid destination for the move, or it cannot happen. I would argue the only valid destination for an upgrade being moved is an empty upgrade slot. Just like when moving damage, there has to be a character there that has health left to move too. You have to have space left to move to. I realize I may be the minority in this interpretation, but this is the only part of the card I feel NEEDS a faq entry.

At the SW celebration this weekend Lukas confirmed you can move upgrades getting around play restrictions and force an oponent to loose 1 upgrade (if you move an upgrade to a character with 3 already) however, he did not rule on if the die stays in the pool or not when moved. He did say when the set releases and they update the RRG it will have a ruling.

18 hours ago, Tybrid said:

In the FAQ entry for "Move" as a game effect, it states that you must have a valid destination for the move, or it cannot happen. I would argue the only valid destination for an upgrade being moved is an empty upgrade slot. Just like when moving damage, there has to be a character there that has health left to move too. You have to have space left to move to.

Nothing says that a character cannot gain an upgrade if they already have three, though. Exactly the opposite - the rules say that if you ever have more than three upgrades, you must immediately discard until you only have three upgrades.

So you can move it, giving the character a fourth upgrade. The owner then chooses which upgrade to discard.

5 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Nothing says that a character cannot gain an upgrade if they already have three, though. Exactly the opposite - the rules say that if you ever have more than three upgrades, you must immediately discard until you only have three upgrades.

So you can move it, giving the character a fourth upgrade. The owner then chooses which upgrade to discard.

I agree with you. My argument is based on the definition of the words "valid destination" and what constitutes one. I was wrong on this one apparently, but my argument was still a sound one. Moral victory!

I have Training on my TIE Pilot and both dice are in the pool (One HAS to be marked for the Training and one HAS to be marked for the character)

My opponent claims and moves my Training over to my Tusken Raider. He has 3 upgrades currently on him.

I remove the TIE Pilot Training die and add a Tusken Raider die to the Training upgrade, if I chose to have it replace one of the other three already attached.

Say it isn't a training die, but a Holdout Blaster. Do you have to remove the die? Yes. Place the HB die on the card attached now to the TR.

52 minutes ago, Rogue 4 said:

I have Training on my TIE Pilot and both dice are in the pool (One HAS to be marked for the Training and one HAS to be marked for the character)

My opponent claims and moves my Training over to my Tusken Raider. He has 3 upgrades currently on him.

I remove the TIE Pilot Training die and add a Tusken Raider die to the Training upgrade, if I chose to have it replace one of the other three already attached.

Say it isn't a training die, but a Holdout Blaster. Do you have to remove the die? Yes. Place the HB die on the card attached now to the TR.

Why would you have to remove it? Nothing tells you to move the die from the pool, so you don't.

Your examples are very much not the same thing. In the Training example the second TIE Pilot die doesn't exist any more, so you must remove it. The Tusken Raider die didn't exist before the move, so was never rolled into the pool and cannot be in the pool. It's a completely different scenario from a moved upgrade, which already has the die in the pool.

16 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Why would you have to remove it? Nothing tells you to move the die from the pool, so you don't.

Your examples are very much not the same thing. In the Training example the second TIE Pilot die doesn't exist any more, so you must remove it. The Tusken Raider die didn't exist before the move, so was never rolled into the pool and cannot be in the pool. It's a completely different scenario from a moved upgrade, which already has the die in the pool.

If the TIE Pilot has a Holdout Blaster die in the pool, and the Holdout Blaster is moved to a Tusken Raider (who has or hasn't been activated, it's irrelevant ) the Holdout Blaster die is removed.

In my example, the Training example is to prove my point with the Holdout Blaster.

1 minute ago, Rogue 4 said:

If the TIE Pilot has a Holdout Blaster die in the pool, and the Holdout Blaster is moved to a Tusken Raider (who has or hasn't been activated, it's irrelevant ) the Holdout Blaster die is removed.

In my example, the Training example is to prove my point with the Holdout Blaster.

The Training example proves nothing, because it has nothing to do with the previous situation. It's a total Chewbacca defense.

For the Holdout Blaster, would you care to cite something that says to remove the die when the upgrade moves? Because there really isn't anything. Redeploy says you do, but this isn't redeploy (and there are other reasons for the die to be removed, which are also consistent with the general rules).

Unless something tells you to touch the die, you don't.

Buhallin is completely right on this.

With Training the die is removed as a side effect of it no longer existing. The die isn't inherent to Training in any way, training grants a the character a keyword of sorts.

With HB the die is inherent of the HB, and the HB hasn't left the players play area despite being moved. Nothing in the rules would imply that it is affected by this move if in the pool.

In the same way OWTF is not removed when it transitions to a support.

On 4/17/2017 at 11:48 AM, Rogue 4 said:

I have Training on my TIE Pilot and both dice are in the pool ( One HAS to be marked for the Training and one HAS to be marked for the character )

Why does one have to be marked for the Training? Elite is much like a keyword. Once a character is Elite, they get another die. The die is associated with the character, not the Training. If Training was removed, the character owner would get to remove either die of their choice. Unlike multiple of the same characters/upgrades, both of these die have one origination source, just like any other Elite die. Unless this has specifically been ruled differently, that's how it should work.

2 hours ago, gokubb said:

Why does one have to be marked for the Training? Elite is much like a keyword. Once a character is Elite, they get another die. The die is associated with the character, not the Training. If Training was removed, the character owner would get to remove either die of their choice. Unlike multiple of the same characters/upgrades, both of these die have one origination source, just like any other Elite die. Unless this has specifically been ruled differently, that's how it should work.

This... Training is an odd beast. It doesn't actually have its own die; it changes something on the character that results in them getting an extra die.

So here is the rulebook entry on playing upgrades, and I know it goes both ways, so in my instance I am right by putting the Training die on the upgrade, and you are right by placing it on the character card. I am sure they will clarify who actually gets to remove the Training die if the upgrade is gone. My guess is it will be the owner of Training that gets to choose.

••Most upgrades come with an extra die. When they are played, the player takes the matching die from their set aside dice and places it on the upgrade (or, for ease of use, they can also place it on that character instead since it is rolled along with the character’s dice).

2 hours ago, Rogue 4 said:

So here is the rulebook entry on playing upgrades, and I know it goes both ways, so in my instance I am right by putting the Training die on the upgrade, and you are right by placing it on the character card. I am sure they will clarify who actually gets to remove the Training die if the upgrade is gone. My guess is it will be the owner of Training that gets to choose.

••Most upgrades come with an extra die. When they are played, the player takes the matching die from their set aside dice and places it on the upgrade (or, for ease of use, they can also place it on that character instead since it is rolled along with the character’s dice).

Except Training doesn't have a matching die????

All training does is make a character elite, it does not actually give to a die.

The effect of making a character elite is that it gets a second die, this die is entirely generated from the character card.

I know this is very semantical but technically when the game started you had X die then when you play training you add Y die this means that X is quantifiable and bla bla. I dont know for sure but I really think the RRG will cover this.

If cargo hold skips upgrade restrictions it's the most stupid thing FFG invent so far in this game.

3 hours ago, NetCop said:

If cargo hold skips upgrade restrictions it's the most stupid thing FFG invent so far in this game.

I dunno. Ammo Belt exists and works on any upgrade instead of just weapons...

7 hours ago, NetCop said:

If cargo hold skips upgrade restrictions it's the most stupid thing FFG invent so far in this game.

There is no such thing as upgrade restrictions. There are play restrictions and that's it.

5 hours ago, Stu35 said:

I dunno. Ammo Belt exists and works on any upgrade instead of just weapons...

To be fair, sometimes flavor has to be compromised for playability. Maybe the designers conceptualized how they wanted Ammo Belt to work mechanically before they named it, so re-using Second Chance was an intended consequence.

Is anyone here familiar with top-down vs bottom-up set design?

3 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

To be fair, sometimes flavor has to be compromised for playability. Maybe the designers conceptualized how they wanted Ammo Belt to work mechanically before they named it, so re-using Second Chance was an intended consequence.

Is anyone here familiar with top-down vs bottom-up set design?

I am not.

Which one thinks its good game design to allow one to put not 5, not 10, but 15 extra wounds on a 10 wound character, and give them the ability to recycle this, potentially ad infinitum?

Is it the same one that allows for Planetarty Uprising hyperloop?

I'll be the last person to forgive them for poor card design and interaction, trust me.

Top-down set design is when the creators come up with a theme or flavor that they want to implement first, and then design mechanics to fit that theme. "We want to make a Jedi, what kind of dice / abilities would a Jedi have?". I get the impression that most of the cards designed thus far are top-down, owing to the strength of Star Wars as a setting.

Bottom-up set design is the opposite; mechanics and abilities are designed first, and then flavored to the best of their ability. Ammo Belt might be an example of that, or I could just be giving them too much credit. Generally, what kind of design theory is used for a set is decided upon in advance for that whole set. "We want to make a set that focuses on vehicles and abilities that synergize with and/or make supports more playable. This will be the 'vehicles matter' set."

26 minutes ago, Stu35 said:

I am not.

Which one thinks its good game design to allow one to put not 5, not 10, but 15 extra wounds on a 10 wound character, and give them the ability to recycle this, potentially ad infinitum?

Is it the same one that allows for Planetarty Uprising hyperloop?

That already exists in Han/Rey with Salvage Yard. We've been dealing with it since Awakenings released. It can be annoying, but at the end of the day I don't really mind it.

Planetary Uprising Hyperloop is a much different beast. Hopefully that gets nipped in the bud with the next revision of the RRG.

It will. If FFG deserves credit for one thing, it's their aversion to infinite combos.

Can Chirrut Imwe or Royal Guard have a blue ability attached to them with the Cargo Hold battlefield?