Was playing a game tonight vs a VI Ahsoka with Captured TIE. My opponent stated that the card was errataed recently and protected the tie against pilot skills equal or lower. My understanding is that it only works against lower ps pilots. I had Quickdraw which should have been able to attack the tie at will, correct? for the sake of not arguing, I took his word for it knowing that i was 99.9% sure he was wrong. I can't find anything about a change to this card.

If there were errata, which there is no, ask him to point it out to you in the FAQ and then make sure he is using a legitimate FAQ.

Sounds to me like you had an opponent who was willing to cheat in order to win. If the situations were reversed I highly doubt he would "remember" the so called errata that isn't.

I don't think anything has changed. There would be a new FAQ if this were true and there are a lot of other things that need to be clarified. I believe the burden of proof would be for him to show you where he got that from. If you play him again, ask him where he came up with that.

9 hours ago, StevenO said:

If there were errata, which there is no, ask him to point it out to you in the FAQ and then make sure he is using a legitimate FAQ.

Sounds to me like you had an opponent who was willing to cheat in order to win. If the situations were reversed I highly doubt he would "remember" the so called errata that isn't.

His opponent may not have been cheating. The player may have seen or heard a discussion from somebody saying that it "should" be pilots of equal or lower skill instead of just pilots of lower skill and incorrectly assumed that there was an erratum to that effect. I try not to immediately jump to a conclusion on cheating - which is why I recommended the OP ask him about it the next time he sees him. People make honest mistakes or misunderstand the rules, so it's worth it to be a little patient when something is questionable.

This is why everybody gets so fired up when FFG produces something that is not 100% clear on how it is worded. There is a growing list of items that need to be added with a new FAQ. I'm eagerly awaiting the Tie Agressor so I can throw on that IG-2000 title - BEFORE FFG decides to update the FAQ.

4 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

His opponent may not have been cheating. The player may have seen or heard a discussion from somebody saying that it "should" be pilots of equal or lower skill instead of just pilots of lower skill and incorrectly assumed that there was an erratum to that effect. I try not to immediately jump to a conclusion on cheating - which is why I recommended the OP ask him about it the next time he sees him. People make honest mistakes or misunderstand the rules, so it's worth it to be a little patient when something is questionable.

This is why everybody gets so fired up when FFG produces something that is not 100% clear on how it is worded. There is a growing list of items that need to be added with a new FAQ. I'm eagerly awaiting the Tie Agressor so I can throw on that IG-2000 title - BEFORE FFG decides to update the FAQ.

That is fair enough but when the card clearly says one thing and the person who is hurt most by this unknown errata doesn't believe it then it should be on the one claiming it to have proof that it exists. Without that proof it should be as the card says or at worse that coin flip to setting an "unclear rule."

pretty sure this was not done maliciously. I would have verified it on the spot if I had the time but i was rushing and it was just a friendly game. Thank you for the confirmation of the non existent errata. I'll be sure to let him know.