I posted this over at BGG, but there hasn't been a satisfactory answer tended yet, so I thought I'd try over here.

The text for the wild Fungus flare states that if the player holding the card "discards" the card, then they lose the extra ships the flare allows them to hold around their system.

My question has to do with the meaning of the word "discard." Does the card mean that the ships are lost only if the player is forced to discard the card through some game effect, or does it also mean that if the holder loses the flare in some other way (say as a result of a compensation draw), then the ships go away?

I'm no pro, let's wait for them (Warp and so on), but as for me, I'd say you're right for the second answer : discard means "not to hold anymore and put onto the discard pile", so, no matter what way. The only ways that could not work would be, for instance, someone that takes your flare right from your hand. It is not discarded. Discarded in french means kind of "defaussed", where "defausse" precisely means "the pile of face-up thrown away cards", which helps better to understand what "discard" means. In english, that's harder, I think. Bah. Anway

In my opinion, this is the result of an unfortunate editing decision. Eon's original Wild Fungus said "When you lose this card...", and that answered the questions. I recommend you play it that way, and I suspect the next FAQ update will codify it as such.

I think Bill's right. Makes a lot more sense that way!

I remain unconvinced that this is a typo. We're playing it by strict adherence to the wording. "Discard" means just that: dropping the card into the discard pile, not simply losing it via an effect like a compensation draw. I don't see that the flare is broken or hopelessly overpowered if played strictly; it just makes it trickier to defeat. Like so many other seemingly unfair effects in CE, figuring out how to neutralize it is just part of the game.

King Friday said:

Uh ... then why did you ask the question in the first place? Sounds like you've got it all figured out.

I don't think anybody said it was "hopelessly overpowered". But it is counter-intuitive if that was the intent — and very clunky in either case. It's a loose end, and there's never really a good excuse for those. Hence it seems pretty obvious to me it was an oversight, since I basically have to choose between "editing oversight" and "inexplicably pointless redesign clouded by poor writing".

Geez, Bill, relax. I asked the question in the first place because I was genuinely curious (and remain so). During the three weeks since I made the first post I've had time to play more with the card and to think about its impact on both sides of the issue. In doing so I've come to the conclusion that until I hear otherwise from FFG I don't think it breaks the game to play the card as written. I was simply voicing that opinion, not trying to pick a fight. For what it's worth, I think you make a reasonable argument that its a typo, just not a convincing one. I'm still looking for FFG's take.