Does the VCX-100 still have the additional attack abilities detailed in the Phantom title which reference the "Ghost" specifically, if Boba Fett crew has caused the Ghost title to be discarded?

After Han Solo (HOR pilot) has been placed on the opponent's side of the board, can the opponent place remaining ships at range 1-3 of Han Solo?

3 hours ago, ZealuxMyr said:

Thank you, I'm working on a write up for our local store championship I am TO/Judge for this weekend - I have some questions that haven't been asked by those planning to attend yet to add to my list.

Also: 3a & b have been resolved (after nearly a month of the ship being released) because someone finally read the rules insert that comes with the ship. Jabba the Hutt's card is the rules reference card for Illicit tokens, him being in play is not contingent on this.

I have a friend running a SC in early August, so I'm also thinking about things that may come up. I have not seen the C-Roc insert or seen full agreement in the forums, so I am still including those questions. Cloak tokens also have a reference card that would seem to resolve the Perma-cloak question, but there still is disagreement.

1 hour ago, Joe Censored said:

After Han Solo (HOR pilot) has been placed on the opponent's side of the board, can the opponent place remaining ships at range 1-3 of Han Solo?

As long as they are in their deployment zone, there is absolutely nothing preventing this. The only time this is checked is for placement of Han. It doesn't ever re-check, it's simply the rule for placing Han, who has already been placed.

35 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

I have a friend running a SC in early August, so I'm also thinking about things that may come up. I have not seen the C-Roc insert or seen full agreement in the forums, so I am still including those questions. Cloak tokens also have a reference card that would seem to resolve the Perma-cloak question, but there still is disagreement.

... Go find the insert? Or a picture of it? Agreement in the forums is hard to come by on the best of days.

The Cloak reference card and the issue with the perma-cloak are not related. RAW (following the Cloak reference card) says that perma-cloak is fine. Until answered otherwise by FFG, this is the correct answer. The question is, is that really how it should be, considering the Cloaking Device, the upgrade that gave the token, is taken away. It's a RAI question, and is actually something that simply needs to be FAQ'd, as opposed to straight up errata'd (as should be the case for Jabba).

9 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

10) Is Sabine Wren (crew) a mandatory effect that must be used on the first friendly bomb that detonates each round or is it at the option of the player?

This isn't a FAQ at all? Read what's on the card, don't read what isn't on the card. "Once per round" is just that... Once per round. Meaning it is kosher to activate once, anytime during the round. If it was a mandatory effect, it would say, "the first time a friendly bomb...".

Some of these questions sound like newer players trying to piss off a TO, more than actual legitimate "Frequently Asked Questions."

34 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Go find the insert? Or a picture of it? Agreement in the forums is hard to come by on the best of days.

The Cloak reference card and the issue with the perma-cloak are not related. RAW (following the Cloak reference card) says that perma-cloak is fine. Until answered otherwise by FFG, this is the correct answer. The question is, is that really how it should be, considering the Cloaking Device, the upgrade that gave the token, is taken away. It's a RAI question, and is actually something that simply needs to be FAQ'd, as opposed to straight up errata'd (as should be the case for Jabba).

Tried to find the C-Roc insert and had no luck. Apparently people who have read it still disagree on whether it is clear, which is why it needs to be addressed.

The point of the questions IS to clarify the RAW vs RAI. Cloak reference card is what defines what the cloak token does so is totally related to the Perma-cloak issue. At least one TO ruled you could not perma-cloak in a SC, so there is disagreement on what the correct answer is. Only FFG can define the final answer.

33 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

This isn't a FAQ at all? Read what's on the card, don't read what isn't on the card. "Once per round" is just that... Once per round. Meaning it is kosher to activate once, anytime during the round. If it was a mandatory effect, it would say, "the first time a friendly bomb...".

Some of these questions sound like newer players trying to piss off a TO, more than actual legitimate "Frequently Asked Questions."

If you read the card, it says " before a friendly bomb token is removed..."

This can be read as meaning the first of multiple tokens to be removed. Because there is no "may" on the card, the way it is written does not clearly state that you can choose when to use Sabine. A strict interpretation could say you must use it on the first opportunity.

The generally accepted ruling and practice is that you can choose when to use Sabine, but I can understand why the person asked the question.

6 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

I have a friend running a SC in early August, so I'm also thinking about things that may come up. I have not seen the C-Roc insert or seen full agreement in the forums, so I am still including those questions. Cloak tokens also have a reference card that would seem to resolve the Perma-cloak question, but there still is disagreement.

It'll take some time for word to get out, but this is is pretty clear. Jabba's tokens work the same way bomb detonations do: the rules (which are never out of play) say to refer to the parent card (regardless of whether it i in play).

The C-ROC's a mess. Did an earlier version get sent to the printer by accident or something?

I would add:
- Can a ship spend the Target Lock token of a friendly ship that has targeting synchronizer to reroll its attack dice? And can it spend it to use an attack ability? And a non-attack ability?

And as a side petition about the same topic:
- Can you please re-write the answer at page 22 about "examples of game effects that instructs you to spend a target lock", so it answers the actual question?

ALso, if we're on rewrites, can they rewrite that HORRIBLE Hotshot Copilot 'clarification' so that it actually clarifies how the card works rather than obscuring it further...

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

It'll take some time for word to get out, but this is is pretty clear. Jabba's tokens work the same way bomb detonations do: the rules (which are never out of play) say to refer to the parent card (regardless of whether it i in play).

It says to follow the card. There is still debate on this.

so seriously... was the OP's point to initiate a debate on every hotly debated question on this forum, or to *just* compile which questions are hotly debated? Because it seems like this thread is going both directions, and it could easily win the record for the largest thread ever.

1 hour ago, USCGrad90 said:

It says to follow the card. There is still debate on this.

So do the rules for bombs, and no-one have ever made the same argument for them. Unless someone can demonstrate a difference between referencing Jabba's card and referencing a bomb's card for detonation timing, there is no question here. Of course there is debate, though, FFG left people thinking it didn't work for months because they gaffed on the spoiling.

26 minutes ago, Juunon said:

so seriously... was the OP's point to initiate a debate on every hotly debated question on this forum, or to *just* compile which questions are hotly debated? Because it seems like this thread is going both directions, and it could easily win the record for the largest thread ever.

My intent is to try to compile the hotly debated questions - particularly on those items where wording brings into question RAW (rules as written) versus RAI (rules as intended.)

Any comments I make are meant to justify the questions themselves and not necessarily present my opinion on the particular issue.

Of course... there's going to debate on all that is posted.

7 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

So do the rules for bombs, and no-one have ever made the same argument for them. Unless someone can demonstrate a difference between referencing Jabba's card and referencing a bomb's card for detonation timing, there is no question here. Of course there is debate, though, FFG left people thinking it didn't work for months because they gaffed on the spoiling.

Whether or not they patched it with the rulebook, they goofed on the card. It could have trivially been designed in such a way as to avoid the whole debate by making EM tokens a proper reference card way back in Wave 7 and just having Jabba put EM tokens on the Illicits. I'm still baffled as to why that didn't happen.

5 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

So do the rules for bombs, and no-one have ever made the same argument for them. Unless someone can demonstrate a difference between referencing Jabba's card and referencing a bomb's card for detonation timing, there is no question here. Of course there is debate, though, FFG left people thinking it didn't work for months because they gaffed on the spoiling.

Bomb Token reference cards and the Bomb upgrade cards detail the use of bomb tokens. This detail specifies what the tokens do - INDEPENDENT of the upgrade cards. There is also more significant detail on how those tokens are removed.

The C-Roc insert states that Illicit Tokens are part of (DEPENDENT on) the Jabba crew upgrade ability. The Jabba crew card uses the word "you" which has been specifically defined to "refer to the ship to which the card is assigned."

13 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

Bomb Token reference cards and the Bomb upgrade cards detail the use of bomb tokens. This detail specifies what the tokens do - INDEPENDENT of the upgrade cards. There is also more significant detail on how those tokens are removed.

The C-Roc insert states that Illicit Tokens are part of (DEPENDENT on) the Jabba crew upgrade ability. The Jabba crew card uses the word "you" which has been specifically defined to "refer to the ship to which the card is assigned."

Meh. It's posts like this, and most of this thread, that are really bringing the game down. People debating clear rules, or trying to obscure otherwise clear rules, just so they can demand clarification from FFG.

This is how we get bloated FAQ/errata, how we become completely inaccessible to newer players, and how, honestly, everyone gets sick of having to argue repeatedly over every new release.

Not saying there aren't some real issues still present in the game, due to sloppy rules writing, but most of these are not that.

10 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

Tried to find the C-Roc insert and had no luck. Apparently people who have read it still disagree on whether it is clear, which is why it needs to be addressed.

The point of the questions IS to clarify the RAW vs RAI. Cloak reference card is what defines what the cloak token does so is totally related to the Perma-cloak issue. At least one TO ruled you could not perma-cloak in a SC, so there is disagreement on what the correct answer is. Only FFG can define the final answer.

This is an example of a single TO making a mistake, not a larger rule question. Card has a fully functional RAW answer. TOs, unfortunately, have no requirements on training or competency to run tournaments, so they are hardly the benchmark for an FAQ (on an individual basis).

23 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

Bomb Token reference cards and the Bomb upgrade cards detail the use of bomb tokens. This detail specifies what the tokens do - INDEPENDENT of the upgrade cards. There is also more significant detail on how those tokens are removed.

Yes, and one of those details is to refer to the upgrade card to determine when the bomb detonates. That card can (and often is) out of play at the time (from being discarded to drop the bomb). That sets the precedent and the rule for illicit tokens follow it, however clumsily. If illicit tokens don't work after Jabba leaves play, then bombs don't explode after the parent card leaves play. Pick one.

23 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

The C-Roc insert states that Illicit Tokens are part of (DEPENDENT on) the Jabba crew upgrade ability. The Jabba crew card uses the word "you" which has been specifically defined to "refer to the ship to which the card is assigned."

Factually incorrect: "The word “you” on a Ship card refers to the corresponding ship. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless the ability specifies otherwise." —X-Wing Rules reference

The token has the ability as Jabba's card presents it because the rule is that the token is used, not that you use Jabba and thus discard the token. Thus, then using a token, the 'corresponding ship' is the ship the token is on.

32 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Factually incorrect: "The word “you” on a Ship card refers to the corresponding ship. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless the ability specifies otherwise." —X-Wing Rules reference

Please continue on to the next bullet in the "Card Abilities" section on page 8 of the rules reference:

The word “you” on Damage cards and Upgrade cards refers to the ship that has those cards. These cards only affect the ship that they are assigned to unless the card specifies otherwise."

Rightly on wrongly, the way the Jabba crew upgrade is written, is states that when "you" are instructed to discard an upgrade, "you" may discard the illicit token.

A better way to word it without the confusion would have been:

"When a SHIP is instructed to discard an Upgrade card, that SHIP may discard 1 Illicit token on that upgrade card instead"

Because of the wording, RAW versus RAI exists.

4 hours ago, Willy Jarque said:

I would add:
- Can a ship spend the Target Lock token of a friendly ship that has targeting synchronizer to reroll its attack dice? And can it spend it to use an attack ability? And a non-attack ability?

And as a side petition about the same topic:
- Can you please re-write the answer at page 22 about "examples of game effects that instructs you to spend a target lock", so it answers the actual question?

I think the FAQ addresses this. I have emphasized the key words to show the 3 examples mentioned.

Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock?
A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify
Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to
another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

Is there any current debate or disagreement on this that would warrant further clarification? I have not seen anything recently.

35 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

I think the FAQ addresses this. I have emphasized the key words to show the 3 examples mentioned.

Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock?
A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify
Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to
another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

Is there any current debate or disagreement on this that would warrant further clarification? I have not seen anything recently.

Ctrl C, Ctrl V.

Just incase this is now in my pre-event local FAQ document to be published on our page Thursday evening

48 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

I think the FAQ addresses this. I have emphasized the key words to show the 3 examples mentioned.

Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock?
A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify
Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to
another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

Is there any current debate or disagreement on this that would warrant further clarification? I have not seen anything recently.

Willy's point is valid. The things you have highlighted miss the point entirely. To be clearer:

Quote

"instruct a player to spend a target lock"
"spending a target lock"

Answer does not fit the question. I have since come to realise that the problem isn't Targeting Synchroniser at all but the widespread and grossly inappropriate use of 'instructed to' where there is no such instruction. Clarity would be nice to set the explicit president, but in the situation implied, the player is not being instructed to spend a target lock, thus there is a problem.

21 hours ago, jmswood said:

The debate on this got heated a couple months ago. I submitted a rule question to FFG and never received a response.

Maybe because its impossible for a sigh and a head shake to be properly conveyed through an e-mail.

It's really dumb that FFG didn't state this explicitly in the new rulebook, but its also really dumb that people need a fundamental part of the game (that's been there for 5 years) to be FAQ'ed INTO the game.