I think these problems are exacerbated and escalated by those who believe this applies to the "common sense" rule, and then lambast people who don't seem to "get it". The fact of the matter is that some view ambiguity where others view clarity, and the fact that ambiguity exists (due to inconsistent writing on FFG's part) doesn't necessarily suggest a lesser competency level, or inability to comprehend. It simply means that there's a different way to interpret these rules-as-written. There's no need to take personal shots or backhanded comments, nor is there any need for any of us to act less civilized to each other. While I can appreciate the efforts made by the OP here, can we make a solid attempt to not insult one another? These threads can get pretty harsh otherwise.

10 minutes ago, enigmahfc said:

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.

The debate actually started with people who came into the game post-TFA Core set and didn't know about the origanal rule. To those of us who have been around since before the TFA Core, the no measuring rule is a fundamental part of the game. However, the classic "we've always done it this way" mentality is a fundamental problem in communities of all kinds. You can't blame new players for something that wasn't written in their first Rules Reference. Some players try to take advantage of the inconsistency, but the burden of blame rests squarely on FFG for omitting a fundamental rule from the most recent, most readily available rule book.

2 Nym Questions

Rebel Nym: If you use his ability on a cluster mine, prox mine, or conner net token to not detonate when say a friendly ship flies through it and later in the activation phase say an enemy ship lands on it, does it go off? Basically does the stopping of the detonation persist the whole round OR only until another ship's maneuver template or base overlap it?

Scum Nym: "When a friendly ship is defending, if the attacker measures range through a friendly bomb token, the defender may add 1 evade result." Is this a case of only 1 added evade result no matter how many friendly bomb tokens the attack is measured through? Or does having more friendly bomb tokens add more evade results? (I'm assuming the first is the correct answer).

15 minutes ago, RStan said:

2 Nym Questions

Rebel Nym: If you use his ability on a cluster mine, prox mine, or conner net token to not detonate when say a friendly ship flies through it and later in the activation phase say an enemy ship lands on it, does it go off? Basically does the stopping of the detonation persist the whole round OR only until another ship's maneuver template or base overlap it?

Further clarification, if a ship stops ON a cluster/prox/connor does the bomb go off at the start of the next round, or only if an additional move would cause the template or ship to overlap it.

41 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

Further clarification, if a ship stops ON a cluster/prox/connor does the bomb go off at the start of the next round, or only if an additional move would cause the template or ship to overlap it.

1 hour ago, RStan said:

2 Nym Questions

Rebel Nym: If you use his ability on a cluster mine, prox mine, or conner net token to not detonate when say a friendly ship flies through it and later in the activation phase say an enemy ship lands on it, does it go off? Basically does the stopping of the detonation persist the whole round OR only until another ship's maneuver template or base overlap it?

Scum Nym: "When a friendly ship is defending, if the attacker measures range through a friendly bomb token, the defender may add 1 evade result." Is this a case of only 1 added evade result no matter how many friendly bomb tokens the attack is measured through? Or does having more friendly bomb tokens add more evade results? (I'm assuming the first is the correct answer).

Rebel Nym: "Once per round, you may prevent a friendly bomb from detonating."
Proximity Mines: "When a ship's base or maneuver template overlaps this token, this token detonates."

His ability says nothing about "for the rest of the round", just that it fails to detonate when it checks for detonation. The reason 'reveal' bombs don't go off is because they only check for detonation once. It's a weird rules quirk, but that's how it works.

Since every triggering event is independent, you could use his ability to stop a mine from detonating when the first ship overlaps it, but you would have to use it again for the second ship. Since his ability is once per round, the mine will go off.

1 hour ago, RStan said:

2 Nym Questions

Rebel Nym: If you use his ability on a cluster mine, prox mine, or conner net token to not detonate when say a friendly ship flies through it and later in the activation phase say an enemy ship lands on it, does it go off? Basically does the stopping of the detonation persist the whole round OR only until another ship's maneuver template or base overlap it?

Scum Nym: "When a friendly ship is defending, if the attacker measures range through a friendly bomb token, the defender may add 1 evade result." Is this a case of only 1 added evade result no matter how many friendly bomb tokens the attack is measured through? Or does having more friendly bomb tokens add more evade results? (I'm assuming the first is the correct answer).

Is it fair to wait until the release tomorrow to determine if any of this is addressed in the content included with the Scurrg Bomber expansion?

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Willy's point is valid. The things you have highlighted miss the point entirely.

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.

Fair enough. I added a question regarding this. I did not know it was still being debated. My impression was that after the FAQ release it was agreed that Targeting Synchronizer could be used that way, but the current answer in the FAQ is poorly worded so as to not be 100% clear on whether being "instructed to spend a target lock and "spending a target lock" actually mean the same thing.

6 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

Is it fair to wait until the release tomorrow to determine if any of this is addressed in the content included with the Scurrg Bomber expansion?

Yes, and I really hope it is. But the small and 'medium' ships don't come with a book so our only hope is that there is a ref card, and I doubt there will be unfortunately.

4 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

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.

I am sorry if you feel that way, but I think the questions posted reflect recent issues that have been debated in the forums without 100% resolution due to either ambiguous wording by FFG or inconsistencies from upgrade to upgrade.

Many of the questions come from newer players and being dismissive or those questions without detailed thought and discussion is part of what closes off the game to newer players. Pre-measuring is one example that most of us know is not OK from the past, but newer players have no reference to know they can't do it.

Do you have any suggestions for issues that need to be addressed?

I've heard this is indeed how it works, but it would be good to be in a FAQ: If Palp is declared on the lightweight frame roll, can you then proceed to change any result in your result pool? (i.e. the die/dice previously rolled).

13 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

Fair enough. I added a question regarding this. I did not know it was still being debated. My impression was that after the FAQ release it was agreed that Targeting Synchronizer could be used that way, but the current answer in the FAQ is poorly worded so as to not be 100% clear on whether being "instructed to spend a target lock and "spending a target lock" actually mean the same thing.

I'm just trying to get a crystal clear ruling of TS, because, as you have noticed both card and FAQ are very poorly worded.
And don't forget the other parts of my question. Colzet's ability is not resolved during an attack, but it is mentioned in that answer. I don't think that means TS can be used with him. And that FaQ is not about TS, after all.
Too many problems coming from what is meant to be a clarification, IMHO.

1 hour ago, Willy Jarque said:

I'm just trying to get a crystal clear ruling of TS, because, as you have noticed both card and FAQ are very poorly worded.
And don't forget the other parts of my question. Colzet's ability is not resolved during an attack, but it is mentioned in that answer. I don't think that means TS can be used with him. And that FaQ is not about TS, after all.
Too many problems coming from what is meant to be a clarification, IMHO.

Colzet is unquestionable: TS absolutely DOES NOT work with his ability. It's not happening whilst he's attacking, TS doesn't trigger.

Oh yeah here's one I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: whether Cikatro and Azmorigan can a: swap to unique things that already exist on the board (probably not); b: swap to unique things that have already been discarded from play(????), c: swap to things which couldn't normally be equipped(almost certainly not).

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Oh yeah here's one I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: whether Cikatro and Azmorigan can a: swap to unique things that already exist on the board (probably not); b: swap to unique things that have already been discarded from play(????), c: swap to things which couldn't normally be equipped(almost certainly not).

Rules Reference, page 19 under Uniques Names: "A player cannot field two or more cards that share the same unique name..."

I think your questions could be summarized by asking for a definition of the word "field" in game context.

I also think the word "unique" should be enough. I have a hard time believing anyone is genuinely confused by the concept of unique names. I'm betting anyone trying to use more than one unique name in any game format is really just looking for an edge.

a and c I think are pretty clear cut tbh, but the possibility of using a Cloaking Device on one ship, discarding it due to its effect, then swapping to it on another ship seems like a legitimately unclear one. If it's been discarded, it's not in play for any purpose except calculating squad points. SO it's not currently being fielded.

But as ever, I'm not wanting to have the argument again in this thread, just reporting that the question is unresolved.

No timing step is specified for Lt Kestal's ability. What timing should it have?

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

No timing step is specified for Lt Kestal's ability. What timing should it have?

This definitely needs an FAQ entry. Common sense says it should take place during the "attacker modifies defense dice" step, because otherwise it does nothing useful. However, most other abilities that cancel results take place at the start of the "compare results" step.

31 minutes ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

This definitely needs an FAQ entry. Common sense says it should take place during the "attacker modifies defense dice" step, because otherwise it does nothing useful. However, most other abilities that cancel results take place at the start of the "compare results" step.

True, but don't abilities that cancel during the 'compare results' specifically say that is when they are canceled? Otherwise it is done during your modify dice opportunity.

1 hour ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

This definitely needs an FAQ entry. Common sense says it should take place during the "attacker modifies defense dice" step, because otherwise it does nothing useful. However, most other abilities that cancel results take place at the start of the "compare results" step.

It could equally fit at the same timing step as C-3PO, Palpatine.

36 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

True, but don't abilities that cancel during the 'compare results' specifically say that is when they are canceled? Otherwise it is done during your modify dice opportunity.

Typically, but as with AC, this just doesn't function at that stage, so it must take place some other time.

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Typically, but as with AC, this just doesn't function at that stage, so it must take place some other time.

Not sure what you mean, AC does modify during the modify dice stage.

1 hour ago, xbeaker said:

Not sure what you mean, AC does modify during the modify dice stage.

They had to errata Accuracy Corrector to make it specifically happen during Attacker Modifies Attack Dice (when at the time we had a rule that said cancellation effects all happened during Compare Results), because otherwise it wouldn't work right.

14 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

They had to errata Accuracy Corrector to make it specifically happen during Attacker Modifies Attack Dice (when at the time we had a rule that said cancellation effects all happened during Compare Results), because otherwise it wouldn't work right.

FFG also had to put Crack Shot in to cancel results at the start of the "Compare Results" step. You would think after 2 cases of errata, they would have learned their lesson with this one. Sounds like a valid question to add to the list.

42 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

They had to errata Accuracy Corrector to make it specifically happen during Attacker Modifies Attack Dice (when at the time we had a rule that said cancellation effects all happened during Compare Results), because otherwise it wouldn't work right.

Ah, that makes sense. Sorry, the way it read first I wasn't sure what Thespaceinvader meant.

11 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Colzet is unquestionable: TS absolutely DOES NOT work with his ability. It's not happening whilst he's attacking, TS doesn't trigger.

Targeting Sychronizer has 2 sentences:

1) When a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked, the friendly ship treats the "Attack (Target Lock)" header as "Attack:."

2) If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.

"That ship" refers to "a friendly ship at Range 1-2" that has attacked a ship locked by the ship equipped with TS.

Assuming Colzet made an attack that round against the locked ship - he is still "that ship" during the end phase. The second sentence of TS doesn't specify that the game effect has to occur during the Combat phase.

The point that the FAQ refers to Colzet's ability at all - makes this a valid question and further demonstrates how bad the wording of the answer in the FAQ actually is.

I think it's a question worth asking and put it on my list.