Does FFG realize that certain Tournaments are not allowing Minefield Mapper and Jabba, until a Clarification FAQ comes out. I don't think they do.

I mean, TOs can make whatever ruling they want on a card, per Tourney Rules, so that is fine.

In the same light, TOs COULD just rule based on RAI over an awkward card-ruining RAW if they wanted to.

Don't be afraid!

I think they expect TOs to be well-versed in the rules, according to the latest tournament guidelines update. That means the TO had read the rules and knows that Jabba works as intended (according to the rules insert with the CROC) and minefield mapper doesn't let you drop more bombs than you have equipped (according to once per opportunity rule).

Unless youre referring to some other issue, the blame for this falls on TOs and players and not FFG.

If TOs a flat-out disallowing the card and that bothers you, then you probably can complain to FFG in writing if it's a Store Championship or above (AFAIK for these events TOs have to obey FFGs published rules, including those on which products are legal to use).

11 minutes ago, WAC47 said:

according to once per opportunity rule

I keep reading and hearing that, but I've looked through the entire rulebooks (all three of them) and the FAQ, and while I did find various anecdotal rules that make stuff once-per-opportunity (like "cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round" and "card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specifed on the card"), there is no generic once-per-oportunity rule that would apply to Minefield Mapper.

Looking at all those "once per opportunity rules", I have not found one that would apply here. Would you be so kind to show me a rules quote that would apply to Minefield Mapper in a way that makes it impossible to choose the same card twice while resolving the Minefield Mapper's card ability?

2 minutes ago, haslo said:

I keep reading and hearing that, but I've looked through the entire rulebooks (all three of them) and the FAQ, and while I did find various anecdotal rules that make stuff once-per-opportunity (like "cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round" and "card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specifed on the card"), there is no generic once-per-oportunity rule that would apply to Minefield Mapper.

It's what makes the discussion so frustrating - the "once per opportunity"-people are probably correct but for another reason.

MM says "any number of your equipped bomb upgrade cards", of which I now - and after lengthy discussions - think it gives an upper limit of how often you're allowed to place tokens. This can be 3 at maximum and has nothing to do with the effect of extra munitions.

5 minutes ago, haslo said:

I keep reading and hearing that, but I've looked through the entire rulebooks (all three of them) and the FAQ, and while I did find various anecdotal rules that make stuff once-per-opportunity (like "cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round" and "card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specifed on the card"), there is no generic once-per-oportunity rule that would apply to Minefield Mapper.

Looking at all those "once per opportunity rules", I have not found one that would apply here. Would you be so kind to show me a rules quote that would apply to Minefield Mapper in a way that makes it impossible to choose the same card twice while resolving the Minefield Mapper's card ability?

I agree. I think the "once per opportunity" rule applies to triggers, not to costs.
I mean, a triggering condition can only trigger an effect once per opportunity. So for example, you cannot use the "About to reveal a maneuver" triggering condition to trigger Sabine's pilot ability (Immediately before you reveal your maneuver, you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action.) twice to do a boost and a barrel roll.

However Minefield Mapper is not triggered by the discarding of the bomb cards, but by ending the Place Forces step. Discarding bomb cards is a cost or intermediate mechanic part of the effect of Minefield Mapper, and so you should be able to keep discarding bomb cards as long as you can.

The recent interview video in Gamasutra seems to corroborate that Alex has playtested this card with the player covering the map with mines, and he was okay with it.
But FFG rulings have surprised me before, anyway.

57 minutes ago, eagletsi111 said:

Does FFG realize that certain Tournaments are not allowing Minefield Mapper and Jabba, until a Clarification FAQ comes out. I don't think they do.

How many?

The FAQ will come, but attempting some sort of emotional blackmail ("won't somebody think of the poor tournament goers!") seems like the wrong way to go about speeding up the process. Also, I'm sorry if your local TOs aren't capable of making a ruling themselves in the absence of an FAQ, but I don't think that's really FFG's fault.

4 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

Discarding bomb cards is a cost or intermediate mechanic part of the effect of Minefield Mapper, and so you should be able to keep discarding bomb cards as long as you can.

That isn't the bit that stops it from working that way. What stops it is the part that tells you 'you may discard any number of your equipped Bomb upgrade cards'. If you have two equipped Bomb upgrade cards, then 'any number' of them can only be 0, 1 or 2.

If it had said 'pick a number, discard that many of your Bomb upgrade cards' then that would be different, of course. But 'any number of X' is not the same as 'pick a number'.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

That isn't the bit that stops it from working that way. What stops it is the part that tells you 'you may discard any number of your equipped Bomb upgrade cards'. If you have two equipped Bomb upgrade cards, then 'any number' of them can only be 0, 1 or 2.

If it had said 'pick a number, discard that many of your Bomb upgrade cards' then that would be different, of course. But 'any number of X' is not the same as 'pick a number'.

I think that semantic nitpicking is leagues beyond FFG's language standards, given their well documented history of required clarifications over the years. When FFG has wanted to limit an effect to a particular number they have used "up to X". Like "up to your shield value" or "up to a maximum of 4 extra dice". In this case the would have used "up to the number of equipped bomb upgrade cards".

what other card could they not allow w/o a faq? Jabba? Who the hell would use him in a standard game anyway?

40 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

MM says "any number of your equipped bomb upgrade cards", of which I now - and after lengthy discussions - think it gives an upper limit of how often you're allowed to place tokens. This can be 3 at maximum and has nothing to do with the effect of extra munitions.

It's very possible that this is true, but as I've written elsewhere, there's really two ways to interpret the card:

• You may keep discarding while you have equipped bomb upgrade cards, one card at a time
• You look at how many bomb upgrade cards you have equipped and then you choose any number of them to discard at once

Both ways are absolutely valid interpretations IMHO, and there's nothing in the rules that favors one way over the other, as far as I can tell.

11 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

I think that semantic nitpicking is leagues beyond FFG's language standards, given their well documented history of required clarifications over the years. When FFG has wanted to limit an effect to a particular number they have used "up to X". Like "up to your shield value" or "up to a maximum of 4 extra dice". In this case the would have used "up to the number of equipped bomb upgrade cards".

'Semantic nitpicking'? That's literally what the words written on the card mean. I get that not everyone here is a native English speaker, but this kind of wilful ignorance is somewhat grating.

2 minutes ago, haslo said:

It's very possible that this is true, but as I've written elsewhere, there's really two ways to interpret the card:

• You may keep discarding while you have equipped bomb upgrade cards, one card at a time
• You look at how many bomb upgrade cards you have equipped and then you choose any number of them to discard at once

Both ways are absolutely valid interpretations IMHO, and there's nothing in the rules that favors one way over the other, as far as I can tell.

The first one you list isn't valid due to the order on the card:

During setup, after the "Place Forces" step, you may discard any number of your equipped Bomb upgrade cards. Place all corresponding bomb tokens in the play area beyond Range 3 of enemy ships.

The two sets are separate: first you discard the cards, then you place the tokens of the ones you discarded (notice the use of plurals). There is no loop here that allows you to begin the process - this is the one part where 'Once per opportunity' is actually relevant.

it is "up to the number of equipped bomb upgrade cards" because NEWS FLASH! Extra Munitions is not a bomb upgrade, it interrupts the discard.

Nothing says it happens one at a time, it says "Discard any number" then it says in a completely separate line, "Place all corresponding bomb tokens..." - you discard all of them THEN place bombs.

You have 2 upgrade cards that are bombs, thus you can select 2 to discard. The fact that theyre still there because of EM is irrelevant unless faq'd otherwise.
And honestly i hope they do faq it to say EM doesnt apply both to shut this argument up about it and to avoid the potential "bomb castles" which are going to be purely annoyance to deal with. Not exactly gamebreaking, but insanely irritating nonetheless.

46 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

The recent interview video in Gamasutra seems to corroborate that Alex has playtested this card with the player covering the map with mines, and he was okay with it.

This is why I think everyone is over-interpreting the rules. If you couldn't use the EM tokens, there is no way you could cover the field with mines.

I have to say this whole thing is one of my main gripes with FFG. We should have gotten some official statement day 2 about the actual effect of this card given the level of forum debate.

58 minutes ago, haslo said:

I keep reading and hearing that, but I've looked through the entire rulebooks (all three of them) and the FAQ, and while I did find various anecdotal rules that make stuff once-per-opportunity (like "cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round" and "card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specifed on the card"), there is no generic once-per-oportunity rule that would apply to Minefield Mapper.

Looking at all those "once per opportunity rules", I have not found one that would apply here. Would you be so kind to show me a rules quote that would apply to Minefield Mapper in a way that makes it impossible to choose the same card twice while resolving the Minefield Mapper's card ability?

I was referring to the first bullet point under Card Abilities on page 8 of the rules reference, which you mention.

Clearly we do not have the same interpretation of this rule as it applies to mindfield mapper.

4 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

this is the one part where 'Once per opportunity' is actually relevant.

Once per opportunity: "A card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card. "

Which card do you mean? MM or the bomb?

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

This is why I think everyone is over-interpreting the rules. If you couldn't use the EM tokens, there is no way you could cover the field with mines.

I have to say this whole thing is one of my main gripes with FFG. We should have gotten some official statement day 2 about the actual effect of this card given the level of forum debate.

At the same time: the Mynocks were saying on their podcast that they've had word from FFG that EM won't work with Minefield Mapper when the FAQ is out.

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Once per opportunity: "A card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card. "

Which card do you mean? MM or the bomb?

Minefield Mapper. The card itself doesn't give you the opportunity to loop around to the 'discard' portion of the text and you can't use the ability twice, as per the rule you just quoted.

3 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

At the same time: the Mynocks were saying on their podcast that they've had word from FFG that EM won't work with Minefield Mapper when the FAQ is out.

Something official would be nice. Seriously, how hard would it be?

OTOH, if what you say is true, then I don't understand EM at all. You can use a token as a card except when we say that's not true? Elegant simplicity is lost. . .

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Once per opportunity: "A card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card. "

Which card do you mean? MM or the bomb?

Mapper

Why? Because you select all your bombs to discard (ergo: 2) and discard them. You then place the corresponding tokens AFTER discarding all your bomb upgrades you wish to discard.
If you now try to claim you still have bomb upgrades because of EM, you are either repeating the first step (select and discard bomb upgrades) or repeating the entire card (place the 2 sets of bombs, then go back and discard again and place again)

Either way you are repeating something that you have already done, thus "Once per opportunity"

8 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

At the same time: the Mynocks were saying on their podcast that they've had word from FFG that EM won't work with Minefield Mapper when the FAQ is out.

56 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

The recent interview video in Gamasutra seems to corroborate that Alex has playtested this card with the player covering the map with mines, and he was okay with it.

That we are now resorting rumours and what interviews imply but don't confirm which "side" is correct illustrates the need to get this clarified asap. They did it with the Aggressor title I'm not sure why this can't be dealt with by a quick x.x.x.1 FAQ.

Edit wow this was a bit sterner than I intended... no offense intended to posters I quoted...

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Something official would be nice. Seriously, how hard would it be?

OTOH, if what you say is true, then I don't understand EM at all. You can use a token as a card except when we say that's not true? Elegant simplicity is lost. . .

You can't use it as a card, nowhere in the rules does it say that you can. It just gives you an ability that allows you to avoid discarding a card.

Just now, Sasajak said:

That we are now resorting rumours and what interviews imply but don't confirm which "side" is correct illustrates the need to get this clarified asap. They did it with the Aggressor title I'm not sure why this can't be dealt with by a quick x.x.x.1 FAQ.

I'd be happy even with one of Frank's email rulings.
The guy has been refuted many times by the FAQ, but it's still better than nothing.