From the Inquisitor discussion on the main forum, please explain why I'm incorrect. Please include actual excerpts from the various printed rules references, and not speculation.

It's because of the wording.
The Inquisitor need for the enemy ship to change it's own speed, but in case of Konstantine it is you who are changing the enemy ship's speed

Where does it say the Inquisitor needs a ship to change its own speed?

The subject of the sentence on the Grand Inquisitor upgrade is the ship (enemy ship, to be precise). Therefore it must be the thing doing the changing in order for the effect to take place. If it had been worded differently, eg. "When the speed of an enemy ship...changes...", then it might have been different. In that example, the subject of the sentence is the speed itself. In that case, any time the speed is changed would have triggered the effect, regardless of the source of that change.

2 hours ago, emsgoof said:

From the Inquisitor discussion on the main forum, please explain why I'm incorrect. Please include actual excerpts from the various printed rules references, and not speculation.

"When an enemy ship ... changes its speed..."

When- A When effect occurs the specific moment that the specified event occurs..

FAQ- Cards effect resolves when the value on an enemy ships speed dial is changed.

In none of that does it say only when your opponent chooses to change the ship speed.

Why would Konstantine not trigger the Inquisitor?

There is an older thread on this, as well... I’ll find it when I’m off my phone

23 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

There is an older thread on this, as well... I’ll find it when I’m off my phone

Discussed here , but I'm pretty sure there was a more relevant thread on it too... I just haven't found it yet.

Nevermind, @DiabloAzul linked it from that thread:

The Grand Inquisitors trigger is laid out in the most recent FAQ. He triggers when an enemy ship changes its speed dial. It doesn't have to be the controlling players decision, simply the dial changing.

I'd post a link, but I'm on my phone and I'm too technologically backwards to figure that out.

29 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

The Grand Inquisitors trigger is laid out in the most recent FAQ. He triggers when an enemy ship changes its speed dial. It doesn't have to be the controlling players decision, simply the dial changing.

I'd post a link, but I'm on my phone and I'm too technologically backwards to figure that out.

The FAQ doesn't change the wording on the card. It just lets you know the timing of the event (when an enemy ship changes its speed dial).

Since the wording of the card isn't altered, the restriction that the enemy ship must change it's speed is still there.

2 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Where does it say the Inquisitor needs a ship to change its own speed?

Because it says "When an enemy ship at distance 1-5 changes its speed...", so it should be the enemy ship changing the speed.
If it said "When an enemy ship at distance 1-5 has its speed changed..." or something like that, more generic, then Konstantine could apply

4 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Where does it say the Inquisitor needs a ship to change its own speed?

I was somewhat sceptical about whether or not it mattered who changes the speed too, until I just now realised that the FAQ also says that Konstantine does not trigger Thruster Fissure ("when you change your speed by one or more, suffer one damage"). I missed that before somehow, but it seems pretty clear with that in mind.

2 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Because it says "When an enemy ship at distance 1-5 changes its speed...", so it should be the enemy ship changing the speed.
If it said "When an enemy ship at distance 1-5 has its speed changed..." or something like that, more generic, then Konstantine could apply

Are those things different, though? I can't think of any rules interaction in the game where they are. (In X-Wing, yes, absolutely - but not in Armada, that I can recall)

Do you have any citation to indicate those are different things (X effect by one players card != X effect by the other players card), rather than the same thing (X effect = X effect)?

Considering how pedantic we are with “ship” and “other” ship , the precedence is not much of a stretch.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Considering how pedantic we are with “ship” and “other” ship , the precedence is not much of a stretch.

Perhaps, but it is still a stretch. And the latest FAQ does say:

"This card’s effect resolves when the value on an enemy ship’s speed dial is changed."

...so either the FAQ entry is answering a completely-unnecessary question that nobody was asking on 'at what point in a turn does the effect occur'...or FFG is trying to tell us that 'X effect = X effect' and it doesn't matter for ol' Inqy what was the source of the effect, just what the result of it is. (I don't think the comparison to 'Squall' is particularly appropriate, because 'Squall' had the fairly vague 'When you activate...' as its trigger. That's a somewhat lengthy process, and it sort of matters a lot when in that sequence the title works. Mr. Heli-saber doesn't have that sort of ambiguity in the timing on his card to have needed a similar clarification.)

Because: hurray for English, where words have multiple meanings! ("When" can mean either of 'at what time' - which I understand to be your argument; or it can mean 'in what circumstances' - which is the counter-argument)

3 hours ago, Democratus said:

The FAQ doesn't change the wording on the card. It just lets you know the timing of the event (when an enemy ship changes its speed dial).

Since the wording of the card isn't altered, the restriction that the enemy ship must change it's speed is still there.

No, the FAQ does not change the wording on the card, it simply clarifies the designers intent:

The Grand Inquisitor: "This card's effect resolves when the value on an enemy ship's speed dial is changed"

What is the point of the FAQ if it's meant to keep reading the card in the same light? The question it is clearing up is whether The Grand Inquisitor would trigger when a ship TEMPORARILY changes speed (overlap, for instance), which it does not, since it's dial is not changed.

Without the FAQ being so blunt about the trigger timing, I can appreciate that the possible intent was that the controlling player changed it's speed purposely. However, whether the controlling player wanted to or not, his ship HAS changed it's speed.

Concerning the Thruster Fissure Damage card FAQ: This is clearing up and ammending a very specific interaction with Admiral Konstantine. I would agree it could almost set a precedent, were it not for the very direct wording of the FAQ specifically stating the trigger condition for The Grand Inquisitor.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. The wording on the actual Grand Inquisitor card may be a little sloppy (hence an FAQ appeared), but the FAQ reads pretty absolute.

In light of the FAQ entry, I will change my answer: whenever the enemy's speed dial changes, the Grand Inquisitor is eligible to resolve his effect. Thus Konstantine's ability qualifies, while the G-8 Experimental Projector does not.

Me too, I totally missed that FAQ, I was just trying to answer why it could be that it wouldn't work with Konstantine's effect

10 hours ago, xanderf said:

...so either the FAQ entry is answering a completely-unnecessary question that nobody was asking on 'at what point in a turn does the effect occur'...

People also asked about temporary speed changes which don't change the dial. That could be the answer to that question.

10 hours ago, xanderf said:

Because: hurray for English, where words have multiple meanings! ("When" can mean either of 'at what time' - which I understand to be your argument; or it can mean 'in what circumstances' - which is the counter-argument)

It is not a question about words's meaning rather than structure's meaning. A subject is a subject and despite the fact that English (as any other language) has multiple meanings for the same word, she is not Konstantin in this context.

If when an enemy ship changes its speed was written to point to whenever the enemy speed is changed is something impossible to know from the card wording. Considering that we are talking about rules, the correct assumption is to think that its meaning is the most restricted one, cause precision is one of the main goals of that kind of formal speech (if the writer is good on that is a completely different topic).

However I didn't read the FAQ about this yet so I don't have an opinion about it.

After reading the FAQ I must say it is quite clear to me.

1. The inquisitor trigger when an enemy ship changes its speed.

2. Konstatin changes the speed.

3. Konstatin's FAQ also reinforces the point 2 saying saying if admiral konstatin's effect changes...

4. Inquisitor's FAQ does not necessarily change the timing. As it was said, it is not an errata. An enemy ship must still change its speed to trigger. The FAQ just clarify it is done by changing the speed dial. That's is an important clarification to avoid using the Inquisitor when an enemy ship overlaps another ship. That's clearly the purpose of that clarification.

5. The last line of point 4 is supported by precedence. Sloane clearly makes a distinction between the defender spending its token and another effect (Sloane) doing it. The whole question was also a debate about who spend and it was resolved in a way where who does it was relevant and not interchangeable. So in order to rule Inquisitor in other way the errata is needed.

That's my opinion.

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

After reading the FAQ I must say it is quite clear to me.

1. The inquisitor trigger when an enemy ship changes its speed.

2. Konstatin changes the speed.

3. Konstatin's FAQ also reinforces the point 2 saying saying if admiral konstatin's effect changes...

4. Inquisitor's FAQ does not necessarily change the timing. As it was said, it is not an errata. An enemy ship must still change its speed to trigger. The FAQ just clarify it is done by changing the speed dial. That's is an important clarification to avoid using the Inquisitor when an enemy ship overlaps another ship. That's clearly the purpose of that clarification.

5. The last line of point 4 is supported by precedence. Sloane clearly makes a distinction between the defender spending its token and another effect (Sloane) doing it. The whole question was also a debate about who spend and it was resolved in a way where who does it was relevant and not interchangeable. So in order to rule Inquisitor in other way the errata is needed.

That's my opinion.

No, it doesn’t need an errata to do that.

As you said, Sloane gives precedent to one side doing something exclusive to just that thing happening...

The Ship has to change its speed - this is also not an unknown or nebulous effect, as it is supported by existing wording.

As to the question - I did re-ask the clarification When this question was answered in the first place.... hopefully it’s something answered quickly by email as s clarification.

Haha, reading this thread has confused me even more

20 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

No, it doesn’t need an errata to do that.

As you said, Sloane gives precedent to one side doing something exclusive to just that thing happening...

The Ship has to change its speed - this is also not an unknown or nebulous effect, as it is supported by existing wording.

As to the question - I did re-ask the clarification When this question was answered in the first place.... hopefully it’s something answered quickly by email as s clarification.

Yyyyyeah...the Sloane thing really puts the nail in the coffin, there, as that was the point of the entire argument now that I recall it. It amounted to 'if Sloane spent the defense token (not me), then I can also spend the defense token on my own, even though the same defense token cannot be spent twice, because it wasn't the same person doing it'. But the FAQ makes clear that's not true. Spending a defense token is spending a defense token, there is no 'your upgrade did it' or 'my ship did it' - it's just... spent is spent ...doesn't matter who did it, you can't now spend it yourself.

It only makes sense that speed change is the same way.

IE., your ship changed speed. Doesn't matter if it was because you chose to do it, or Konstantine forced you to - there is no difference. Your ship changed speed , done.

Sooo... the GI can trigger whenever someone fiddles with a ship's speed dial. Got it. Simple.

35 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Yyyyyeah...the Sloane thing really puts the nail in the coffin, there, as that was the point of the entire argument now that I recall it. It amounted to 'if Sloane spent the defense token (not me), then I can also spend the defense token on my own, even though the same defense token cannot be spent twice, because it wasn't the same person doing it'. But the FAQ makes clear that's not true. Spending a defense token is spending a defense token, there is no 'your upgrade did it' or 'my ship did it' - it's just... spent is spent ...doesn't matter who did it, you can't now spend it yourself.

It only makes sense that speed change is the same way.

IE., your ship changed speed. Doesn't matter if it was because you chose to do it, or Konstantine forced you to - there is no difference. Your ship changed speed , done.

Wrong.

You cannot spend the same token twice cause that rule doesn't care about who spent that token. However you can spend tokens of the same type cause that rule does care about who spent the token. And Sloane doesn't prevent you from spending tokens of the same type cause she is not the defender.

Ergo WHO does the thing matters and Inquisitor cares about it.