48 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.

Sorry. Other way around. If no one cared who spent stuff, then Sloane would stop you from spending REDUNDANT tokens.

She does not.

Specifically, she does not.

So it matters.

To further clarify:

Defense Tokens, RRG p.4:

• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.
• A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack.

Before the Sloane FAQ, it was argued that the syntax difference between the clauses was likely a matter of style and ease of reading, and that the requirements were essentially interchangeable, i.e. that RAI was:

• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.
• The defender cannot spend the same defense token more than once during an attack.

But the FAQ made it clear that a strict reading of RAW was indeed correct, i.e. that RAI is:

• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.
• A defense token that has been spent (by anyone) during an attack cannot be spent again (by anyone) during that attack.

In other words, that who performs an action does matter.

Not that this was new - as discussed earlier in the thread, the Konstantine vs Thruster Fissure FAQ already made this clear:

• When you change your speed, Thruster Fissure deals damage.
• When Konstantine changes your speed, Thruster Fissure does not deal damage.

4 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

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.

The FAQ on the Inquisitor is quite clear that the trigger is simply an enemy's ship dial changing it's value. There seems to be a hang up on "who" initiated the speed change, based on the loose wording of the Inquisitors card of "changed it's speed". Reading JUST the Inquisitors card, I can see where it's a bit ambiguous, but the addition of the FAQ that clearly states the trigger, without any mention of the controlling players wishes , would appear to settle this.

And regardless, whether or not the controlling player initiated the speed change, the ship in question has indeed changed it's speed (because the - it's not going the same speed anymore.

The semantics of this can be debated endlessly, with each side simply rehashing the same thing over and over. I'm not going to rudely say you are Wrong, but my opinion is that the blunt wording in the FAQ is a more powerful argument than the sloppy wording on the Inquisitors card.

25 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

The FAQ on the Inquisitor is quite clear that the trigger is simply an enemy's ship dial changing it's value. There seems to be a hang up on "who" initiated the speed change, based on the loose wording of the Inquisitors card of "changed it's speed". Reading JUST the Inquisitors card, I can see where it's a bit ambiguous, but the addition of the FAQ that clearly states the trigger, without any mention of the controlling players wishes , would appear to settle this.

And regardless, whether or not the controlling player initiated the speed change, the ship in question has indeed changed it's speed (because the - it's not going the same speed anymore.

The semantics of this can be debated endlessly, with each side simply rehashing the same thing over and over. I'm not going to rudely say you are Wrong, but my opinion is that the blunt wording in the FAQ is a more powerful argument than the sloppy wording on the Inquisitors card.

Wrong too

The FAQ just clarify what is a speed change in order to trigger Inquisitor. The requirements are still the same.

For the Inquisitor to trigger the speed change must be performed by the enemy ship and only if that change means a change on the dial. If the ship changes its speed due to overlapping, that change of speed doesn't trigger Inquisitor.

Edit: also it is not about semantic rather than grammar. Note that even the FAQ is written in passive. The lack of agent could mean two things: the real subject doesn't matter, or that the real subject was omitted and provided by context. The Inquisitor wording is the context and the real subject is the enemy ship as the card says.

I mean other way he would be the first case where the subject doesn't matter, right?

Rolling dice it matters

Revealing dials it matters

Resolving commands it matters

Overlapping it matters

Sloane, it matters

Kons-thruster fissure, it matters

7 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Wrong too

The FAQ just clarify what is a speed change in order to trigger Inquisitor. The requirements are still the same.

For the Inquisitor to trigger the speed change must be performed by the enemy ship and only if that change means a change on the dial. If the ship changes its speed due to overlapping, that change of speed doesn't trigger Inquisitor.

Edit: also it is not about semantic rather than grammar. Note that even the FAQ is written in passive. The lack of agent could mean two things: the real subject doesn't matter, or that the real subject was omitted and provided by context. The Inquisitor wording is the context and the real subject is the enemy ship as the card says.

Let's just keep in mind that this is just your opinion. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so, at least in this case. Regardless, the unofficial rules forum decision seems pretty split, so to each their own.

5 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

Let's just keep in mind that this is just your opinion. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so, at least in this case. Regardless, the unofficial rules forum decision seems pretty split, so to each their own.

It could be but I am based my opinion on the fact that the wording on Inquisitor was not changed.

The FAQ also didn't say when the speed changes. It says when the speed is changed and it must be changed by someone. As long as the original wording was not changed, that someone is still pointed by the Inquisitor: that someone is the enemy ship.

I also took in consideration that there were two doubts about the inquisitor: one of them was what meant a speed change. That is clearly clarified by the FAQ and yes, it is my opinion.

In order to agree about your opinion I should see that as an errata or, maybe, with a strong clarification that is an exception of the use of enemy ship as a subject of an action. Other way I could argue that friendly ships may trigger for cards that say enemy ship. I mean, why I coulwd use G8 on my own ships. It says before enemy ships but we have a precedence on Inquisitor?

The FAQ entry doesn't need to be listed as errata to change our interpretation of the wording on the card. That's the intent of ALL FAQ entries: if the wording is ambiguous or unclear, you might be getting the wrong idea.

In this case, we could easily have over-reacted to the original wording on the Grand Inquisitor card. This FAQ entry states that the Grand Inquisitor's effect resolves when the value on an enemy ship's speed dial changes. There are a couple of possible ways that the "when" in the sentence could be interpreted:

1) When="if"="whenever"="each time". This means that our strict interpretation before that it only happens if the ship itself makes the change because of a command dial choice, etc... was incorrect. This is the way I interpret the FAQ entry. It is a clarification of what the original card meant. This is very consistent with a FAQ entry rather than errata (which they usually issue in response to balance changes).

2) When="simultaneously with". This would mean that this FAQ entry is just intended to clarify the timing of when The Grand Inquisitor's effect should take place. As has been noted previously, this clarification would be so small as to be irrelevant; a FAQ without a question, really.

51 minutes ago, RobertK said:

The FAQ entry doesn't need to be listed as errata to change our interpretation of the wording on the card. That's the intent of ALL FAQ entries: if the wording is ambiguous or unclear, you might be getting the wrong idea.

In this case, we could easily have over-reacted to the original wording on the Grand Inquisitor card. This FAQ entry states that the Grand Inquisitor's effect resolves when the value on an enemy ship's speed dial changes. There are a couple of possible ways that the "when" in the sentence could be interpreted:

1) When="if"="whenever"="each time". This means that our strict interpretation before that it only happens if the ship itself makes the change because of a command dial choice, etc... was incorrect. This is the way I interpret the FAQ entry. It is a clarification of what the original card meant. This is very consistent with a FAQ entry rather than errata (which they usually issue in response to balance changes).

2) When="simultaneously with". This would mean that this FAQ entry is just intended to clarify the timing of when The Grand Inquisitor's effect should take place. As has been noted previously, this clarification would be so small as to be irrelevant; a FAQ without a question, really.

FAQ entries never go against the wording. They provide context or meaning to make it clearer. When they want to establish a meaning not supported by the words, it requires an errata.

That's is the reason RLB was moved to the errata section.

Why they did it if the FAQ entry was enough? Cause it wasn't enough. Instead has a too clear meaning that was not compatible with they way RLB really works.

So:

A) they made the same mistake and the will move to errata changing the words.

B) both, the subjects and the clarification are compatibles. The only way they could be is that Inquisitor triggers when an enemy ship (and only an enemy ship) changes its speed (and only if it does changing the value of the dial, temporary changed doesn't allow it). If the first piece is not true the FAQ is overwriting the card text. FAQs don't do that.

I'm almost positive I asked about this previously, and was told, with evidence, that Tractor beams work, because the player is choosing to change speed, Konstantine doesn't as you are changing the speed dial for them.