I want to see where the forum community stands on this via a simple poll.

Here is the card for reference:

Please “like” either of the following 2 posts that most closely represents your opinion .

Option 1:

I believe that Strategic Advisor may be used even if the ship to which it is equipped has already activated this round.

Option 2:

I believe that Strategic Advisor may not be used if the ship to which it is equipped has already activated this round.

Feel free to discuss below if you really want to. But there is already a good thread for discussing this located here:

****.

I really enjoy when new content comes out, but I really ******* hate all these stupid rule discussions that spawn out of them. It's as if people can't read and interpret the card on it's own and every new piece of content needs an FAQ before anyone is able to play it.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

****.

I really enjoy when new content comes out, but I really ******* hate all these stupid rule discussions that spawn out of them. It's as if people can't read and interpret the card on it's own and every new piece of content needs an FAQ before anyone is able to play it.

That's too bad. :/ I think I know how this card works, but I must admit that it isn't 100% crystal clear.

2 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

That's too bad. :/ I think I know how this card works, but I must admit that it isn't 100% crystal clear.

Regardless of how people vote, it does not change how the card works.

Instead of activating a ship, you can exhaust it to pass the turn. There is no activation restriction on the card, so there is no reason to assume there is a restriction. And as @DiabloAzul pointed out, every time the RRG references turn , it's context is in relation to the player, not the ship.

4 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

That's too bad. :/ I think I know how this card works, but I must admit that it isn't 100% crystal clear.

Exactly. I think the most logic way to read it would be that it doesn't matter if the ship where SAd is in is activated or not, but if it works that way, then if I'm not missing something it would be the first non-commander upgrade card in all the waves where the effect has no relation at all with the ship it is equipped to. And that is what I find strange/don't like of that interpretation.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Regardless of how people vote, it does not change how the card works.

Instead of activating a ship, you can exhaust it to pass the turn. There is no activation restriction on the card, so there is no reason to assume there is a restriction. And as @DiabloAzul pointed out, every time the RRG references turn , it's context is in relation to the player, not the ship.

I fully agree with you. I just wanted to see if there is anything close to a consensus on this card.

10 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

****.

I really enjoy when new content comes out, but I really ******* hate all these stupid rule discussions that spawn out of them. It's as if people can't read and interpret the card on it's own and every new piece of content needs an FAQ before anyone is able to play it.

The problem is that it isn't 100% clear. I agree with you on this one, but I can see how the other interpretation can be made. That's on FFG for not being absolutely clear with this stuff (or creating rules and then not following those rules themselves). And the majority of the people here have been wrong on various issues before. And other things that were perfectly legal were changed later after they were found to be too powerful. As I said, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean FFG will when they finally issue a ruling on it.

This is the way it is for ANY game. Vague rules, poorly defined rules, or just poor writing creates situations where multiple opinions can exist. So forums get questions, and people try to help. The problem is with a game like this, every wave is like a new game, so each wave spawns new questions. The additional problem is that FFG takes 6 months or more to resolve these dilemmas. That might fly for a board game, but its pretty slow turn around for a competitive miniatures game.

The problem is that in the language of the rules “you” has a meaning, and it doesn’t mean you as a player. But ships don’t take turns. The controversy is entirely legitimate and relevant (even though it’s an annoying issue to keep running into.)

Well thats a clever way to farm likes.

21 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

****.

I really enjoy when new content comes out, but I really ******* hate all these stupid rule discussions that spawn out of them. It's as if people can't read and interpret the card on it's own and every new piece of content needs an FAQ before anyone is able to play it.

I agree with this sentiment but I was 100% wrong on how the Sloane ruling would go so /shrug. I just ignore these and accept that the FAQ may or may not agree with me(I'm looking at you advanced projectors / XI7's)

Just now, The Jabbawookie said:

The problem is that in the language of the rules “you” has a meaning, and it doesn’t mean you as a player. But ships don’t take turns. The controversy is entirely legitimate and relevant (even though it’s an annoying issue to keep running into.)

Hence the create a rule but don't stick to it issue. The part that I found interesting is that once we started reviewing other cards we found many more examples of other cards that also fly in the face of the definition of 'you'. FFG has been ignoring that rule for awhile and we just didn't catch it.

2 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

I agree with this sentiment but I was 100% wrong on how the Sloane ruling would go so /shrug. I just ignore these and accept that the FAQ may or may not agree with me(I'm looking at you advanced projectors / XI7's)

Sloane, RLB, and AP vs XI7 were discussions that needed to happen. But there are so many more card discussions where the final word is always "Well I guess we need an FAQ" when it's actually not necessary. It drives me crazy.

1 minute ago, kmanweiss said:

Hence the create a rule but don't stick to it issue. The part that I found interesting is that once we started reviewing other cards we found many more examples of other cards that also fly in the face of the definition of 'you'. FFG has been ignoring that rule for awhile and we just didn't catch it.

Mostly because there aren't any currently any cards other than StA where this actually matters . Or at least nobody seems to have found one yet.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

But there are so many more card discussions where the final word is always "Well I guess we need an FAQ" when it's actually not necessary. It drives me crazy.

I don't know man, the "We need a FAQ" outcome is usually the result of one or both of:

a) a genuine lack of clarity (where FFG really needs to step in), and/or

b) someone insisting that RAI is obvious and should take precedence over RAW (and refusing to budge until FFG invariably proves them wrong).

10 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I don't know man, the "We need a FAQ" outcome is usually the result of one or both of:

a) a genuine lack of clarity (where FFG really needs to step in), and/or

b) someone insisting that RAI is obvious and should take precedence over RAW (and refusing to budge until FFG invariably proves them wrong).

c)Someone doesn't understand the intricacies of a rules interaction and insists on an FAQ instead of learning the rules. Seen that here from time to time. Not often, fortunately.

Yeah, that does happen... though in my experience this tends to be a specific, less obvious form of b)

36 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Well thats a clever way to farm likes.

Thank you! That was exactly what I thought! Thats why i gave him a confused face and a sad face.

“Old age and Treachery will beat Youth and Enthusiasm any day...”

I'm trying to understand in what situations the distinction even matters.

2 minutes ago, TaeSWXW said:

I'm trying to understand in what situations the distinction even matters.

In a situation where you had to activate the ship that has the Strat Adv. on it (to get out of an arc, or make sure you kill a ship before it can get away), and have another large ship, or Demo-like threat that wants to wait for your opponent to move into its arc, or avoid moving into their trap.

I am for option 2

Not cause I think is crystal clear rather than cause it is the ******* same **** that option 1 but with a particular scenario when it doesn't asking for perfection to players.

But I don't really care at the end.

53 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Well thats a clever way to farm likes.

You're not wrong, but FFG should also have the option to put together a poll on their forums. It's a pretty common feature... In the absence of that option, I can't blame him for handling it this way.