Option 3: that alien has to be the ugliest thing in the star wars universe, rathtars included

I'm going to add a censor bar to my Strategic Adviser card.

I can see how by taking a RAW approach you could make the argument that the ship activating prevents you from using it... but I highly doubt that was the intent.

What are the / some examples of 'you' not referring to the ship its equipped on?

I'm totally making a poll "of the new emoji's which do you like most, mark my comment with your favorite".

8 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Well thats a clever way to farm likes.

Question is what is he gonna do with all those likes he farmed?

5 hours ago, Wraithdt said:

Question is what is he gonna do with all those likes he farmed?

9 hours ago, Ophion said:

What are the / some examples of 'you' not referring to the ship its equipped on?

Bail.

33 minutes ago, Kendraam said:

Bail.

On a minority of his uses of the word...

“After deploying fleets, this ship may place 1 round counter on this card.

At the start of the ship phase of the round matching that round token, if you are the second player, this ship must activate. If you are the first player, this ship gains up to 2 command tokens of this ships choice.”

and interestingly, it only says “you” in conjunction with the direct qualifier of “player”.

Strategic Advisorbdoes not dobthat, and the card works when you read it in translated rules-ese, whereas Bail IS messed up like that.

Importantly, if you are looking for precedence (other than parallel mistake) you need to find a preceding card, not a contemporary ....

I have no contest in believing that Bail has 2 references to you not being thevequopped ship.

i do contest that it means Strategic Advisor - an unrelated card - means the same without the same wording.

15 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

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.

Hondo? G7-X Grav Well Projectors? Grav Shift Reroute?

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

Hondo? G7-X Grav Well Projectors? Grav Shift Reroute?

Ahsoka as well.

9 hours ago, Ophion said:

What are the / some examples of 'you' not referring to the ship its equipped on?

If this include cards where it does not matter if it is the ship or not, there are a few.
Some cards say "you" but are not related to the ship the card is equiped to.

Tarkin: " you may choose one command"

Thrawn: " you may reveal and discard 1 of those dials " (there is still the question if the ship or if Thrawn is revealing the dial)

Raddus: " you may set aside 1 other friendly ship"; " you may deploy that ship at distance 1"

Grav Shift reroute: " After deploying fleets, you may move each obstacle"

Rapid Launch Bays: " Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship card."

Hondo: " Then your opponent chooses 2 different "

All these cards are not related to attacks, stats or the ship. And this is why they could mean the player as well. Or even look strange when the ship is meant. Some of these do not even work when they would be related to the ship with "you" (Hondo: your ship does not really have an opponent, only you as player has one).

2 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Ahsoka as well.

I thought about her. But there is a range limit (distance 1-5). So it is more or less related to the ship where she is equiped.

Also posted in the Rules Questions section:

Having re-read the cards again it seems clear to me that "you/your" always means the ship to which the card is attached, even when the sense on the card indicates the player.

The convention the writer is using is that if the player can choose which ship, "friendly ship/it" is used. If the player cannot choose which ship, "you/your" is used. When the writer does refer to the player as "you/your" he is treating the player as the agent of the ship, since a ship can clearly not act (e.g. move tokens, etc) by itself. However the action to be taken by the player is taken on behalf of the ship to which the upgrade card is equipped and the "you/your" effect is limited to that ship.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

I have no contest in believing that Bail has 2 references to you not being the equipped ship.

I do contest that it means Strategic Advisor - an unrelated card - means the same without the same wording.

Despite the fact that I think the wording says you the player skips a turn, I actually have a foot in both camps now. I do suspect that FFG meant it to apply to the ship and have just messed up the wording. I'll admit it can be read both ways with 'evidence' presented to 'prove' both interpretations but until FFG state one way or the other we'll just have to go with whatever the TO of your tournament rules. I'm fine either way tbh.

I think Chart Officer is a nuttier one to consider

"After you execute a maneuver, if you overlapped an obstacle, you may discard this card instead of resolving the effects of overlapping an obstacle."

I think its more logical to assume that the player acts on behalf of the ship, aka, YOU is not bound by rules, when YOU is used its defining the action the card expects you to take and typically when that action can be taken..

Another words the card actually reads.

"After (The player) executes a maneuver (with a ship), if (the player) overlapped an obstacle (with his ship), (That Player) may discard this card (The Chart Officer Card from his ship) instead of resolving the effects of overlapping an obstacle (with his ship)."

We know this is exactly how Chart Officer works, so if you apply the same logic to strategic Advisor the card would read.

When it is (The players Turn) to activate (A ship), you may exhaust this card to pass (The players activation).

I'm sure there will be a FAQ and I'm sure other semi logical arguments can be made, but in the end it will be ruled like this.

Why add the whole player with a ship when it works perfectly fine as “when this ship executes a maneuver” ?

But, as said already, if the card is refering to the ship, the wording is really bad.

"When it is your turn to activate" is a rather stupid wording if the ship is meant. Turn is related to player, not ship.

A wording like: "before you activate, you can exhaust this card. Instead of activating this ship, you pass the activation and its your opponents turn to activate a ship" Or something like this. Before you activate is important. It is your turn to activate a ship (you as the player). And you choose the ship with the advisor. But before you activate it you can use the advisor to do something else instead. This way would be way more clear that you cannot use the adisor if the ship is already activated.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

I have no contest in believing that Bail has 2 references to you not being thevequopped ship.

i do contest that it means Strategic Advisor - an unrelated card - means the same without the same wording.

No, it doesn't mean that StA must be interpreted the same way.

But it does mean that a hard " you must always be interpreted as this ship " stance is untenable, and that exceptions do exist. Minister Tua provides another preceding example: " You cannot equip this card to a medium or large ship with a [Defensive Upgrade] icon in its upgrad bar." There's just no way that "you" can possibly resolve as "this ship" in this context. (Compare also with the wording of Chimaera, which gets around this issue).

Anyway, this is only the initial logic - which establishes that, because exceptions are possible, context may need to be looked at if the interpretation of "you" matters (which it usually doesn't). For StA, the core question revolves around the definition of a "turn". In the RRG, the term is used strictly as a player action, whereby the player whose turn it is activates a ship (or places an obstacle, or whatever): "Players take turns activating [...] ships" . Thus, a ship's activation is contained within a player's turn - they are not the same thing. So in fact I see not two but three possibilities for interpreting StA's trigger:

• A) You can read it as "[this ship's] turn to activate [a ship]", which respects both the RRG rule on "you" and the RRG rule on "turns", but is weird and confusing.
• B) You can read it as "[this ship's] turn to activate [itself]", which is clear and respects the RRG rule on "you", but breaks the rule on "turns".
• C) You can read it as "[this player's turn] to activate [a ship]", which is clear and respects the RRG rule on "turns", but breaks the rule on "you".

I will also note that if a hard line is followed, this has a huge impact on how Thrawn is played.

@DiabloAzul -

Do we have a pre-wave 7 precedence?

I think it's a bit of a stretch for strategic advisor to trigger when a ship he is not equipped on activates. The wording is really ambiguous though, so I'm not sure.

I am sure I want every one and their sister tooled out with MS-1 ion cannons. Exhaust my strategic advisor? Oh... Oh this could be bad...

51 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

@DiabloAzul -

Do we have a pre-wave 7 precedence?

Tua (as noted above) is the only clear one that I can think of. Others are more nebulous.

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

Hondo? G7-X Grav Well Projectors? Grav Shift Reroute?

You're right. Although I think G7-X and Grav Shift are OK, I think Hondo could make a good precedence for countering the point that I had doubts with (and still don't like, but it's very clear how that works)

19 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

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.

You know what FAQ means right? Frequently Asked Questions.

Every FAQ I've ever read is full almost entirely of stuff that makes me wonder how the heck that was ever questioned, but apparently it was questioned enough to be considered frequent by the writers, so they wrote the FAQ.

That's the purpose of the FAQ. If the rules are vague, poorly worded, open to multiple interpretations at first glance, lead to the creation of dozens of posts across various forums, or create pages of debate, well, they probably deserve a FAQ entry.

This is doubly true when you are dealing with a competitive game. People, by nature, will tend to favor an interpretation that provides them with a benefit. In a board game you play with friends, you make a house ruling and move on with life. In a competitive game where people might be competing for actual prizes against complete strangers, vague rules with multiple interpretations are a problem.

Rules for a game should not produce the same reaction as reading legal briefs or doing your taxes. FFG has yet to figure that out.