I'll activate Gideon and shooting at Vader from 15 spaces away

Set for Stun!

It may seem slightly ridiculous thematically, but I think the card just went from completely useless to actually useful and something worth considering.

4 hours ago, Kalandros said:

Oof.. hoping for a FAQ entry soon on this...

FAQ entry would say: do what the card says. Errata is unlikely. There is a reason to buy Stormtrooper Villain pack now.

4 hours ago, Kalandros said:

Oof.. hoping for a FAQ entry soon on this... because this means anyone can throw a small attack against any figure and auto-stun that figure, especially if no spies on opponent's side and negate already used... It feels incredibly game changing and cheap. I'll be using it in the next 2 store champs I'm attending >_> shame on me.

It's a once off stun in the whole skirmish, traded for an attack, pontentially replacing a card that might be more useful. It will have very situational use.

3 hours ago, neosmagus said:

It's a once off stun in the whole skirmish, traded for an attack, pontentially replacing a card that might be more useful. It will have very situational use.

"Once off stun" on Ezra in Specter cell has already won me 2 games 40-20 and 40-19 - stun kills Specter Cell. (Jyn is what I had against Specter Cell~)

Stun Han after he's activated - can't On the Lam, can't return fire, can't end of round shot

etc

Its a game changer because its automatic and can pretty much waste a figure's round completely. Very easy to use it with either a 2 pt smuggler or hired gun, to really affect the flow of the game.

Just what we needed was ANOTHER card that Negation wants to cancel. Combined with Take Init and Rebel Graffitti...can't Negate em all.

I'm for any card that hurts otl and spectre cell.

On 9/18/2018 at 3:06 AM, Kalandros said:

Oof.. hoping for a FAQ entry soon on this... because this means anyone can throw a small attack against any figure and auto-stun that figure, especially if no spies on opponent's side and negate already used... It feels incredibly game changing and cheap. I'll be using it in the next 2 store champs I'm attending >_> shame on me.

Yeah, just gonna say that without a FAQ, and if I hadn't read this thread, anyone who claimed in a tournament they could stun any of my figures they chose without even having enough accuracy for the attack to not miss would be told to GTFO. I would never have thought that to be the RAI in a million years, it makes no sense, and if it really was supposed to work that way (why!? how!? ), they would surely have used completely different wording.

If they FAQ it to say that is really how it's supposed to work, then fine, it's just a silly nonsensical ruling - that happens. Without a FAQ, it's a silly nonsensical ruling that some guy in a store claims works some way that is (in my view) obviously stupid. Maybe he can even produce a screen grab of an email backing him up, but screen grabs of emails aren't exactly tournament-official and anyway give me five minutes and I can put together a screen grab of my own... lacking a FAQ, such an opponent could FAQ off.

Not for a moment suggesting that the email in this thread is in any way fake (like I say: now that I've seen this thread, there's no disputing it) but if this had arisen in a tournament, lacking an FAQ, I'd have given very short thrift to an opponent claiming that's how it works. So to FFG: if this is really right, please put it in the FAQ.

(double post)

(triple post)

(QUADRUPLE post!)

31 minutes ago, Bitterman said:

Yeah, just gonna say that without a FAQ, and if I hadn't read this thread, anyone who claimed in a tournament they could stun any of my figures they chose without even having enough accuracy for the attack to not miss would be told to GTFO.

Then he would've given you the card to read. You would've read it. Depending on your opinion you would've asked the Judge for a ruling. Then it would've depended on the Judge whether it would've been ruled as written and depended on the player confirming it with TO before the tournament, possibly pointing the TO to an existing ruling and other similar abilities like Invasive Procedure making 0-0-0 focused even if there is no adjacent figure.

Skirmish is rules as written, campaign is (sometimes) rules as intended.

17 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Then he would've given you the card to read. You would've read it. Depending on your opinion you would've asked the Judge for a ruling. Then it would've depended on the Judge whether it would've been ruled as written and depended on the player confirming it with TO before the tournament, possibly pointing the TO to an existing ruling and other similar abilities like Invasive Procedure making 0-0-0 focused even if there is no adjacent figure.

Sure, and it would then depend on the judge/TO, and their interpretation. A FAQ would make such vagaries unnecessary.

In such a hypothetical discussion with the TO, I would point out that Invasive Procedure is worded completely differently and would argue that it is thus not relevant. It doesn't even contain the word "if", for a start. So I completely get that both effects of Invasive Procedure both apply regardless. Set for Stun has two effects; one of which definitely only takes effect if the "if" condition applies, the other part reads to me like it does and only has verisimilitude if it does (but could indeed be read as that it doesn't, depending how you interpret the period before "Then" and which other cards you compare it to).

I mean, I saw the email from FFG above, I've already "lost" this argument (so I'm not really arguing); but the number of people in this thread alone who are clearly surprised by the ruling not matching their understanding, shows that the associative interpretation (you only stun the opponent if you hit them) is more widely assumed to be the case than the disassociative interpretation (you stun them even if you can't possibly hit them). If the latter is nevertheless the intention, it needs an FAQ IMO.

A lot of people are careless and use Stunned (condition) and Stun (keyword) interchangibly, which may be contribute to the confusion.

Stun only applies the Stunned condition if the target suffered damage from the attack.

Stunned is a condition that can applied separately from damage, just like focused and hidden. I don't think anyone would argue that focused cannot be given by Gideon or C-3PO because no-one suffered damage.

(Talking about the intent of Set for Stun is a separate thing. The card as written does not make it a must-have, and thus I don't expect errata.)

(Some wording mishaps slip through although there has been improvement. "If you do" or otherwise referring to the target of the choice do work to bind the parts together, as well as not breaking up the sentences in the first place. Space on the card is often an issue.)

37 minutes ago, a1bert said:

(Talking about the intent of Set for Stun is a separate thing. The card as written does not make it a must-have, and thus I don't expect errata.)

Errata - no. It's not erroneously printed, nor is this a change. Agreed.

FAQ - yes. I suppose it depends on FFG's definition of the phrase "frequently asked", but in this thread alone there's evidence that many (most?) people have been interpreting it "incorrectly". So it needs an FAQ. Like "To The Limit" - many, many people used to use it to simply give a third action in an activation, but the FAQ clarifies that it may only be used after a special action (with the arrow icon) - that's not a change, the card is perfectly clear, but people got it wrong anyway, so an FAQ was deemed necessary. If "Set to Stun" is to be interpreted in this way, it's at least as worthy of an FAQ to that effect as "To the Limit" was.

37 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Space on the card is often an issue.)

TBF, I am continually surprised by the clarity that FFG achieve with so few words, with so little space on the cards. As someone who has occasionally been accused of having an excess of verbiosity, I have a great deal of respect for rules writers who find ways to say so much with so little.

Now if they could only sort their rulebooks out, we'd be onto a real winner. (IA isn't too bad, though having stuff only in the "Learn to Play" doc and not repeated in the RRG is criminal. Games like Relic or Forbidden Stars or Fury of Dracula have got awful rulebooks, though, which in at two of those cases obscures a really good game... let's just gloss over Relic and pretend I never mentioned it*). They usually seem to get the cards right, though.

* - It just occurred to me that FFG no longer produce any of those games I just mentioned!

10 minutes ago, a1bert said:

A lot of people are careless and use Stunned (condition) and Stun (keyword) interchangibly, which may be contribute to the confusion.

You know that's not the confusion. The rules of IA are based on a thematic conversion of cinematic events to a ruleset and mechanics. One of these mechanics is shooting with a blaster. Shooting takes accuracy, and deals damage depending on the type of blaster, how well you aim, your opponents armor or him maybe even getting out of sight before you notice. All of this is thematic.

A shot going astray but **still** stunning a target doesn't make any sense in this framework, which is why people are confused. Look a the chosen art. It's from when the troopers stun Leia on the Tantive IV. In the scene you can clearly see the special effect for the stun shot hitting her. It doesn't hit the wall beside her and **still** stun her.

The reason this won't get errated is:
* The impact is not completely game breaking
* Errataing cards is bad form for physical products and FFG (rightly so, IMHO) are trying to avoid it at all costs
* It incentivizes the purchase of a rather obscure figure pack

Some of the reasons I can get behind. Some I can't. I am certainly not entertained by how the card works now ... more like distracted.

Thematic garbage or not thematic and playable. I'd rather have this card be playable

1 hour ago, Bitterman said:

IA isn't too bad, though having stuff only in the "Learn to Play" doc and not repeated in the RRG is criminal.

What are those so I can check if I covered them in the consolidated rules? The Blast and Cleave timings that are also on the reference cards, or something else?

There are a few important rules only in the campaign guide though.

8 minutes ago, a1bert said:

What are those so I can check if I covered them in the consolidated rules? The Blast and Cleave timings that are also on the reference cards, or something else?

There are a few important rules only in the campaign guide though.

That's probably what I was thinking of, as reading the intro to your consolidated rules is what brought them to my attention.

So, since this is a Todd ruling, it should pretty much be taken precedent for TOs. Todd marshals big events like GenCon and Worlds, so at those events we KNOW that Set for Stun is going to be ruled this way. Doesnt really make sense for TOs to go against that for their smaller events, unless they just want to make up house rules.

We're having a league for the winter and also a 2v2 event at the end of October, I'm going to suggest that Set for stun be a banned card for the duration of those events.

But for any official tournaments - store champs, regionals, etc. Its perfectly legal to play it as is until someone has the decency to change the rules for that card. Its just too ridiculous right now not to use it.

3 hours ago, jacenat said:

You know that's not the confusion. The rules of IA are based on a thematic conversion of cinematic events to a ruleset and mechanics. One of these mechanics is shooting with a blaster. Shooting takes accuracy, and deals damage depending on the type of blaster, how well you aim, your opponents armor or him maybe even getting out of sight before you notice. All of this is thematic.

A shot going astray but **still** stunning a target doesn't make any sense in this framework, which is why people are confused. Look a the chosen art. It's from when the troopers stun Leia on the Tantive IV. In the scene you can clearly see the special effect for the stun shot hitting her. It doesn't hit the wall beside her and **still** stun her.

The reason this won't get errated is:
* The impact is not completely game breaking
* Errataing cards is bad form for physical products and FFG (rightly so, IMHO) are trying to avoid it at all costs
* It incentivizes the purchase of a rather obscure figure pack

Some of the reasons I can get behind. Some I can't. I am certainly not entertained by how the card works now ... more like distracted.

The stun shot in that scene creates a huge ring. You can't miss! So I find the card to be very thematic ?

I agree that it's not thematic, but it's definitely not imbalanced or game breaking

Yeah, I don't necessarily like the ruling, but it's not like stupid good or anything. It's more dumb than good. It's just not gamebreaking just another card that's playable.

4 hours ago, hypnosis11 said:

Yeah, I don't necessarily like the ruling, but it's not like stupid good or anything. It's more dumb than good. It's just not gamebreaking just another card that's playable.

It actually can be extremely gamebreaking and its something Skirmish IA didn't need to have, even more broken than Rebel Graffiti.