There's an "Upcoming Rules Reference" listed under the 2.0 docs. Haven't gone through it yet but here's the link: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/2a/57/2a57fdb2-e13f-4d58-b9db-bb082dd23dcc/swzrulesreference_v102.pdf

Rules will be effective 9/28/18

Thanks for posting!

Nothing too surprising or major as far as I can tell, here are some highlights from a quick scan through:

- locks only fail if there are no valid targets
- failed red actions still give stress
- you cannot perform an action if you already performed it this round OR attempted to perform it and failed
- ships that deploy (or dock) during the system phase don't activate that turn

19 minutes ago, DarthHenryAllen said:

- locks only fail if there are no valid targets

This shuts down that bit of Corran business with the Composure talent then, doesn't it?

RIP the Han triple-tap, which was super legal RAW until suddenly it's not.

RIP the E-Wing Composure gimmicks, which were super illegal RAW but now people will hopefully stop trying.

Red failed actions makes repositional links and Composure a bit worse. Maybe only on (white) jam/coordinate ships, now?

2 minutes ago, svelok said:

RIP the E-Wing Composure gimmicks, which were super illegal RAW but now people will hopefully stop trying.

Yup, I had no idea how people thought they could fail the target lock action (in that situation) after reading the rules on target locks.

On the other hand, the Vizago trick from the FAQ sounds hilarious. It also includes our first error, as they seem to have intended to write Cloaking Device instead of Stealth Device.

Still, the option for Vizago to swap Cloak and Rigged Cargo on ships that normally can't carry them sounds so delightfully scummy.

Thanks for the heads up.

1 hour ago, imrandy85 said:

There's an "Upcoming Rules Reference" listed under the 2.0 docs. Haven't gone through it yet but here's the link: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/2a/57/2a57fdb2-e13f-4d58-b9db-bb082dd23dcc/swzrulesreference_v102.pdf

Rules will be effective 9/28/18

@J1mBob Just so you see it.

Eeey they finally fixed that Boba crew fiasco.

Is that line about cannot apply range bonuses to prevent the Grand Inquisitor from using force to cheat in bonuses? If so, drat, I just thought of that today...

1 minute ago, -Istaril said:

Is that line about cannot apply range bonuses to prevent the Grand Inquisitor from using force to cheat in bonuses? If so, drat, I just thought of that today...

Page 23 FAQ references him in particular, actually. Sorry. ?

1 hour ago, svelok said:

RIP the Han triple-tap, which was super legal RAW until suddenly it's not.

What was the Han triple-tap?

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

@J1mBob Just so you see it.

Thank you! The effective date gives me a little time to figure out how to handle the update on my Unofficial Rules Reference site...

(shameless plug: http://infinitearenas.com/xw2rules/index.php?page=home )

2 hours ago, HammerGibbens said:

This shuts down that bit of Corran business with the Composure talent then, doesn't it?

Yea. RAW already did this, right?

A shame about Saturation Salvo. (Also, it is equally funny/sad that the bomber is better at saturating a target than a punisher is)

So is there a huge faq already?

1 minute ago, JediRush24 said:

So is there a huge faq already?

Less than a page.

Oh well then that's cool, I can put my salt away.

31 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

A shame about Saturation Salvo. (Also, it is equally funny/sad that the bomber is better at saturating a target than a punisher is)

Yeah, I really don't get why they kept the Talent upgrade slot off Punishers and K-wings. Without physical cards, there's no longer any need to restrict the number of slots a ship has if things make sense for it. Plus, it would give the Empire a use for those expert handlings in the conversion kit.

1 hour ago, HolySorcerer said:

A shame about Saturation Salvo. (Also, it is equally funny/sad that the bomber is better at saturating a target than a punisher is)

Shame about what? It didn't get nerfed at all

yay they finally clarified that [turret icon] and [front arc] are COMPLETELY SEPARATE and end that annoying argument about "well its pointing forward so its a front arc now"

though they did miss the "attack range 1" problem, where its possible for ships to be touching out of arc, but according to the rules...in arc theyre not touching. Theres no way they intend that to be legal.

Happy about target locks being very hard to fail and failed red actions giving stress. Both of those were on my wish list as common sense kinda things.

3 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

yay they finally clarified that [turret icon] and [front arc] are COMPLETELY SEPARATE and end that annoying argument about "well its pointing forward so its a front arc now"

though they did miss the "attack range 1" problem, where its possible for ships to be touching out of arc, but according to the rules...in arc theyre not touching. Theres no way they intend that to be legal.

That's the closest bit to stating you can't attack ships at range 0 of you, but I'd agree it's not clear enough at the moment.

It's obvious that the intention is that you can't attack a ship at range 0 of you unless an upgrade or ability says otherwise, but the rules don't (yet) confirm that explicitly that ic an see..

The rules do say you can't attack at range zero most of the time. Most weapons have a range, like 1-3. Range 0 is not included in range 1-3. The design space does allow for range 0 weapons though.......

10 minutes ago, Mep said:

The rules do say you can't attack at range zero most of the time. Most weapons have a range, like 1-3. Range 0 is not included in range 1-3. The design space does allow for range 0 weapons though.......

But range is measured in arc no? So you can be touching with side arc, but from the front arc still have range 1 and thus can fire.

That would be something to fix