The group I play with have come into a disagreement for another card and I hope to get some more insight from other players.

----------------

Free Fall

Ambush

Force an opponent to remove one of their dice.

Cost: 1

----------------

The card states to force an opponent to remove a dice, one side of the group I play with thinks the opponent chooses which die to remove. The other side believes the person playing the card are forcing them to remove a die of their choice. Looking up other cards that involve dice removal there is almost always wording the revolves around forcing your opponent to choose a die to remove.. In this case the wording can go either way depending on how its interpreted. Personally when I see this card I see it as you choosing which die you are forcing your opponent to remove. Thoughts? Was unable to find any other posts regarding this card.

Edit: Originally I had typed "Force an opponent to remove a dice" but it should have said "Force an opponent to remove one of their dice". Since it doesn't say they get to choose I still believe you get to choose if you play the card but it can go either way I guess with that wording. I messaged FFG to clarify how its interpreted.

Opponent chooses. The opponent is removing the die, it does not say "remove an opponents die" it says "force an opponent to remove a die" they choose. If they did not it would be the most power 1 cost removal in the game by a long shot as it would be targeted removal with ambush. Look at other 1 costs they usually have a stipulation for getting a targeted dice, not a bonus of an extra action.

Oddly, it doesn’t say to force an opponent to remove (one of their dice)

Yeah the wording is odd on this one. I just decided to remove it from my deck to avoid the arguing. Maybe FFG will add a holocron about this card. Since there is no specifics as to what dice they are removing it can be interpreted as in they choose one of their dice , or person playing the card chooses a dice . Its a mess. Yes its cheap, and theres ambush but still FFG needs to work on their wording on some cards.

Your opponent chooses which die to remove. It will therefore not trigger effects which require you to have removed a die but will trigger effects such as Vader3 which referenced a die being removed on your turn

4 hours ago, DarkFallenAngel said:

Your opponent chooses which die to remove. It can be yours or theirs. It will therefore not trigger effects which require you to have removed a die but will trigger effects such as Vader3 which referenced a die being removed on your turn

If you're talking about the new Vader the effect, it is if a dice is removed during an opponents last turn , not your turn. I highly doubt FFG intended this card to have ambush and pay 1 credit to have an opponent remove one of your dice, that would make 0 sense.

It says "Force an opponent to remove one of their dice."

woops! I edited the text in original post. I still hope FFG clarifies if they choose or not because it can still be seen as you choose or they choose without it signifying exactly whats to happen. The only argument I hear is its too cheap and has ambush to let you choose but I digress.

39 minutes ago, KingBlade said:

woops! I edited the text in original post. I still hope FFG clarifies if they choose or not because it can still be seen as you choose or they choose without it signifying exactly whats to happen. The only argument I hear is its too cheap and has ambush to let you choose but I digress.

They are removing it, so it is them.

Just for clarity:

The game is played in round, with each player taking turns. So if I play Free Fall and then say resolve a dice, the dice was not removed in my last turn, I resolved dice during my last turn. So Free Fall avoids Vaders Power Action.

Mind, the Vader player chooses the dice to remove and it must be theirs so if you are careful it may work well.

Incorrect. Ambush doesn't give a player a new turn. It just gives them the opportunity to play an additional action, but that just means you got two actions (or more) in the same turn. It's still the same turn, though, so it doesn't avoid Vader's power action.

/facepalm, thank you good catch.

On 1/23/2019 at 7:02 AM, KingBlade said:

The group I play with have come into a disagreement for another card and I hope to get some more insight from other players.

----------------

Free Fall

Ambush

Force an opponent to remove one of their dice.

Cost: 1

----------------

The card states to force an opponent to remove a dice, one side of the group I play with thinks the opponent chooses which die to remove. The other side believes the person playing the card are forcing them to remove a die of their choice. Looking up other cards that involve dice removal there is almost always wording the revolves around forcing your opponent to choose a die to remove.. In this case the wording can go either way depending on how its interpreted. Personally when I see this card I see it as you choosing which die you are forcing your opponent to remove. Thoughts? Was unable to find any other posts regarding this card.

Edit: Originally I had typed "Force an opponent to remove a dice" but it should have said "Force an opponent to remove one of their dice". Since it doesn't say they get to choose I still believe you get to choose if you play the card but it can go either way I guess with that wording. I messaged FFG to clarify how its interpreted.

The player who plays the card does NOT get to choose which die the opponent removes. You force them to remove a die (of theirs) but they decide which one.

13 hours ago, DarkFallenAngel said:

The player who plays the card does NOT get to choose which die the opponent removes. You force them to remove a die (of theirs) but they decide which one.

Well if that is the case I accept it, but still hope FFG Sends an email to seal that nail in the coffin cause the dispute still isn't over in the group I play with. Oh well

3 hours ago, KingBlade said:

Well if that is the case I accept it, but still hope FFG Sends an email to seal that nail in the coffin cause the dispute still isn't over in the group I play with. Oh well

If it were intended to be the way you think it would say “choose an opponents Die, force them to remove it. “

It wouid also be three times times more powerful than any other removal in the game.

21 hours ago, DarkFallenAngel said:

If it were intended to be the way you think it would say “choose an opponents Die, force them to remove it. “

It wouid also be three times times more powerful than any other removal in the game.

In my opinion ambush and removing one die is not really that powerful if my interpretation was correct. being "three times more powerful than any other removal" seems a little over exaggerated when there are other cards that are very powerful for low cost that are worse than removing only one die and taking an additional action. Also it would be fair to say it should say "Have an opponent choose a die, force them to remove it." instead of what it says now. The point I am trying to get across is that this card can be interpreted in two different ways and that is why I said I hope FFG replies to my email and sets that in stone in their own words so that its confirmed and there is no room for doubt in the group I play with.

This card costs 1 credit and could remove all your opponents dice just because you matched a symbol. The whole "its to powerful too be interpreted as the person playing Free fall gets to choose" just doesn't make sense at that point even with ambush. Remove all their dice and guess what they will probably do next? Claim, which means you can take all the additional actions you want.

1 hour ago, KingBlade said:

In my opinion ambush and removing one die is not really that powerful if my interpretation was correct. being "three times more powerful than any other removal" seems a little over exaggerated when there are other cards that are very powerful for low cost that are worse than removing only one die and taking an additional action. Also it would be fair to say it should say "Have an opponent choose a die, force them to remove it." instead of what it says now. The point I am trying to get across is that this card can be interpreted in two different ways and that is why I said I hope FFG replies to my email and sets that in stone in their own words so that its confirmed and there is no room for doubt in the group I play with.

Really there is no doubt. Only in your group. I assume they must have the same issue with Repostion and Sticky Situation then?

You've made it quite clear as to where you stand for Free Fall and I have given mine, why do you keep trying to bicker over it lol? This whole "I am right and you're wrong" is the same issue I am having in the group I play with and this is why I emailed FFG for an official response on the matter. Since you are not an official spokesman for FFG you're interpretation is not the final say just as mine is not either.
As for the cards you mentioned those are pretty clear as to what they do. Seems like the argument you had over Free Fall being too powerful was squashed with Force Misdirection and you're grasping for straws here but I digress. I am done with this back and forth though so good luck to you bud.

Okay while force misdirection is indeed an overpowered card for one resource imo having to match a symbol has more down side than you think with additions that it has to be a blue dice. First off it's a blue card versus a grey so restriction one, second requires you to have dice on the field meaning for this to be reliable you need to have roll out first every round and hope you land the symbols you need , finnaly the blue dice requirement means this card is limited to use only when you have a blue die so unless you play mono there ways to turn this card off.

There are serval types of removals that are in the game but lets make it simple to start by choosing a card that straight up removes one die no if's and no and's. The 2 costed Subjagate comes to mind It's gray villian and offer nothing else . So at this point with out mentioning ambush based on cost it's already 2 times more effective.

Next let's use flank as an 1 cost example 1 cost straight removal with a requirement that has weak points so more experienced players can play around it, so at the very least this is again 2 times more effective

More examples but not limited include outnumber, honor guard, pinned down, superior position.

Next we have removal with draw backs like TBD, negotiate under attack, quick escape, and risky move and a few others

Now let's take a look at risky move it's a yellow card with a spot yellow condition 1 cost that also gives ambush except the opposing player gets it. You see what I'm trying to get at?

While how many more times useful is debated, the reality is 1 cost hard removal has to have either a negative consequence(giving something up in place of an additional resource)or a hard requirement like what we mentioned above other wise other cards would be useless, you have to remember with. Deck of 30 space for valuable removal is limited and having a card playable like you have described would make it an auto include in any deck and make countless other cards usless.

Last I want to point out ffg is notorious with messing up wording and if you feel you need it clarified that's fine(however if some how its ruled in your favor dont you find it strange that they worded the card in this way? as currently this basicly only plays around cards that forbid an opponent to remove your dice which is limited to like 2 cards iirc the vehicle mod and tie pilot). Also it is very obvious that the competitive community has more interactions with these ruling and if the card was interpreted as such most current meta builds would absolutely ditch 2 removal cards in favor of 2 free falls.

Word of advice (for anyone reading this with future questions): if you have questions about the game and based off the majority feedback given explaining the correct version (this isn't some 50/50, it's like 95/5), it's not wise to keep trying to "argue" your point or "stress" why you thought this way. #1 you're not going to change the way the card is and #2 if you don't like it, don't try to explain anything else and don't use it.

You had a question, that's great, ask it, get the answer, accept it, and then move on. Why people want to argue after this, makes no sense. There were 8 extra posts after the answer was given and confirmed on this, for no additional reason(s).

~D

Cause people are at work and are bored. Ever notice FFG boards are very active during the work week and slow way down during the weekends. People work BS jobs, this is their escape.

Yes, FFG has an English problem. Many times the writing is questionable. However FFG does tend to be consistent in their bad writing. So once you learn it, you know what they mean. The player playing the card is forcing their opponent do to something. In this case, the opponent removes a die. Not the best writing on this card but it is far from being the poster child of FFG's bad writing. It is actually pretty clear what to do by FFG's standards.

15 hours ago, HoodieDM said:

Word of advice (for anyone reading this with future questions): if you have questions about the game and based off the majority feedback given explaining the correct version (this isn't some 50/50, it's like 95/5), it's not wise to keep trying to "argue" your point or "stress" why you thought this way. #1 you're not going to change the way the card is and #2 if you don't like it, don't try to explain anything else and don't use it.

You had a question, that's great, ask it, get the answer, accept it, and then move on. Why people want to argue after this, makes no sense. There were 8 extra posts after the answer was given and confirmed on this, for no additional reason(s).

~D

Thats some pretty bad advice with how often it is stated that FFG has issues with their wording. Also if you payed attention it was nipped and all I said was I was waiting for the official response so that the arguing in my group was over, yet it seems people like to have a high horse on this forum sometimes :P