https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cSNaoKAThwjDhjjixO7u-MZZ3l5xu-LgKnRohhTIkYk/mobilebasic

How some judges are handling issues.

Remind me where the question submission form for this is, because there's a whole bunch of unclear stuff missing.

I really love their take on the interaction between something giving out two tokens (Chopper, Admiral Sloane) and something which triggers after recieving a token (Nien Nunb pilot). *One* token is dealt with by Nien Nunb. Not Sloane bypasses Nien entirely, not Nien can ignore Sloane. They split the difference with *one* stress discarded, one stress received. There's a perfect justice to that.

that is very lovely indeed. not that i agree with all of it (end phase timing, seems like they've gone on the side of how it used to be and which is more easily tracked rather than RAW ability queue game effects come before player effects, as in circular tokens removed and charges regained before electronic baffles window to trigger - and of course whether han solo is a modification), but most of it is right on the money. awesome.

here's my short list of additions i would like to see added:

what happens when moralo eval flies of the corner of the mat?

can you be at range 0 of an object without overlapping it? is this different between ships, obstacles and devices?

replacement effects, feedback array/static discharge vanes, foreman proach/overseer yushyn - do they work or not?

can you fail the spacetug tractor array or i'll show you the dark side actions?

dalan oberos - can he use his ability even when he's at full shields?

what is the interaction between petty officer thanisson (crew) and locks? can you please clarify how his ability works and what "1 additional token of the type that it gained." means in detail?

landos millenium falcon title - can you only spend the shuttles shields, or use them when you loose them?

So the Yushyen/Proach interaction was removed. I wonder if that means it is going to be addressed in the Rules Reference update and they found out.

6 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Remind me where the question submission form for this is, because there's a whole bunch of unclear stuff missing.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVz1Jf61hs5-afJbm98ses9beNV9CcFd9WRaMdLpeRh924LA/viewform

mmm still no Qi'Ra

i don’t like when a community decides they know best, so to speak. No offense meant, i know a lot of people involved have done a lot for the game, for a long time

I’ve got a problem with some of the specific wording in the committee document already. “Measuring declares intent” is a very handy, clearly workshopped and memorizable way to slap a ruling on something, but it doesn’t work the way it’s described in their kanan ruling. Kanan asks you to check range, then offers you a May ability. I can, as written, check that range and decide I want to save kanan for a later activation.

“Measuring declares intent” is also simply not true for all instances in which I could measure. I can measure any target, I don’t have to attack. I have to measure before I can know that lone wolf is active. I’m not immediately forced to spend the charge and use lone wolf. Same goes for predator.

My measuring doesn’t declare anything. I get to declare after satisfying the measurement.

3 hours ago, nikk whyte said:

i don’t like when a community decides they know best, so to speak. No offense meant, i know a lot of people involved have done a lot for the game, for a long time

It is not a question of knowing best. There is rule problem that we need ruling during tournament. And it will do 6 months ffg say nothing, so someone need to take the lead

3 hours ago, nikk whyte said:

i don’t like when a community decides they know best, so to speak. No offense meant, i know a lot of people involved have done a lot for the game, for a long time

I’ve got a problem with some of the specific wording in the committee document already. “Measuring declares intent” is a very handy, clearly workshopped and memorizable way to slap a ruling on something, but it doesn’t work the way it’s described in their kanan ruling. Kanan asks you to check range, then offers you a May ability. I can, as written, check that range and decide I want to save kanan for a later activation.

“Measuring declares intent” is also simply not true for all instances in which I could measure. I can measure any target, I don’t have to attack. I have to measure before I can know that lone wolf is active. I’m not immediately forced to spend the charge and use lone wolf. Same goes for predator.

My measuring doesn’t declare anything. I get to declare after satisfying the measurement.

while i do agree that you should be able to use kanan like that according to his wording, i don't think it's necessary. it's better for consistency and a good play experience if you don't measure unless you have the intent to use him. measuring during engagement to decide who you're going to attack is an integral and natural part of the game. doing so during other parts of the round just because you can just because you have abilities that you can choose not to use brings us back to the old days of trying a target lock just to check range and then doing something completely different, which is a place i don't want us to go back to.

i honestly don't see how the information you gain from checking if you can use kanan could help you decide not to use him much better anyway. obviously it would help you if you want to use him, but when do you really need to know you can use him to decide not to use him?

also, there is a massive difference between the community deciding that there needs to be an additional resource for rules clarifications and coming together to form one - and the community deciding they know best. i'm 100% positive that the community won't overrule official rules documentation or errata from FFG. the community doesn't think it knows better than the game designers, it only recognizes that there is a need for further support currently not provided by FFG.

This measuring declares intent verbiage IS the community saying they know better.

Kanan straight up doesn’t work that way, but they got their phrase all workshopped, memorable and concise, and then applied it somewhere that it didn’t fit on day one.

16 hours ago, nikk whyte said:

“Measuring declares intent” is also simply not true for all instances in which I could measure. I can measure any target, I don’t have to attack. I have to measure before I can know that lone wolf is active. I’m not immediately forced to spend the charge and use lone wolf. Same goes for predator

I don't think these rulings are as clear as you think they are. I think I disagree with you on all of them (I know i do when it comes measureing to perfom an attack). But I can see how someone might come to a different ruling.

The intent of this document is not to find rulings everyone agrees with, but make a document of consistent rulings on important unclear cases.

48 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

I don't think these rulings are as clear as you think they are. I think I disagree with you on all of them (I know i do when it comes measureing to perfom an attack). But I can see how someone might come to a different ruling.

The intent of this document is not to find rulings everyone agrees with, but make a document of consistent rulings on important unclear cases.

if someone doesn't agree with the rulings, and there is zero recourse to not using them, then they can simply ignore them and we still have a consistency problem.

further, its 1000% in the rules that once a ship has engaged it can measure to any number of ships in any of its arcs. I don't have to attack the first one i measure to, I dont even have to attack at all, because measuring does not declare intent.

13 hours ago, meffo said:

i'm  100% positive that the community won't overrule official rules documentation or errata from FFG.

It's like the very first thing the document says, yeah.

This is basically "hey, we're the system open judges, and we want to make sure they all end up using the same rulings, and if you want you can then also use the same rulings locally too".

But people are always mad, sometimes it's better to just set them on ignore and move on.

40 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

if someone doesn't agree with the rulings, and there is zero recourse to not using them, then they can simply ignore them and we still have a consistency problem.

further, its 1000% in the rules that once a ship has engaged it can measure to any number of ships in any of its arcs. I don't have to attack the first one i measure to, I dont even have to attack at all, because measuring does not declare intent.

Playing at home with friends we can rule however we like, but when I go to tournaments, It's really valuable if they announce in advance that they'll use this document. I'll rather live with interpretations I disagree with than be surprised in the middle of the match.

On attacking: I agree that you don't have to shoot the first ship you measure to, but if you look at the steps for performing an attack in the rules reference (p. 4), you'll see that it's not entirely clear that you can choose to not attack after you've started measuring range.

29 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

Playing at home with friends we can rule however we like, but when I go to tournaments, It's really valuable if they announce in advance that they'll use this document. I'll rather live with interpretations I disagree with than be surprised in the middle of the match.

On attacking: I agree that you don't have to shoot the first ship you measure to, but if you look at the steps for performing an attack in the rules reference (p. 4), you'll see that it's not entirely clear that you can choose to not attack after you've started measuring range.

nope, i get to measure before selecting a weapon. if i don't meet the requirements to fire a proton rocket, i don't have to select main guns.

again, measuring does not declare intent.

Regarding attacks, measurement is the first time you must actually do anything to let your opponent know that a ship is attacking. That is, the entire process of shooting can be done without telling your opponent up until you measure range.

The engagement phase happens and it comes time for a particular ship to engage.

When a ship engages, it may perform an attack.

• I can decide that the ship intends attack, but I still don't have to declare that to my opponent. But in my head I know the ship intends to perform an attack.

If a ship performs an attack, it becomes the attacker then follows these steps:

1. Declare Target: During this step, the attacking player identifies and names the defender of the attack.

a. Measure Range: The attacking player measures range from the attacker to any number of enemy ships and determines which enemy ships are in which of its arcs.

• I secretly know that my ship intends to perform an attack.
• I secretly know that the ship becomes the attacker.
• At this point I have to declare my target. The directions for step 1 immediately move us to step 1a - measure range.

Measuring range is the first point in the sequence where I must declare to my opponent anything regarding a particular ship's attack.

After that I can decide not to fire my jamming beam at the ship at range 3, but I have already declared my intention to attack at the Measure Range step. Deciding not to fire is a separate declaration to not attack.

Am I missing something, or does the end phase section directly disagree with the RR rules to resolve game effects first?

"If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first." RR Ability Que

"During the End Phase, all circular tokens are removed from all ships. Then, each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge" RR End Phase

But the community doc says "during end phase" abilities trigger before the game effects of the same timing:

1. Abilities with the timing of “at the start of the end phase” (ability queue forms)
2. Abilities with the timing of “during the end phase” (ability queue forms)
3. Circular tokens are removed from all ships
4. Each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge

14 minutes ago, prauxim said:

Am I missing something, or does the end phase section directly disagree with the RR rules to resolve game effects first?

"If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first." RR Ability Que

"During the End Phase, all circular tokens are removed from all ships. Then, each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge" RR End Phase

But the community doc says "during end phase" abilities trigger before the game effects of the same timing:

1. Abilities with the timing of “at the start of the end phase” (ability queue forms)
2. Abilities with the timing of “during the end phase” (ability queue forms)
3. Circular tokens are removed from all ships
4. Each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge

you're not missing anything, no. you are 100% right. the end phase timing is set up in the "wrong" order. if game effects were resolved first, pilots like quickdraw and tavson with electronic baffle would be a bit weird. still perfectly functional, though. first regaining you charge and discarding all you green tokens, then getting the possibility to use electronic baffle to get rid of a red token and using your ability as a result of the damage from electronic baffle is the way it should work RAW.

25 minutes ago, meffo said:

you're not missing anything, no. you are 100% right. the end phase timing is set up in the "wrong" order. if game effects were resolved first, pilots like quickdraw and tavson with electronic baffle would be a bit weird. still perfectly functional, though. first regaining you charge and discarding all you green tokens, then getting the possibility to use electronic baffle to get rid of a red token and using your ability as a result of the damage from electronic baffle is the way it should work RAW.

Any idea what the authors' justification for "ruling" it this way was? Attempt at RAI?

Just now, prauxim said:

Any idea what the authors' justification for "ruling" it this way was? Attempt at RAI?

i haven't the faintest. electronic baffle is barely used anyway. i guess they wanted to stop tavson from token stacking or maybe they just got it wrong by relying on their old rules knowledge and misunderstanding/ignoring the ability queue.

17 hours ago, prauxim said:

Am I missing something, or does the end phase section directly disagree with the RR rules to resolve game effects first?

"If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first." RR Ability Que

"During the End Phase, all circular tokens are removed from all ships. Then, each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge" RR End Phase

But the community doc says "during end phase" abilities trigger before the game effects of the same timing:

1. Abilities with the timing of “at the start of the end phase” (ability queue forms)
2. Abilities with the timing of “during the end phase” (ability queue forms)
3. Circular tokens are removed from all ships
4. Each card with a recurring charge icon recovers one charge

This is where I have a bit of a problem with this document. I'm all for clarifying unclear rules or making a ruling on conflicting/unclear rules where none currently exists so we're all on the same page. I really don't think this sort of document should be looking to change the core rules of the game where those are clear. Either this change is an unintended rules change, or the writers of the document have decided to change the core rules in order to disallow a niche interaction for a couple of pilots, which seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

This has like 10% of the rulings that we need.

nothing about Dalan Oberos.

nothing about rigged cargo chute overlapping ships that aren’t moving.

nothing about Han Solo and Magva Yarro specifically.

nothing about Yushyn/Proach.

etc.

If you guys are gonna do this there’s no reason to keep this document short, just go all out and try to cover as many issues as possible. Good for a first try, keep adding to it.

5 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

This has like 10% of the rulings that we need.

Would you prefer them to keep it a secret until it contained everything? They've already said that they're going to update it regularly, but wanted to get it out there quickly, and get input from the community.

2 hours ago, Tvboy said:

nothing about rigged cargo chute overlapping ships that aren’t moving

Every major tournament iI’ve seen being streamed including SOS has ruled that it triggers when immediately when dropped on a ship.