The Scum Falcon´s title allows it to use a docked shuttle´s shields. Can the Falcon use the reserve shields whenever she receives crits that get through (basically using her hull points for regular hits and then those couple of extra shields for any crits that would otherwise cause faceup cards)?

currently, the shields from the shuttle can only be spent, as in for effects that spend shields (inertial dampeners). they cannot be lost any other way, since they're not actually on the falcon itself. in other words, they cannot be used as a means to take damage at all.

****, that makes the ability very limited indeed. Thanks for the reply.

I've never heard Meffo's interpretation before and plenty of streams show the shields being used as regular shields.

I would argue because it is a "may" and not a "must" that you can use them when you like. Granted, if Meffo's statements are true, then that renders my point incorrect.

Edit: Looking around there is validity to Meffo's statement. Since it has already been debated to no end I would say ask the TO running the tourney before attempting to use the shields to stop damage from attacks.

Meffo is arguably technically correct but very obviously not correct to the intention of the card.

Yes. You can use the shuttle shields.

I'm with Meffo on this. Different debate but same with the Qi'ra 'interpretation', allthough it is played 'differently' and 'more liberal' on streams.

Best to agree beforehand on what 'interpretation' you agree on with your friend or TO.

i am definitely technically correct.

this is one of the points that generally have to be clarified before events, just like who chooses what while jamming, if qi'ra can attack while standing on a rock she has locked, if dropping a rigged cargo or spare parts on a ship will incur the effects of moving through the debris immediately or not, etc.

most TOs will let you use and loose the shuttles shields at your leisure. please make sure its clear before going to an event if you're planning to use the landos millenium falcon title upgrade, though.

4 hours ago, meffo said:

who chooses what while jamming, if qi'ra can attack while standing on a rock she has locked, if dropping a rigged cargo or spare parts on a ship will incur the effects of moving through the debris immediately or not,

Ah yes, the "F*ck if anyone knows how it works" League of X-wing 2.0. And to think I was so happy and optimistic when I first saw the pinned thread with devs' responses to rules questions. The dreams I had of them taking a look in the subforum from time to time, or at the very least peeking into the inbox they've set up themselves for the rules questions... @OfficialRules , hi, how's it going there?

Eh, all of those are the 'it's fairly obvious how they work but there are technical errors in the writing that make people argue a lot on the forums' league, more than the 'who knows how they work' league. We all know how they work, we just argue because the writing is bad.

6 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Eh, all of those are the 'it's fairly obvious how they work but there are technical errors in the writing that make people argue a lot on the forums' league, more than the 'who knows how they work' league. We all know how they work, we just argue because the writing is bad.

And then Deathfire and Page Tico happen and all of the sudden turns out we actually don't read devs' minds as a community as good as we think we do and we're not foolproof in our interpretations.

3 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

And then Deathfire and Page Tico happen and all of the sudden turns out we actually don't read devs' minds as a community as good as we think we do and we're not foolproof in our interpretations.

I'm still not convinced they (or more likely, the core rules around device deployment) will remain as they are through the next rulebook update, tbh, because those rulings as they are set a HORRIBLE precedent. But as it stands at the moment, it's a valid counterpoint.

(And for those about to jump in, no, it's not the Deathfire ruling you think it is, about launching, it's the other one, about being able to drop multiple bombs in a round without a specific exception on the card).

There is an (un)official ruling to the scum falcon from the Coruscant Inivtional 2018:

There it was ruled, that you can choose to use the shields of the shuttle against attacks WHEN you wanted it , so it was there possible to take 2 hits on the falcon hull while redirecting the Crits in the Shuttle Shields.

Since then, this ruling is used in streams and on tourneys

Yeah, that is the most common practice I've encountered too, but the painful truth that anything can actually make a cut for a "community ruling". If you shout "Nooooo!" loud enough, you may not obtain any damage after an attack.* In theory, we could also practice that because we want to.

And I'm not saying "community rulings" are bad because, in the end, it is us, the community, that have to have fun playing the game. But in terms of the ambiguous rules discussion itself, these are not tipping the scale any direction, they are just placing a band-aid on top of the problem hoping it will on day fix itself underneath and the band-aid can be removed then.

* To which we would probably have 10 pages long debate whether it should be a Vader-style "Nooooo!" or a Luke-style "Nooooo!".

On 5/26/2019 at 11:16 AM, meffo said:

i am definitely technically correct.

this is one of the points that generally have to be clarified before events, just like who chooses what while jamming, if qi'ra can attack while standing on a rock she has locked, if dropping a rigged cargo or spare parts on a ship will incur the effects of moving through the debris immediately or not, etc.

most TOs will let you use and loose the shuttles shields at your leisure. please make sure its clear before going to an event if you're planning to use the landos millenium falcon title upgrade, though.

"When an effect instructs a ship to spend a shield, a card loses a shield.
A ship cannot spend a shield if all of its shields are inactive."

Under the heading "shields" in the rules reference

Spending shields means losing them as well, so the falcon can use the crafts shields when "loosing" them by an attack

Just now, GamionEndior said:

"When an effect instructs a ship to spend a shield, a card loses a shield.
A ship cannot spend a shield if all of its shields are inactive."

Under the heading "shields" in the rules reference

Spending shields means losing them as well, so the falcon can use the crafts shields when "loosing" them by an attack

No no no.

Just because you can use a "cash-back" system when you are paying by card and paying by card means losing money, it doesn't mean you can have a "cash-back" when you'd lost your wallet.

As written, while spending leads to losing and suffering damage may lead to losing , the title only lets you spend .

Falcon ---> Spending ---> Losing <--- Taking damage

Both paths lead to the same end, but they are not the same path.

That being said, as written the interaction is awful, is on-demand fixed on every major event these days, and definitely should be rewritten asap. Nevertheless, until then, it doesn't work as it - honestly - should if your TO does not announce in advance it does. If they do not, you won't really have an argument in your favour if you use it.

A screwdriver is a tool and a hammer is also a tool. So we can infer that a hammer is a screwdriver? No...

Same thing here... Spend is loosing and taking dmg is also loosing, but it does not mean that taking dmg is spending.

And seriously, the "We know the intent" argument begin to be old. No one know their intent. Because a card would be more useful or more fun does not mean it was the intent. There is lot of bad card, clearly it was not their intent, so we should find a way to twist rules and say: Hooo clearly they did the wording wrong, it was not their intent to make a card bad.

Yes, the title is not great, but it is not literally useless as written. It give 1 more attack dice in some situation.

We are far from a card that would literally do nothing except if you change the wording (As we seen in the past on an astromech card)

Welp, I for one do not argue that the card should work "the other way" because that must've been the intent. It's more that there's just a single another card this bit of ability can be used with, and the Lando's Falcon itself is nowhere near the power level of its counterparts in other factions, so I believe it could be a welcomed "buff" to the craft to sanction it working this way. As opposed to possibly clarifying it against the "expected" interaction.

What about the line where the title says you can spend the shields as if they are on the ship card. Does that not imply that the shuttle's shields can be used for anything that the Falcon' s original shields could be used for?

3 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

What about the line where the title says you can spend the shields as if they are on the ship card. Does that not imply that the shuttle's shields can be used for anything that the Falcon' s original shields could be used for?

RAW it means that the Falcon can spend the docked tug's shield to use inertial dampeners. That's it...

6 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

RAW it means that the Falcon can spend the docked tug's shield to use inertial dampeners. That's it...

Point taken.

Honestly, normally I'd agree re. intent - but... I find it really hard to suggest that they'd publish a ship whose sole ability is to enable its carrier to use Inertial Dampeners.

It's pretty frigging obvious what it's intended to do. The writing is bad.

It should be fixed.

But good luck with that.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Honestly, normally I'd agree re. intent - but... I find it really hard to suggest that they'd publish a ship whose sole ability is to enable its carrier to use Inertial Dampeners.

It's pretty frigging obvious what it's intended to do. The writing is bad.

It should be fixed.

But good luck with that.

That's one way to look at it. If FFG had written use rather than spend there probably wouldn't be a problem but I don't think they defined use anywhere. I also don't think the devs are totally inept and they did use a term that was defined in the RRG, so maybe it was their intent to limit use of the shields on the Escape Craft.

Don't get me wrong, before this I was totally convinced of the intent as you described. I'm now 60/40 in the other direction.

I'm 100% convinced someone either didn't check the term to use correctly/proofread properly (the correct term would be lose ), or simply doesn't think this level of nitpicking is worth bothering with.

I recollect a conversation with Alex Davey at Euros last year wherein the question of whether Dash's ability would work with Outrider (because there's a RAW argument that ignoring obstacles means ignoring them - which means Outrider doesn't work, because what obstacle) to which the answer was essentially 'lol no of course it works why would Dash's ability not work with his own ship title?'

I have no doubt that the same would be true here.

The Falcon has two extra shields available, which it can use. What exactly that means is clearly up for debate, but I'm 100% sure it's not just frigging Inertial Dampeners, it's using them to soak damage.

The only question in my mind is whether it was intended that their use was at the owner's discretion (i.e. when the Falcon's shields had gone, whether you can take hits on hull until you get a crit, and soak that on the shuttle shields) - but honestly, it seems like the most expedient thing, and writing it such that you couldn't would be super complicated, so why not make the ability better?

Speaking of shields, if L3-37 is docked with Han and she has no shields but Han does, can her ability be used or do Han and L3-37 both have to be shieldless?