Specifically: "(and other constant effects that alter the difficulty of a maneuver, such as Nien Nunb [Crew], L3-37's Programming, and Leia Organa [Rebel and Resistance, Crew])"

Taking in reference the first Ruling that went up today:

From their: "A few abilities are constant (such as the "Gain a <frontarc> primary weapon with a value of '3'" portion of Moldy Crow). Constant abilities are not resolved via the ability queue.

Most abilities are triggered, occurring only at a specified timing window (such as the "During the End Phase, do not remove up to 2 focus tokens" portion of Moldy Crow). Triggered abilities are resolved via the ability queue."

Sure as **** look to have very clear timing triggers on both to me...

No some they added in another ruling that said that any abilities that modify the difficulty of a maneuver only affect the ship while it's executing it's maneuver.

Rebel Leia is a constant ability in the rounds she is active.

The implication is that Resistance Leia is as well. After she's triggered, she's treated as constant for the execution of the manoeuvre concerned only.

It's still terrible writing but it's at least vaguely consistent.

The timing triggers happen to indicate when to pay the cost/decide to use the ability, the actual ability, as I read it, is a constant change.

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Rebel Leia is a constant ability in the rounds she is active.

The implication is that Resistance Leia is as well. After she's triggered, she's treated as constant for the execution of the manoeuvre concerned only.

It's still terrible writing but it's at least vaguely consistent.

the funny part is, now it's been confirmed by FFG to be constant, meaning it lasts for the rest of the game everytime that ship executes that maneuver.

3 minutes ago, meffo said:

the funny part is, now it's been confirmed by FFG to be constant, meaning it lasts for the rest of the game everytime that ship executes that maneuver.

I mean, this has been my argument from the start with Resistance Leia, but it's so transparently not the intent that I wouldn't try to argue that way in anything other than a theoretical rules discussion.

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Rebel Leia is a constant ability in the rounds she is active.

The implication is that Resistance Leia is as well. After she's triggered, she's treated as constant for the execution of the manoeuvre concerned only.

It's still terrible writing but it's at least vaguely consistent.

Both Leia's have timing based triggers. Both are now defined as constant effects. Constant effects do not enter the ability que by the definition given in the second ruling I linked to. So when either ability is triggered they do not enter the queue and are never applied.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Both Leia's have timing based triggers. Both are now defined as constant effects. Constant effects do not enter the ability que by the definition given in the second ruling I linked to. So when either ability is triggered they do not enter the queue and are never applied.

They're applied when the ship executes the maneuver or references an ability that happens after the maneuver.

4 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Both Leia's have timing based triggers. Both are now defined as constant effects. Constant effects do not enter the ability que by the definition given in the second ruling I linked to. So when either ability is triggered they do not enter the queue and are never applied.

The writing is dumb and bad.

With that in mind.

The things which activate them are triggered abilities, once activated they are constant abilities until they are turned off (Rebel byy the end of the phase, Resistance by the end of the execution of the relevant manoeuvre.

My god FFG hire some technical writers already woudl it kill you?!

1 minute ago, Maui. said:

They're applied when the ship executes the maneuver or references an ability that happens after the maneuver.

Going to be interesting when they come up against other "At the start of the Activation Phase" (for Rebel Leia) or "When a ship reveals its dial" (for Resistance Leia) abilities and people have to figure out who's gets processed first...

3 minutes ago, Maui. said:

They're applied when the ship executes the maneuver or references an ability that happens after the maneuver.

So Lando still works with Nien Numb since his ability is "After you execute a blue maneuver", but BB-8 doesn't work with Leia since his ability is "Before you execute a blue maneuver"?

So glad they cleared all of this up.

3 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

So Lando still works with Nien Numb since his ability is "After you execute a blue maneuver", but BB-8 doesn't work with Leia since his ability is "Before you execute a blue maneuver"?

So glad they cleared all of this up.

BB8/Leia is unclear, to be honest. Leia's activation comes before BB8's trigged (After you reveal is strictly before before you execute) but whether BB8 considers the move to be blue isn't 100& clear. It's going to be blue when you execute it, so it's before executing a blue, but it's not blue when you're before-executing it, so it's not.

I repeat:

My god FFG hire some technical writers already would it kill you?!

It seems pretty clear to me that leia/bb8 works fine, but I understand why attempting to interpret the interaction strictly literally causes confusion.

1 minute ago, Maui. said:

It seems pretty clear to me that leia/bb8 works fine, but I understand why attempting to interpret the interaction strictly literally causes confusion.

If the effect (Leia) apply only during the Execute Maneuver step and for effects that trigger after that ship executes a maneuver.

And before means that the effect resolves immediately preceding the timing specified.

Then I really cannot see how can BB's before you execute a blue manouvre possibly make use of Leia's effect.

Either her effect would have to apply earlier than it is applied, or it's ability resolved later than it is resolved...

I'd put my money on Leia/BB-8 working but whoever wrote the forum post forgot that there were "Before you execute a blue/white/red maneuver" abilities. Is BB-8 the only one with this type of ability?

To my point, the very first forum post today has an error:

A: An ability is text from a card a player controls (such as a ship card, upgrade card, damage card, remote card, device, condition card, etc).

Can we start calling this the R4 Cova snowball?

5 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

If the effect (Leia) apply only during the Execute Maneuver step and for effects that trigger after that ship executes a maneuver.

And before means that the effect resolves immediately preceding the timing specified.

Then I really cannot see how can BB's before you execute a blue manouvre possibly make use of Leia's effect.

Either her effect would have to apply earlier than it is applied, or it's ability resolved later than it is resolved...

Because it's an official FAQ ruling and not rules that are actually codified in the rulebook, I have zero issue with extending the 'after execute' ruling to include the mechanically similar 'before execute.' I recognize that not everyone might agree with me on this but I do not think it's wisest to treat FAQ rulings as either a) very specific answers or b) very general guidelines, rather than try to use them as carefully worded case law.

10 minutes ago, Maui. said:

Because it's an official FAQ ruling and not rules that are actually codified in the rulebook, I have zero issue with extending the 'after execute' ruling to include the mechanically similar 'before execute.' I recognize that not everyone might agree with me on this but I do not think it's wisest to treat FAQ rulings as either a) very specific answers or b) very general guidelines, rather than try to use them as carefully worded case law.

This thread is an official source for game rulings, in addition to all documents on our website.

And it specifies things that are left unspecified by the RR. These are not good practices nor general suggestions for TOs.

These are rules. Perfectly valid rules. We might have zero issues extending Focus' "change all eyeball results to hit results" to include the mechanically similar "change ALL results to hit results", but just because we could does not mean we should.

The development team behind this answer took its time to specifically call out the time of application to include a very specific step and a set of abilities with a very specific trigger.

The fact they have omitted another set of abilities with a very similar trigger can mean one of two things: either they forgot to include it or they did not want to include it.

And while I understand how logically pleasing it would be to extend this rule, I'm getting fed up with having to connect the dots left out by the development team. So I'll only follow the lines they bothered to draw.

As a local Judge, I'll rule against the interaction.

Not that any of my players care to use either Leia or BB-8...

7 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

This thread is an official source for game rulings, in addition to all documents on our website.

...

These are rules. Perfectly valid rules.

No, they are not rules. They are rulings that tell us how the rules work. They are official, and they are valid, and they are often illuminating, but they are not rules.

9 minutes ago, Maui. said:

No, they are not rules. They are rulings that tell us how the rules work. They are official, and they are valid, and they are often illuminating, but they are not rules.

Sounds like FFG needs to provide a ruling on the difference between rules and rulings...

44 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

This thread is an official source for game rulings, in addition to all documents on our website.

And it specifies things that are left unspecified by the RR. These are not good practices nor general suggestions for TOs.

These are rules. Perfectly valid rules. We might have zero issues extending Focus' "change all eyeball results to hit results" to include the mechanically similar "change ALL results to hit results", but just because we could does not mean we should.

The development team behind this answer took its time to specifically call out the time of application to include a very specific step and a set of abilities with a very specific trigger.

The fact they have omitted another set of abilities with a very similar trigger can mean one of two things: either they forgot to include it or they did not want to include it.

And while I understand how logically pleasing it would be to extend this rule, I'm getting fed up with having to connect the dots left out by the development team. So I'll only follow the lines they bothered to draw.

As a local Judge, I'll rule against the interaction.

Not that any of my players care to use either Leia or BB-8...

i think i like your players. a lot.

With various changes that FFG have made, as well as some general loud clamouring, they've made attempts to reign in pre-manouevre shenanigans. Most recently with Ion...

*cough*BB8BlackOne

I wouldn't be surprised if there is an intent to keep BB8 away from Leia here.

I can't actually see how saying they do work together isn't a bit of a leap. But I'll take it rather than bother opening this can of worms during a game.

12 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

My god FFG hire some technical writers 12-year-olds with a couple months experience playing card games already woudl it kill you?!

Sure, hiring 12-year-olds would probably run afoul some child labor laws, but my point is that it's not even like they need someone with extremely specialized skills; just someone who can read rules consistently.

My favorite bit is how we now have "Constant Abilities" that are explicitly defined as not being constantly in effect. Thanks for clearing things up, FFG!

11 hours ago, MadTownXWing said:

I'd put my money on Leia/BB-8 working

I'd caution against actually doing that, though. I probably would have put money on R4 and Damaged Engine applying to the Revealed Maneuver, and FFG ended up ruling that just because a card has a Constant Ability effect doesn't mean that its ability is constantly in effect.

11 hours ago, Maui. said:

No, they are not rules. They are rulings that tell us how the rules work. They are official, and they are valid, and they are often illuminating, but they are not rules.

I agree that that's how it should work. The Rules Reference should be the rules. FAQs and whatnot should be rulings which simply clarify the rules. The problem is that this whole discussion stems from an official FAQ ruling that goes further than the rules, because they decided to make the ruling without updating the rules, for some reason. So, since the rules weren't also updated, we ended up with a situation that the only way to get the rules to say what the FAQ says they say is to interpret them in such a way that it breaks other cards. Hopefully they actually update the rules this time instead of just slapping this in the FAQ section to further muddy the waters.