Well I'll be. So it's kind of half and half. Not just blast damage, but unopposed as well. But poor Target of Opportunity gets left out. Still, I'm now actually willing to play this card rather than pitch it to the Edge battle.

I just wish I could understand there reasoning. I'd rather they change the card and/or the rules to fit their explanation, but instead we get:

"Because the Death Star dial is explicitly not an objective, card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Death Star dial. When engaged as an objective, the Death Star dial may be damaged by framework game effects only. This is limited to [blast] damage and unopposed damage."

I see 2 main problems with the ruling:

1) It says that card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Deat Star dial. However, both blast damage icons (which explicity do work per this answer) and the Fate card Target of Opportunity are card effects. One works and the other doesn't?

2) The Death Star dial may be damage by framework game effects only. Nifty sounding, but never defined anywhere. Not in the original rulebook. Not in the FAQ. The only mention of framework game effect(s) in either document is part of this answer.

TGO said:

Unfortunately, it's a trash ruling without any logical basis when you parse the explanation and compare it to the rules and the FAQ, newly concocted yet still undefined terms and all (looking at you, "framework game effects.") It reeks of a half-hearted job by the rules team, and the two playtesters I had discussions with before the FAQ went live felt the same. Nonetheless, I suppose I should just go ahead and honor my wager, eh?

dbmeboy said:

#1) I discussed the same in my framework events thread.

#2) Framework game effects is not defined, yet I would assume its definition would be effects generated by framework events. However, if that were the defintion, effects of fate cards would qualify as framework game effects based on the definition of framework events on page 30, the diagram on page 31 and the discussion in the FAQ on page 4.

Yeah, I've already submitted a series of questions to try to figure out the seemingly self-contradictory answer. Also one for a clarification on the timing of Secret of Yavin 4 as the FAQ about it seems to contradict the rules about interrupt timing.

Consider this food for thought. Fate cards have their own unique text where each fate card can do something different. Blast icons appear on multiple cards and therefore all perform a common function that is defined in the rule book. Card effect = printed text on a card and framework effect = game rule defined effect that is defined as part of the game rules?

dbmeboy said:

I noticed the same. When considering the timing of interrupts, the usage of the word "when" as defined by the rulebook and by the text on The Secret of Yavin 4, it should seemingly be concluded that TSoY4 would be engaged " instead" of whatever objective was originally intended to be engaged. "When" is a specific term, and a lot of the mechanics associated with interrupts rely heavily upon appropriate interpretation of that definition. Yet in this instance, they seemed to ignore their own definition.

Or they just overlooked it. I guess it's another ruling that should just be memorized and not understood.

Bomb said:

Hmm, certainly worth contemplating. So protect, shielding, targeted strike, unopposed damage and combat icons would all be framework game effects by that definition. Any other non-standardized effects would not be. I suppose that could work. We can only speculate though. It seems like if one were to make a ruling based on a specific term like "framework game effect," perhaps defining the term would help. Good thought though.

Ultimately, it is their game to rule on how they please.

And yes, I agree.. they should at least define a card effect in the FAQ. I am willing to bet this will be referenced on a new card sooner or later and it will only pose the question when it is.

Surge1000 said:

Surge1000 said:

Yes, you should. Or you should never describe yourself as valuing integrity again.

I think substituting a deck of playing cards for the SWLCG cards would be ok. No need to destroy the good cards.

I could care less if anything is eaten, I just like to bust balls.

Surge1000 said:

That is your opinion which to be frank I think is brought out of frustration. You and dbmeboy were wrong. You guys were convinced you were right and did not allow yourselves to be open to the possibility you might be wrong.

The card and rules were really quite simple and easy to understand. I think you two both were overthinking it and creating complications where none exist. Trying to argue your point now or that the ruling makes no sense etc is just silly. It is not even really a ruling, just an answer to a question that was supported by reading the card and not seeing things that were not there.

The FAQ is here, the questions is answered, let it rest. Eat your cards or don't, I no longer care what you do but continuing an argument after you have been proven wrong is useless.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the answer and move on, but the stated goal of the FAQ section of the document is to explain rulings as well as answer questions. An answer with a game term made up for that answer and never defined is a poor explanation no matter how you look at it. I'm fine with the final result, I just want a better explanation.

It seems pretty simple to me. To resolve blast icons, you have to do damage to an objective. To resolve unopposed damage, you have to do damage to an objective. But resolving card effects doesn't always damage an objective. The act of resolving them always takes place, but the outcome is different based on the card text.

And "framework events" are on p. 30 of the rulebook, if that's the term you're saying was made up for the FAQ.

DailyRich said:

No, the made-up term for this answer is "framework game effects." To be clear, I have no problem with them creating new terms to tighten up rules, but I would like them to define those terms.

Framework effects = effects that happen by framework event mechanics. These effects happen as outlined in the rule book as it is what happens in the framework of the rules in how you play the game. These do not originate from cards or card text directly.
Examples: Unopposed bonus, Balance phase outcomes(Light side damages objective because on their turn the balance of the force is light; Dark side advances Deathstar dial 1 point and 1 more point if balance of the force is dark), Refresh phase removal of focus tokens, Resolving combat icons in engagements, engaging the objective, Drawing cards via the draw phase framework, Winning edge battles, etc.

Card effects = effects coming from the text provided by a card. These effects originate from text on a card.
Examples: Card Abilities(outlined on pages 24-25 in rule book) and Fate card effects. A card telling you to add to the deathstar dial, a card telling you to remove focus tokens, a card telling you to place damage tokens, etc.

Pretending you don't have any cards, if you read the rule book and the rule book tells you to do something specific(to cards, to tokens, to the opponent, to your own hand, etc) because of the phase you're in, because of cards that are in play, or because of some kind of an outcome, then it's a framework effect.
If a card's text itself tells you to do something specific(to cards, to tokens, to the opponent, to your own hand, etc) because of the phase you're in, because of cards that are in play, or because of some kind of an outcome or trigger, then it's a card effect.

I hope the above helps.

EDIT: I have to admit that I am speaking of the above with my experience from AGoT LCG and how card effects are defined and distinguished from game effects(aka framework effects). Seeing how the LoTR LCG has followed similar rulings with how some rulings are made in AGoT LCG, I presume that they will rule similar in this one. Maybe it is a bad presumption, but it is a form of a precedent in my opinion(which all of the above is, however that is also how I interpret the rules).

Bomb said:

The problem with your definition at this time (though I suspect it will end up being mostly correct) is that it's completely infered from a couple of data points. We know explicitly from the FAQ that the unopposed bonus and combat icons are considered "framework game effects." We can pretty easily infer that the effects of Fate cards are considered "card effects." What we don't have yet is a definition of either of those terms to sort all other effects. While data points are enough to figure out how to play Trench Run correctly, it isn't very satisfactory from an understanding the rules standpoint because there's no way to sort any new situations if they come up in the future. For instance, if the result of resolving combat icons (which is not itself a framework event) is a framework game effect because combat icons are defined in the rule book instead of on the card itself, perhaps some keyword abilities on cards would be considered framework game effects and not card effects. Maybe all of them will. Maybe none of them. Maybe only if they're being used during a framework event? That's why definitions are important.

I just have to say that I'm glad you got in touch with FFG(Nate French specifically) to give them feedback on how to improve the FAQ in a near future update.

Bomb said:

I've had a couple of discussions with him via the Rules Question link on the bottom of the forums today. He has been very helpful in explaining the 2 rulings I didn't understand (Trench Run and Secret of Yavin 4) and mentioned that further clarification will be out with the next update of the FAQ to better define a few terms. Hopefully it will be out with the tournament rules.

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by the FAQ response.

So just to be clear, according to the FAQ: the only way to damage the Death Star dial with Trench Run is to apply blast icons from attackers and/or unopposed damage. All other effects from cards are invalid. Correct?

TonganJedi said:

Yes, exactly what it says.

FAQ Page 7:

When engaged as an objective, the Death Star dial may be damaged by framework game effects only. This is limited to º (blast) damage and unopposed damage.

Ok, so I was wondering if you could attack the Dial more than once a turn, since it's not an objective? I skimmed through all 9 pages of this topic, hoping that is was addressed, but didn't see it.

I ask because of the sneaky ships with Trench Run. Say you have Across the Anoat Sector and Raise the Stakes out and you have 3 Sleuth Scouts in play.

Can you attack with a lone Sleuth Scout and do 4 damage; then attack another lone Sleuth Scout, for another 4 damage; and then attack with the last lone Sleuth Scout and win the game?

Ok, so I was wondering if you could attack the Dial more than once a turn, since it's not an objective? I skimmed through all 9 pages of this topic, hoping that is was addressed, but didn't see it.

I ask because of the sneaky ships with Trench Run. Say you have Across the Anoat Sector and Raise the Stakes out and you have 3 Sleuth Scouts in play.

Can you attack with a lone Sleuth Scout and do 4 damage; then attack another lone Sleuth Scout, for another 4 damage; and then attack with the last lone Sleuth Scout and win the game?

I don´t think so. From my poor memory, I believe Trench Run reads, it can be engaged like an objective . So it would follow normal engagement rules, like an objective.