This came up last night and the person I was playing against couldn't believe it.

My opponent has no defending characters. I have a Repair Droid out that is not focused. I delcare him as a attack. Focus to strike, deal no damage but then do my one unopposed damage. That is doable correct? I checked the rulebook and it says nothing about not being able to attack if you don't have any damage icons, that you just need to attack with a ready unit.

It makes no sense in real life but then again card games are not real life

brimmstorm said:

You played correctly. Additionally, a unit with no icons could be used to defend and prevent unopposed damage. In such an instance, it still must focus to strike even though that has no effect.

Absolutely valid use.

Yeah I knew I was right. I more posted this so I can tell him I was right.

I think he only fought it because it won me the game

Won me a game in a tourney last night. "Hey 3PO, go blow up that objective would you?" "Right away sir."

So what you all are saying DS can with 2 Duty Officers & a Orbital Bombardment card take one unopposed objective in 2 turns or 2 unopposed objectives in 3 turns ?

Sass said:

In a vacuum sure but that would require the LS to do nothing.

djuanbond said:

Nope, it is rewarded even if there was no defenders at all. Even if there was no defenders at the start at the end of the engagment there is still no surviving defenders. Just because there was no defenders at all doesn't mean the unopposed bonus does not apply.

djuanbond said:

True, there were no participating defenders to have survived, but the question on the unopposed bonus isn't "were participating units all destroyed?" which could indeed be interpreted as requiring units to destroy. The question is "are there any surviving defenders?" If there were never any defenders, then there are also no surviving defenders.

Not that I didn't believe you guys, but I wanted to get an official response from FFG on this. Here it is:

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

Unopposed is rewarded if there are no surviving defenders. This can happen in one of two ways:

djuanbond said:

both 1) and 2) are the same when unopposed is checked. If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.

No defenders, whether there were none to begin with, or none survived, doesn't matter. All the unnopposed checks for is:

After all strikes are resolved, are there any defenders alive in the engagement? If no, unopposed awarded. If yes, no unopposed is rewarded.

stormwolf27 said:

The rules question link was used, and what was posted was the response that was received.

ziggy2000 said:

Ah. That's what I get for responding while tired. I thought he was still asking which is true.

That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.

stormwolf27 said:

Except that reading the rules literally and using RAW gets you the correct answer.

Have to agree with dbmeboy here for a change, the rules as written say no surviving defenders and if there was never any defenders there is still no surviving defenders.

Toqtamish said:

Oh come now, we agree more often than not. And I'm pretty sure even the rulings we disagreed on we agreed weren't clear in the rules and would need FAQ clarification.

One thing players should keep in mind is that Star Wars the Card Game is an abstraction of the events and actions of the Star Wars universe. Sure, it doesn't make sense on the surface for a repair droid to "destroy" anything directly, but what's to say some seemingly mundane action performed by the droid couldn't be the catalyst for something larger?

Perhaps the little droid repaired a faulty power coupling connected to a shield generator--a generator used to deflect a laser bombardment that would have destroyed members of a diplomatic delegation who's mission was to secure supplies and weapons for the Alliance--weapons that granted the Alliance the capability of mounting the attack on the second Death Star.

Hooray for the repair droid!

dbmeboy said:

not always, as the person asking the question about unopposed damage would suggest. In this case (and a few others that I can't think of the exact specific circumstance) the rules were read too literally, and it was interpreted, incorrectly, that for unopposed to be awarded, there had to be defenders declared and then all killed off.

TonganJedi said:

Hehe. I like this flavor analysis… Very "For Want of a Nail."

Help me understand the difference Dbmeboy, was your reading of handling face down edge stack cards too literal or just incorrect?

The case or arguement was being made on the basis that if a unit has no attack value I.E. icon to use to attack said Objective it should not be award an unopposed point just for focusing. IMHO it's a bad rule in an otherwise great game, BUT a rule none the less that i'm sure Mr. brimmstorm will not soon let the DS forget

Niranth said:

I'd say neither. My reading was that you couldn't look at facedown cards unless something specifically allowed it. There is now a rules clarification specifically allowing it, which there was not before.