Hello, another few questions for the player ruling committee (may seems obvious, I just want a confirmation for these):

1) Trench Run and Home One - according to the FAQ, Trench Run cannot be damaged any other way than blast icons and frameworks effects. So if Home One is attacking another objective, Trench run does NOT receive the extra 1 damage. Correct?

2) Fear - does this card return the "Force card" to the enemy player to use on another unit? According to the rules, this "Force card" is only ever returned to the player when a commited unit leaves play - so Fear should not make the "card" available. Correct?

3) Icetromper - can this unit target another non-vehicle unit that is NOT participating in an engagement? Or can it only target units that ARE participating in an engagement?

As always, thanks for any and all replies.

Jedi_Knight said:

1) This is correct. The reverse works though (Home One striking against the Trench Run will damage the 3 DS objectives)

2) I think it will return the Force Card, though I will go ahead and submit a rules question on this one. I will agree that it is not entirely clear what "remove from the Force struggle" means.

3) Only units that are participating, because it specifies that it must target an attacking non-vehicle unit. Note that Icetromper itself does not need to be participating.

Jedi_Knight said:

1. You answered your own question in your question. Trench Run can only be damaged by blast icons and unopposed damage and nothing else. If an ability deals damage to an objective it will not be able to damage trench run. ever.

2. It removes the unit from the force struggle and cant commit to the force, so if a unit is removed from the force struggle and cant commit to the force then the card should be removed from that unit. I think this one is worth an email.

3. Im gonna say no. The text says to remove a unit from an engagement and if that unit isnt in the engagement I dont think its a valid target.

TGO said:

My ninja-fu is strong tonight :-) On this question though, look a little closer at the Icetromper card and all will become clear:

Action : Sacrifice this unit to remove a target attacking non- Vehicle unit from an engagement. Then, deal 1 damage to that unit.

It most definitely must be in the engagement, otherwise it isn't an attacking unit.

About fear. From the rules- " To commit a unit…places one of his force cards…to indicate THIS UNIT IS COMMITED TO THE FORCE" emphasis theirs

"Force cards are not considered cards… THEY ACT ONLY TO IDENTIFY WHICH UNITS ARE COMMITED TO THE FORCE" emphasis mine.

If a unit is commited to the force it has a force card, if it is not it does not. So if it makes them no longer commited to the force the card goes away. "Remove enhanced unit from the force struggle, if able" seems like a one time effect, that should be an action. As an ongoing effect (enhancement) the character is still commited to the force but cannot participate in the force struggle. Card stays. The force struggle is a framework that happens every turn. (p15) the player is removed from that, just like exhausted characters are, but they are still commited and still get the negitives. very gross card

Fear: My interpretation is that the Force card stays on the unit. They are still commited to the Force, but they can't partticipate in the Force struggle. Basically, you've removed one of your opponent's Force cards from the game because it's tied up and can't be used. Also, since the unit stays commited to the Force, it would keep taking double Focus tokens when striking. It's like a new-and-improved version of Intimidated.

I can't wait to hear what the official word is.

It should be one or the other- "remove" is active and has no place on an enhancement- the card could just say "this unit cannot participate in force struggles" the cannot commit to the force would be silly at that point. or it could say "this unit is no longer commited to the force and cannot be commited to the force". two different cards, both good the 1st could trap a charcter to staying commited the 2nd couldn't.

As written - if they are currently in a force struggle when you play the card they are removed (it's an enhancement , so that's dumb) then you can't commit to the force. if they already are it has no effect. As a combo enhance/action that could be cool but that's not this card. this card is a mess

> Rule Question:
> The card "Fear" (from Desolation of Hoth) removes a unit from the force struggle, if able. Does this mean that if he is currently committed to the force, his force card is detached from him and returned to his controller's pool of available force cards?

From Nate: " Yes, the Force card is removed and returned to the pool."

Glad to have that cleard up in the direction of reason, can't believe anyone was advocating for such an OP interpretation.

Oh well, that seriously diminishes the usefulness of Fear, but the again rules are rules. As always thanks for the answers.

Putting fear on Yoda or Obi wan is a win in my book.

I agree that Fear now has lost a little of its luster. It is not as good as I hoped. Tying up a Force Card and making them focus twice would be awesome for the DS.

Tying up a force card would be horrendous. It'd be like something telling you to scoop out three of the focus tokens and have them not available as markers any more from the bank. The force cards "are not cards" just as the rulebook says. They are essentially markers. I shudder to think how much more confusing and convaluted the game could become if things start messing with the tokens.

I'm so relieved that Fear works the way it does.

Card idea: "All Too Easy- Sith- unit does not contribute it's force icons to the force struggle" Maybe a 1 cost action or 3 cost enhancement. I don't think that would break the game. Especially when we see non unit cards that contribute force to the struggle already. there's bound to be a play enhancement that gives 3 for LS at some point.

We're messing with the tokens every single game - there is nothing gamebreaking about tying up the Force "card" on character. The Fear as it is is sitiatonal at best, since most of the time the Force will be held by some 1-2 icon douches. There is nothing confusing on it either - you just wouldn't count the icons, yet the units would receive the 2 focus tokens - now THAT is an answer to LS holding the Force. Not to mention, as was said, cards like Ancient Monument and Jedi Training lessen the usefulness of Fear even more.

As it stands currently, Intimidation is much more useful in my book. But … rules are rules. Another reason to put the new Sith Hoth objective into the waiting line for General Veers and the fourth Hoth pack.

Since I am the TO for your tourney tommorrow, I am once again in need of confirmation of some of our interpretations. Again, many may seems obvious - I am really looking for confirmation mainly on these to prevent possible disputes over the rules (even though I will be absolute authority, I want my rulings to be correct and based also on the opinions of others).

Trench Run and Hit and Run - does not work together, no extra damage placed on Trench Run. Correct?

Force Choke Stih Vader - Reactions happens AFTER the triggering condition. So the player who played Choke would choose a legal target, that action will FULLY resolve (barring any interrupts) and then he may choose the target for Vader's Reaction (as based on the resolvement of the prior Force Choke). So if the Choke was canceled by any means, that cancel happens BEFORE the target for Vader's Reaction is chosen. Correct?

Looks right Trench is not an objective-

vaders reaction could only be canceled by an interrupt that stopped the event from being played. Counter strike would not stop vader and eventcard was played- reaction conditions are met- (3.31) of the faq.

Also note that the player whose turn it is get 1st chance to react regardless of who took an action so on DS turn LS can play nothing but interrupts between Choke and Vader

Ok, since Trench Run is in the title of this thread I'm going to resurect it to ask a procedural question. The word on the street is that Trench Run cannot be engaged more than once, in a different thread the eternal battle of "This is not an objective" versus "This can be engaged as an objective" was settled by a ruling from the developer.

… Now, let's say you're playing in a tournament. There is no FAQ ruling that Trench Run cannot be engaged more than once, correct? If you were evil you could swear up and down that Trench Run can be engaged more than once and invoke the logic that the "Yes" side invoked in this debate before the ruling was handed down from the developer. Your opponent might know the forum ruling and argue against you. It then rests on the judge to either (a) be up on all the informal forums rulings that people ask and post, or (b) reach the correct conclusion on their own, which isn't always a guarantee.

So my question is: How official do we treat any of these rulings? Obviously the developer telling you something is pretty official, but at the same time there is no real proof if you need to show someone, you know?To me it just made sense that Trench Run couldn't be engaged more than once in terms of the game, but other people had what could be considered convincing arguments as to why it could be engaged more than once. The short answer would be "You need good judges", but in a tournament with 10 or so players it isn't a guarantee you will have a world class judge on hand all the time. Thoughts?

- "You may engage the Death Star dial as though it were a dark side objective" In my mind- when you engage it you treat it like an objective- an objective can only be engaged once- so (IT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE) doesn't apply here. The FAQ states that it can only be damaged by framework effects, and clearly staes that unopposed damage hits it. So if unopposed (framework) hits it, I would assume only once (framework) applies. I think the point is that cards that target objectives do not effect the dial but framework stuff does. I have not seen an official ruling on ths.

When it comes to player disagreeing with you; just show them these rules- The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final authority for

all card interpretations,-

I would expect a TO to be up on rulings or to be willing to check- but even with proof, if it's not in the faq it's up to the TO

I would think it´s quite clear: Although it is not an objective, it is engaged like an objective , and objectives can only be engaged once per turn . I think no one shoud be able to read this in any other way and get away with it.

If it is "Engaged like an objective" and can be damaged by "framework effects", would not Target of Opportunity actually damage the dial as well? If you may engage it like an objective, Fate Card resolution is a "framework event" as defined by the FAQ, as it is a "white" and not "blue" (Player action) segment? So blast icons, unopposed, and fate cards?

I get that Home One is unable to damage it because essentially, unless you're engaging the dial directly, it's not being treated as an objective at that moment in time… so when Home One's ability would trigger, the Dial/TR would go unaffected. However, if you're engaging it and Target of Opportunity is played, it seems logical that the damage would go through. Especially when you read the specific phrasing of TOO:

"If you are the attacking player, deal one damage to the engaged objective."

Is not the "engaged objective" the dial, since you are engaging it as an objective?

No. It is engaged LIKE an objective, but is not an objective. So there is no 'engaged objective' when targeting the dial. Unfortunately.

Absolution said:

Fate Card resolution is a Framework effect, The actual Fate Cards produce a Card Effect. Trench Run is essentially Immune to Card effects per the FAQ.