since chewbacca has his cards dealt facedown and the saboteur turns them faceup after they have been dealt, chewie is trumped by saboteur?
thus, if chewie is saboteuered and get the crit that causes others to ignore pilot ability and upgrades, he is just normal after that?

Unreleased Action: Choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1 and roll 1 attack die. On a or result, choose 1 random facedown Damage card assigned to that ship, flip it faceup, and resolve it.

When you are dealt a faceup damage card, immediately flip it facedown (without resolving its ability).

Id say chewbecca ends up with a critical as its not being delt.

I would concur with that.

I may be wrong but my take on this would be that you are not dealt the critical hit until the card is turned over. thus Chewie's ability should be able to flip it back over. There was another discussion on an interaction similar to this. The critical doesn't come into play until it is dealt face up, otherwise it's just a hit. Following that line of thinking it should be able to be flipped facedown. Saboteur basically deals a face up damage card even though it was already on the ship as facedown damage. It seems to me that Chewie's ability would still come into play. just my thoughts on this, this is how we will play until there is a ruling to justify making a change.

An extremely simple definition of having cards delt to you means having them taken from the card pile and given to you.

So any fliped up wont be delt. But it take a faq to decide on ffg's definition.

I may be wrong but my take on this would be that you are not dealt the critical hit until the card is turned over. thus Chewie's ability should be able to flip it back over. There was another discussion on an interaction similar to this. The critical doesn't come into play until it is dealt face up, otherwise it's just a hit. Following that line of thinking it should be able to be flipped facedown. Saboteur basically deals a face up damage card even though it was already on the ship as facedown damage. It seems to me that Chewie's ability would still come into play. just my thoughts on this, this is how we will play until there is a ruling to justify making a change.

I have to disagree with your thought on this. All the saboteur does is flip the card face up AND resolves the effect, the card isn't dealt. So Chewie will take that crit.

~Ron

Yep,

Chewie takes the crit on this one. I think, however, he is immune to Vader.

I'm not on here to argue, I just stated my interpretation of the card. without trying to start an argument, how is it any different than the saboteur vs damaged cockpit thread on this site? Thanks

Could be resolved if you concidered each ships damage cards as part of its personal deck. Saboteur gets you to deal one random card face up from this deck of damage cards.<br />This is not worded this way anywhere in the rules, but it could simplify a number of saboteur questions.

Critical damage When a ship suffers damage, players deal the Damage card facedown and ignore the card’s text. However, when a ship suffers critical damage, players deal the Damage card faceup.

Saboteur (2)UnreleasedAction: Choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1 and roll 1 attack die. On a or result, choose 1 random facedown Damage card assigned to that ship, flip it faceup, and resolve it.

Chewbacca When you are dealt a faceup damage card, immediately flip it facedown (without resolving its ability).

The two cards use completly different words dealt v assigned. From the rules page 16 we can see the word delt being used

Chewie has very similar wording to some of the critical hit results, which we have determined are applied when the card is flipped over NOT when the card "was dealt". Look at the "Saboteur vs. Damaged Cockpit" thread to see the discussion.

Considering that, it seems that Chewie should immediately flip the card face down the moment Saboteur tried to flip it face up.

This interaction is going to have a similar outcome for the Damaged Cockpit/Saboteur ruling. If the ruling is that cards turned face up by saboteur are being "dealt" at that moment, then there is no interaction conflict. If they are just being turned face up, then the Damaged Cockpit/Blinded Pilot/etc cards might have retroactive effects unless FFG breaks/bends its own rules for the interaction. I think it will be ruled as being dealt a random card since it is the easiest way to mitigate rule conflicts.

I'm inclined to believe the last card played will be the trump card. So in this case, Chewie takes a critical.

Agreed: I think this works much like HLC and rerolls. Chewie only flips it facedown when it is DEALT to him. Once it's been dealt, if something like Saboteur "flips it over and resolves it" nothing in that description should trigger his ability. Even Chewie doesn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

I agree that is how I would LIKE to see it played. On the other hand, that would be completely inconsistent with the way we play Damaged Cockpit + Saboteur, or any number of other cards + Saboteur. At the moment, the ruling we have says flipping the card with Saboteur is the same as having it dealt through normal means.

Just saying that for consistencies sake, Chewie should turn it back to face down.

Well I'm not sure if there is an official ruling on Saboteur yet, as they haven't put out anything official I've seen yet for any of the Wave 3 cards.

I'm not sure there has to be a discrepancy, though. It would be nice if they'd clarify their wording a bit, but I could see something like Damaged Cockpit being flipped face down when Chewie received it as combat damage, then having it flipped over and resolved by Saboteur.

They definitely need to be more consistent with their keywords, though. That would make it a lot more clear when something does or does not fall under a particular clarification.

It's probably worth noting that we don't have an actual ruling on Damaged Cockpit/Saboteur. Hothie provided word of how it should be played, but that carried absolutely no explanation with it, so we honestly don't even know whether it follows the rules, or it's a "Yeah, the rules say this but play it like that".

There really isn't anything for Chewie+Saboteur to be consistent WITH at this point.

^^ What he said. Even on the handful of Wave 3 cards someone got a quick response to, there was no real official ruling or context given. I'm sure they're saving all those for when Wave 3 is widely available and people have had even more questions come up.

It's probably worth noting that we don't have an actual ruling on Damaged Cockpit/Saboteur. Hothie provided word of how it should be played, but that carried absolutely no explanation with it, so we honestly don't even know whether it follows the rules, or it's a "Yeah, the rules say this but play it like that".

There really isn't anything for Chewie+Saboteur to be consistent WITH at this point.

True, and true. But until we get the FAQ, I figure we should try to maintain some semblance of consistency with the way we "think" the devs want it played, and Hothie's conversation is all we have to go off of.

I'm sure they're saving all those for when Wave 3 is widely available and people have had even more questions come up.

Or, if they hold to form, six months after that.

But I'm not convinced that the answer Hothie got is necessarily that relevant to this question, I guess. One is a timing issue, the other is a much broader question of how you define the flipping over of a damage card.

Because clearly "we" think differently on what constitutes common sense in this case. If the ruling comes down that this doesn't bypass Chewie, great, but their rulings have been so all over the board in terms of common sense versus strict reading of the wording versus completely overriding the card as written in favor of their original intent, that I think everyone is going to do it the way that makes sense to them, until told otherwise definitively,

Not to be difficult - I just see this and the other question as two different aspects of critical damage: one of WHEN something happens when you turn over a damage card - a timing question - the other what it MEANS to flip over a damage card - applying versus revealing versus suffering versus whatever other key words they throw around a bit willy nilly.

To me this question is much more in line with Fettigator, as far as that combo hinging on the definition of "revealing" a maneuver. We have the ruling on that, but none of the context to explain it or apply it as a rule precedent.

Just saing that for consistencies sake, Chewie should turn it back to face down.

Why? And how did you ever come to that theory?

There are 33 damage cards that make up a deck which is in the rule being called a deck. Page 16 red note.

Page 16 says specifically about dealing.

Chewi is about being delt cards as defined by the rules from the deck.

Saboteur is not about dealing its about turning over a card in someone's hand.

I hate to bring another game up but in poker you have a deck and a hand. Two clearly distinct things.

Sabatour card does not say deal it says randomly choose.

Sabatour never deals chewie loses and gets a critical

I can see where he's coming from - I'm just not sure if I agree. And like I said; their rulings have been so wildly all over the place, from common sense to Dark Curse vs. Blaster Turret, that you could flip a coin as far as which side is going to be proved correct.

He's referring to another thread in which the question came up about Saboteur revealing the Damaged Cockpit (I believe) critical effect, which reduces your pilot skill to 0. The exact wording is: "After the round in which you receive this card, treat your pilot skill value as "0" The question that came up was, more or less "if Saboteur reveals this, because it was previously face down damage, does "in which you receive" the card mean the round in which it's flipped face up, or the round in which you actually were handed that damage (which would be almost impossible to track).

The reason that would be important is that as long as you were damaged before the round in which Saboteur flipped it, a strict reading of the wording would imply that it took effect IMMEDIATELY, versus at the end of the current round, rendering your pilot skill 0 and more than likely forfeiting you a round of activation.

With regards to Saboteur, the so far kind of quasi-official off the books ruling seems to be that it takes effect after the *current* round, regardless of when you actually were dealt the damage card itself - in other words the more common sense but less technically correct reading of the card.

The problem I have is that Kinetic, for example, is extrapolating a lot of precedent from that answer, before we have any of the context. Which would be fine if we were given consistent common sense rulings on everything, but while we USUALLY do, we don't always, and not everyone agrees on every question which way constitutes common sense.

What Kinetic is saying in this case boils down to something like this: Damaged Cockpit says it takes effect "after the round in which you receive this card." If it were worded in line with what seems to be their eventual ruling on the subject, it would say something more like "after the round in which this effect is revealed" or something. But right now we know it says "receive" but MEANS "when it gets flipped." Kinetic is making the logical but somewhat dangerous leap to say that implies in all cases that Saboteur flipping a damage card face up, "receiving" a crit, and "being dealt" a face up damage card are all synonymous. And as I said, I see where he's coming from, but I think it's a dangerous assumption to make until it gets further clarified.

To me, Saboteur/Damaged Cockpit is a timing issue, and could very well be a very specific exception to the wording. They've done it before, flat out stating "this is how this card SHOULD work" even if that's straight up not the way that card is currently worded.

So I completely understand his point of view, I just don't agree with making that logical leap yet. There are so many different ways they word crits - turning a damage card face up, dealing a damage card face up, receiving a face up damage card - that it's impossible to know for sure yet whether they intend Chewie to be a hard counter to ALL critical effects, or if they specifically worded it with the intention of Saboteur being one of the few ways to get around Chewie.

Given the choice of common sense versus strict interpretation I'd hope for common sense.

But! You never know.