Actually, I think he may have it right this time.

Without knowing specifically why the Damaged Cockpit ruling came down as it did, I think it would be a mistake to draw precedent from it. Lacking that, we'd have to fall back on the standard definition of "dealt", which means it only kicks in when it comes from the deck.

That was a joke - he said inconceivable, so I was quoting the Princess Bride.

Oh, I know I just thought it was funny that it actually is relatively inconceivable this time...

I think you guys are over-analyzing too much this subject.

"Saboteur" don't say anything about 'dealing' cards. It clearly states 'resolving' the card.

Critical cards can only produce their effects once they are 'resolved'. And it happens to be that when you normally deal a face-up card you also must resolve it. But in the case of having the card face-down and later flipping it up, it seems pretty obvious that the usage of the expression 'resolve it' means that it is intended for the flipped card to produce effects from that very same moment. You are not dealing any card, you are just resolving it.

And in the especific case of 'damaged cockpit' it seems logical to think that at game's release, the Devs hadn't in mind that in future expansions a face-down card could be flipped-up later by a card effect. But again, it seems pretty obvious that the saboteur mechanic of 'resolving' it, is meant to state that the card should produce its effects from the moment of its 'resolution', regardless of when card has been technically dealt.

Now, you can argue syntax and semantics with me all day, but I think it's pretty clear what 'resolve it' is meant to cover.

I think throwing around words like 'clearly,' 'obvious,' and 'logical,' you're making some huge assumptions about the validity of your own perspective. If it was in fact as clear as you like to think, nobody would be debating the question.

True, and I apologize if I sounded too arrogant, it wasn't my intention.

I still believe that its pretty difficult to argue that 'resolving' a card should be considered the same thing as 'dealing it', specially when "Saboteur" used specifically different words -flip, resolve- than 'deal'. You may deal a card face-down or face-up. You only resolve face-up cards. Saying that flipping-up a card is the equivalent of dealing it, would be like saying that flipping it down is the equivalent of discarding it.

Indeed, you could also argue that developers had 'future plans in mind' when they wrote 'damaged cockpit' text, and that everything that has transpired has done so according to their designs... But in all honesty, I find that 'highly unlikely', with one foot on the realm of obviety, even if we want to deliberately avoid the word.

I think trying to read into the developer's intentions or state of mind is an even worse idea.

I didn't mean that you sounded arrogant, just that you were making a big assumption that what seemed obvious or logical to you, from your own perspective, might not at all from another person's POV. And clearly people are coming at this question from a number of different angles, or there wouldn't be any discussion of it at all.

The problem we run into is that there are a number of cases where the developers have not consistently used keywords or written the rules in such a way it's obvious how they want them to be played. In fact in one or two instances (see, the whole boost/barrel roll vs. proximity mines case) they have flat out overruled the text on the cards in favor of the way they wanted it played. Hopefully they will clarify that one further at some point with an actual errata or something.

The whole thing where they made it clear that a reroll is a dice modification, but not considered by the rules to be an actual roll of the dice (despite 'roll' being right there making up 2/3 of the word) wasn't obvious to a lot of people. Even the people who were playing devil's advocate were caught off guard by Dark Curse being immune to Blaster Turret, among other things.

And I think most relevantly to this example is the whole Fettigator thing. Now we have it on good authority that the Boba Fett + Navigator combo is legal and will be clarified as such in the next FAQ. The problem is, both of those abilities say "when you reveal" a maneuver. The rules seem to make it clear that 'revealing' is the process of turning the dial over and showing your move to everyone, but the ruling makes it clear that for all intents and purposes, even changing your dial to a new maneuver using an ability like Fett or Navigator ALSO has to count as 'revealing' it, even though neither one works as revealing is described in the rules: 1. Reveal Dial: Reveal the active ship’s maneuver dial by flipping it faceup.

But for Fettigator to work, as FFG has said coming out of GenCon, that it does, simply changing your maneuver from the revealed one to a new one must also count as a "reveal" of your dial. The combo is in no way legal otherwise.

Now obviously that's a whole different combo, but I'm just trying to make the point that what the developers 'intended' is clearly NOT always obvious from our best interpretation of the rules as written, and that let alone what's obvious to one of us not being obvious to another, what's obvious to the people writing the rules is frequently not obvious to ANY of us.

I'm just hoping that with Wave 3 coming out this week, a hefty FAQ update will come close on its heels, since they've had plenty of time to see which issues have been debated as far back as they first started leaking cards from this wave months and months ago. Because we can all talk until we're blue in the face, debate all the fine points and read between the lines, and it's pretty much a coin flip which side of any question will be 'right' - and even then, only if the odds of the coin landing on edge with a ruling out of left field was almost as likely a result.

Wow this came up in my game last night and we both thought about it then decided that the whole idea was Chewie is immune to crits and rolled with that. now my brain is hurting ;-( hopefully we will get an offical ruling from FFG here soon

sadly they didn't address this one is the new FAQ. I'm not sure why? The spelled out that the Fettigator is legal why not clear up Chewie and the Saboteur....sigh....

I think the general consensus is that Saboteur works on Chewie. Thats how I play it and I'm the one usually flying Chewie.