In talking with Hujoe Bigs, I have actually found more evidence to suggest that an errata of sorts would be needed. For instance, ever since PtL had been released in the game it seems most effects that would take place at the same time as another effect seem to be governed over by the "immediate" wording, effectively removing your choice between which effect should happen first. Because of this, it seems to point towards a common thread, that cards like R2-D2 and PtL only need a slight change to clear up confusion.

No large rule change would be necessary, just a slight errata in an FAQ update.

Right now those two are the only two real references we have for after effects and when it would require to take place, both would benefit from an errata, adding immediate to the cards (less arguments).

EDIT: Again, through out all of this, I still hate when people don't mention leads to information, but say that this is the general opinion, and since it is, it has to be right. Or give a general statement with no information to back that up, ie "No".

No, they wouldn't benefit from errata'ing to say "immediate", because "immediate" has another implication. Not that we can prove that to you.

For the last... Are you kidding me? You're basically saying you came in here and wanted everyone else to do your research for you. I'm sorry, but that's rude, and when you cap it all off with repeated demands to prove it to you or you'll never believe it, it's pretty much not much more than trolling. If you want to know how to play, people will gladly help answer. But if you're never going to accept anything we say unless we provide four pages of footnotes, do your own **** research next time and figure it out for yourself. Preferably without 7 pages of misinformation for players who might come along later honestly seeking answers.

In talking with Hujoe Bigs, I have actually found more evidence to suggest that an errata of sorts would be needed. For instance, ever since PtL had been released in the game it seems most effects that would take place at the same time as another effect seem to be governed over by the "immediate" wording, effectively removing your choice between which effect should happen first. Because of this, it seems to point towards a common thread, that cards like R2-D2 and PtL only need a slight change to clear up confusion.

No large rule change would be necessary, just a slight errata in an FAQ update.

Oh, I get it - we're idiots but if you and Hujoe decide something needs an errata it must actually be broken.

Look, you don't get to go around setting fires and vandalizing and then claim it was a public service because you're keeping police and maintenance people employed. If you want to help come up with answers, help come up with answers, don't be a giant pain who states flat out that he will not be swayed by anything short of a message handed down to him personally from on high and then say you were just trying to 'spark a discussion' or some BS.

To be clear, there is no confusion here. There are no masses calling for FFG to step in and fix this, no dozens of people all throwing their hands up in the air in despair. There's just this thread, here, and a couple of guys claiming they need an errata because under the "accepted" interpretation of the rules, they can't mangle their actions the way they want to.

You said there's only a problem created with making your idea work, if we accept the current understanding at face value. I'd throw the opposite back at you - there IS no problem with the rules as we understand them now, unless we accept as given that you should be able to break up your actions in a way most of us don't believe should be possible.

You created the 'rules crisis' and now you're crying for an errata to support it. There's no need for an errata, no rules crisis, no 7 pages of discussion if you're just...wrong.

And to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying that I think you're wrong because I think I'm right. I'm saying I think I'm right because my understanding of the rules works fine - there is no errata needed, no shattering of the timing rules, because I don't believe that taking your PTL action at any time vaguely 'after' your AS action, is possible under the rules. If I throw out that one example, which I think is invalid, the rules hum along just fine.

Under YOUR understanding of the rules, the entire question of timing in the game becomes a mess. Before and After become vague, undefined terms, the turn order, the steps of each phase, have to be picked apart and analyzed and argued or ruled on to figure out where you could insert a second action, what the cut-off for doing so would be, what the implications are for every other step of each phase... And the whole house of cards comes tumbling down in a heap, with you saying "well if you'd BUILT it better, it wouldn't have fallen." No, if you hadn't walked up and kicked it just because you could, it wouldn't have fallen.

So to recap: we have two possibilities. Either you can take your AS and PTL actions so that they are no longer back to back, or you can't. If you can, the rules become a shambles and we need FFG to step in and clean up our mess or the game becomes unworkable - something you claim not to want.

If you can't, everything is fine. One breaks the game. The other works great except for one sequence of actions that most of us believe to be impossible under our understanding of the rules.

One simply requires you accept the, granted, inferred - but your buddy claimed above that we should be smart enough to catch what is 'strongly implied' by FFG and NOT need them to hold our hands - caveat that "Immediately" is merely a way or prioritizing an effect over other effects that would otherwise happen simultaneously. That is a very simple, elegant solution to the problem at hand, it works in all ways under our understanding of the rules. It is not written out in stone - it may or may not ever be - but it's the best, most workable way of defining Immediately that we as a community have come up with.

It's apparently just not good enough for YOU, even though the alternative to that brings the timing rules tumbling down. I repeat what I said earlier: if FFG doesn't step in and rush to "fix" this one for us, it may very well be because they hope and assume that we are intelligent enough to pick the logical, workable answer over the one that destroys the game rules and forces them to step in and rewrite everything from scratch to make it clearer.

And yes, that is an inference on my part. But I see their faith, if it is such, was not well placed.

To jump back here a moment, when I brought up the Vader crew card question, and how it resolves damage, I think the point was missed there a bit. First off that ruling doesn't only affect that one card - it will actually define for us how damage is applied in every situation of the game. It's got huge implications.

But that's not the reason I randomly brought it up. The reason was to illustrate a point. There are two or three ways that card can work. I won't go into them right now because I suspect that would be further distraction. Which one turns out to be correct will have a lot of implications for how damage is handled in each situation of the game - even telling us whether it's handled all at once, one at a time, or some of each, situationally.

The key, though, is that all of them work. The entire reason there is debate over that card and how it works is that all three options are equally valid. All are supported in the rules to one degree or another. Whichever one gets ruled correct, the game will hum along just in fine with that footnote in place.

That's what a valid discussion of the rules is - you have different ways of interpreting something, based on the rules at hand, and depending which rules are applied, or how, you try to figure out which one is correct. Sometimes, like with the boost/barrel roll v. proximity mine, the rules are handled perfectly correctly but don't work the way they intended, so they errata and rewrite the rule. We can't guess at that - we can only do the rules the best we can until we are told otherwise.

Sometimes, as with the Darth Vader crew card, it could legitimately work several different ways, and it's honestly not clear which one is most correct or which way it should be handled it, and it honestly requires FFG to step in with an FAQ update to clear up the confusion and set a precedent for how similar rules are handled both in the future and elsewhere in the current game. But - and I cannot stress this enough, the game works just fine no matter which way they rule it.

That is emphatically not the case here. One way works. One way does not. One way fits exceptionally comfortably, even elegantly, into the rules as we understand them. The other takes, as Buhalin said, a sledgehammer to them. One of them is the clearest, shortest, most logical route from A to C while explaining B ("immediately"), and the other one...isn't. The other one smashes the steps of a phase into pieces and then lets you put it back together however you see fit.

This isn't a situation where either option works smoothly, and the game plays fine either way, and there's honest hand-wringing from the community over which option is the correct one. One of these two options works. The other option does not. One requires an FAQ update, you've now also argued for an errata, which means to make your way work they have to actually rewrite the rules to accommodate it.

Do I have the 10 commandments, written in stone, handed down from FFG? No. Do I hope they clear this up with a quick note in the next FAQ? Sure. Have I contacted their rules help page about this and any number of other issues? Yes, because if nothing else I figure it's good for them to know what rules people are wondering about. But at the end of the day this is no a legitimate question of two equally valid ways of interpreting a rule. One fits the rules, the other, by your own admission, would require a rewriting of the rules to explain and accommodate it within them.

That's not the kind of thing that requires them to step in and clear up for us, because if it requires an errata to work, they'll either do an errata or they won't, but either way it is not the correct way to handle it according to the rules as we have them right now. If they want that to change down the road, it will change. But if it doesn't work, at all, within the rules as written, you can dislike the 'popular opinion' all you want, but it's popular because it works, with the least amount of headache and confusion. If the rules have to bend into a pretzel or be rewritten to make something work the way you want it to, or believe it should, or even just believe it could, at least, it's probably not the right way to play it.

You know the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." You seem to have taken that to mean "if you want it fixed a certain way, you'll have to break it first."

In talking with Hujoe Bigs, I have actually found more evidence to suggest that an errata of sorts would be needed. For instance, ever since PtL had been released in the game it seems most effects that would take place at the same time as another effect seem to be governed over by the "immediate" wording, effectively removing your choice between which effect should happen first. Because of this, it seems to point towards a common thread, that cards like R2-D2 and PtL only need a slight change to clear up confusion.

No large rule change would be necessary, just a slight errata in an FAQ update.

Oh, I get it - we're idiots but if you and Hujoe decide something needs an errata it must actually be broken.

Look, you don't get to go around setting fires and vandalizing and then claim it was a public service because you're keeping police and maintenance people employed. If you want to help come up with answers, help come up with answers, don't be a giant pain who states flat out that he will not be swayed by anything short of a message handed down to him personally from on high and then say you were just trying to 'spark a discussion' or some BS.

To be clear, there is no confusion here. There are no masses calling for FFG to step in and fix this, no dozens of people all throwing their hands up in the air in despair. There's just this thread, here, and a couple of guys claiming they need an errata because under the "accepted" interpretation of the rules, they can't mangle their actions the way they want to.

You said there's only a problem created with making your idea work, if we accept the current understanding at face value. I'd throw the opposite back at you - there IS no problem with the rules as we understand them now, unless we accept as given that you should be able to break up your actions in a way most of us don't believe should be possible.

You created the 'rules crisis' and now you're crying for an errata to support it. There's no need for an errata, no rules crisis, no 7 pages of discussion if you're just...wrong.

And to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying that I think you're wrong because I think I'm right. I'm saying I think I'm right because my understanding of the rules works fine - there is no errata needed, no shattering of the timing rules, because I don't believe that taking your PTL action at any time vaguely 'after' your AS action, is possible under the rules. If I throw out that one example, which I think is invalid, the rules hum along just fine.

Under YOUR understanding of the rules, the entire question of timing in the game becomes a mess. Before and After become vague, undefined terms, the turn order, the steps of each phase, have to be picked apart and analyzed and argued or ruled on to figure out where you could insert a second action, what the cut-off for doing so would be, what the implications are for every other step of each phase... And the whole house of cards comes tumbling down in a heap, with you saying "well if you'd BUILT it better, it wouldn't have fallen." No, if you hadn't walked up and kicked it just because you could, it wouldn't have fallen.

So to recap: we have two possibilities. Either you can take your AS and PTL actions so that they are no longer back to back, or you can't. If you can, the rules become a shambles and we need FFG to step in and clean up our mess or the game becomes unworkable - something you claim not to want.

If you can't, everything is fine. One breaks the game. The other works great except for one sequence of actions that most of us believe to be impossible under our understanding of the rules.

One simply requires you accept the, granted, inferred - but your buddy claimed above that we should be smart enough to catch what is 'strongly implied' by FFG and NOT need them to hold our hands - caveat that "Immediately" is merely a way or prioritizing an effect over other effects that would otherwise happen simultaneously. That is a very simple, elegant solution to the problem at hand, it works in all ways under our understanding of the rules. It is not written out in stone - it may or may not ever be - but it's the best, most workable way of defining Immediately that we as a community have come up with.

It's apparently just not good enough for YOU, even though the alternative to that brings the timing rules tumbling down. I repeat what I said earlier: if FFG doesn't step in and rush to "fix" this one for us, it may very well be because they hope and assume that we are intelligent enough to pick the logical, workable answer over the one that destroys the game rules and forces them to step in and rewrite everything from scratch to make it clearer.

And yes, that is an inference on my part. But I see their faith, if it is such, was not well placed.

Firstly, I have not called you nor will I ever call you an idiot. That would be rude. Your implication that I did seems to suggest that you are taking my comments as a personal assault, which I do not intend.

You are claiming that just because of questioning the way things are written out (or not written at all) that I am "kicking down the house of cards" that is this game. Why does questioning things make them fall apart when my only goal is to better understand it all? I didn't understand the why of why it would work that way.

In my last post you can see I was trying to help come up with answers to my own problem. To me it would make sense for the word immediately to be placed in front of those effects, solidifying the view of the "popular opinion" that both PtL and R2-D2 would happen immediately after and not at any other time. Everyone has claimed that immediately after is when PtL happens and the FAQ plainly states that R2-D2's effect also happens, essentially, immediately and without a choice of timing.

Yes, there seems to be a bit of evidence that PtL works only in the one way as the only instance similar to it is R2-D2 and that effect does in fact, happen immediately according to the FAQ. I'm starting to find more evidence suggesting that the accepted views are correct but my understanding has not been aided by anyone here, despite everyone's best efforts. That is what I intended this topic for in the first place: To get help to understand something that I felt should not work within the structure of the game. It has been said by many here that I "Want" this ability chain to happen in this unorthodox way I have presented. No, I really don't and I have stated so earlier. I wanted to know why it doesn't work and why the current ruling does.

Would an errata support the view that AS Action/Maneuver/Action could happen? No, what I was saying from my post was that if R2-D2 and PtL both had that word Immediately in front of the word After it would better support the current ruling of the cards. However, we already have an FAQ update telling that R2-D2's effect does in fact happen immediately. Why couldn't we get one on PtL too? Probably because this such a minute and tiny issue in the game and everyone else will rule it as otherwise. I get that. Still, I don't see any reason why I should not ask the question when it is to get a better grasp of the game itself.

Also, I would like to address the issue you are bringing up with me, that I am close-minded and won't listen to anyone but FFG on the matter. Had someone brought out more evidence suggesting the way that PtL should work within the game rather than just tell me it is logical, it would have helped. Had someone on this Topic earlier brought out to me what I had been able to find out about R2-D2, it would have helped. I do listen. I do take into consideration everyone's views. I would have had a better understanding of it a lot quicker if someone had used the writer's technique "show don't tell".

So, I am finding more evidence suggesting the "currently accepted views" should be correct. That is a good thing, right?

You did not call me an idiot, I apologize. You only treated me like one.

Look, if you want to help 'prove' something according to the rules, HELP. Don't actively hinder the process.
If you come out with this intractable position, I WANT PROOF. YOU MUST PROVE. WILL NOT BE PERSUADED stance, who's going to A. believe you actually want to be convinced, or B. have any interest in doing so? You made it pretty seemingly ironclad clear that you had zero intent of accepting anything without hard proof.

No anecdotal evidence. Not logical arguments. Not reason. Not even decent precedent in the rules. STONE. HARD. PROOF. And you know full well that's not going to be found here. Nobody but an FFG ruling can give you concrete, can't find a loophole, can't question the wording, can't twist it around to fit, ironclad proof. So please don't play dumb like you were trying to encourage some sort of useful debate in search of an answer. You weren't. You came out and soundly declared that you needed PROOF and would not be persuaded, and then go mad when nobody wasted time trying to quote any more rules or precedents at you. We tried that, for like four pages - that was about the time you told us to quit trying to convince you, MUST HAVE PROOF.

If you actually think this doesn't work, and you want to be persuaded, don't freaking actively HINDER the process of doing so. There's a difference between playing devil's advocate and just throwing a wrench in the works by drawing a line in the sand.

You did not call me an idiot, I apologize. You only treated me like one.

Look, if you want to help 'prove' something according to the rules, HELP. Don't actively hinder the process.

If you come out with this intractable position, I WANT PROOF. YOU MUST PROVE. WILL NOT BE PERSUADED stance, who's going to A. believe you actually want to be convinced, or B. have any interest in doing so? You made it pretty seemingly ironclad clear that you had zero intent of accepting anything without hard proof.

No anecdotal evidence. Not logical arguments. Not reason. Not even decent precedent in the rules. STONE. HARD. PROOF. And you know full well that's not going to be found here. Nobody but an FFG ruling can give you concrete, can't find a loophole, can't question the wording, can't twist it around to fit, ironclad proof. So please don't play dumb like you were trying to encourage some sort of useful debate in search of an answer. You weren't. You came out and soundly declared that you needed PROOF and would not be persuaded, and then go mad when nobody wasted time trying to quote any more rules or precedents at you. We tried that, for like four pages - that was about the time you told us to quit trying to convince you, MUST HAVE PROOF.

If you actually think this doesn't work, and you want to be persuaded, don't freaking actively HINDER the process of doing so. There's a difference between playing devil's advocate and just throwing a wrench in the works by drawing a line in the sand.

I apologize for treating you like an idiot, as that was also not my intention.

I had hoped that there was proof already on the subject that I could find and that maybe I missed it. That maybe someone could have clearly point it out to me with ease. When that did not show up I realized okay so the current understanding is based upon implied rules. That's cool and it works when applied. Also cool. It still is not technically proof that it is the correct view, only that is is a view that applies fairly well into the game as we know it. Also cool, since there is no better solution currently. Obviously this is best we have to work with for now and it may or may not change with new updates from FFG and all that stuff. I get all that but to tell me it is 100% correct and absolute is wrong when it's really just the currently accepted view that has a potential to change/stay the same.

In your instance of A just now you are saying that someone who wants to be shown the true way of things with evidence backing it up is someone who nobody will believe? What I meant when I said those things was that reasoning alone without evidence or proof isn't enough to say it is an absolute. Sure, it's what everyone views as correct right now. I just don't quite get how asking for the evidence of why means I'm insincere and nobody should believe me. If B was true then why is there 7 pages of discussion where everyone has tried their best to convince me?

"Go mad" would imply insanity, although I'm thinking you probably mean get angry. Neither are true in this circumstance.

I read everything that was posted in an effort to convince me and I understand it from the point of view that the game needs us to interpret things to make it work. I do think the chain of abilities shouldn't work but i don't consider questioning the viewpoints "hindering the process". I do think that the game requiring us to interpret it's rules is a bit saddening but if that is what we have to do for it to be logical then that's what we gotta do.

What was not included in these posts was the idea that these views and the anecdotal evidence were all pointing to speculation that is widely accepted. Everyone is treating it as a cold hard fact and that is where I am differing. It is not a clear fact, it is something that had to be made up by players based upon a few scenarios within the game so that the thing didn't fall apart. I thought it was possible it had been an addressed issue already (hence my original post, hoping I missed something) but it looks like it hasn't directly been addressed yet.

There is a difference between speculative reasoning and absolute truth.

There's also a difference between raising questions to encourage exploration and debate, participating in a mutual exploration for answers, and putting your foot down and discounting anything short of cold hard facts. You weren't going to accept anything anybody (but FFG) came up with AS proof. If you honestly thought there was some smoking gun hidden in the rules that everybody had overlooked, as though we were debating this without having ever read the rules or gone back digging to look for clues, you're incredibly naive.

Your intentions may have been good, I don't know, but it felt like you were trying to be anything but a constructive part of the conversation when you discount every piece of logical argument or evidence out of hand. If you seriously thought somebody was going to be like "oh, there it is - page 14, section 4, paragraph 2, subsection A, "Yes, you have to take your PTL action right after your other action, unless some Immediate effect supersedes it," there it is - how DID we all miss it....?

I don't know, man. Like I said, I guess naive is the best word I can come up with if you honestly thought everybody on the entire forum just overlooked that line of the rules somehow. And yes, I'm being facetious, but the point is, if there was some absolute ironclad rule on the subject, if there was some exact perfect parallel precedent in the rules that somehow wouldn't get rejected as being 'different,' and we'd all just failed to ferret it out, and you honestly thought you'd step in and force us to find it with some grand "CONCRETE PROOF - NOTHING LESS WILL DO!" declaration, just...wow.

There's also a difference between raising questions to encourage exploration and debate, participating in a mutual exploration for answers, and putting your foot down and discounting anything short of cold hard facts. You weren't going to accept anything anybody (but FFG) came up with AS proof. If you honestly thought there was some smoking gun hidden in the rules that everybody had overlooked, as though we were debating this without having ever read the rules or gone back digging to look for clues, you're incredibly naive.

Your intentions may have been good, I don't know, but it felt like you were trying to be anything but a constructive part of the conversation when you discount every piece of logical argument or evidence out of hand. If you seriously thought somebody was going to be like "oh, there it is - page 14, section 4, paragraph 2, subsection A, "Yes, you have to take your PTL action right after your other action, unless some Immediate effect supersedes it," there it is - how DID we all miss it....?

I don't know, man. Like I said, I guess naive is the best word I can come up with if you honestly thought everybody on the entire forum just overlooked that line of the rules somehow. And yes, I'm being facetious, but the point is, if there was some absolute ironclad rule on the subject, if there was some exact perfect parallel precedent in the rules that somehow wouldn't get rejected as being 'different,' and we'd all just failed to ferret it out, and you honestly thought you'd step in and force us to find it with some grand "CONCRETE PROOF - NOTHING LESS WILL DO!" declaration, just...wow.

I thought that I had overlooked a line in the rules, not that others did. I did not bring it out thinking no one had the answer, I asked the question so someone else could show me the answer to it. (This is in the rules questions section, yes?) The discussion quickly changed from having a real answer to "this is the best answer we have come up with."

I am trying to provide a voice to the other side of the coin. Yes it seems illogical but all logic in this game is reasoning that is solely based upon something players themselves come up with and deem an acceptable conclusion. Basically, with this game, logic is relative. Yes I expected someone to show me out of the rules/faq that I was wrong, instead I got lots of personal reasoning, that does indeed sound logical. Not really what I was looking for but it's all we have.

This has been a mutual exploration for answers. It is pretty clear. There is no official ruling and probably won't be. There is also a commonly accepted ruling on it, based upon minute evidence and speculative reasoning that is applied in a specific way, therefore it must be applied the exact same in all circumstances otherwise there is no logic to the game.

I guess that I have to just readily accept that it is the only answer we will ever get just like you, because otherwise I am a "naive" person.

Look, for what it's worth, I apologize for my part in the direction this conversation has taken.

I think it would have been less frustrating if it had been clear from the beginning what your agenda was. As it is, it kind of felt like you were arguing in favor of this combo, and then arguing that you didn't have to listen to popular opinion on it, and then flat out refusing to accept anything we said without ironclad evidence, and then finally turned around and claimed you'd been against the combo from the beginning and were simply trying to see if we knew something you didn't or could make some foolproof argument in favor of what we were saying.

We could have saved a lot of time and frustration if you'd just made your position clear from the start instead of trying to be all coy about it or something.

And to be clear, I didn't mean to imply it was naive to want answers - I meant that it was naive to come HERE thinking that somebody would have found the golden ticket hidden in their copy of the rules. We're all working from the same information as you. FFG may very well rule on this issue - if they do, great. I'll be first in line to look at what they have to say. The forums are just a vacuum as far as answers from up the ladder go.

At any rate, I wish you'd been straight from the get-go, because then I could have told you straight off what I'll tell you now. You came in here looking for something you can't have. No - let me put that another way: you came in here looking for something that we can't give you Certainty. Rock solid proof. An ironclad argument. A smoking gun of a ruling.

Such a thing may very well get handed to us at a time and place of FFG's choosing. But all we, the community can offer, is our best guesses based on the evidence at hand. We could have saved you a lot of time and energy if you'd just made it clear to us right off the bat that nothing less was going to do, because I could have told you like two days ago there's no such animal here. All we can offer is the best theories we've come up with, based on implications from other rulings, specific wordings of things from the book, and a whole lot of inference.

Some questions, yeah - you missed something, here's where you can find it, not a problem, you're welcome.

Other questions...not so much. I can tell you I feel pretty emphatically that this combination of abilities does not work as suggested. I cannot point to anything concrete that proves so beyond a shadow of a doubt. Most of us have to make do with that, so if it's not something that you can live with or be ok with until we get some official word, you'll find naught but heartache around here.

Look, for what it's worth, I apologize for my part in the direction this conversation has taken.

I think it would have been less frustrating if it had been clear from the beginning what your agenda was. As it is, it kind of felt like you were arguing in favor of this combo, and then arguing that you didn't have to listen to popular opinion on it, and then flat out refusing to accept anything we said without ironclad evidence, and then finally turned around and claimed you'd been against the combo from the beginning and were simply trying to see if we knew something you didn't or could make some foolproof argument in favor of what we were saying.

We could have saved a lot of time and frustration if you'd just made your position clear from the start instead of trying to be all coy about it or something.

And to be clear, I didn't mean to imply it was naive to want answers - I meant that it was naive to come HERE thinking that somebody would have found the golden ticket hidden in their copy of the rules. We're all working from the same information as you. FFG may very well rule on this issue - if they do, great. I'll be first in line to look at what they have to say. The forums are just a vacuum as far as answers from up the ladder go.

At any rate, I wish you'd been straight from the get-go, because then I could have told you straight off what I'll tell you now. You came in here looking for something you can't have. No - let me put that another way: you came in here looking for something that we can't give you Certainty. Rock solid proof. An ironclad argument. A smoking gun of a ruling.

Such a thing may very well get handed to us at a time and place of FFG's choosing. But all we, the community can offer, is our best guesses based on the evidence at hand. We could have saved you a lot of time and energy if you'd just made it clear to us right off the bat that nothing less was going to do, because I could have told you like two days ago there's no such animal here. All we can offer is the best theories we've come up with, based on implications from other rulings, specific wordings of things from the book, and a whole lot of inference.

Some questions, yeah - you missed something, here's where you can find it, not a problem, you're welcome.

Other questions...not so much. I can tell you I feel pretty emphatically that this combination of abilities does not work as suggested. I cannot point to anything concrete that proves so beyond a shadow of a doubt. Most of us have to make do with that, so if it's not something that you can live with or be ok with until we get some official word, you'll find naught but heartache around here.

Annie, you're breaking my heart! XD

All joking aside, I understand all that now. I was looking for something I would not find here and that is my bad. My question is one that will be in the back of my mind until any special rulings or erratas or whatever may be released from FFG. I'm sure there are many of you that also have questions as well. I hoped that I missed some concrete evidence and it is clear, as you said, there is no such animal here. So we all work with what we've got, even if that means some inference and interpretation is required. Because, hey, Star Wars is awesome and so is this game.