Jump to content



Photo

The Smuggler's Den's unofficial FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 TinyGrimes

TinyGrimes

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

The Smuggler's Den and SoCal Star Wars LCG League Rulings

 

Well with so much debate on various forums regarding a number of interactions and us hosting a league and impending tournament, we've been forced to make a number of rulings without the help of an FAQ. Feel free to disregard these rulings but they seem like a reasonable place for the community to start from before the FAQ shows up. We have not covered these on the podcast because these are not official rules, but interpretations that we are forced to make. As such, of course disregard this list in its entirety as soon as the FAQ drops! And remember these are the interpretations of the cast of The Smuggler's Den and not the opinions of FFG.

 

1. Protect and Shielding (Specifically Jedi Guardian) - A character cannot accept more damage than their damage capacity allows, even if shielded. Thus if a Jedi Guardian has a shield and 3 damage is incoming, only 2 damage may go to the Guardian (less if the unit is damaged). Shields on the Jedi Guardian can be used to absorb damage from other sources.

 

Personally I do not think this is the intent, but the wording seems clear on damage capacity. I think this ruling will actually stand in the FAQ.

 

2. Trench Run - Rebel Assault cannot be used on Trench Run, I received this ruling from FFG. Unopposed damage, Target of Opportunity, and Wookiee Navigator can all be used when targeting Trench Run.

 

I actually think this will not be how the FAQ rules these interactions, I think only unopposed damage will count. However a very active playtester is adamant that these do work so that's how we are ruling them.

 

3. Refresh Phase - The "Any effect with the text "after you refresh" can be used after completing this step" is moved to after step 2 is completed instead of after step 1 is completed. This solves the issue of placing shields with cards like Fleeing the Empire and having them removed in step 2.

 

4. Tie Attack Squadron - If a Twist of Fate is played by the owner of Tie Attack Squadron, a fate card was indeed played and it gains its icon and targeted strike. (Of course targeted strike is a keyword which is defined as attacking only.)

 

5. Secrets of Yavin 4 - Each objective can only be engaged once. Therefore, if Secrets of Yavin 4 is attacked its response cannot be triggered as it has already been engaged. Moreover, Secrets of Yavin 4's interrupt can only be triggered once. If another objective is attacked and Secrets of Yavin 4 triggers its interrupt, the original objective has not yet been engaged (and may be engaged again) since that attempt was interrupted.

 

6. Targeted Strike + Shii-Cho Training - These two abilities are mutually exclusive. You may not spread out damage over multiple targets if using targeted strike.

 

7. Grand Moff Tarkin - The moment Tarkin enters play his passive ability is in effect. Therefore, if an objective has 4 damage on it and its damage capacity was previously 5, the objective immediately blows up.

 

8. Darth Vader's reaction and cancelled events - If an event is played and cancelled, Darth Vader can still trigger his reaction.

 

This is one I'm really hoping FFG changes but the wording seems clear for now.



#2 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:53 PM

Very nicely done. I will agree on everything, though, on #2 (trench run), I think, without at least a good rewording of some rules, they would rule the same way you guys have in the FAQ.

All in all, I predict your rulings to be in sync with the most likely FAQ rulings…. if they ever publish them.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#3 sageleader

sageleader

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:28 AM

What's the reasoning for Targeted Strike + Shii-Cho Training not being compatible? I didn't see that discussed in the forums - I probably missed it.



#4 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,023 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:51 AM

sageleader said:

What's the reasoning for Targeted Strike + Shii-Cho Training not being compatible? I didn't see that discussed in the forums - I probably missed it.

 

There was a large thread on it. Basically the two are mutually exclusive so you have to pick one.



#5 thopol

thopol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:28 AM

Thanks, this is brilliant.  I don't see any points where I could possibly disagree, and I have seen some places where rules disagreements could potentially occur.  It's very nice to have something to refer to as solid rules in cases of ambiguity.  I am playing in a very very non-competitive environment. While most things seem to be cut with little obfuscation, it's nice to have a sort of canon to refer to.



#6 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:42 AM

I would add one more thing to the FAQ based on what is possibly the single most common misunderstanding I've seen:

Q: Is the Reaction on Fall of the Jedi (or any other card with a Reaction or Interrupt) mandatory?

A: No.  Using any card's ability (Action, Reaction, or Interrupt) is completely optional unless that ability is preceeded by the word Forced (e.g. Rancor).



#7 TinyGrimes

TinyGrimes

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:36 AM

dbmeboy said:

I would add one more thing to the FAQ based on what is possibly the single most common misunderstanding I've seen:

Q: Is the Reaction on Fall of the Jedi (or any other card with a Reaction or Interrupt) mandatory?

A: No.  Using any card's ability (Action, Reaction, or Interrupt) is completely optional unless that ability is preceeded by the word Forced (e.g. Rancor).

 

This FAQ is meant to supplement the rule book. The purpose was not to say, hey read the rule book again. Had I taken that approach I feel the document would have been muddled. However, I do agree that for some reason a large amouint of people, despite reading the rule book, have missed this rule. That is why I discussed it in my podcast.



#8 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 630 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:59 AM

Tiny, I think you give people to much credit in saying "read the rulebook, again".  I have a hard time believing that a number of players have done anything more then cast a cusory glance at the rulebook, if that.  People far to often rely on another person to teach them the game.  No matter how exact that person is things get missed.

I would not be suprised if over half of the FFG FAQ could be summed up by just telling the players to read the card/rulebook for the answer.  But, no, they will have to spell it all out for many people.



#9 sojo2600

sojo2600

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

FAQ stands for "Frequently Asked Questions", so I don't think it is out of line to include commonly mis-intrepreted rules.  It's your FAQ, so feel free to include whatever you like, but  "Unofficial Rules Interpretations" may be a better title for what it is.



#10 TinyGrimes

TinyGrimes

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:36 AM

sojo2600 said:

FAQ stands for "Frequently Asked Questions", so I don't think it is out of line to include commonly mis-intrepreted rules.  It's your FAQ, so feel free to include whatever you like, but  "Unofficial Rules Interpretations" may be a better title for what it is.

 

That is a good point and why the document is entitled league rulings. This is not meant to be a comprehensive FAQ of any questions regarding the game. Rather, this document is intended to provide  a reasonable starting place for interpreting the grey area rules while we wait for official word from FFG.



#11 sojo2600

sojo2600

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:58 AM

TinyGrimes said:

sojo2600 said:

 

FAQ stands for "Frequently Asked Questions", so I don't think it is out of line to include commonly mis-intrepreted rules.  It's your FAQ, so feel free to include whatever you like, but  "Unofficial Rules Interpretations" may be a better title for what it is.

 

 

 

That is a good point and why the document is entitled league rulings. This is not meant to be a comprehensive FAQ of any questions regarding the game. Rather, this document is intended to provide  a reasonable starting place for interpreting the grey area rules while we wait for official word from FFG.

Ah, gotcha.  I was confused by the thread title, but the actual document title is perfectly accurate.  I appreciate you sharing your league's rules.  I also am a big fan of the podcast and am always excited when a new one is released!



#12 MasterJediAdam

MasterJediAdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 662 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

Thanks again Tiny. 


Welcome to the machine!


#13 shaggscoob

shaggscoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

Can you explain your reasoning on #1?  I'm having a hard time understanding it to work that way, but maybe I missed some wording somewhere that clarifies it.



#14 ziggy2000

ziggy2000

    Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:22 PM

Superb work! Thanks for the effort!

 



#15 Vaapad

Vaapad

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 03:13 AM

I understand the RAW argument for #1, but I too think it goes against designer intent, and I bet it will come down the other way in the FAQ.


"And for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons."

#16 Meathook123

Meathook123

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 03:51 AM

The main thing to take away from Shielding is that it prevents one focus or one damage from being placed on the shielded card.  This means that after damage is assigned, one damage/focus can be prevented from being placed on the target shielded card.  A card is not destroyed until the damage tokens on the card meet, or exceed the card's damage capacity.

The Protect trait specifically states that damage beyond a Protecting unit's damage capacity may not be re-assigned to the Protecting unit.  This means that Guardian of Peace can only be assigned 2 damage when using the Protect trait, as she only has a damage capacity of 2 printed on the card.  One of these damage can be prevented if she is shielded, thus she will not die (2 damage was to be assigned, but 1 was prevented before damage was placed due to the shield)  Damage re-assignment is not a one for one assignment, but rather a lump sum.  In the above example, after the 2 damage was assigned, grandma was able to prevent 1 damage before damage was placed, and was still alive. She would not be able to use the Protect trait during the same strike to prevent further damage.  She would be able to use the Protect trait during another strike to re-assign 1 damage to her, as she can only accept 1 damage due to already having 1 damage placed during an earlier strike.

I hope that helps to clear up any questions regarding the confusion regarding point #1

 



#17 TGO

TGO

    Member

  • Members
  • 317 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:57 AM

Vaapad said:

I understand the RAW argument for #1, but I too think it goes against designer intent, and I bet it will come down the other way in the FAQ.

 

The RAW arguement is all you need. The FAQ will prove that RAW and intent are one and the same. 



#18 Whitefro

Whitefro

    Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:48 AM

I think the misunderstanding with reactions in this game and other ffg lcg is the absence of "may". Essentially in ffg games, "Response" equals what in other card games would be may. I.E. Response: Draw a card = you may draw a card. 



#19 shaggscoob

shaggscoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

Went back and re-read the wording in the rulebook.  I guess it is essentially saying what #1 states.

I have another question in that case: lets say 3 damage is about to be dealt to a character, can the guardian take two of that damage, or can the guardian not protect at all?

If the latter is true, then I'd say FFG really needs to re-think the protect trait.



#20 shaggscoob

shaggscoob

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:33 PM

Meant to state that I know the scenario was already dealt with in the first post, but with the way the rulebook reads, can the guardian really even take the two?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS