There was a big debate about it about a year ago. Perhaps thats what you are remembering?

Not quite. "If you do" are not requirements to add the ability to the queue. Just requirements to do what comes after. Typically its worded like. "When <this> happens, IF <this> is the case..." Rampage isnt worded like that. The only condition he has to put his ability into the queue is executing the 3-4 speed maneuver. The turret arc part of his ability is not for an attack, thus isnt checked until you attempt to resolve the ability. RR pg 33 In this example, the "to any number of ships" has the added limiter from Rampage of "at range 0-1 in turret arc". But otherwise, it works the same.

This is why i said "Apparently", because i cannot confirm it. All i can do is point to a Reddit post from someone claiming to be a former FFG employee.

Apparently, several people at FFG, including key designers, lost their job in this move.

60 points lightly equipped. So the ship, the boosters, and some kind of weapon upgrade OR hull mod, sure. Just the ship with the boosters *could* be ok, but i would think the point would be to gets some ordnance or heavy cannons in range quickly.

Yes. Launching the Discord Missiles is not an attack. Launching devices isnt blocked by the Weapons Disabled token.

Having a lock isnt actually a requirement to put Sync Console into the queue. You can put it in the queue even if you dont have a lock, and when it comes time to use it, if you still dont have a lock, then the ability just doesn't resolve. In order for it to be a requirement , it would need something like this wording.. After you perform an attack, if you have a lock on the defender, you may choose a friendly ship at range 1.... That would make it a requirement.

There is a bit of a difference though. Boba and Han were limited to that one ship, and yes, sticking one ship out their by itself vs a fresh squad is very risky. With the Upsilon, you have to spend a good chunk of your squad point, to send the Rest of your squad forward... abit. The tri-fighers, its all on them. I imagine lightly equipped, we can *probably* get 3 tri-fighters with boosters in the field, that are fairly agile, and can hit fairly hard. It's yet to be determined if this will be effective or not, but i imagine it will depend on the list they are against. That said, this also in a way feels like a card with Epic, 3x6 size games in mind or the Scenarios. They have been putting in upgrades that are more tailored for that than standard play, but could still be *technically* used in standard play, if you really wanted to. And putting them more in epic where you have points to field more of them, kinda feels like it would be a very strong Alpha.

Eh, not really, no. The controlling player isnt the limiting factor to being allied. My guess is, Allied objects will be things like, Objectives or Scenario ships that are put in place as an objective much like the 1E core's "Senator's Shuttle Token" or the "Class-E Cargo Container" in the CR-90 xpac. Objects the player will need to control but are not part of their 'build list'. Things FFG doesn't want 'friendly ship' ability's to enhance and break the scenario with.

Hes completely correct. Buzz Droid Swarm ignore friendly ships. As said in the first line of its text.

Note, Asteroids are the same way. Debris would give you the stress, and that stress would stop any actions.

Not entirely. Remember. A fail isn't a 'it didn't occur' situation. Something *still* happens when you fail a maneuver or action, just not what *normally* happens. RR pg 12 A failed Action, *still* resolves, even if differently, thats why you are still *able*. You still pay any costs associated to do it, even if it fails. Its not like in 1E where failing something simply meant 'undoing' it, reversing everything to the start including any costs paid, and either opting to try it differently, or not doing it at all. That said, yes, it would not hurt to get some clarification on what exactly the term "if able" means. To that end, i have submitted that question to FFG, using Overdrive as an example.

I also agree with this. Being unable to use a template that doesn't exist, and being unable to perform an action normally are not the same thing.

Last rules update in September. RR page 19 under SLAM

Fair point, but i also know these are done by different people, and if i recall correctly, Brooks Flugaur tends to focus on the imperial/fo factions, so he probably didnt have a hand in or work with the scum abilities and text. Also, the FO faction *did* release a bit later than the main three. But it is logical to assume they were all 5 developed at the same time (or close enough) so that point is fairly moot.

Rules Reference page 20 A ship receives one stress token while it executes a red maneuver or after it performs a red action.

I'm of the mind that Krassis can treat front arc attacks as rear arc attacks, meaning you are performing a rear arc attack when you choose to enable the ability. At least, its what i believe FFG intended by it. The Tie Heavy words it better to mean exactly that, which i think could be a hindsight change given Krassis was printed at 2E launch. That said, for right now, it doesnt matter too overly much.

Rules Reference pg 22, btw.

I think most of us here understand what the wording means. And is loosely supported by the wording on RR pg 14 Thus we can conclude that Locks = the act of acquiring a lock "After an enemy ship locks you" or " After an enemy ship performs the act of acquiring a lock on you" I personally don't have an issue with the terminology in this case.

Yep. Biggest benifit i can quickly point out is a Tie Reaper with Tac Officer. Easiest way to disable Adaptive Ailerons, perform a red coordinate. Even though you have TO to do a white coordinate.

It is not restricted to the lock action. It should be 'acquires a lock on you' but i think thye wanted to save space/wording for some reason. If something is referring an Action, it needs to have the word 'action' directly written. For this, it would need to have said "after an enemy ship performs a lock Action on you".

That's.. exactly what I'm saying. Look, im not saying I dont see what Rhymer is *trying* to do, i may even agree with it, from an interpretation perspective. All im saying is, i do not see a weapons range requirement as a statement of override to the rules even a golden rule. They are *requirements* for the weapon, not a free pass past restrictions. Basically, im saying he's poorly worded to do what people are interpreting he can do. That, or they need to change the rule on page 5, OR state directly that Weapon range requirements override normal range restrictions. Pg 37 This is a rule that directly overrides the range 3 limit, allowing huge ships to make attacks at range 4-5. Given the lack of tournaments happening right now however, this really isnt that big of a deal. People can play it how they like, im not hating on anyone who would choose to play it that way. Basically, all im saying is, dont be surprised if FFG comes back and says no, OR changes the rules to allow for it. Even them posting an FAQ saying that range restrictions can be integrated as a direct override would be enough. But i dont see the golden rules covering this, nor do i see it directly stated as currently being the case.

Except its not. Each "Action:" header on each Weapons' failure card is a separate, action. The name of the card isnt the important bit, its the "Action:" header. Rules Reference pg 3 Prime example is "Gonk" Even tho Both action headers are on the same named card, Performing one action header does not eliminate that entire card from the possible actions in the future. Its the "Action:" header itself thats looked at, not the name of the card. The name of the card is inconsequential as that isnt the action. Otherwise you could argue that you could only ever perform one action from the ships action bar each round because they are all under the same name pilot card. (i hope that makes sense) That's because it does. Expert Handling, Tactical Officer, even tho they Require a red one, the White action is *added* to the ships bar, its not *replacing* the red action that is required for it. Now, that Still means they are both the Barrel roll action, so you cannot perform both of them in the same round because they are the same action. Rules only specify that "Action:" headers are their own actions, not action bar actions.

I'm still not seeing anything in his text that specifically, and directly overrides this rule. Its not that i dont think the Golden rules are important, I'm just not convinced there is even a conflict here for the Golden rule to even be a factor.

Maybe, just remember Deadeye shot is a *random* flip. So you couldn't guarantee which crit you flip (if multiple) when using that ability. [edit - I guess Innese already said that.]