Jump to content

Hobologist

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This is exactly what I'm trying to find out. Does stress prevent an action from being triggered? Or does stress prevent an action from being resolved? I'm not sure if I know of rules text that clearly describes either case.
  2. With the new Rules Reference dropping today, a new bullet-point was added to the section on the Ability Queue: If an ability’s requirements are not met, it cannot be added to the ability queue. For example, at the start of the Engagement Phase, if a ship has an ability that requires it to be tractored, but that ship is not tractored, that ability cannot be added to the queue. The ship cannot add the ability to the queue even if another ability also added to the queue at the start of the Engagement Phase would cause that ship to become tractored upon its resolution. With this new rules text, can the Delta-7 Anakin Skywalker fully execute a red maneuver and then trigger both his pilot ability AND Fine-Tuned Controls? They both have the exact same timing window ("After you fully execute a maneuver"), so they would enter the ability queue at the same time. However, can an ability that grants an action enter into the queue if the ship is currently stressed? There is rules text from the entry on Actions that says: A ship cannot perform actions while stressed. Is that to say all action-granting abilities have an implicit "If you are not stressed" requirement? Or can stressed ships initiate an action ability but then cannot typically complete the ability because the ship is stressed? At what specific timing does stress prevent actions? This also seems relevant to other abilities with the same timing window, but no others come to mind right away.
  3. I'm in the camp that Amilyn Holdo cannot cause a ship to be transferred its own lock token, even if it's technically "gaining" the token instead of "acquiring a lock". Rules as written, there's nothing forbidding it explicitly, but it seems like yet another oversight in FFG's technical writing. I'll be ruling that a ship cannot acquire, gain, or otherwise maintain a Lock on itself. Also, just for posterity... Kaydel Connix does not make Cova Nell's revealed maneuver red; it only increases the difficulty of the maneuver while it's being executed. While Cova Nell defends or performs a primary attack, the revealed maneuver is considered its original difficulty.
  4. I think the Golden Rule that is the focus of this thread is: "If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence." The rules from the rules refence guide in question are from the Device Section: "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round." Consider the card text from Paige Tico: "After you perform a primary attack, you may drop 1 bomb or rotate your [single turret]. After you are destroyed, you may drop 1 bomb." And the text from "Deathfire": "After you are destroyed, before you are removed, you may perform an attack and drop or launch 1 device." Looking at all the above text, there is no conflict between the rules reference and the card abilities. Rules as written, each card should allow a device to be deployed at an irregular timing window given that the ship has not violated the one device per round rule. Up until this point, some kind of conflict (or exception) has been be included in the card ability to override the rules reference guide, such as Dutch Vander's text: "... That ship may acquire a lock on the object you locked, ignoring range restrictions." Or Ahsoka Tano: "... That ship may perform an action, even if it is stressed." However, the official ruling claims that because Paige Tico and "Deathfire" do not mention a conflict it is safe to assume they do not adhere to the rules reference. It is my understanding that it is the logic of the official ruling is under the most scrutiny in this thread. If that logic is followed for current or future card abilities, the it could be considered precedent by some to ignore the rules reference even when cards do not mention a conflict with the rules. Several possible solutions have been suggested, such as using errata to alter the card text of Paige Tico and "Deathfire", changing the rules reference to allow multiple device deployments per round, or reversing the official ruling.
  5. My idealistic theory is that the developers are waiting a week or two to see what major rule questions/issues come up from Wave 3, and then the subsequent rulings can be included in the updated Rules Reference.
  6. I think changing the rule to one device per system phase would also work well. It partially depends on if the developers want stuff like Paige Tico to enable deploying 3 devices in a single engagement phase. Honestly, any of the proposed changes seem okay to me: removing the one per round restriction, changing it to one per phase, or one per system phase. The main issue is that the text on cards needs to mention when the ability is exempt from rules; otherwise this ruling sets precedent for all cards being able to bypass core game mechanics without explicit text (examples: any card ability action being possible when stressed, recovering shields above a ship's shield value, performing more than one bonus attack per round, acquiring locks beyond range 3 or more than one lock, etc.) The list really goes on and on. A new Rules Reference needs to address this.
  7. Stressed ships that reveal a red maneuver instead execute a white 2 forward maneuver. However, Ten could not get stressed from Advanced Sensors in this situation. Advanced Sensors only allows 1 action to be done before the maneuver, so linking the red barrel roll would not possible.
  8. Yes, that makes sense. Changing it to one device deployed per phase might be the best way to go.
  9. Since no template is specified, and there are no nubs on the Spare Parts token for which to receive a template, then I would surmise it's dropped directly out the back of the ship without a template. Hopefully the upcoming Rules References clears this up.
  10. I agree this is a dangerous precedent and it would be ideal if there is a rules amendment. Would it be an adequate fix if the bullet point, "Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.", was removed from the Rules Reference?
  11. Oops, I forgot about the splash effect. Thank you for the clarification.
  12. It's worth noting that Captain Jostero cannot trigger a Bonus Attack off of a Concussion Missle exposed Direct Hit. The damage card gets exposed in step 4 of the Attack, and the ship it gets exposed on is still considered "defending". Jostero can very rarely trigger his ability in the Aftermath step, unless the target of the Bonus Attack is somehow the Attacker or another ship other than the Defender (e.g. Ruthless).
  13. Here is the link to the official thread: The Official Rulings covers what "ignore obstacles" means. The Qi'ra debate is about the timing of when you ignore obstacles. If Qi'ra's text was "You ignore obstacles you are locking.", then there would be no debate. However, Qi'ra's text has two specific timing windows: "While you move and perform attacks, you ignore obstacles you are locking." There are two main perspectives in this discussion: Rules as Written: Engaging is not the same as attacking, and Qi'ra cannot bypass range 0 effect of asteroids. Rules as Intended: FFG meant to allow Qi'ra to let ships shoot while range 0 of a locked asteroid. There is not an answer. Official clarification is needed.
  14. Qi'ra's ability only works during two timing windows: moving and performing attacks. Qi'ra is not able to ignore the asteroid after engaging but before attacking (when determining if an attack is possible) because the ability is not active at that time.
  15. This is a good point to bring up. A ship does not become an attacker (or attacking) until it performs an attack. Therefore, checking to see whether you can attack does not mean you are attacking.
×
×
  • Create New...