Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Official FFG SW FAQ update - version 2.0 April 2014


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1
Demas

Demas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 216 posts
There is a new, Version 2.0, FAQ out dated 4/2/2014 (although the Support page hasn't updated).

http://www.fantasyfl...FAQ/SWC-FAQ.pdf

#2
LethalHobo

LethalHobo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 821 posts
Looks like Killing Cold got nerfed and Remote Hideout got a buff.

#3
LethalHobo

LethalHobo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 821 posts
-Double Post-

#4
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts
I feel like the section 3.6 contradicts previous rulings on the Falcon. The effect can not be executed unless some part of the resolution can be completed. If you have no droid or character units in hand can you still return the Falcon. I thought the previous ruling was you could still return the falcon, does this have to do with the timing of when you check for the conditions? It seems similar to the example they call out "Tribal Support" if there is no Ewok in your discard then you can not discard a card.

#5
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts
Yeah I have no clue how they want the Falcon's ability to work now. Why the chose to spell out Tribal Support rather then one of the most often used cards in the game I have no idea.

Thanks FFG for making your game more confusing.

Is your hand part of the game state? Is it "possible" so long as you have a card in hand, even if you know it isn't a character or droid?

#6
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
That was the previous ruling, but Nate said at Worlds, in person, to a few people, myself included, that they were going to revisit that specifically for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, causing game states where the opposing player does not know if their opponent did the effect illegally (because you were obligated to play a character or droid with the Falcon, but this could only be verified by a 3rd party).
  • KennedyHawk likes this

#7
TGO

TGO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2590 posts

I feel like the section 3.6 contradicts previous rulings on the Falcon. The effect can not be executed unless some part of the resolution can be completed. If you have no droid or character units in hand can you still return the Falcon. I thought the previous ruling was you could still return the falcon, does this have to do with the timing of when you check for the conditions? It seems similar to the example they call out "Tribal Support" if there is no Ewok in your discard then you can not discard a card.


This ruling directly affects how the Killing Cold, Falcon and Tribal Support function and are reversals to the original rulings for Tribal Support and the Falcon. If you want to return the Falcon to your hand then you have to put C-3PO or a Twi-Lek Loyalist if they are the only character/droid units in your hand. Likewise, if you want to use the killing cold then there needs to be damage on a Hoth objective. This will keep Executor decks from comboing out without damage.
  • KennedyHawk likes this

#8
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts
Makes sense just wanted to make sure it was switching the ruling. It just seemed silly to use Tribal Support at the example instead of the Falcon. I guess those Tribal Support rules questions are flooding in with the upcoming Ewoks.
  • TGO likes this

#9
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Yeah I have no clue how they want the Falcon's ability to work now. Why the chose to spell out Tribal Support rather then one of the most often used cards in the game I have no idea.

Thanks FFG for making your game more confusing.

Is your hand part of the game state? Is it "possible" so long as you have a card in hand, even if you know it isn't a character or droid?


The Falcon's action is only usable now, per 3.6, if you have a character or droid in your hand at the time you initiate the action. So unless some effect occurs that interrupts the Falcon and pulls your only character or droid from your hand, you are obligated to play a character or droid when you pull the Falcon back. If you have no character or droid in hand to play, the Falcon can't come back.

#10
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Makes sense just wanted to make sure it was switching the ruling. It just seemed silly to use Tribal Support at the example instead of the Falcon. I guess those Tribal Support rules questions are flooding in with the upcoming Ewoks.


Tribal support was already in the prior FAQs, hence they had to leave it there. Killing Cold was a popular (and powerful, with Executor) example. Did they really need a third for the Falcon? They made those two explicit references to 3.6, indicating where everything similar should go.
  • TGO likes this

#11
TGO

TGO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2590 posts

Thanks FFG for making your game more confusing.


Really? How did they make the game more confusing?

#12
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts
This will also end the famous Moisture Farmer -> Guardian of Peace -> Questionable Contacts loop of doom. That is unless you have another damaged unit.

So since this (3.6) condition is checked during step 1 of the resolution and you don't choose a target until step 5 you could have a different units damaged, then use the protection loop to move the damage off of the objective, through two units, onto an opposing unit.

#13
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3924 posts
I don't really like the addition of 3.6... But I'm happy that they reversed the precious ruling on Remout Hideout.
  • Caal likes this

#14
AntaresCD

AntaresCD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
Going to a different section, I'm glad they included 2.7, regardless of whether or not I agree with the ruling. It's such an odd duck that if it wasn't in black and white in the official FAQ, no one would honor it unlike a lot of our other rulings that we collect here.

The most interesting pitfall would be in multiplayer where you enhance one of your own units with something that specifies it goes on a unit you control. Then you pass it to your partner during a battle. That causes an illegal enhancement state and removes the enhancement. Granted there are only a few enhancements where that could happen (Smuggling Compartment, for example), but it is something to watch for. Other pitfalls were mentioned in a thread here recently, so I won't bother to list them all.

#15
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

Really? How did they make the game more confusing?


They include a change in the rules for what was an already known effect. Change how that general framework plays out, and reference two nearly identical instances of it specifically, but leave out one instance of it that is the most popular and interacts with a different portion of the play area (Tribal and Killing Cold all effect known areas of play where as the Falcon deals with your hidden hand).

It's an FAQ, I feel it would make more sense to prioritize specific clarifications for more frequently played cards or more confusing interactions. The Falcon being frequent and the possible interaction with the Moisture-Guardian-Questionable being more complicated.

#16
Demas

Demas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 216 posts
We've been given examples of "no aspect of the effect" and "all aspects of the effect", but I'm curious as to what "some aspect of the effect" means... we're told that it's more than the cost, but implicitly not necessarily all of the effect.
  • GroggyGolem likes this

#17
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts

Tribal support was already in the prior FAQs, hence they had to leave it there. Killing Cold was a popular (and powerful, with Executor) example. Did they really need a third for the Falcon? They made those two explicit references to 3.6, indicating where everything similar should go.


They had to spell out that Reaction, Actions, and Interrupts are triggered abilities and that Forced makes things mandatory. None of which I've ever had anyone not get. I think they could spare the characters.

#18
Scottie

Scottie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1968 posts
Based on this change you could not Sac a Liaison if you were restricted from being able to draw.

#19
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3924 posts

They had to spell out that Reaction, Actions, and Interrupts are triggered abilities and that Forced makes things mandatory. None of which I've ever had anyone not get. I think they could spare the characters.

To be fair there, "triggered abilities" is not a term that has ever appeared anywhere in the rules or cards and including Action abilities as triggered is not necessarily obvious. Why they're adding this definition at all remains to be seen though...

#20
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts

Based on this change you could not Sac a Liaison if you were restricted from being able to draw.


Buffing Embers that's what I like to see.