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!

Tie Attack Squadron and Shadowed Surveillance

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic




  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Tie Attack Squadron

"During any engagement in which you have placed at least 1 fate card in your edge stack, this unit gains [Unit Damage] and targeted strike."


Shadowed Surveillance

"Interrupt: When you would place a card into your edge stack, instead return a card from your edge stack to its owner’s hand. (Limit once per turn.)"


The FAQ states:

"The TIE Attack Squadron’s passive ability checks whether or not you have placed any Fate cards into any of your edge stacks during an edge battle this engagement. Even if those Fate cards are canceled (by an opponent’s Twist of Fate), or if the resolution of the Edge Battle is canceled (by your own Twist of Fate), a Fate card has still been placed, and you would still gain the bonus æ icon and targeted strike keyword."+


If you place a fate card in your edge stack and then remove it with Shadowed Surveillance would that still allow Tie Attack Squadron to gain [Unit Damage] and targeted strike? 


Based strictly on the wording it seems like the answer is yes but would it require showing your opponent the card you removed to prove it was a fate card?



  • jimmyc1972, Jamestrunk, LouisLak and 1 other like this



    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1639 posts
Short answer: no, there is no system for proving you placed one

Long answer: TAS should be erratad to be reveal and end up with the same wording as Derlin probably?
I guess, as written, if they have core Obi in the fight it could work? But really it should just have been updated with Derlin's text
  • jimmyc1972 likes this