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 Rule Clarifications !!Direct replies FFG only!!


  • Please log in to reply
254 replies to this topic

#241
mischraum

mischraum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Q:

Can the Phantom (252 - 4 of 6) prevent a unit to be captured from the top of the deck?

 

A:

Card abilities can only affect cards that are in play unless they explicitly call out otherwise. Since the Phantom’s ability does not specify that it can prevent the capture of a card from your deck, it cannot do so. (Put another way, the Phantom can only use it’s replacement ability to prevent the capture of units that are already in play.)

 

--

Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer

  • theChony and Thaliak like this

#242
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3722 posts

Q:

What happens to the facedown Enhancements if the Dark Side player takes control of R2-D2 (Scrap Metal)?

 

A:

The facedown attachments would remain attached to R2, and the DS player would now be allowed to use  them as if they were in his or her hand (as provided by the game text on R2 that the DS player now controls).


--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#243
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3722 posts

Q:

Who can look at the facedown Enhancements on R2-D2 if the Dark Side player has taken control of it?

 

A:

Both players would be allowed to look at the facedown enhancements on R2. They are still technically under the control of the LS player (they didn’t change control when R2 did), and part of using the cards as if they were in his or her hand in the case of the DS player would be looking at them.


--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#244
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3722 posts

Q:

How do cards which reference cards you play from hand (eg Looking for Droids) interact with rules/card effects that allow you to play cards from a different location *as if from hand* (eg common reserve in 2v2, facedown enhancements on R2-D2)?

 

A:

Those cards (Looking for Droids et al.) treat the card "as if [it was] in your hand.” Therefore, you are able to ignore resource match requirements on playing that card (in the case of Looking for Droids).


--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#245
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3722 posts

Q:

When you play an enhancement from R2-D2 (Scrap Metal), is the enhancement considered to leave play at any point? Specifically, if the facedown enhancement had Custom Paint Job attached to it, what happens to Custom Paint Job?

 

A:

The facedown enhancement ceases to exist as “facedown enhancement” when you play it. It leaves play and whatever card was on the back of that enhancement now enters play. Thus, the Custom Paint Job will be discarded in this case.
 

 

Even though the “facedown enhancement” and whatever card was printed on the back of it share a physical piece of cardboard, they are treated as distinct entities from a game perspective. (i.e. not the same card)

--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#246
TheNameWasTaken

TheNameWasTaken

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Q:

What, if anything, happens if the DS player places Hallucination in their edge stack as the defending player, and there is a Secret Objective in either edge stack? Does the DS player get to redirect the engagement to a LS objective? And if so, does the DS player now become the attacking player, making the LS Secret Objective unable to resolve (if it was in the LS stack in the first place)? I'm about 98% certain that Hallucination does not get to redirect anything, but I'm not entirely sure what rule or FAQ entry I should look to for an explanation why.

 

A:

Hallucination would replicate the effect of Secret Objective, which would be to choose an enemy (LS, in this case, as the DS player is resolving the effect) objective and engage that objective. However, given that it is still the LS player’s turn, this would cause the LS player to engage an objective he or she controls as the attacking player, which is not a valid game state. In this case, Hallucination wouldn’t be able to be successfully resolved (as there is no valid choice of objective. Therefore it fails the "step 1: check play restrictions, targets” check of Effect Resolution (page 10 on the FAQ) ).
 
This is not as clear as it should be in the existing rules. As such, I will be making a note to add clarifying language regarding this possibility to the next FAQ.
 

Thanks.


--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#247
mischraum

mischraum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
Q:
The card I will not fight you says: Play only if you control 1 or more participating units. Reaction: After an edge battle resolves, your opponent must remove participating units from his side of an engagement until he has an equal (or fewer) number of participating units as you, if able. What does "or fewer" mean in that case? Lets say I have 2 units my opponent has 2 units. May he reduce down to 0 units? Must he reduce down to 1 unit because he must remove at least 1 unit?

A:
“equal (or fewer)” is the condition on which the card effect ceases.

So, if both LS and DS have 2 units, DS would remove no units (and thus FAQ 3.6 would stop LS player from playing the card in the first place).

If the “or fewer” clause was missing, the following situation is one that could arise. And, while it’s perfectly within the letter of that card ability (i.e. if it were written just “…an equal number…”), it violates the intent of the actual card:
LS player controls 3 participating units.
DS player controls 2 participating units.
LS player plays a card that says “opponent removes participating units until they have an equal number of participating units to LS”
This is a condition that’s logically impossible to fulfill, but they are forced to remove units until they can meet it. Thus, DS player ends up removing each of their participating units. (The card ability effectively says, “if you don’t have an equal number of units, remove 1. Repeat as necessary.” and makes no allowance for the case where you start with less.)
As noted, if the condition was only “an equal number” there would be cases where the DS player cannot fulfill that condition, so they would be forced to follow the card ability (“remove units”) until all of their units had been removed. The card was never intended to provide a manner to get an unopposed engagement.

As such, the “(or fewer)” clause was added to the card ability to stop that from happening. Now, the above example looks like:
LS player controls 3 participating units.
DS player controls 2 participating units.
LS player cannot even play I Will Not Fight You, as its effect would do nothing, as the DS player already meets the condition of having “an equal (or fewer) number of participating units” and FAQ 3.6 prevents the LS player from playing a card that will not have an effect.

Likewise, if the DS and LS players control an equal number of participating units, the card cannot be played. I Will Not Fight You only has an effect when the DS player starts with a higher number of participating units than the LS player. Then, as soon as the DS player meets the condition of having “an equal (or fewer) number of participating units” the effect finishes and the DS player stops removing units from the engagement.
  • yodaman likes this

#248
MarioFanaticXV

MarioFanaticXV

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Message from:
Adam

E-mail:
[email protected]

Rules Question:
I have a question about cards like Black Squadron. The effect says to "Reduce the cost to play this unit by 1 (to a minimum of 3) for each Black Squadron card you control.". Does this mean that the cost can be reduced below 3 through other means (for example, Kuat Reinforcements or Elite Pilot Training), or is 3 the absolute minimum this card will other cost?


Hi Adam,

Anytime a minimum (or maximum) is placed on a value, that minimum (maximum) applies no matter what else might affect the value. So, with Black Squadron, no combination of effects can reduce the cost below 3.

--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer
[email protected]



#249
TheNameWasTaken

TheNameWasTaken

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Q:

If you put Security Alarm (268-5) on Entrenched Defense (223-1), can you use the Security Alarm reaction when redirecting an engagement from elsewhere to Entrenched?

A:

Yes. The opponent engages Entrenched Defense, as per the text of its Reaction(“…your opponent engages this objective instead.”). Thus, this meets the triggering condition for Security Alarm (“After enhanced objective is engaged…”).


  • doctormungmung and Thaliak like this

#250
IsawaTokiyoshi

IsawaTokiyoshi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Q: 

If my Guri(170 - 2) Action gets canceled by Rebel Saboteur(261 - 3,4) can I play the same Guri immediately again?

 
 
A:
Yes.
 
Cards in hand are out-of-play, and thus retain no memory of attempting to trigger their Reactions. After the Saboteur cancels the effects of Guri’s Reaction, you return to the timing point of “After you lose an edge battle by 2 or more Force icons” (see Nested effect sequences in the FAQ) and you are allowed to trigger Guri’s Reaction from hand again.
 

--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer
 
MOD EDIT:
*SEE POST IMMEDIATELY BELOW FOR FURTHER DETAILS ON EXPLANATION*

 
 


#251
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3722 posts

Q:

Follow up on the explanation for above question about Guri vs Rebel Saboteur

 

A:

 

It's the fact that Guri is in a hidden out-of-play state that allows a player to trigger her Reaction again immediately. Since Guri is in hand, after the effects of her Reaction are cancelled, she returns to a hidden out-of-play state and can be triggered again.
 

Non-hidden cards in out-of-play states would not be able to trigger multiple times to the same trigger.

 
Apologies for the confusion inherent in the first answer.

--
Erik Dahlman
LCG Developer


#252
TheNameWasTaken

TheNameWasTaken

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Q: When damage is redirected by the Protect keyword ("if a friendly card in play with the trait specified by a “Protect” effect would take damage, the controller may instead place any amount of that damage on the card with the “Protect” keyword"), Lightsaber Deflection ("Interrupt: When damage is dealt to a friendly non-Vehicle unit, deal 1 point of that damage to another target unit instead.") or Shien Training ("Interrupt: When enhanced unit would be dealt damage, focus this enhancement to deal that damage to another target unit instead.") considered to have been dealt by the original source of the damage or the redirecting effect? If the original source is still dealing that damage, this would mean that IG-88B (Reaction: After this unit uses targeted strike to damage a unit, that unit is now participating in this engagement on its controller's side) can pull the new recipient of the damage into an engagement, and also that The Droid Revolution ("Droid units you control that are not participating in an engagement cannot be damaged by enemy card effects or combat icons.") does not make units immune to damage redirected this way. If the damage is considered to be dealt by the redirecting effect, neither of these interactions works.

 
A: The damage is still considered to have been dealt by the original source. Protect, and replacement effects that redirect damage, change how the damage is dealt, they do not deal new damage on their own.
 
------------------------------------------
 
Q: Is the ability of Dice Ibegon ("Interrupt: When you would declare an engagement, target an eligible enemy objective instead. Your opponent must declare defending units first, if desired. You must then declare at least 1 attacking unit, if able. Engage the targeted objective. (Limit once per turn.) ") considered to be declaring an engagement against the targeted objective, or just engaging it without declaring an engagement? If it is considered to be declaring an engagement, the card text doesn't say to skip the regular steps of declaring attackers and defenders - it merely adds new steps before declaring the engagement. If it isn't considered to be declaring, a player could use Dice Ibegon's ability to engage an objective and, after that engagement has ended, declare a regular engagement against that objective since an engagement hasn't been declared yet. Which is the correct interpretation?

A: “When you would declare an engagement” indicates that you are declaring the engagement, and then interrupt the declaration with a replacement as to how the process of declaration is handled, namely:
 
“Your opponent must declare defending units first, if desired. You must then declare at least 1 attacking unit, if able.” 
 
This subverts the standard process of declaring an engagement, and re-arranges the order of operations to:
 
1) Target objective.
2) Opponent must declare defending units, if desired.
3) Declare attackers. (You must declare at least 1 attacker.)
 
The final line of text establishes that, upon completion of the above process, the engagement is now declared against the target objective. At this point, proceed to step 4 of the engagment resolution process, “Fight Edge Battle.”
 
Nate French
Senior Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

  • doctormungmung likes this

#253
Thaliak

Thaliak

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts

Q: The Scum objective I Don't Like You, Either can duplicate an event card's effects after it resolves. What happens if the objective is used to duplicate Bombing Run, which allows the Dark Side player to spend a resource activating each of three options (damaging an objective, damaging a unit, and destroying a non-limited enhancement)? Does I Don't Like You, Either duplicate the event as a whole, which only provides an option to spend resources on effects, or replicate for free the effects the Dark Side player invested in during the event's first resolution?

 

A: Because I Don’t Like You, Either specifically tells you to ignore costs and triggering conditions, you will resolve it without having to pay the costs within the ability’s text. However, it also says, “resolve those effects again” (emphasis mine) so you will only be able to resolve the effects that you resolved with the initial playing of the card.

 
For example, you could pay three resources to resolve two effects from Bombing Run, and then deal 2 damage to your objective to resolve those two effects again (without paying additional costs).
 

~Tyler Parrott
Card Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games


  • Muddervader, yodaman and Lertush like this

#254
IAmBatman

IAmBatman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
Sorry if this was answered before..

Q. Can you use an influence resource to pay for Luke's lightsaber out of the discard?

A. Yes.

Tyler Parrott
Card Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
  • Thaliak likes this

#255
IAmBatman

IAmBatman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
Edit, I didn't see this had been answered above. Keeping for the sake of the emperors promise portion, but can get rid of entirely if desired

Q: Hey, I have a legitimate Rules question for you.

Dice reads: When you would declare an engagement, target an eligible enemy objective instead. Your opponent must declare defending units first, if desired. You must then declare at least 1 attacking unit, if able. Engage the targeted objective. (Limit once per turn.)

Emperors promise reads: Reaction: After an opponent declares an engagement against an objective not named The Emperor’s Promise, deal 1 damage to a target enemy objective.

Based on the wording, it sounds like Dice gets around Emperors Promise. It also sounds like Dice interrupt doesn't declare an engagement, and you could therefore attack the targeted objective twice.

Now, I'm not sure that's what the intent was, but the wording makes it sound like you don't declare against the objective, but rather target an objective and you become engaged with it.

So, can you attack an objective twice if you use Dice's reaction on it once? And does Dice get around Emperor's promise reaction?

A: Short answer: no to both.

Long answer: When your opponent "declares defenders" and you subsequently "declare attackers," that is fundamentally the same as the actions you take when declaring an engagement (it's not contingent on declaring against the objective, as it's already been ruled that declaring attackers and engaging the objective would normally happen simultaneously)
since you're doing the things you do when you declare an engagement, you're still declaring an engagement

Tyler Parrott