Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
78 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Star Wars: Rebellion» Forums » Rules

Subject: 5 (wait, 6+) absurd questions, especially Oversee Project and Shield Bunkers rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
(Just getting into the spirit of things... )

I don't have the rulebooks with me right now, so apologies if the answers are painfully obvious.

1. Can you score multiple 'combat' Objective cards in the same round, as long as they're each played in a different combat? (e.g. you initiate a combat to destroy a Star Destroyer in Mustafar and score that card, and then later in the round you initiate another combat and destroy 3-health worth of ground troops on Naboo?)

2. When using the RotE expansion, does an Interdictor count as a Star Destroyer for the purpose of scoring Rebel objectives? (I don't think so but am not quite sure.)

3. A remote system is considered neutral... so can you place your starting Rebel forces on a remote system, because it doesn't say 'deploy'?

4. When using the base game's combat system, who draws tactic cards first? The current player? The attacker? (So far it hasn't mattered, but the expansion includes a mission card called 'Prepare for Battle' that lets you look at the top few tactic cards and arrange them as you like. This implies that somebody draws first and you can make sure they'll get the good/bad cards in the next combat.)

5. Can you blow up Coruscant with the Death Star? And is there any reason you would do so other than sheer hilarity value?

EDIT: Added a 6th question about 'Oversee Project' a few posts down.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 absurd questions
1. Yes, you can as long as it isn't in the same combat.

It does raise the question on what happens if you score an objective and the empire retreats into your rebel base, can you score an additional objective? (most objectives depend on the Rebels initiating the combat, but I guess it could happen) i- i would rule this legal.

2. No it does not.

3.Yes! The rebels may split their starting forces between any non imperial system and their rebel base space.

4. Good question, the rules say: "The current player draws tactic cards first, followed by his opponent." (RR P4)

5. You can blow up any system, but there is no benefit in doing this on Curoscant - all missions and objectives that mention a system by name can still be played even if that system is destroyed.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexey Bychenkov
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 absurd questions
zenshrugs wrote:
(Just getting into the spirit of things... )

I don't have the rulebooks with me right now, so apologies if the answers are painfully obvious.

1. Can you score multiple 'combat' Objective cards in the same round, as long as they're each played in a different combat? (e.g. you initiate a combat to destroy a Star Destroyer in Mustafar and score that card, and then later in the round you initiate another combat and destroy 3-health worth of ground troops on Naboo?)

2. When using the RotE expansion, does an Interdictor count as a Star Destroyer for the purpose of scoring Rebel objectives? (I don't think so but am not quite sure.)

3. A remote system is considered neutral... so can you place your starting Rebel forces on a remote system, because it doesn't say 'deploy'?

4. When using the base game's combat system, who draws tactic cards first? The current player? The attacker? (So far it hasn't mattered, but the expansion includes a mission card called 'Prepare for Battle' that lets you look at the top few tactic cards and arrange them as you like. This implies that somebody draws first and you can make sure they'll get the good/bad cards in the next combat.)

5. Can you blow up Coruscant with the Death Star? And is there any reason you would do so other than sheer hilarity value?


1.) yes, you may play a combat mission card one at a time of each battle (whole battle, not round of combat).
2.) No it doesn't. Though it looks like the pizza slice as well.
3.) Yes you can do that.
4.) The attacker (the current player, as stands in a rulebook, but i think its a hint for multiple players game) draws first.
5.) You can do that, but there are litteraly no reasons. As far as i remember, all rebels Coruscant bound objective cards tells you to have units in the system, or adjacent to it, so whatever, you always may have space ones.
1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 absurd questions
Thanks guys.

Eleven games in, and yet somehow I had convinced myself that you could only score one combat Objective per round (and one Refresh objective of course).

I also just discovered that when you rescue a leader, the people assigned to the mission may go to the Rebel Base space along with the rescuee. Never noticed that (and was puzzled by the 'For the Greater Good' card text...)

I'm still seeing new cards, too. Lost a game today thanks to Tagge's starting action card, 'More Dangerous Than You Realise'. He was more dangerous than I realised! shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Re: 5 absurd questions
zenshrugs wrote:
5. Can you blow up Coruscant with the Death Star? And is there any reason you would do so other than sheer hilarity value?

If Superlaser Online destroys Rebel ground units on Coruscant, it can prevent scoring Threaten the Core objective (5 Rebel units in Coruscant and/or adjacent system/s). It won't prevent it permanently, of course, but sometimes delaying the objective is enough.

Sometimes even destroying Rebel units that happen to be on Coruscant might be beneficial (to prevent Rebels from using them later).

All highly situational, of course.
5 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
Another question:

Could someone please clarify the 'Oversee Project' Imperial project card?

Card text:
Quote:

'Resolve in any system that contains an Imperial unit and no Rebel units. Choose 1 Imperial unit on space 1 or 2 of the build queue and deploy it in this system.'


I'm unsure about the use of the word 'deploy' rather than 'place' here.

Does this card override the usual deployment restrictions (i.e. must be loyal or subjugated; must not be sabotaged)?

Or is it in addition to that restriction--in the same way that if cards teleporting units from place to place don't bother to say anything about transports, the usual transport restrictions apply?

I know there's a clarification/exemption for the DSUC, but what about ordinary things like the Super Star Destroyer?


In our last game, here was the (extremely tense) situation:

Rebel base was on Nal Hutta, unrevealed but fairly lightly defended. The Empire had figured out its position and the Rebel player knew this.

Imperials moved into adjacent Toydaria (I think it was) and subjugated it, with a reasonably strong force of space and ground troops.

Rebels sabotaged Toydaria to prevent reinforcements deploying there.

Also adjacent to the base was Bothawui, which had Rebel loyalty but no Rebel units. The only units there were an Imperial TIE and Assault Carrier.

Probe deck had only four cards left. Rebels had not assigned Rapid Mobilisation, believing the Empire would immediately identify and jump on whichever undefended new system they chose.

Empire had a SSD on space 1 of the build queue.

Empire played 'Planetary Conquest' on Nal Hutta, revealed the base, destroyed the ground troops and subjugated the planet. Rebels retained a small space fleet in orbit (two corvettes and two fighters).

At the end of the turn, Empire played 'Oversee Project' to deploy the SSD on Bothawui. (If he had waited until the refresh phase, he couldn't have put it on either Bothawui or Toydaria.)

Refresh phase: Rebels couldn't deploy their reinforcing units from the build queue due to the subjugation on the base system. Turn marker moved and was now 1 space away from the reputation marker.

Next turn: Rebels knew they had to win the game with their first action--otherwise the SSD would clobber them. They tried to score a final reputation point by using 'Incite Rebellion' against the ground troops in Toydaria (sending Mothma first to make it hard to oppose, gaining ground troopers in the system, and then bringing in Jedi Luke with the Yoda Ring as a tactic-value leader when combat began).

The attack failed thanks to poor rolls and Tagge defending with his action card for extra tactic cards. The Imperials retreated before the Rebels could score enough damage for 'Crippling Blow'. However, because Tagge had pulled the Star Destroyers out of the system, the remaining Imperials there had no transports and thus could no longer participate in the upcoming final battle next door.

Of course, it didn't matter, because the Imperials then moved the SSD + AC + TIE from Bothawui into Nal Hutta and annihilated the Rebel fleet to win the game.

Great edge-of-your-seat ending. cool

But did we use 'Oversee Project' correctly? Was the SSD deployable in Bothawui? Could it also have been placed in Toydaria despite the sabotage marker?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
I would rule no, though I don't think this one case has had an absolute ruling.

You cannot deploy to a sabotaged system, but you can deploy to a remote system, but there are ways in the game to let you do that normally. There is not a way for you to deploy an Imperial unit into a Rebel loyal system. I'm interested, so I'll send in a rules request and share the response.

1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
JosephProphet wrote:
I would rule no, though I don't think this one case has had an absolute ruling.

You cannot deploy to a sabotaged system, but you can deploy to a remote system, but there are ways in the game to let you do that normally. There is not a way for you to deploy an Imperial unit into a Rebel loyal system. I'm interested, so I'll send in a rules request and share the response.



Thanks JP for submitting a rules request. Looking forward to hearing back.

Over on the old Death Star stinks thread, Oversee Project comes up a few times (see p1 and p4 using Ctrl+F). The consensus there seems to be that the card can indeed be used the way we played it on Bothawui (though one person on p4 disallowed sabotaged systems).

It looks as if most people in that thread interpreted the first sentence as allowing special deployment rules. That's how we interpreted it too.

But now that I look at it again... the first sentence is specifically about where the leader must go to resolve the card ability. Not about where the unit is deployed. So now I'm worried that the usual deployment restrictions apply to the unit.

(Despite losing the game as the Rebels, I'd be disappointed if it turns out Oversee Project can't be used the way it was in my example. )


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
I believe the usual deployment rules should apply. For them not to apply, you would need the card to place the unit on the board rather than to specifically 'deploy' it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
What you did "overseeing project in Bothawui which was Rebel loyal(no rebel units) but had an imperial ship" was legal.
While I could not find it, we definitely got a ruling on this.
In fact you can also oversee project in a remote system, even tho usually you are not allowed to deploy there.

What I am less sure of is the case where Bothawui is sabotaged. It seems that should be illegal, but the card doesn't specify that case.
I feel like we have a ruling on this too, but haven't found it yet either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
jooice wrote:
What you did "overseeing project in Bothawui which was Rebel loyal(no rebel units) but had an imperial ship" was legal.
While I could not find it, we definitely got a ruling on this.
In fact you can also oversee project in a remote system, even tho usually you are not allowed to deploy there.

What I am less sure of is the case where Bothawui is sabotaged. It seems that should be illegal, but the card doesn't specify that case.
I feel like we have a ruling on this too, but haven't found it yet either.


There is a ruling on the Sabotage (No you can't deploy) and on Remote Systems (Yes you can deploy), not on Rebel Loyal systems though Link. I would say you couldn't at the moment if I had to make a ruling, just because there are circumstances where you can deploy to a remote system, but there aren't any circumstances where you can deploy to a Rebel system. Would follow a logical application of the card in circumstances of you can't deploy where deployment isn't possible (where it is possible in Remote Systems.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
Here's another oddity: if Oversee Project does override the usual deployment rules, you could deploy the unit in a destroyed system containing an Imperial space unit, right?

"That's no asteroid--that's a Super Star Destroyer!"


Anyway... this has got me intrigued. I've downloaded the RRG from FFG's website (last time I tried it broke my browser), so I can have a closer look at this.

If I've missed anything, please let me know. (FFG's A-Z guides annoy me because sometimes the relevant info isn't under the heading I thought it would be, and having checked one entry, I don't think to check for other ones. For instance, the 'Winning the Game' entry says nothing about superlasering the Rebel Base while it's hidden, and doesn't even cross-reference the Death Star!)

The 'Golden Rules':

Quote:
If a card ability contradicts information in the Rules
Reference, the card takes precedence. If both the card
and the rules can be followed at the same time, they
should be.

If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” it is absolute
and cannot be overridden by other abilities.


(Interestingly, 'cannot' in the RRG isn't absolute by this definition.)

From 'Deploy units' on p7:

Quote:
During step 6 of the Refresh Phase, each player slides all units down
the build queue one space. Any units that slide from the “1” space off
the board are ready to be deployed. The player places these units in
any of his loyal or subjugated systems
.
bb Each player can deploy a maximum of two units to each
system during each Refresh Phase.
• If a player cannot (or does not wish to) deploy some of his
units, he places these units back on the “1” space of his
build queue.
• A player cannot deploy units to a system that contains a
sabotage marker
or any of his opponent’s ships or ground units.
Remote systems cannot have loyalty; therefore, units cannot be
deployed there
.


(Emphasis added.)

There are two 'cannots' here, but since they're in the RRG and not on cards, they can presumably be overridden by card abilities. In fact, deploying the DSII overrides the last bullet point here. So do Shield Bunkers in the expansion.

From p12:
Quote:

REMOTE SYSTEMS
Each system that does not have resource icons or a loyalty space is a
remote system.
bb Loyalty and subjugation markers cannot be placed on remote
systems. These systems are always neutral.
Units cannot be deployed to remote systems.


Again, this can be overridden by card abilities (notably deploying the DSII, and the Shield Bunkers from the expansion).


From 'Sabotage Markers', p13:
Quote:

Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in a system that
contains a sabotage marker.
• Other abilities that refer to resource icons in a system are
unaffected by sabotage markers. For example, an ability
that allows a player to “gain” units in a system is not
prevented by a sabotage marker.


Again, the 'cannot' here is in the RRG and so could presumably be overridden.

------

So the question is, does Oversee Project card ability contradict any of the above--in which case it takes precedence?

Or can the card and RRG coexist without conflicting (like transport restrictions applying if the card makes no mention of them)?

I thought the special case of the Death Star II deployment might provide evidence that Oversee Project can allow deployment in remote systems. But on review, I don't think so.

The RRG says this about deploying the Death Star (p6):

Quote:
If an ability allows the Imperial player to deploy a Death Star
in a system, it can be placed only in the Death Star Under
Construction’s system.


Now, since that system must be remote, it wouldn't normally be allowed. But the 'Construct Death Star' project card says:

Quote:
When the Death Star is deployed, it replaces the Death Star Under Construction.


In this case the CDS card (which uses the keyword 'deployed') contradicts the RRG's rule about no deployment to remote systems. The Golden Rules means the card ability takes precedence. Clear enough.

And the FAQ/errata says:

Quote:
Q: Can the Imperial player use the “Oversee Project” card to
accelerate the production of a new Death Star?

A: Yes, but only if the mission is resolved in the Death Star
Under Construction’s system.


So I'd argue that the Oversee Project card lets you put the DSII in a remote system only because the Construct Death Star card already contradicted and overrode the RRG concerning deployment. The Oversee Project card itself doesn't do this.

It seems to follow that I can't use the DSII deployment as an argument that Oversee Project overrides the standard rules.


So... that brings us back to the card itself.

Quote:
Oversee Project

Resolve in any system that contains an Imperial unit and no Rebel units. Choose 1 Imperial unit on space 1 or 2 of the build queue and deploy it in this system.


I can't help feeling that this doesn't contradict the RRG at any point. Meaning that loyalty, sabotage markers, and remote system restrictions remain in effect.

Only the DSII is exempt, thanks to the Construct Death Star card.

Our error, I think, was to read 'Resolve...' as meaning 'Resolve this entire card in any system with blah blah blah'. We instinctively felt the card ability (deploy a unit) applied in that system. But in fact the 'Resolve' bit is only talking about where the leader is placed. The second sentence doesn't contradict the RRG at any point, so I presume the usual deployment restrictions apply.

In other words, you could certainly send the leader to a remote/destroyed/sabotaged/neutral/Rebel-loyal system... but then you wouldn't be allowed to deploy the unit, due to the standard rules. Unless a) it was the DSII or b) there was a Shield Bunker there.

Which is disappointing, because I like the more generous interpretation. cry


jooice wrote:
What you did "overseeing project in Bothawui which was Rebel loyal(no rebel units) but had an imperial ship" was legal.
While I could not find it, we definitely got a ruling on this.
In fact you can also oversee project in a remote system, even tho usually you are not allowed to deploy there.

What I am less sure of is the case where Bothawui is sabotaged. It seems that should be illegal, but the card doesn't specify that case.
I feel like we have a ruling on this too, but haven't found it yet either.


The thing I find confusing is: If it's legal to deploy on a Rebel-loyal system with Oversee Project, why would it be illegal to deploy on a sabotage marker? Both are prohibited by the RRG, but card abilities take precedence if they conflict.

So if OP overrides one deployment issue (meaning it's ruled as contradicting the RRG), shouldn't it override the other too?

And if sabotage is illegal, shouldn't Rebel-loyal be illegal too?

Yeesh, what kind of can of worms have I opened? surprise
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
zenshrugs wrote:
The thing I find confusing is: If it's legal to deploy on a Rebel-loyal system with Oversee Project, why would it be illegal to deploy on a sabotage marker? Both are prohibited by the RRG, but card abilities take precedence if they conflict.

The difference is that there is no rule that says "Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in remote systems". But there is a rule saying (verbatim quote) "Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in a system that contains a sabotage marker".

So one way to look at it is that every rule mentioning "deploy" is meant to be applied only in context of Refresh Phase - and abilities can always deploy, unless there's a rule specifically mentioning "Abilities cannot deploy if...". That would mean that Oversee Project can be used to deploy unit to Rebel system (if there are no other obstacles).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
JosephProphet wrote:

There is a ruling on the Sabotage (No you can't deploy) and on Remote Systems (Yes you can deploy), not on Rebel Loyal systems though Link. I would say you couldn't at the moment if I had to make a ruling, just because there are circumstances where you can deploy to a remote system, but there aren't any circumstances where you can deploy to a Rebel system. Would follow a logical application of the card in circumstances of you can't deploy where deployment isn't possible (where it is possible in Remote Systems.)


I'm puzzled by Corey's ruling on remote systems. As quoted in my previous post, the RRG does prohibit deploying to remote systems, just like sabotage markers. On my reading, only the Construct Death Star card specifically overrides this.

When else can you deploy to a remote system? Besides Shield Bunkers? I must be forgetting something.

In fact... when playing with the expansion, how are you meant to get a Shield Bunker onto a remote system in the first place? The rules pamphlet says:

Quote:
Easy Deployment: In addition to normal deployment rules, a Shield Bunker may be deployed to any system that contains at least 1 Imperial ground unit and does not contain any Rebel units. The planet's loyalty does not matter.


The intent of this rule seems to be that you can plonk a Bunker on a remote system where you have a ground unit--to protect a DSUC at Endor or wherever. Yet RAW suggests that it's not allowed. Don't normal deployment rules include 'Units cannot be deployed to remote systems'? The Easy Deployment rule says nothing about cancelling/ignoring this.

What am I missing?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
jooice wrote:
What you did "overseeing project in Bothawui which was Rebel loyal(no rebel units) but had an imperial ship" was legal.
While I could not find it, we definitely got a ruling on this.
In fact you can also oversee project in a remote system, even tho usually you are not allowed to deploy there.

What I am less sure of is the case where Bothawui is sabotaged. It seems that should be illegal, but the card doesn't specify that case.
I feel like we have a ruling on this too, but haven't found it yet either.


Found the ruling.
You cannot use oversee project in a sabotaged system.
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/27160764#27160764


I was clearly beat to it.
Thanks guys
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
zenshrugs wrote:

What am I missing?


You are missing that it was ruled legal to use oversee project in remote systems.
I suppose the card's working would have been better if it said:

Oversee Project

Resolve in any system that contains an Imperial unit and no Rebel units nor a sabotage marker. Choose 1 Imperial unit on space 1 or 2 of the build queue and place it in this system.

While this isn't the official text, you can treat it as such.



Regarding the Rebel loyalty:
There isn't any rule (that I can think of) that says you can't deploy to systems that have opposing loyalty - however your own loyalty is required. A system cannot be loyal to 2 sides.
There is a rule saying you cannot deploy to systems with opposing units, and solves all the other problems.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
Perf wrote:
zenshrugs wrote:
The thing I find confusing is: If it's legal to deploy on a Rebel-loyal system with Oversee Project, why would it be illegal to deploy on a sabotage marker? Both are prohibited by the RRG, but card abilities take precedence if they conflict.

The difference is that there is no rule that says "Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in remote systems". But there is a rule saying (verbatim quote) "Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in a system that contains a sabotage marker".

So one way to look at it is that every rule mentioning "deploy" is meant to be applied only in context of Refresh Phase - and abilities can always deploy, unless there's a rule specifically mentioning "Abilities cannot deploy if...". That would mean that Oversee Project can be used to deploy unit to Rebel system (if there are no other obstacles).


Huh. I see what you mean. That strikes me as an odd way to interpret that entry, though.

The way I read it, the Sabotage Markers entry is just a clarification to avoid confusion. It specifically mentions the words 'build' and 'deploy' to distinguish them from other phrases like 'gain' or 'place on the build queue'. This came up a lot in my early games and I was glad the RRG took the time to explain it.

Similarly, under 'Build units' the RRG takes the time to clarify things:
Quote:

When an ability allows a player to place units on the build
queue, these units are taken from the supply.
• If the ability is resolved in a system, it can be performed
even if there is a sabotage marker in the system.


However, because you can't ever put a sabotage marker on a remote system, the rules don't need to clarify the difference between 'build/deploy' and 'gain/place' in remote systems. Therefore they don't bother to mention it.

The blanket rule 'Units cannot be deployed to remote systems' seems like it should apply everywhere unless specifically contradicted by a card ability.

Arguing that the extra clarification in the Sabotage section reveals some hidden overall distinction between deployment in the refresh phase and deploying with a card ability seems farfetched to me. If an ability on a card was meant to break the deployment rules, it ought to say 'gain' or 'place' specifically to avoid such confusion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions
jooice wrote:
zenshrugs wrote:

What am I missing?


You are missing that it was ruled legal to use oversee project in remote systems.


I know it was ruled legal. I just don't understand why.

And I don't understand the bunker thing either (forgetting Oversee Project for a minute).

(Also, I'll stop posting for a few minutes so the conversation can catch up.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Cannon
United States
Annapolis
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions, especially about Oversee Project
zenshrugs wrote:
jooice wrote:
zenshrugs wrote:

What am I missing?


You are missing that it was ruled legal to use oversee project in remote systems.


I know it was ruled legal. I just don't understand why.

And I don't understand the bunker thing either (forgetting Oversee Project for a minute).

(Also, I'll stop posting for a few minutes so the conversation can catch up.)

Looking back through the threads it appears that Corey's ruling is based on this wording that you referenced above.

Quote:
Abilities cannot “build” or “deploy” units in a system that
contains a sabotage marker.

The term abilities applies to the card effects, so essentially this is stating that a Sabotage marker trumps card abilities as far as deployment of units goes.

In the Shield Bunker case, we have a new rule for a new unit which explicitly allows the deployment of this unit to a remote system IF there is a ground unit in the system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions, especially about Oversee Project
wtcannonjr wrote:

In the Shield Bunker case, we have a new rule for a new unit which explicitly allows the deployment of this unit to a remote system IF there is a ground unit in the system.


Could you point me to the rule that explicitly allows this? EDIT: I found the rule--see the edit at the end of this post... but jeez, it's obscure! I've left my original text here unchanged so you can see my thought process.

As mentioned above, the RotE pamphlet doesn't mention remote systems under 'Easy Deployment'. It says 'any system with an Imperial ground unit and no Rebel units'... but it also says 'in addition to normal deployment rules', and you normally can't deploy to a remote system.

The rule does explicitly say the planet's loyalty doesn't matter. I think it should also spell out that remote vs populous doesn't matter either.

Now, I'm sure the intent of the rule is to deploy bunkers in remote systems, both for thematic reasons and to protect the DSUC. And I'm sure everyone plays it like that. Furthermore, the next entry in the Shield Bunker section, 'Local Reinforcement', talks about Shield Bunkers already in remote systems.

Overall, it just looks like an oversight. I wouldn't normally be so pedantic about it. But I'm trying to stick to rules-as-written for the purposes of this thread.



EDIT:
I note that in the official rules clarification thread, Corey said that you can't deploy a Shield Bunker to a destroyed system.

But if you can put a bunker on a remote system even though the text doesn't waive the usual restriction, then by the same principle, you should be able to put it on a destroyed system too.

In fact it should be even more permissible, because the 'Destroyed Systems' entry in the RRG doesn't even say you can't deploy there, unlike the 'Remote Systems' entry!

Now I don't think for a second that you're really supposed to be able to deploy bunkers in destroyed systems. But the fact that Corey ruled no for that, yet ruled 'yes' for remote systems, indicates to me that the rules pamphlet wording is poorly proofread and missing a line. (It wouldn't be the only instance...)

I think the 'Easy Deployment' rule for Shield Bunkers should read as follows (added text in bold):

Quote:
Easy Deployment: In addition to normal deployment rules, a Shield Bunker may be deployed to any remote system that contains at least 1 Imperial ground unit and does not contain any Rebel units. The planet's loyalty does not matter.


The addition makes it clear that remote systems are OK (clearly the intent of the rule), while disallowing destroyed systems, because per the FAQ the latter aren't considered either populous or remote.


EDIT 3: The plot thickens! I just realised that the sentence 'The planet's loyalty does not matter' is a very roundabout and obtuse way of saying you can deploy to a remote system. This was pointed out by Joseph Prophet on this RotE thread.

The 'Deploy units' entry in the RRG puts it this way:

Quote:
Remote systems cannot have loyalty; therefore, units cannot be
deployed there.


It seems the wording of 'Easy Deployment' is specifically intended to override this. After all, why would you bother saying 'loyalty doesn't matter' on a populous system? If you've got a ground unit there, you've subjugated it, so it would be allowed anyway.

Of course, if you're looking up 'Remote Systems' instead, you'd never notice this, because the restriction there makes no mention of loyalty:

Quote:
Units cannot be deployed to remote systems.


...which brings us back to square one! Even if 'the planet's loyalty does not matter', the Easy Deployment rule fails to override the latter (stricter) bullet point.

Gah.

Surely it's much clearer to just say you can deploy to a remote system.

Anyway, since when does Rebellion refer to 'planets' instead of 'systems'?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan P
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Re: 5 (wait, 6) absurd questions, especially about Oversee Project
"Any system" means any system - if there was a loyalty restriction, it would be printed on the card. I do agree that the card should read "Any system with an Imperial unit, no Rebel units, and no sabotage marker," but I guess they thought that would be too wordy, and addressed sabotage's effect on abilities in the rulebook instead.

I do believe that if remote systems were to be excluded, the card would read "any populous system." And if Rebel systems were also to be excluded, it would read "any Imperial system." These are standard wordings used on other cards and there's no reason not to use one of them here if that was the intent. If it was a misprint, it's a big mistake that they would've addressed in the FAQ or corrected with a reworded card in the expansion.

If not for the line in the rulebook (and the ruling from Corey) specifically about abilities and sabotage, I would interpret the card exactly as it is printed - usable in ANY system with an Imperial unit and no Rebel units, regardless of loyalty, populous/remote/destroyed, or sabotage. The ruling makes an exception for sabotage, nothing else, so I'm pretty certain that Rebel, remote, and destroyed systems are fair game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Come to think of it, we all seem to agree that the expansion cards have made the Empire stronger, I think that the project deck being diluted and oversee project has become much harder to draw is a big thing.
It is true that the base game imperial deck has the cards that let you draw 2 projects, and that will remedy the thicker project deck, but it is still harder to get the cards you want.
The new deck has 2 interdictor cards - which undeniably are fantastic cards to have (from my opinion mostly because they can create a carrying ship in 1 turn) and 1 single reactor card. This card is essentially a 4th superlaser that provides some cool theme (and a useful ability - although pretty situational).

So while superlaser has gotten an extra card, and building big ships has become easier (2 interdictors and the 2 upgraded SSD cards), the construct factory, oversee project and DSUC have become harder to draw.

The DSUC has become a lot more important in my opinion because of the Rebel strength on the ground.
And oversee project is easily my favorite project, it is the great safety net for an imperial player as well as a great way to win the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be fair you've changed my mind. It only references loyalty when it comes to deploy via refresh phase (and that a remote system has no loyalty so you can't deploy there), where as it explicitly says you cannot deploy units to a sabatoged system or system with opposing units in a general rule about deploy.

Thought it had its own line about Loyalty in general under deployment rules, but it doesn't. Allowing the deploy actually makes sense now from a rules perspective for me (where loyalty is only applied to the Refresh Phase deployment).

So I would rule yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Shrugs
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
OK, so far it seems some people lean one way and some the other. (Gasp! Disagreement on the internet! News at 11! laugh)

Oversee Project

Bobb Feta wrote:
"Any system" means any system - if there was a loyalty restriction, it would be printed on the card. I do agree that the card should read "Any system with an Imperial unit, no Rebel units, and no sabotage marker," but I guess they thought that would be too wordy, and addressed sabotage's effect on abilities in the rulebook instead.

I do believe that if remote systems were to be excluded, the card would read "any populous system." And if Rebel systems were also to be excluded, it would read "any Imperial system." These are standard wordings used on other cards and there's no reason not to use one of them here if that was the intent. If it was a misprint, it's a big mistake that they would've addressed in the FAQ or corrected with a reworded card in the expansion.

If not for the line in the rulebook (and the ruling from Corey) specifically about abilities and sabotage, I would interpret the card exactly as it is printed - usable in ANY system with an Imperial unit and no Rebel units, regardless of loyalty, populous/remote/destroyed, or sabotage. The ruling makes an exception for sabotage, nothing else, so I'm pretty certain that Rebel, remote, and destroyed systems are fair game.


Hmm. Your point about the lack of the phrase 'any Imperial system' is a good one. Have to think about that one...

Taking a step back, I wonder if the dissenting interpretations in this thread come down to basic rules philosophies:

a) 'Anything not prohibited is allowed.'

vs

b) 'Anything not allowed is forbidden.'

A point of comparison is cards that let you move units across the board. Unless the card specifically ignores a restriction, you assume the restriction still applies.

The RRG has this to say about movement:
Quote:

If an ability allows a player to move units, he must follow
all movement rules and restrictions. For example, when the
Rebel player moves units using the “Hidden Fleet” mission
card, he must obey transport capacity and cannot move
immobile units.
• If an ability allows a player to “ignore transport
restrictions,” then his units with the transport restriction
icon can move without the need for units with transport
capacity to also move from their system.


Nice and clear.

But what about deploying units? There's no similar, in-depth, 'you must follow all deployment rules except if an ability allows you to ignore them' bullet point.

Players who favour philosophy A might say deployment in Rebel/remote/etc systems is allowed by Oversee Project because, unlike movement, there's no entry specifically emphasising the prohibition.

Meanwhile, players who favour philosophy B might say that there are already plenty of 'cannot deploy here' rules in the RRG. Oversee Project doesn't explicitly ignore them, so the 'cannot deploy' rules still apply.

Philosophy B people might add that movement only gets a special clarification because it's a commonly misunderstood rule. When it comes to deployment, the existing 'cannot deploy here, cannot deploy there' bullet points are assumed to be sufficient. To a Philosophy B player, it goes without saying that they're not cancelled unless the card says so.

Philly Bs (?) might say the same about sabotage markers. (i.e. the whole 'build/deploy' vs 'gain/place' explanation is only there as a detailed clarification of a confusing issue; it has no implications for some mysterious difference between deploying via abilities and deploying in the refresh phase).

I started out looking at Oversee Project from viewpoint A, but after going through all the rules I can find, I've now done a 180 degree turn to the dark side, i.e. viewpoint B.

But now I'm finding evidence that might swing me back to A. The suspicious lack of the key phrase 'Imperial system', for instance. And the 'Imperial Might' expansion mission card. More on this below.

A minor rant

One thing I find frustrating about FFG's rulebook writing style is that they rarely pause to explain the intent of a rule. I grew up with Games Workshop games, which are hardly known for clear and consistent rules... but one thing they did well was to include the occasional 'designer's notes' box or chatty aside to make sure you knew why a rule existed. It made it easier to tell when you were interpreting it incorrectly.

And now, just to complicate things further...

Imperial Might

I had a look at this expansion mission card and it's really worrying me.

Quote:
IMPERIAL MIGHT

Resolve in any system that does not contain Rebel units and contains either a Death Star, a Death Star Under Construction, or a Shield Bunker.

Choose up to 4 units on space 1 of the build queue and deploy them in this system. If 2 leaders were assigned to this mission, move those leaders to Coruscant.


As Hermes from Futurama would say, that just raises further questions! wow

This card clearly implies that you can use it to deploy to a remote system even though the text doesn't explicitly say so. A system containing a DSUC is going to be remote by default. If the usual 'cannot deploy to remote systems' rule applied, 'Imperial Might' wouldn't work as written in a DSUC system without a Shield Bunker.

However... I'm a bit wary of using this card as evidence for how to interpret 'Oversee Project' because it's from the expansion. I get the feeling the wording has become a bit sloppy (see my confusion regarding Shield Bunkers above) and I don't really trust it. So it might not be possible to extrapolate backward from this card to the base game.

Does a sabotage marker block deployment via 'Imperial Might'? If not, I really, really wish they had used the word 'place' instead of 'deploy' for IM. That would clear up a lot of the confusion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Prophet
United Kingdom
London
Camden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zenshrugs wrote:
OK, so far it seems some people lean one way and some the other. (Gasp! Disagreement on the internet! News at 11! laugh)

Oversee Project

Bobb Feta wrote:
"Any system" means any system - if there was a loyalty restriction, it would be printed on the card. I do agree that the card should read "Any system with an Imperial unit, no Rebel units, and no sabotage marker," but I guess they thought that would be too wordy, and addressed sabotage's effect on abilities in the rulebook instead.

I do believe that if remote systems were to be excluded, the card would read "any populous system." And if Rebel systems were also to be excluded, it would read "any Imperial system." These are standard wordings used on other cards and there's no reason not to use one of them here if that was the intent. If it was a misprint, it's a big mistake that they would've addressed in the FAQ or corrected with a reworded card in the expansion.

If not for the line in the rulebook (and the ruling from Corey) specifically about abilities and sabotage, I would interpret the card exactly as it is printed - usable in ANY system with an Imperial unit and no Rebel units, regardless of loyalty, populous/remote/destroyed, or sabotage. The ruling makes an exception for sabotage, nothing else, so I'm pretty certain that Rebel, remote, and destroyed systems are fair game.


Hmm. Your point about the lack of the phrase 'any Imperial system' is a good one. Have to think about that one...

Taking a step back, I wonder if the dissenting interpretations in this thread come down to basic rules philosophies:

a) 'Anything not prohibited is allowed.'

vs

b) 'Anything not allowed is forbidden.'

A point of comparison is cards that let you move units across the board. Unless the card specifically ignores a restriction, you assume the restriction still applies.

The RRG has this to say about movement:
Quote:

If an ability allows a player to move units, he must follow
all movement rules and restrictions. For example, when the
Rebel player moves units using the “Hidden Fleet” mission
card, he must obey transport capacity and cannot move
immobile units.
• If an ability allows a player to “ignore transport
restrictions,” then his units with the transport restriction
icon can move without the need for units with transport
capacity to also move from their system.


Nice and clear.

But what about deploying units? There's no similar, in-depth, 'you must follow all deployment rules except if an ability allows you to ignore them' bullet point.

Players who favour philosophy A might say deployment in Rebel/remote/etc systems is allowed by Oversee Project because, unlike movement, there's no entry specifically emphasising the prohibition.

Meanwhile, players who favour philosophy B might say that there are already plenty of 'cannot deploy here' rules in the RRG. Oversee Project doesn't explicitly ignore them, so the 'cannot deploy' rules still apply.

Philosophy B people might add that movement only gets a special clarification because it's a commonly misunderstood rule. When it comes to deployment, the existing 'cannot deploy here, cannot deploy there' bullet points are assumed to be sufficient. To a Philosophy B player, it goes without saying that they're not cancelled unless the card says so.

Philly Bs (?) might say the same about sabotage markers. (i.e. the whole 'build/deploy' vs 'gain/place' explanation is only there as a detailed clarification of a confusing issue; it has no implications for some mysterious difference between deploying via abilities and deploying in the refresh phase).

I started out looking at Oversee Project from viewpoint A, but after going through all the rules I can find, I've now done a 180 degree turn to the dark side, i.e. viewpoint B.

But now I'm finding evidence that might swing me back to A. The suspicious lack of the key phrase 'Imperial system', for instance. And the 'Imperial Might' expansion mission card. More on this below.

A minor rant

One thing I find frustrating about FFG's rulebook writing style is that they rarely pause to explain the intent of a rule. I grew up with Games Workshop games, which are hardly known for clear and consistent rules... but one thing they did well was to include the occasional 'designer's notes' box or chatty aside to make sure you knew why a rule existed. It made it easier to tell when you were interpreting it incorrectly.

And now, just to complicate things further...

Imperial Might

I had a look at this expansion mission card and it's really worrying me.

Quote:
IMPERIAL MIGHT

Resolve in any system that does not contain Rebel units and contains either a Death Star, a Death Star Under Construction, or a Shield Bunker.

Choose up to 4 units on space 1 of the build queue and deploy them in this system. If 2 leaders were assigned to this mission, move those leaders to Coruscant.


As Hermes from Futurama would say, that just raises further questions! wow

This card clearly implies that you can use it to deploy to a remote system even though the text doesn't explicitly say so. A system containing a DSUC is going to be remote by default. If the usual 'cannot deploy to remote systems' rule applied, 'Imperial Might' wouldn't work as written in a DSUC system without a Shield Bunker.

However... I'm a bit wary of using this card as evidence for how to interpret 'Oversee Project' because it's from the expansion. I get the feeling the wording has become a bit sloppy (see my confusion regarding Shield Bunkers above) and I don't really trust it. So it might not be possible to extrapolate backward from this card to the base game.

Does a sabotage marker block deployment via 'Imperial Might'? If not, I really, really wish they had used the word 'place' instead of 'deploy' for IM. That would clear up a lot of the confusion.


This has been asked, and yes Imperial might acts like Oversee Project in that you can't deploy to a sabotaged system.
1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.