Guys seriously let's just let this one rest. It's starting to spin in circles and people are getting personal. 

Toqtamish said:

I hope you don't think I'm being "personal."  I know I've been a bit hyperbolic at times, like threatening to eat my collection if the rules team goes against RAW in a fundamentally unsound manner.  I mean, it's possible at this point that FFG could come up with answers for the FAQ that aren't supported by logic or their own ruleset, or they could change the rules for certain functions altogether, which could render a completely different outcome for any number of circumstances.  Given how long it has taken them to release the FAQ, I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be some drastic changes to certain aspects of the rules.

Nonetheless, my opinions, just like everyone else's, when posted to a public forum are subject to scrutiny.  If I post something that hasn't any solid evidentiary basis, by all means, deconstruct it, criticize it and send it on its way.

In fairness, we did on the page just before this one entertain a new idea about the word "card" and how it relates to Trench Run via unopposed bonus damage…you know, right before we started regurgitating old arguments. 

OK, some things have come to mind as of late, and I'd like a chance to add some, um, stipulations to my little wager since no one else entered an agreement with me, not that I expected anyone else to .  Remember when I said if the rules team didn't rule that unopposed bonus damage and target of opportunity deal damage to a DS dial enchanced by Trench Run, I would eat my SW:TCG collection?  I'm sure you do. 

Well, I'd like to add that my wager depends on rulings based on the rules as written, and not the rules team making up fundamentally different rules or definitions.  If the rules team decides to completely change what it means to target something or decide that they want to restructure a process significantly by saying something like declaring attackers or the edge battle are no longer considered part of an engagement, or if they make something like a simple proclamation without any evidentiary or logical basis, I need a chance at a do-over.

I'm not saying anything like that is going to happen, but the more I go over the rules in general, the less confident I am that the rules team had a solid grasp of them at all upon game release.  Seems like they may have just laid out some general guidelines with the expectation of significantly altering and further clarifying the process as they went along.  RAW seems to not work well or make much sense for quite a few circumstances, particularly when it comes to timing and the playing of cards.

So what do you think?  Should my fate hinge on potentially arbitrary or illogical circumstances?  I'll let you all be the judge, jury and… *gulp*… executioner.

Surge1000 said:

That is so weak.  lol.  

I really wanted to hear how your cards tasted. 

TGO said:

I get what you're saying, and I'm totally prepared to follow through if necessary.  That's why I asked for input.

I just think it would kind of suck to do so based on a fundamental rule change or addition of a ruleset.  It's like if I said I'd eat a football if the 49ers won the game with a field goal with the score at 34 - 31 in the Ravens' favor, but then the refs came out and said,  "We change our minds.  This time, field goals are worth 4 points."

Having just picked up this game, I was honestly shocked to see this thread in the rules questions, as it seemed inherently obvious that anything that could damage an objective (during the process of engagement) would damage the Death Star dial while you had it engage with Trench Run. (After all, a bunch of Y-Wings and X-Wings lobbing bombs seems pretty accurate to what we saw in the movie).

Having read the arguments, my position stands. I played the game already with the belief that while you could not treat the Death Star as an objective, there was nothing preventing you from using damaging abilities against it while in the process of engaging it, because if you couldn't, then what's the point? There's no distinction between any of the methods of damaging the Death Star once you've engaged it, and all of these cards are used within the confines of an engagement (especially the edge battle).

Whatever the intent may have been for the card, I fail to see any rule or restriction or wording on the card itself that prevents it from taking damage from Fate Cards or Unopposed Damage during the engagement. Those are inherent qualities to any engagement.

17th Knight said:

Or so logic would dictate.  Those of us who are prone to using only RAW and the card text from Trench Run seem to agree.  RAI is difficult to predict, however, but opinions abound.  Nonetheless, unless the rules team fundamentally alters or redefines the structure of certain phases or card types, or until FFG declares otherwise by some edict without any logical or evidentiary basis, I really can't bring myself to play Trench Run any other way, edge battle and recycling during the draw phase notwithstanding.

@Surge1000:
I would never expect you to actually eat your collection and would not anyone else to expect the same unless they were willing to join you.

[Aside: In scrolling through these pages, it's very funny to see DailyRich and dbmeboy going at it because it looks like Gandalf having a conversation with himself. If you look at the avatars, I mean.]

Budgernaut said:

Only because they don't have a good Smeagol/Gollum avatar available for us ;-)

From the official FAQ: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Star-Wars-LCG/support/FAQ/SWC_FAQ_ENG_v1.0_HighRes.pdf

"When Trench Run (Core 0150) is in play, which effects can and cannot interact with the Death Star dial as an objective?

Surge, how is the cards shake ? ;)

It's called a joke dmeboy. I never actually expected him to eat his cards. Maybe a few spare ones.

All the FAQ did was support exactly what the rules say and the card state. I don't feel they changed anything. Glad to see I was right on the various issues. Guess playing multiple card games and LCGs helps in that regard. 

Glad this dead horse can finally be put to rest. 

dbmeboy said:

Actually, he made his bet BEFORE he made the other post AND he only made the other post because of some outside information that was given to him. 

So, I am eagerly awaiting the youtube video.  lol.

Well I'll be. So it's kind of half and half. Not just blast damage, but unopposed as well. But poor Target of Opportunity gets left out. Still, I'm now actually willing to play this card rather than pitch it to the Edge battle.