Have to agree with dbmeboy here for a change, the rules as written say no surviving defenders and if there was never any defenders there is still no surviving defenders.

Toqtamish said:

Oh come now, we agree more often than not.  And I'm pretty sure even the rulings we disagreed on we agreed weren't clear in the rules and would need FAQ clarification.

One thing players should keep in mind is that Star Wars the Card Game is an abstraction of the events and actions of the Star Wars universe.  Sure, it doesn't make sense on the surface for a repair droid to "destroy" anything directly, but what's to say some seemingly mundane action performed by the droid couldn't be the catalyst for something larger?

Perhaps the little droid repaired a faulty power coupling connected to a shield generator--a generator used to deflect a laser bombardment that would have destroyed members of a diplomatic delegation who's mission was to secure supplies and weapons for the Alliance--weapons that granted the Alliance the capability of mounting the attack on the second Death Star.

Hooray for the repair droid!

dbmeboy said:

not always, as the person asking the question about unopposed damage would suggest. In this case (and a few others that I can't think of the exact specific circumstance) the rules were read too literally, and it was interpreted, incorrectly, that for unopposed to be awarded, there had to be defenders declared and then all killed off.

TonganJedi said:

Hehe. I like this flavor analysis… Very  "For Want of a Nail."

Help me understand the difference Dbmeboy, was your reading of handling face down edge stack cards too literal or just incorrect?

The case or arguement was being made on the basis that if a unit has no attack value I.E. icon to use to attack said Objective it should not be award an unopposed point just for focusing. IMHO it's a bad rule in an otherwise great game, BUT a rule none the less that i'm sure Mr. brimmstorm will not soon let the DS forget

Niranth said:

I'd say neither.  My reading was that you couldn't look at facedown cards unless something specifically allowed it.  There is now a rules clarification specifically allowing it, which there was not before.

Sass said:

Disagree with it being a bad rule.  We have 2 combat icons that do not do damage to the objective.  We have(or can have) unit abilities that trigger off of engaging an objective and focusing to strike.  The objective engagement process does not necessarily revolve around the combat icons.

A unit that focuses to strike that has no icons and has a special ability that does something significant during an engagement can be just as relevant to a conflict as a unit with combat icons.  Only connecting unopposed damage to combat icons would be a little too lean of an ability.  In addition to that, we have units that only have white combat icons where part of the strategy should also finding other ways to destroy participating defenders so you can still get the unoppose damage.

I have to say that I really like having multiple angles to try and damage objectives.

Niranth said:

After rereading what I typed, I want to clarify my earlier answer to this.  In the case of viewing face down cards (edge stack or otherwise), my original interpretation was not reading the rules too literally, it was making a judgement call when extrapolating beyond what the rules covered.  I guess it could be considered incorrect, as my interpretation ended up being different than the rules clarification.  However, it was not incorrect in the same way as trying to read the unopposed bonus rules in a way that requires there to have been a defender.  In the case of the unopposed bonus, the wording in the rules covers the question.  For face down cards, the rules didn't say anything.

As to the white icons i won't even address that as the rule book does it very nice, but as to "We have 2 combat icons that do not do damage to the objective" while on the face of it that's a true statement but one of those icon is used!! to get an unopposed strike, the other is at least a reason to focus although if used doesn't give unopposed. while again i consede "A unit that focuses to strike that has no icons and has a special ability that does something significant during an engagement can be just as relevant to a conflict as a unit with combat icons" you are FOCUSING to do something other than just saying "i'm here, i focus you take damage sir!"   While you say "Only connecting unopposed damage to combat icons would be a little too lean of an ability." I say it"s way to powerful of an abilty to give any unit that does nothing more than just give a resource or an action that has no affect on the current phase thus there is real no penalty for focusing.

Guys, during the conflict phase if I don't have any unit with the Blast Damage icon to strike the Objective thus I have to pass the step "Declare Objective", can I still continue with the second step "Declare Attackers" in order to strike the oponent's Units? IF No then what happens? 

Luminous Quasar said:

Having blast damage icons is not a requirement to declare a unit as an attacker or to declare an objective to attack.  To answer you question: No.

What happens:

1) You pick an objective that you had not previously initiated an engagement against to engaged.

2) You declare your attackers (no matter what icons they do or do not have)

3) Your opponent may or may not declare defenders (remember, if they don't defend then you'll get a free damage on the objective for being unopposed at the end of the engagement)

4) Engagement continues as normal

dbmeboy said:

Thanks dbmeboy for the answer. I'm still a bit confused with the answer as you said No (in replying my question meaning - I can't continue with the rest of the steps, but the latter answer with dot points allows to continue with the steps). Perhaps I didn't ask the question clearly either. My apology. 

So I take it as I can continue with the rest of the engagement steps and strike the Units only as I cannot strike an Objective (that requires a blast damage icon). Is it correct?