While I agree with what you and UrbanShmi are saying, I do not believe that is the current ruling. Like UrbanShmi, however, I am not 100% sure on this ruling. And apparently an errata is on the way. In the mean time...



This says (to me) that Disruptive, and by extension ABM, affects characters, not commander effects. I gave more detail about how that would work with Con Artist, and I asked for a correction if it was incorrect. I did not receive a correction.

I also read it that way, but is not how I read what Sithborg said. Regardless, it appears that my understanding was incorrect. I do not know what the current ruling is, nor do I know what the forthcoming errata is.

Agreed.

This quote is from another thread, but I thought it made more sense to reply here...


Options A, B, and C represent 3 possible interpretations of the interaction between Con Artist and Disruptive.

1. A character with Con Artist is subject to an enemy's commander effect. The Con Artist is within range of an ally's Disruptive. Does the Con Artist still benefit from the commander effect?

A) Yes. Disruptive affects enemies, not allies.
B) No. Disruptive affects enemy commander effects, so the enemy commander effect is suppressed.
C) No. Disruptive affects both enemies and enemy commander effects.


2. A character with Con Artist is subject to an enemy's commander effect. The Con Artist is within range of an enemy's Disruptive. Does the Con Artist still benefit from the commander effect?

A) No. Disruptive affects enemies, so the Con Artist is not subject to any commander effects.
B) Yes. Disruptive only affects enemy commander effects, so the Con Artist can still benefit from the stolen commander effect.
C) No. Disruptive affects both enemies and enemy commander effects.


Which of (A), (B), or (C) is the current ruling? I'm not making any counterargument to Sithborg's ruling. I'm just not sure what the ruling is. I thought that Sithborg ruled (A) in his first 2 posts in this thread. I posted as much and asked for a correction if I was wrong. I received no correction. But then fingersandteeth and Darth Jim (on SHNN) said the answer to question (1) is no. (I'm not sure if they meant option B or C, though.) UrbanShmi and swinefeld agreed with the reasoning of fingersandteeth and Darth Jim, but (like me) they seemed to be waiting for Sithborg to clarify.

It was my understanding that a if a character with con artist was within range of disruptive (on either side) it would get disrupted.

Because disruptive effects enemy commander effects (when in range of an ally with disruptive) and because disruptive effects enemies (when in range of an enemy disruptive piece).

So I personally believe that the answer to your question above are
C (disruptive effects enemies and enemy commander effects)

Great, now that it's clear what is unclear, how do we clear it up?

The only link is Tim's jumbled brain. I think he was attempting humor.

Boy, do I get that alot. People just stare at me.

Con Artist Clarifications from a designer. (ignore my other post on this thread, i have now gone through the design thread and glossary entries of the relevant SAs and read the relevant CE's)

Card text - During setup, after seeing your opponent's squad, you may choose one enemy commander effect. This character is now subject to that commander effect regardless of restrictions. This effect lasts until the chosen commander is defeated.

Glossary (from design thread) - Con artist - During setup, after seeing your opponent's squad, you may choose one commander effect. This character is now subject to that commander effect regardless of restrictions on faction, range, special ability's, identifier or unique rules. This effect lasts until the chosen commander is defeated.


So the timing of the ability is exactly like reinforcements and chosen at the same time, ergo, you can't choose a CE from an opponents reinforcements because its a simultaneous reveal (write it on a piece of paper or something). I don't know what the implications in regards to camaraderie is because there is very little explanation about Camaraderie anywhere. As far as Pelleaon goes, its after Con artist so Pelleaon can whip that commander away from the board and your Con Artistry is void.

When you chose a CE you get that bonus so long as there are no other caveats (e.g. you need to be within 6 of an ally). Ignore ranges and other qualifiers, if it's GOWKs CE, you get +3 +3 until GOWK is defeated so long as you are within 6 of an ally. Note that you are just applicable to the commanders CE, if you choose a CE that a commander has the option of granting (i.e. swap), you are under the commanders control, they decide when its applied so its virtually useless to pick something like that (likewise Pelleaons CE, dodonna etc).
So you would be picking your figure to have a bonus, or gain force renewal, or GMA, or mobile and evade etc.

Disruptive interactions



This is the glossary text for disruptive.

As you can see, the very first line states that if your Con artist is in your own disruptive, Con Artists lose the bonus. You are effected by an enemy commander effect and the disruptive effect is spelled out in the 1st line of disruptive.
If the enemy Commander is in your disruptive, distracted or ABM then you will lose the benefit of the CE.

The weirdness is that when your character with Con Artist is within your opponents disruptive, con artist is unaffected because you are not affected by an enemy CE of the disruptive character. Thus, it is not suppressed by that disruptive. Disruptive affects enemy CEs, not enemy characters.

So to recap

1. choose Con artist CE simultaneous with reinforcements, can't choose reinforcement CE's as a result
2. pick a bonus and you always apply to it except for conditions or disruptive issues, CE is chosen like Yammosk (one line of a CE).
3. Your disruptive/abm/distraction suppresses your own Con Artist. Con Artists are unaffected by the opponents CE suppression. Think of it as the enemy is unable to scramble the signal so that the con artist is not aware of orders.


Objections?

I agree that that is the best way to rule it and fits with the Glossary. That's also how Ricky and I played it at GenCon. It's certainly the most intuitive way to rule it.