You still have to hit with the template.

Yes but you mentioned dice, which the bombs don't require, neither do seismic charges for that matter.

So that's 3 sources which are all Imp side only, that allow you to do damage without rolling dice.

Yes, my wording was totally crappy. So crappy that I cannot veer this conversation to my point any more.

Not sure how you would rather have seen it worded

I actually posted that up a few, but here it is again.

When attacking, the dfender is hit by your attack even if he cancels all [hit] and [crit] results.

Why is that any better than "does not suffer any damage?" In fact, I'd argue it's worse, because your way could imply that something like DTF would negate his ability, since it wouldn't be HIM cancelling those results. His ability clearly states that, regardless of how damage is negated, his attack still counts as having Hit.

In fact, I'd argue it's worse, because your way could imply that something like DTF would negate his ability, since it wouldn't be HIM cancelling those results.

DTF doesn't cancel any results, simply redirects them so I don't see how that argument could work. Either way you're still left with no uncanceled [hit] or [crit] results.

In fact, I'd argue it's worse, because your way could imply that something like DTF would negate his ability, since it wouldn't be HIM cancelling those results.

DTF doesn't cancel any results, simply redirects them so I don't see how that argument could work. Either way you're still left with no uncanceled [hit] or [crit] results.

Yes, but DTF also ensures that the original target "does not suffer any damage," which works just fine.

I guess my issue is this.

They should not of used the word damage, because being Hit has nothing to do with taking damage. I used pretty much the same wording some time ago, on the rules board here, and was told that looking at it like damage = hit is not what the rules say and is sloppy thinking.

I agree it was sloppy thinking and it's sloppy thinking when FFG uses the same wording as I did.

I guess my issue - though I see where you're coming from - is this; they could have worded it more precisely, according to the letter of the rules (although why start now, FFG? ) but I think his wording is simpler and expresses well enough how it's intended to work. I may eat those words if there's an interaction somewhere that completely flies in the face of his ability.

But the general rule of thumb is that if there are any uncancelled hit or crit results, you are Hit, if you are Hit you then go on to Suffer Damage. The fact that one or two cards like DTF exist as exceptions to that rule doesn't really come into play as far as his ability goes.

I guess I'm just not convinced that a wordier, even if more precise, phrasing of his ability would have served him better in terms of avoiding confusion. It's a coin flip with their wordings, though, whether the simple paraphrase or the wordy attempt at precision gets them into more trouble, though. They're just not great at finding a balance between the two, period.

So looks like whisper will be a pain in the *** against swarm squads with no high PS pilots. Since he'll always be cloaked against their attacks. Perhaps there will be stress rules to counter this? i.e. When cloaked you cannot perform green manoeuvers?

I note that if the spoiler is correct even blocking Whisper would not stop him decloaking and shooting you and the using Adv Cloak to hide again.

True but it was spoiled that cloaking only gives you two extra defense dice, and if I see correctly the tie phantom has a natural evade of 2. Depending on whether or not you get in close for five attack or stay at range 3, you will only have a maximum of 5 defense dice. That's impressive, but not invincible against an entire swarm. But depending on the other cloaking modification, the phantom might gain an evade, plus push the limit gives you more options... it's hard to tell

but I think his wording is simpler and expresses well enough how it's intended to work.

It does, but that doesn't mean it's not a sloppy way to word it. I mean typically sloppy in this context means "works but could of been better."

Maybe "sloppy but works" just seems like such a step forward that I hate to take that away from them.

I understand they hate errata - not why , just the concept that they seem to - but you know a card is badly written when literally not an expansion comes out where there isn't at least one card that raises new questions about how they interact.

Wave 4 is announced, Munitions Failsafe gets spoiled, and DING DING DING we have another Clusterf**k Missile interaction to figure out. Does Failsafe kick in if EITHER attack misses? Only if both attacks miss? I actually know which way this was intended to work, but am not the least bit surprised it's going to cause a fair amount of confusion and that people are going to try to exploit yet another weird CM interaction.

How many FAQ entries does a single card have to generate before you would have been better served just fixing the wording of the **** thing?