Ion Pulse Missiles:

"If this attack hits, the defender suffers 1 damage and receives 2 ion tokens. Then cancel all dice results."

Assault Missiles:

"If this attack hits, each other ship at Range 1 of the defender suffers 1 damage."

Ion Torpedoes:

"If this attack hits, the defender and each ship at Range 1 of it receives 1 ion token."

Ion Pulse Missiles is very clear, but Ion Torpedoes, being only 1 squad point more than Proton Torpedoes seems like it is meant to only deal out ion tokens to a swarm of ships, not damage the defender.

However, if you interpret Ion Torpedoes in that light, then does Assault Missiles only affect the surrounding ships, not the defender?

No, the Ion Torpedoes will damage the defender. Note how it says nothing about cancelling dice results. Also note how, unlike the Assault Missile, it specifically includes the defender in its list of who gets ion tokens.

No, the Ion Torpedoes will damage the defender. Note how it says nothing about cancelling dice results. Also note how, unlike the Assault Missile, it specifically includes the defender in its list of who gets ion tokens.

I am not convinced that is correct, because that's a quite a huge leap in effect from the Proton Torpedoes for just 1 squad point. I'll ask FFG about it at GenCon tomorrow.

...I guess the real question with Ion Torpedoes is: should it be read as "the defender receives just [X]" or "the defender also receives [X]."

I am not convinced that is correct...

The text on the card is pretty clear.

It doesn't say anything about canceling dice, so that means the defender suffers how ever many hits are left over. It also quite clearly gives both the Defender and every other ship at range 1 of the defender a ion token. Like the Assault Missile, this means friendly ships are effected too.

It's very much on par with the Assault Missile. Only changes the damage to ion's which includes the defender.

It's pretty clear that FFG has recognized that Wave 1 ord is over priced and are making better options now.

No, the Ion Torpedoes will damage the defender. Note how it says nothing about cancelling dice results. Also note how, unlike the Assault Missile, it specifically includes the defender in its list of who gets ion tokens.

I am not convinced that is correct, because that's a quite a huge leap in effect from the Proton Torpedoes for just 1 squad point. I'll ask FFG about it at GenCon tomorrow.

How are you not convinced? 1 point just to add an area ion effect, and you lose the "change an eye to a crit" from proton torps. How is that a "huge leap"? It's easy to mitigate the issue by not flying close together, so it's not overpowered.

The problem is you are not comparing like for like.

Maybe this will be clearer if I ask a question:

How much damage does a regular Proton Torpedo do?

Notice how nowhere on the card does it say how much damage it does. It comes down to the attack dice you roll. It's the same for Ion Torpedoes.

The problem is you are not comparing like for like.

Maybe this will be clearer if I ask a question:

How much damage does a regular Proton Torpedo do?

Notice how nowhere on the card does it say how much damage it does. It comes down to the attack dice you roll. It's the same for Ion Torpedoes.

Proton Torpedoes does not specify whether or not damage is dealt, so you default to the basic game mechanic. With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it. Therein lies the root of my initial question.

Both sides have merit, which is why I want to ask FFG directly.

With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it.

No you really can't argue that. There is nothing on the card that even remotely suggests such a thing.

Compare the text on Ion Torps to Assault Missiles.

Assault Missile - Attack (target lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

If this attack hits, each other ship at Range 1 of the defender suffers 1 damage.

Vs

Ion Torpedo - Attack (target lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

If this attack hits, the defender and each ship at Range 1 of it receives 1 ion token.

There's no effective difference in those two cards. So there is nothing to suggest they work any differently.

With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it.

Card texts override rules in case of conflict (page 20). There is nothing anywhere in the rules about card text overriding rules in any other scenario. Ion torpedo does not conflict with the rules about damage. So they apply as normal.

With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it.

No you really can't argue that. There is nothing on the card that even remotely suggests such a thing.

Compare the text on Ion Torps to Assault Missiles.

Assault Missile - Attack (target lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

If this attack hits, each other ship at Range 1 of the defender suffers 1 damage.

Vs

Ion Torpedo - Attack (target lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

If this attack hits, the defender and each ship at Range 1 of it receives 1 ion token.

There's no effective difference in those two cards. So there is nothing to suggest they work any differently.

See my original post. I already addressed that.

With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it.

Card texts override rules in case of conflict (page 20). There is nothing anywhere in the rules about card text overriding rules in any other scenario. Ion torpedo does not conflict with the rules about damage. So they apply as normal.

How do you define "conflict"? If this card supersedes rather than adds, then pg. 20 would apply. See, it all comes down to how you interpret things.

See my original post. I already addressed that.

Again we go back to the text on the card, it's actually quite clear and there is no need for interpenetration.

The Ion Torpedo states that the Defender and all other ships at range 1 get a ion token.

Assault Missiles state that every other ship with in range 1 of the defender suffers 1 damage.

Again, I al

See my original post. I already addressed that.

Again we go back to the text on the card, it's actually quite clear and there is no need for interpenetration.

The Ion Torpedo states that the Defender and all other ships at range 1 get a ion token.

Assault Missiles state that every other ship with in range 1 of the defender suffers 1 damage.

Again, see my original post. I already addressed that.

With Ion Torpedoes, it could be argued that the text is superseding the normal game effect, rather than adding to it.

Card texts override rules in case of conflict (page 20). There is nothing anywhere in the rules about card text overriding rules in any other scenario. Ion torpedo does not conflict with the rules about damage. So they apply as normal.

How do you define "conflict"?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conflict

If this card supersedes rather than adds, then pg. 20 would apply.

Circular logic?

...Just because I've been playing Assault Missiles one way all this time doesn't necessarily mean that I was playing it correctly.

Neither Ion Torpedoes nor Assault Missiles use the word "also", which would have eliminated this whole discussion. Without that word, I am forced to wonder.

Again, see my original post. I already addressed that.

Ok.. It's time to break down the card line by line.

Attack (target lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

This is an attack action and you have to spend your TL and discard this card. You then roll the number of dice listed on the card, and follow the normal attack process, defender rolls dice, cancel hits, ect... Then apply damage based on the uncanceled attack dice.

Then you have the secondary effect...

If this attack hits, the defender and each ship at Range 1 of it receives 1 ion token.

Which again uses the same basic format that Assault Missiles do. In this case the defender and all other ships at range 1 receive 1 ion token.

Any other interpretation requires that you add text to the card that is not there.

For the third time: I already addressed the question about Assault Missiles. See my original post.

Please don't use Assault Missiles as an example, because it is flawed in exactly the same way by not including the word "also".

Find another argument.

Please don't use Assault Missiles as an example,

Why not? Ion torpedo and assault missile are similar.

because it is flawed in exactly the same way by not including the word "also".

I fail to understand what is supposed to be flawed. The addition of the word "also" would not change anything.

Rules from the rulebook apply. You have to use them. That is not optional. Unless the exception from page 20 applies. Which requires a conflict. There is no conflict.

My point is that Assault Missiles and Ion Missiles are so similar in their wording that the ruling on one would most likely apply to the other. But I could not find anything in the FAQ about whether or not Assault Missiles deals damage to the defender. Which means that perhaps I've been playing Assault Missiles wrong all this time.

The cards are flawed because without the word "also" there is room for interpretation. The word "also" would have eliminated the debate and I would have no valid argument.

Keep in mind that I am not saying anything definite one way or the other; I am simply saying that until I speak with FFG tomorrow at GenCon, in my mind, this ruling could go either way.

My point is that Assault Missiles and Ion Missiles are so similar in their wording that the ruling on one would most likely apply to the other.

Of course it does!

But I could not find anything in the FAQ about whether or not Assault Missiles deals damage to the defender.

No FAQ required. Uncanceled dice damage the target. There is nothing anywhere in the rulebook or on either card which hints towards the opposite.

We will see. I'll let you know as soon as I can. Rest assured, I am fully prepared to say, "you were right", if necessary.

There is no need for the word Also, in fact that would make things much less clear.

The word Also would imply that the other effects are somewhat optional, you do this and you also do that, but if they included that word, then any time they didn't they would have a potentially broken card.

Instead the rules are quite clear, you preform every step on a card, and it is only optional if it uses the word May.

But if you require the word Also, then every secondary weapon is broken, because then none of the secondary effects work. There's no also on Proton Torpedoes, but do you think the part about changing <focus> to <crit> doesn't apply? Or for Concussion Missiles, or Ion Cannons? None of them have the world also on them.

Simply put, the rule is that you do everything listed on the card unless it is optional. If there was really a question don't you think that Assault Missiles would have a FAQ by now?

Lastly no missile/torpedo has the word Also, so does that mean we ignore the secondary effects on Flechette Torpedoes, Ion Pulse Missiles?

[sigh] Can we stop, please? I'll let you all know what I find as soon as I can. It is highly unlikely that the universe will cease to exist before then.

There is actually a precedent for what... that guy (seriously, if you're going to go all number-y, I'm not typing it) is suggestion: Ion Cannons.

Ion Cannons don't actually deal damage from the attack. They cancel the dice results, and then have an extra effect. By the logic being presented here, they could have just said "deal one damage and gain an ion token" because that would inherently replace all the attack results. No need for that "cancel dice" stuff.

But it doesn't, because what everyone else has been trying to say is exactly correct. Ion Torpedoes do nothing to change the base damage, so that base damage remains intact and unchanged.