I love that picture every time I see it!

Of course, I used to not know that horses could lie down, so when I saw the two belgian horses on the farm I live on lying in the field on their sides I was like "NOOOOO!"

They also enjoy playing in wading pools, and playing with Yoga balls.

I love that picture every time I see it!

Of course, I used to not know that horses could lie down, so when I saw the two belgian horses on the farm I live on lying in the field on their sides I was like "NOOOOO!"

They also enjoy playing in wading pools, and playing with Yoga balls.

And also horsing around in general.

Are you convinced yet?

I love that picture every time I see it!

Of course, I used to not know that horses could lie down, so when I saw the two belgian horses on the farm I live on lying in the field on their sides I was like "NOOOOO!"

They also enjoy playing in wading pools, and playing with Yoga balls.

And also horsing around in general.

They're pretty good at it. They probably prancercise often...

Yes, yes, to Klutz-bi wan you listen

So to summarize: it makes a difference in that both players can see some of the cards that have been dealt (allmost all, if you assume people can look through the discard pile). This might influence some decisions, such as whether to risk flying through a debris cloud, possibly. And that's it.

To me, it's a total non-issue - I don't bother dealing unnecessary cards but I have no problem doing so if my opponent asks me to, as with any rule (which I believe is the situation with the OP and everybody arguing the same things as me, so all these "cos the rules" points are kidna redundant, and almost offensive, if you're suggesting some of us would refuse to follow the rules).

I would deal crits to a destroyed ship that still has an attack to make, of course.

What I don't get is people arguing that dealing facedown cards alters what cards are still left to be dealt. Of course, litereally it does, but that's an utterly meaningless fact if you don't know what they are - the Schrodinger's cat analogy is perfect. It's only once the cards are face-up that there's a material effect.

One point that I'll take away from this thread though is the one about not using two single cards to represent a double damage, since that does have the potential to materially alter the game (since you now have two cards with the potential to be flipped face up, instead of none, and no cards with the potential to be flipped face down, instead of one).

Totally shocked that this thread is still going on and it hasn't devolved into pilot gender wars

You say devolved, I say evolved.

Yes, yes, to Klutz-bi wan you listen

Not sure if you're mocking me, or agreeing with me...

What I don't get is people arguing that dealing facedown cards alters what cards are still left to be dealt. Of course, litereally it does, but that's an utterly meaningless fact if you don't know what they are - the Schrodinger's cat analogy is perfect. It's only once the cards are face-up that there's a material effect.

Thank you mazz0, it's nice to see at least someone understands.

What I don't get is people arguing that dealing facedown cards alters what cards are still left to be dealt. Of course, litereally it does, but that's an utterly meaningless fact if you don't know what they are - the Schrodinger's cat analogy is perfect. It's only once the cards are face-up that there's a material effect.

Thank you mazz0, it's nice to see at least someone understands.

That's also why I'll say you could use any token to represent an unknown, facedown card and really only need a card from the damage deck when it is turned face-up and becomes known.

What I don't get is people arguing that dealing facedown cards alters what cards are still left to be dealt. Of course, litereally it does, but that's an utterly meaningless fact if you don't know what they are - the Schrodinger's cat analogy is perfect. It's only once the cards are face-up that there's a material effect.

Thank you mazz0, it's nice to see at least someone understands.

That's also why I'll say you could use any token to represent an unknown, facedown card and really only need a card from the damage deck when it is turned face-up and becomes known.

I agree. That being said...

Brace yourselves for the "but your changing the order of the deck" arguments.

What I don't get is people arguing that dealing facedown cards alters what cards are still left to be dealt. Of course, litereally it does, but that's an utterly meaningless fact if you don't know what they are - the Schrodinger's cat analogy is perfect. It's only once the cards are face-up that there's a material effect.

Thank you mazz0, it's nice to see at least someone understands.

That's also why I'll say you could use any token to represent an unknown, facedown card and really only need a card from the damage deck when it is turned face-up and becomes known.

I know people who do indeed use damage tokens to represent damage. I think it's because they haven't actually read the rules, rather than for any practical reason. I dislike that, though, both for aesthetic reasons and because it's not as immediately understandable as cards.

Most of the time the 'tokens' needed to track damage are just the damage cards that are dealt to begin with. The only time is really becomes an issue is when there is some serious strain being put on the damage deck. That could be because you're seeing Maarek landing [crit] results on Leebo and thus looking at four cards just to get one to land but more often it is during those massive epic games where you could actually see 33 cards worth of damage on ships in play. In the mill situation you may go through a deck quickly but you'll also have a big discard pile ready to shuffle up again into a new deck which just leaves the huge battle scenario as a place where running out of damage cards is really a threat.

Changing the order doesn't happen when more cards are known. It does affect '"guessing what's next" as it changes the X/Y when thinking about the chances of drawing card X when the deck has Y cards left. Milling 'extra' damage cards or not doesn't do much to anything to change the order of what's left in the deck. What effect it has will certainly be far less than when someone mixes two damage decks together and you start drawing cards from it.

Maybe a question should be asked:

"How many of you make game play decisions based on the cards you know are left in a damage deck?"

I have a hard time thinking of anything I'd change just because I know more about what hasn't been revealed about a damage deck.

Yes, yes, to Klutz-bi wan you listen

Not sure if you're mocking me, or agreeing with me... .

Definitely agreeing with you. Though those 4 pages of debate were pretty lollable.