No, there is amibiguity because we don't understand how the game designers view the card. The wording is, sloppy. They could have easily worded it in such a way where this question was not there. So far they have not.

Are hull points capable of being a continuous effect? We don't know.

Without the designer's intent, without more precise wording, it is ambiguous.

I still think it goes away when Motti does. I think that's the logical read. But I also can see a mindset where that was not the intent and we will not know which way the designers go.

Because as is, it makes Motti a strange double edged sword.

The wording is only sloppy if you assume an intent different then how the wording works out.

That's the issue people are creating. In some people's view it just doesn't make sense/isn't thematic/whatever for Hull to dissappear from a bunch of ships because one dies. Because they don't "like" the rules working in that manner the assert that the designers didn't intend for it to work like that, thus it's ambiguous. But they have no grounds to assume that intent. It is just wishful thinking.

Motti, as worded, is just a bonus. He is no different then Expanded Hangers or Enhanced Armaments. No one would have any leg to stand on to argue that if those upgrades were discarded or flipped face down that you'd still get the bonuses they grant, so why Motti? Because he is a Commander? Commander is just an upgrade according to the rules.

Moreover the rules regarding damage and destruction support how it appears to work by providing a framework that allows for situations such as a sudden drop in hull points.

The wording is only sloppy if you assume an intent different then how the wording works out.

That's the issue people are creating. In some people's view it just doesn't make sense/isn't thematic/whatever for Hull to dissappear from a bunch of ships because one dies. Because they don't "like" the rules working in that manner the assert that the designers didn't intend for it to work like that, thus it's ambiguous. But they have no grounds to assume that intent. It is just wishful thinking.

Motti, as worded, is just a bonus. He is no different then Expanded Hangers or Enhanced Armaments. No one would have any leg to stand on to argue that if those upgrades were discarded or flipped face down that you'd still get the bonuses they grant, so why Motti? Because he is a Commander? Commander is just an upgrade according to the rules.

Moreover the rules regarding damage and destruction support how it appears to work by providing a framework that allows for situations such as a sudden drop in hull points.

I agree with you. I do.

But I'm willing to admit that I can see both sides. Because there are two sides crearing ambiguity.

The fact anybody at all finds it ambiguous... That means by default there is ambiguity. Yoy can't argue that. You can say you don't see it. But you can't control what other's see and percieve.

Actually, we can. These people are called rules lawyers. They have an uncanny ability to twist words around so that they can try to make something mean a different thing than what it's supposed to mean. If you know any friends that play tabletop RPGs, be sure to mention rules lawyering around them and you'll see the instant reaction akin to the symptoms of rabies (frothing at the mouth and sudden intense rage).

I think, if the spoiled text stays, that 'is increased' means you get those hull added then and that is it.

Better text would be nice, true.

If it goes away when he dies, the card is worthless. So I am guessing that is not the intent.

They might simply have used the word 'permanently' if they wanted intent to be a one time increase irrelevant of Motti's demise. As it stands it seems relatively clear the hull points disappear if the admiral bites it.

Whether that was intent or not, who knows? And whether the wording has changed, again, who knows? And either way, should it be in an FAQ... Probably.

We just need to hold tight for another few days...

I do not find that to be the case.

Fluff doesn't make for rules justification, so that does not work. I can just as easily 'argue' that Motti makes sure his fleet bolts on armor before it leaves port and that would not suddenly fall off when he died.

The logic that everything any card ever grants goes away when it dies is also unsupportable. Screed for example. If he dies, do you go back and remember every time you used his ability and reverse the effects?

Motti's text currently says 'is increased'. Sounds one-time to me. If they meant only while he was alive, something like - 'while present treated as' would have happened.

So, we disagree.

Actually, we can. These people are called rules lawyers. They have an uncanny ability to twist words around so that they can try to make something mean a different thing than what it's supposed to mean. If you know any friends that play tabletop RPGs, be sure to mention rules lawyering around them and you'll see the instant reaction akin to the symptoms of rabies (frothing at the mouth and sudden intense rage).

Rules Lawyers become a problem when they seek to use the exploits they find. We also call those people jerks.

But they're much rarer than people who just like to poke and prod the rules.

That's not how commander cards work. There always needs to be a serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral.

Garm Bel Iblis provides a benefit on round 1 and 5. What's the serious drawback to losing him on round 6?

That's not how commander cards work. There always needs to be a serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral.

Garm Bel Iblis provides a benefit on round 1 and 5. What's the serious drawback to losing him on round 6?

There is the serious point cost... But there doesn't have to be one.

That's not how commander cards work. There always needs to be a serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral.

Garm Bel Iblis provides a benefit on round 1 and 5. What's the serious drawback to losing him on round 6?

Uhm, round 6 is the last round of the game. At that point, the Commander has already provided his listed benefit. It would be better to ask what the serious drawback would be to losing him on rounds 2 through 4. Which is the loss of a large mess of command tokens in the late game when it's often badly needed.

Again, a commander provides a benefit to his or her whole fleet by staying alive. Mon Mothma provides a boost to Evades. Tarkin provides command tokens every round. Dodonna allows you to pick your preferred crit result. Screed guarantees a crit effect, or allows you to have an additional crit result when dealing with someone cancelling dice. Same goes for Motti. His *effect* is that while he's in command, all ships get a boost to their maximum HP. And just like it's VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR in the rules, effects on upgrade cards die when they do.

Ergo ... protect your flagship! Just like in real life, armies fall apart when their leaders get killed. Motti is no exception. I can absolutely guarantee, without a single shred of doubt, that tournament judges will tell that to your face when you start crying because he ruled that other ships in your fleet just blew up when Motti did due to the fact that their HP buffer disappeared.

Capitalization does not equal correctness...lol I suppose there may be a judge who might rule that way. I'd say I was shocked, but after a while in this hobby, nothing surprises me when it comes to the way rules wording gets twisted. I'd be careful with that guarantee, though. I already know a couple of local judges see things the way I do in this, so shred of doubt there for sure.

Doesn't mean they won't FAQ it the other way, we can agree on that. I've seen them do some crazy stuff, so I never take anything for granted.

In any case, we will never know. One, I would not take him if I am right because I tend not to take reactive upgrades. Tarkin always helps me. Motti only helps me if I take a ton of damage. Not my style. Two, I certainly would not take him if you turn out to be right as he is not worth the points in that case, not even close.

Again, a commander provides a benefit to his or her whole fleet by staying alive.

While I agrea on the point of Mottis bonus hull probobly disapearing when his ship is killed, I'd be a bit more carfull with the assumptions that are not based in actual rules.

Consider highly hypotetical future commander "Admiral Nitwit". His effect is "Friendly ships can not exacute the concentrate fire command", his point cost is -20.

After reading this, I have to agree that the rules are fairly clear that the hull bonus goes if Motti dies. Thematically, however, it does not make sense to me (which is a first for this game).

After reading this, I have to agree that the rules are fairly clear that the hull bonus goes if Motti dies. Thematically, however, it does not make sense to me (which is a first for this game).

My 2 favorite thematic explanations:

1)

Motti (or someone in his personal staff) is constantly providing advice via radio to ships in trouble on how their engineers can make their ships last the extra mile or fight on despite substantial damages. Once the advice is gone the constant effort required to keep them going just falls apart.

2)

Motti is an inspirational leader and his crews are willing to go the extra mile, risking not surviving when the ship goes down, so they are less likely to abandon their posts when other crews would start evacuating the ship via escape pods. Hence the ships can take some extra punishment. Once he is dead/the flagship is down they realize "all is lost" and they abandon the doomed ships. Afterall, just because a ship is "destroyed" in game terms, does not necessarily mean it blew up critically. It just means it plays no relevant role in the battle anymore.

Fluff doesn't make for rules justification, so that does not work. I can just as easily 'argue' that Motti makes sure his fleet bolts on armor before it leaves port and that would not suddenly fall off when he died.

The logic that everything any card ever grants goes away when it dies is also unsupportable. Screed for example. If he dies, do you go back and remember every time you used his ability and reverse the effects?

Motti's text currently says 'is increased'. Sounds one-time to me. If they meant only while he was alive, something like - 'while present treated as' would have happened.

Yes, fluff is no valid indicator for how a ruling works, especially when the fluff is made up by the players.

Screed's ongoing effect (note the ongoing) dies with him, his not-ongoing effects (the effects resulting out of his ongoing) doesn't.

As it is with Motti: The VSD Venom e.g. receives just enough damage to get destroyed, if it weren't for Motti commanding the regarding fleet. The ship still lives and deals damage, takes mission objective markers and commands squads (effects based on Motti's effect that the ship still exists). Now Motti's flagship gets destroyed, his ongoing effect stops and the VSD Venom is destroyed by losing the bonus hull, now having exactly as much damage cards as hull. The effects based on Motti's effect (the victory points gathered, squadron commands given and damage dealt by the Venom) are still valid.

I see it as Motti's a damage control specialist, he's skill is knowing how to manage crews under stressful, panic filled situations.

Once he's no longer around the crews are left to themselves again.

However if his ability is permanent then once you've started the game you could discard his card out an airlock because you no longer need him.

At this point in time ........

RaW = Ship destroyed => Commander lost => Ability is lost = KISS

That's not how commander cards work. There always needs to be a serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral.

Garm Bel Iblis provides a benefit on round 1 and 5. What's the serious drawback to losing him on round 6?

The same drawback to lose Tarkin on round 6.

That's not how commander cards work. There always needs to be a serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral.

Garm Bel Iblis provides a benefit on round 1 and 5. What's the serious drawback to losing him on round 6?

The same drawback to lose Tarkin on round 6.

My point is that there is not necessarily some huge loss in abilities when your commander dies. Infusco was saying Motti couldn't possibly be a one-shot power at the start of the game because he says you need to have some 'serious drawback to losing your fleet admiral' if he dies, aside from the point loss. Sometimes, your commander's abilities have done their duty and the commander just becomes a big point piñata for your opponent, like with Bel Iblis and Tarkin on round 6.

Not that I'm saying this means Motti is decidedly a one-shot start-of-match permanent buff -- I could still be convinced either way -- I'm just saying that there's nothing in the game that says you couldn't have a commander that provides a benefit on turn 1 and then has no active contribution for the rest of the game.

Actually, there is. Allow me to explain.

The golden rule in Armada is that the RRG is God *unless* specifically countered by an effect on the card that says otherwise. And as you probably noticed by now, all those exceptions listed on cards are very specific and detailed to remove any ambiguity. For example, look how clear the Bomber ability is written on an X-Wing. It doesn't just say crits count. It goes to say crits count towards damage and also resolve critical effects. They took the time to be clear about it.

Moving on to Motti ...

The RRG lists commanders as upgrade cards. It also advises the listed effects on upgrade cards goes away when the ship it's on is destroyed. So far so good?

Motti's card says that all ships in his fleet get an HP boost. You're right in that it doesn't say that the effects last as long as he is alive because that is the *default* rule as listed in the RRG. As you know, without specifics, the RRG rules all. The moment he dies, the listed effect goes away, which is to say the HP buffer he provides. For his ability to run counter to the RRG, it needs to be written *specifically* with that in mind. For example, the current card reads as such:

"The hull value of each friendly ship is increased according to its size class"

That is the listed effect. You'll note that nothing in that text advises that the effect persists if he dies, hence defaulting to the RRG rule on upgrade cards.

Now let's say we *do* want to run counter to the RRG ruling. The card would instead have text similar to this:

"The hull value of each friendly ship is increased according to its size class. This effect persists even if your flagship is destroyed"

See what I did there? I *specifically* stated an exception to the rule. But unless that exception is stated, then it defaults to the RRG. Which is to say that all ships in the fleet lose their extra HP if Motti dies.

This is why I say that there is no ambiguity. The rules are very clear on this. I hope this clears up any misconceptions.

It just depends on your reading of "is increased".

Say the Motti card said "Each friendly ship gains 1, 2, or 3 hull value depending on its size class." Now the wording is in line with Tarkin's "each ship gains a command token". If Tarkin dies, you wouldn't remove any of the other ships' remaining tokens granted by Tarkin, would you? They gained them, and they are theirs to keep. So with this hypothetical wording, if Motti dies would you remove the hull values granted by him? They gained them, so wouldn't they be theirs to keep?

So with the actual wording of "is increased", it just depends how you think of increasing the hull values. Did Motti add 1, 2, or 3 more damage card holders for each ship that are now a part of those ship cards? Is he maintaining an aura of 1, 2, or 3 more damage card slots for his fellow ships that will go away if Motti goes away?

I think your arguments in favor of the 'aura' ongoing effect interpretation are perfectly valid, and I think you're probably right, but I also think it's pretty nutty for a Motti death to cause a bunch of other injured ships to spontaneously combust along with him. I wouldn't be surprised if a rules clarification came out to say you're right about it being an ongoing effect, and I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Motti is meant to grant a permanent buff at the start of the match. I haven't seen any definitive argument one way or the other.

I can understand why you believe Tarkin's effect seems comparable. But it is not.

Tarkin's effect is that each ship phase, each ship *gains* a command token. You'll note the difference from Motti here. Tarkin doesn't say "Each ship has additional command tokens", which is the kind of phrasing you see with Motti. Tarkin's effect is very specific, which is to say "each ship phase, all ships gain a token". There's nothing indicating those tokens are permanent. In fact, we already know they are not as they can be spent, and hence are lost until the next ship phase.

So in effect, when Tarkin dies, his effect, that of, specifically, tossing a new command token every ship phase to every ship, goes away with him.

Yeah, its the words 'is increased' on the spoiler card that is at issue. Like with 'spend one die' or whatever, that reads - to me - as a one time deal. Its done then and then is over. Not a persistent 'aura' tied to Motti's card in play, but a one-time physical increase. So, like you don't go back and reverse the effects of a token Tarkin gave, you don't go back and undo the one time increase of the hull.

YMMV.

PS also, to me, its not about the RRG saying upgrade card getting turned off once they are discarded/face downed. Not aware anyone is arguing that, certainly I am not.

Yeah, its the words 'is increased' on the spoiler card that is at issue. Like with 'spend one die' or whatever, that reads - to me - as a one time deal. Its done then and then is over. Not a persistent 'aura' tied to Motti's card in play, but a one-time physical increase. So, like you don't go back and reverse the effects of a token Tarkin gave, you don't go back and undo the one time increase of the hull.

YMMV.

PS also, to me, its not about the RRG saying upgrade card getting turned off once they are discarded/face downed. Not aware anyone is arguing that, certainly I am not.

A more direct comparison is one brought up earlier: Enhanced Armaments.

"The battery armaments for your left and right hull zones are increased by 1 red die."

It sounds like you're arguing that if you turned my EA upgrade card facedown somehow, that I would still have the extra red die on my attacks.

Yeah, its the words 'is increased' on the spoiler card that is at issue. Like with 'spend one die' or whatever, that reads - to me - as a one time deal. Its done then and then is over. Not a persistent 'aura' tied to Motti's card in play, but a one-time physical increase. So, like you don't go back and reverse the effects of a token Tarkin gave, you don't go back and undo the one time increase of the hull.

YMMV.

PS also, to me, its not about the RRG saying upgrade card getting turned off once they are discarded/face downed. Not aware anyone is arguing that, certainly I am not.

A more direct comparison is one brought up earlier: Enhanced Armaments.

"The battery armaments for your left and right hull zones are increased by 1 red die."

It sounds like you're arguing that if you turned my EA upgrade card facedown somehow, that I would still have the extra red die on my attacks.

Well said, you've convinced me. I think my mind is just really rebelling against the idea of a bunch of damaged ships simultaneously and spontaneously exploding if Motti gets knocked unconscious or goes on a coffee break. It feels like this Order of the Stick strip where the live goblin suddenly keels over when the heroes remember all the damage rolls that should have been previously applied.

Plus, just about every other game I can think of that has health buffs of some sort has it so if the buff is removed you just lose any HP you had in excess of your normal limit. If you're at or below your normal max, you don't take any extra damage just because the buff goes away. I get that the X-wing/Armada damage card system makes this work differently, but it still feels bizarre with the Motti situation. Unlearn what you have learned, I suppose.