If my commander is Motti and I have 3 VSDs....if Motti is destroyed, do the other VSD's lose the extra 2 hull points? What if they only have 2...are they destroyed as well? or does the bonus Motti gives stay with the VSDs throughout the game regardless if he is destroyed or not?

Motti only gives bonus hull points if he is in play. So arriving via hyperspace or getting blown up removes the bonus instantly, this can domino destroy damaged ships. Unless the card is erratad in the FAQ thats how he works.

If Motti dies, the ships lose the hull bonus. And your ships can't have only 2 hull left because you do not lose hull when you are hit by attacks, you gain damage cards. So your VSD goes from 10 hull to 8 hulls. If you happens to also have 8+ damage cards on it, it blows up.

We don't know yet is the real answer.

It needs a FAQ entry. There is another topic on the subject. It asks if some effects don't go away.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/175234-do-some-effects-persist-if-ship-is-not-in-the-play-area/

Motti is an upgrade. Upgrades that aren't in play have no effect. Noting on Motti states any change to those rules. nothing in the rules even remotely suggests the possibility that the bonus stays. The rules do specifically say the bonus goes away. Unless the wording is officially changed, there is no basis to debate it.

Motti is an upgrade. Upgrades that aren't in play have no effect. Noting on Motti states any change to those rules. nothing in the rules even remotely suggests the possibility that the bonus stays. The rules do specifically say the bonus goes away. Unless the wording is officially changed, there is no basis to debate it.

Nothing in the rules suggests that an increase isn't a static affect either. I agree it probably goes away. But I'm not about to claim absolute fact on the issue. There's a significant chunk of wierdness, both fluff and gamewise involving Motti. Acknowledging ambiguity is important.

There's ambiguity simply because a few posters refuse to accept the rules at face value. It seems a fairly common trend.

Motti is an upgrade, an out of play(or flipped over) upgrade is inactive, if he is inactive his bonus is no longer there. The damage rules are written in a way that supports reading the rules at face value as it allows for a ship to be destroyed by a sudden reduction in hull points as opposed to only being dealt damage. The rules accomdate for the "wierdness". Nothing in the rules implies or states that bonuses to ship stats granted from upgrades are lasting even if the upgrade is made inactive. The concept that, "well the rules don't say buffs aren't permanant" is just a non-starter. Lastly, fluff is irrelevant as you can use it to justify anything if you try.

FFG is free to errata thier game as they wish, but until that point we are left with the rules as they are written. Just because a few people want the rules to work differently doesn't mean the rules we have are ambiguous.

Motti is an upgrade. Upgrades that aren't in play have no effect. Noting on Motti states any change to those rules. nothing in the rules even remotely suggests the possibility that the bonus stays. The rules do specifically say the bonus goes away. Unless the wording is officially changed, there is no basis to debate it.

Nothing in the rules suggests that an increase isn't a static affect either. I agree it probably goes away. But I'm not about to claim absolute fact on the issue. There's a significant chunk of wierdness, both fluff and gamewise involving Motti. Acknowledging ambiguity is important.

Then according to you, http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Nav_Team would make your yaw value permenantly increase.

There's ambiguity simply because a few posters refuse to accept the rules at face value. It seems a fairly common trend.

Motti is an upgrade, an out of play(or flipped over) upgrade is inactive, if he is inactive his bonus is no longer there. The damage rules are written in a way that supports reading the rules at face value as it allows for a ship to be destroyed by a sudden reduction in hull points as opposed to only being dealt damage. The rules accomdate for the "wierdness" Nothing in the rules implies or states that bonuses to ship stats granted from upgrades are lasting even if the upgrade is made inactive. The concept that, "well the rules don't say buffs aren't permanant" is just a non-starter. Lastly, fluff is irrelevant as you can use it to justify anything if you try.

FFG is free to errata thier game as they wish, but until that point we are left with the rules as they are written. Just because a few people want the rules to work differently doesn't mean the rules we have are ambiguous.

(See Keyan Farlander and Whether a ship in X-wing is friendly to itself/in range 1 of itself)

When a situatio is wierd clarification is needed. End of Story. Claiming one way or another as an absolute is misleading.

I think the bonus goes away. Hell I hope the bonus goes away. But I also think it's ambiguous and needs clarification before we start telling people "It's this" as if it's a fact.

Things are not ambiguous just because people approach the rules of the game in a half cocked manner.

Keyan Farlander is the best example of what I am saying, as there was never any ambiguity about how his ability worked. The only people arguing there was were people that simply ignored how the ability and rules worked because they didn't want it to work in that manner. Not because anything was ever unclear.

They wouldn't accept the rules at face value and declared them ambiguous because they did not fit thier notion of how the rules should work. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

"There is nothing in the rules that suggests an increase isn't a static effect."

.....and that is exactly why there is no ambiguity.pointing to rules that don't exist at all to question rules with solid answers is complete wishful thinking.

Things are not ambiguous just because people approach the rules of the game in a half cocked manner.

Keyan Farlander is the best example of what I am saying, as there was never any ambiguity about how his ability worked. The only people arguing there was were people that simply ignored how the ability and rules worked because they didn't want it to work in that manner. Not because anything was ever unclear.

They wouldn't accept the rules at face value and declared them ambiguous because they did not fit thier notion of how the rules should work. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The rules as written currently indicate Motti's effect persists only when his attached ship is in play, as he is an effect card and the rules for effect cards are very rigidly defined in the rules reference. This is the only valid interpretation of his card based on the body of rules as it exists today. It will be played this way in tournaments. It is entirely possible that we will see an errata that changes the text on the card in the way that Most Wanted objective text was changed. However, this would be a change to the way the rules are written and we have no way of knowing if this will occur, ever, and so we must evaluate the card as it reads today. As it stands now a clarification is not necessary. No other effect card persists when it is not in play, there is no reason to assume his is any different.

Things are not ambiguous just because people approach the rules of the game in a half cocked manner.

Keyan Farlander is the best example of what I am saying, as there was never any ambiguity about how his ability worked. The only people arguing there was were people that simply ignored how the ability and rules worked because they didn't want it to work in that manner. Not because anything was ever unclear.

They wouldn't accept the rules at face value and declared them ambiguous because they did not fit thier notion of how the rules should work. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

And the other one went the other way. Rules are tough to interpret. Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important. For much the same reason ackowledging that anyone has a difference of opinion with you is important. None of us are always right. Deal with that. Accept it. We can't know this one until the faq addresses it. The fact there have been arguments means that intrinsicly.

I have acknowledged there is a previewed ambiguity, repeatedly, but as I have stated that perception is unwarrented. It is solely the manufacture of a few posters that, with no backing in the rules, want the rules to function differently. That isn't ambiguity, it's just people wanting the rules to work in a different manner then how they are written. They call it ambiguity because they feel it makes them more credible then if they just said, "I don't like the rule I want it to work differently". Just because you want 2+2 to equal 5 instead of 4 doesn't mean the equation is ambiguous.

We've had on this forum a poster argue that the rules over each fleet needing a Commander were ambiguous because they never plainly state " Each Fleet must have a Commander" but instead say every fleet needs a flagship and define a flagship as a ship with a Commander attached. Just because that poster declared ambiguity doesn't make the rules on that situation ambiguous. It just makes that poster wrong.

What about this situation is ambiguous?

Is Motti an upgrade? Yes

Are upgrades active when out of play? No.

Do the rules state that any bonus to a ships stats are permanent? No.

Is there any reason to assume the existence of a rule not written in the rules anywhere? No.

Do the rules of the game function with the possibility of a sudden change in a ships Hull Points? Yes.

Where is the ambiguity except in the minds of a few posters that want 2+2 to equal 5 and not 4?

If the answer the the last question I posed had been "No" I'd agree that the rules were ambiguous as we'd then have no way to resolve the rules as they are written in regards to inactive upgrades with the way ships are destroyed, but the answer wasn't "No".

There are going to be plenty of actually ambiguous rules in this game, just like X-wing, but that doesn't mean that everything is unclear just because one or two posters didn't read the rules or want them to work differently.

Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important.

There IS no ambeguity. The rules are very straightforward.

What we do have, however, is a situation where following the rules, as they are clearly written, produces a result that seems not quite right.

I agree with you, though; we need FFG to tell us weather the "not quite right" result is, in fact, right, or if this card needs to be errated.

Wow, this again? Is there some sort of forum rule that states that a new Motti thread has to pop up every week? Or maybe on alternate weeks with SSD threads?

The rules are clear: Upgrade effects only last so long as the ship it's on is still in play, and the effect goes away if the ship is destroyed.

The card effect states that ships get an HP boost, but nowhere states the HP boost is permanent. It's an effect attached to an upgrade card of the Commander type. Ergo, ships lose that HP bonus if Motti dies.

It's not in the FAQ because it's very very clear already. Although now I'm hoping they will eventually add it in just so we can stop seeing these threads pop up.

Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important.

There IS no ambeguity. The rules are very straightforward.

What we do have, however, is a situation where following the rules, as they are clearly written, produces a result that seems not quite right.

I agree with you, though; we need FFG to tell us weather the "not quite right" result is, in fact, right, or if this card needs to be errated.

What about it seems not quite right in your view?

Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important.

There IS no ambeguity. The rules are very straightforward.

What we do have, however, is a situation where following the rules, as they are clearly written, produces a result that seems not quite right.

I agree with you, though; we need FFG to tell us weather the "not quite right" result is, in fact, right, or if this card needs to be errated.

What about it seems not quite right in your view?

Other Imperial Ship Captain: "I've got a problem here."

Eject!

Other Imperial Ship Captain: "I can hold it."

Pull up!

Other Imperial Ship Captain: "No, I'm all right."

Did you hear that Motti died?

Other Imperial Ship Captain: "I'm all ri--aagggahgahghah!"

Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important.

There IS no ambeguity. The rules are very straightforward.

What we do have, however, is a situation where following the rules, as they are clearly written, produces a result that seems not quite right.

I agree with you, though; we need FFG to tell us weather the "not quite right" result is, in fact, right, or if this card needs to be errated.

What about it seems not quite right in your view?

The idea that (under the right circumstances) if you blow up the flag ship, the other two or three capitol ships spontaniously explode.

Acknowledging that there is percieved ambiguity is important.

There IS no ambeguity. The rules are very straightforward.

What we do have, however, is a situation where following the rules, as they are clearly written, produces a result that seems not quite right.

I agree with you, though; we need FFG to tell us weather the "not quite right" result is, in fact, right, or if this card needs to be errated.

What about it seems not quite right in your view?

The idea that (under the right circumstances) if you blow up the flag ship, the other two or three capitol ships spontaniously explode.

To be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean they "blow up". You can justify this behavior thematically as the ships either striking their colors or abandoning ship. After all, they will have taken significant damage -- enough to destroy them normally -- and they just witnessed their flagship get demolished.

there seem to be more people arguing about...arguing...than people arguing about Motti.

The idea that (under the right circumstances) if you blow up the flag ship, the other two or three capitol ships spontaniously explode.

That's how I was seeing Motti. The sheer force of personality was the only thing propping those ships up so when he dies, they go with him and spontaneously explode, to follow their leader to glorious death.

On another note, I hope FFG does something interesting with flagships in the future. There isn't anything about the mechanic so far that stands out, except that the flagship is the ship the Commander is on. Why make that distinction if it doesn't matter?

The idea that (under the right circumstances) if you blow up the flag ship, the other two or three capitol ships spontaniously explode.

That's how I was seeing Motti. The sheer force of personality was the only thing propping those ships up so when he dies, they go with him and spontaneously explode, to follow their leader to glorious death.

On another note, I hope FFG does something interesting with flagships in the future. There isn't anything about the mechanic so far that stands out, except that the flagship is the ship the Commander is on. Why make that distinction if it doesn't matter?

Don't need to make the ship any different, that's what your upgrades are for and the Admiral card.

I have no problem with the card, and endorse the thematic interpretation of Norsehound.

As a guy who enjoys historical gaming and miniatures as well, however, it's interesting to compare the situation to that of Nelson at Trafalgar. Surely no more charismatic naval leader ever breathed, and yet the Brits fought pretty hard even after he fell.