I see legitimate well founded arguments on both sides of this...

Really? I'd like to see a well founded argument for Motti's effect sticking around after he's gone. Because so far I haven't seen one. Again, it's well established that upgrade effects only apply as long as the upgrade in question is in play.

There is not a single example of an upgrade effect surviving the card being removed. The gamestate the upgrade creates may continue, like exhausting or even discarding something, but there is no ongoing effect that sticks around after the card itself is removed from play.

They would still be alive even without Motti. Its all part of the game.

The whole point of Motti is to improve the tankyness of his fleet. That's a attribute that may not factor into a game at all, either because you're hopelessly out gunned, and the extra hull doesn't really help at all, or you may never need it.

Trying to argue that his ability should stick around just because it may not be used otherwise, is quite possibly the most illogical argument I've heard.

Dodonna's ability only comes into play if you get a crit though. Screed's ability only comes into effect if you want to spend a die to trigger it. Likewise Motti's ability only comes into effect when a ship has been dealt enough damage cards to kill it, without his buff.

Personally, I am quite happy with the justification that a destroyed ship isn't fully destroyed so much as reduced to insignificant effectiveness, and that Motti merely pushes his underlings to stick at it a little longer than they otherwise would.

That said, I would say that we need this answered by FFG either way, because either:

A) The RAW do not have the intended effect, and Motti's death was not intended to cause a domino effect of destroying ships. An errata is required.

or

B) The RAW are as intended, but counterintuitive to a significant number of players (at least those who are taking the game mechanics at face value). A FAQ is required, preferably giving a fluff justification so as to help maintain suspension of disbelief.

Personally, I am quite happy with the justification that a destroyed ship isn't fully destroyed so much as reduced to insignificant effectiveness...

There's all kinds of fluff reasons for it. Perhaps the ship wasn't really combat ready, but kept fighting because of him, maybe it was ready to blow but he inspired the crews to keep the reactor in check.

A FAQ is required

A FAQ will most likely happen, but is not really required, not just because there's some people out there who won't accept RAW. But then again it's not like FFG has never made a FAQ ruling that contradicts RAW. In X-Wing for example RAW turrets don't work at all.

preferably giving a fluff justification so as to help maintain suspension of disbelief.

I don't believe FFG has ever given a fluff justification for anything.

Suspension of disbelief? For a space strategy game without usage of third dimension?

I'm actually a rebel player, so I would prefer it to go away. The reason I think it persists is because what would be the point if it goes away? It could be a completely useless ability if it goes away. If his ship dies first the imperial player would pitentially get no use from it. Can you say that about any other commander?

.... Uh, yeah? I can say that about every other Commander. That is exactly how Commander cards work. If Mon Mothma gets 1-shot 2nd turn, no other ships are going to get the Evade modification. She could conceivably die before any other ship gets to use an Evade. If Screed gets KO'd, no ship gets the spend dice for crit effect, again this could happen before he ever gets to use his ability. If Tarkin gets blown up, no more tokens beyond the first round. Etc, etc, etc.

He could die turn 6 and his ability still becomes useless. The other commanders have abilities that you use. The entire usefulness of his ability would rely on him surviving.

This is simply not correct.

If the extra Hull Points Motti confers allows a ship to make another attack, use a Squadron Command, or even just soak an attack that could go to another target that it wouldn't have otherwise been on the board for; then Motti has gained you something even if he and his bonus are later removed. With how much damage can be repaired in this game Motti could even allow a ship to bring itself back under its standard Hull Points before he bites it.

"Because most other games track health points remaining, rather than damage points sustained."

how would this change Motti?
I have 2 health remianing...oops Motti dies now I have zero.

Most FFG games do not track damage in that matter actually.

"Because most other games track health points remaining, rather than damage points sustained."

how would this change Motti?

I have 2 health remianing...oops Motti dies now I have zero.

In many games, ('m coming from D&D, here) "temporary hitpoints" are knocked off first. If you loose the source of the temporary hitpoints, you don't take the damage that they had soaked for you.

In other words, if D&D rules were used here, then after Motti is killed, you would remove 1 damage card from small ships, 2 from medium ships, and 3 from large ships. I wouldn't support that, though.

I might support "If the loss of Motti causes any ship to have at least as many damage cards as hitpoints, discard damage cards one at a time until that ship has one fewer damage cards than hit points."

Also, what is RAW? Why does it matter who kills Motti?

Also, what is RAW? Why does it matter who kills Motti?

RAW = Rules As Written. That means you follow the rules as they're written, rather than RAI (Rules As Intended) where you follow the rule based on what you think they mean, or what you think the developer intended.

That can sometimes cause rules to behave in such a way that doesn't always make sense.

Rules as Intended more commonly means "Rules as I want them to be Intended" as most assertions of designer intent are not based on anything.

The gap between RAW and RAI is normally, when there is no clear RAW, but two or three (or even more) ways to read the rules. Then you have to figure out, what RAI is. Motti is no such case, as RAW is totally clear (and, at last, consense, even if he "doesn't make sense").

He could definitely use errata to make it clear, but I'm pretty sure the intent is for it to be permanent.

You have no basis for that belief as nothing in the rules hints at such bonuses ever being permanent. All the rules say is that upgrade cards on out of play ships are inactive.

More over the damage rules allow for the possibility of this type of destruction.

You want the rules to work differently, you hope they will be errata'd to work differently, but you don't have any basis to assert designer intent on the subject.

I'm actually a rebel player, so I would prefer it to go away. The reason I think it persists is because what would be the point if it goes away? It could be a completely useless ability if it goes away. If his ship dies first the imperial player would pitentially get no use from it. Can you say that about any other commander?

Don't mind ScottieATF. I'm pretty sure he comes to the forum just for the opportunity to be condescending to people. You get used to him.

I see legitimate well founded arguments on both sides of this...

Really? I'd like to see a well founded argument for Motti's effect sticking around after he's gone. Because so far I haven't seen one. Again, it's well established that upgrade effects only apply as long as the upgrade in question is in play.There is not a single example of an upgrade effect surviving the card being removed. The gamestate the upgrade creates may continue, like exhausting or even discarding something, but there is no ongoing effect that sticks around after the card itself is removed from play.

They would still be alive even without Motti. Its all part of the game.

The whole point of Motti is to improve the tankyness of his fleet. That's a attribute that may not factor into a game at all, either because you're hopelessly out gunned, and the extra hull doesn't really help at all, or you may never need it.Trying to argue that his ability should stick around just because it may not be used otherwise, is quite possibly the most illogical argument I've heard.Dodonna's ability only comes into play if you get a crit though. Screed's ability only comes into effect if you want to spend a die to trigger it. Likewise Motti's ability only comes into effect when a ship has been dealt enough damage cards to kill it, without his buff.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else. If this was as easily put to bed as you want to imagine it, we wouldn't have three pages on it.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else. If this was as easily put to bed as you want to imagine it, we wouldn't have three pages on it.

The effect is persistent as long as the card persists. If the buff is to continue after the card is removed from play then the card text would specifically say that. FFG will errata this though since there seems to be so much confusion.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else. If this was as easily put to bed as you want to imagine it, we wouldn't have three pages on it.

The effect is persistent as long as the card persists. If the buff is to continue after the card is removed from play then the card text would specifically say that. FFG will errata this though since there seems to be so much confusion.

I agree on all counts. I'm pointing out the legitimate argument on the other side of the fence.

(In this case, I would say the card sort of does. The wording says the hull "is increased" not "increases". Since increased is past tense one could argue that it's a one time effect that happens and one time and remains in effect. Not my interpretation, but a completely reasonable one and evidence of the need for some official ruling)

a one time effect has to specify a trigger, otherwise we have to infer it's continuous until the upgrade goes poof

enhanced armament/expanded launchers etc are good examples of continuous effects

Garm and Tarkin are good examples of triggered effects

Motti would have to emulate Garm in order for his effect to persist after his death "at the beginning of round 1, permanently increase the hull of all friendly ships according to their size class...etc."

Don't mind ScottieATF. I'm pretty sure he comes to the forum just for the opportunity to be condescending to people. You get used to him.

I'm pretty sure we have several people in this thread who come to the forums specifically to be obtuse and peddle their own faulty interpretations of the rules despite impeccable clarity. Lets not pretend that the rules for Motti are in any way currently in dispute. What we have is a small group of people who don't like the RAW interpretation and feel their displeasure should be rectified by a change in the rules.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else. If this was as easily put to bed as you want to imagine it, we wouldn't have three pages on it.

The same could be argued for every other Commander. If what you are proposing is true of Motti, it would be true of Tarkin or Mon Mothma. The text on any of their cards does not specify the duration of the event. That is handled by the rules governing card effects, where it is 100% verbosely defined as having its effect end when the ship it is attached to becomes inactive.

so the argument for it beeing persistent would be the fluff of "hull" beeing applied instead of any other game value? i think rules are pretty clear on this.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else.

Yes it's a persistent effect, as long as the card is in play. Card text only trumps the rules when explicitly stated as such, or when in conflict with the existing rules.

When a card says "you can do X" but the rules say you can't do X, then the card trumps the rules. There is however nothing even implied that Motti's effect breaks the rules, let alone explicitly says so.

So no, that's not really a legitimate or reasonable argument to be made, for why his effect stays around. Nothing on the card says it does, and the rules in every other case are quite clear that effects don't stick around when the upgrade that provides them are removed from the game.

The only reason why we're still discussing this, is because as was pointed out above, some don't like the RAW, and want them changed. That or some people are fairly confused because if you have experience with other games, it's likely it worked differently... Those who don't have experience with other games don't have anything to help them so they naturally ask the question, because the way it works is kinda counterintuitive.

Don't mind ScottieATF. I'm pretty sure he comes to the forum just for the opportunity to be condescending to people. You get used to him.

I'm pretty sure we have several people in this thread who come to the forums specifically to be obtuse and peddle their own faulty interpretations of the rules despite impeccable clarity. Lets not pretend that the rules for Motti are in any way currently in dispute. What we have is a small group of people who don't like the RAW interpretation and feel their displeasure should be rectified by a change in the rules.

It could be argued that it reads like a persistent effect on the card, and card text trumps any and everything else. If this was as easily put to bed as you want to imagine it, we wouldn't have three pages on it.

The same could be argued for every other Commander. If what you are proposing is true of Motti, it would be true of Tarkin or Mon Mothma. The text on any of their cards does not specify the duration of the event. That is handled by the rules governing card effects, where it is 100% verbosely defined as having its effect end when the ship it is attached to becomes inactive.

I don't think it can though. Tarkin and Mothma allow you to do things when certain conditions arise during the game. Each time these things come up, if the card is alive you can do what they say and if not you can't. No one has been confused about this, at all. If as you say, you could make the same argument about the other commanders, someone would have tried to if only to garner some form of competitive edge.

Ficlkle's examples regarding Garm and Tarkin are spot on, though I am hesitant to use things like Expanded Missile Launchers or other upgrades as examples, if only because they effect only one ship in the fleet. Of course they stop working when the ship they are on goes down. But again, Motti could be considered triggered that one time as soon as he hits the board, the way he would if he were the ship set aside in Hyperspace Assault.

Again, to clarify, I'm only furthering this position because I took issue with the assertion that there were no legitimate points for the RAI crowd. My personal interpretation of the rules mirrors your own.

Can someone make a poll? I'd be interested to see what percentage of the community things permanent vs not. Especially since a new Motti thread gets posted like every week!

****, I thought he was the least popular imp commander by far

Can someone make a poll? I'd be interested to see what percentage of the community things permanent vs not. Especially since a new Motti thread gets posted like every week!

I think you'd need 3 options.

Thinks it is permanent.

Acknowledges it isn't but wants it to be.

Thinks it isn't.

Because most other games track health points remaining, rather than damage points sustained.

That's true, most other tabletop games or RPG's subtract your HP's by the amount of damage taken. In X-Wing and Armada you don't ever reduce the amount of hull, just compare it to the amount of damage taken.

But that doesn't change how the rules actually work, just because they use a different method.

The damage card method does change the way buffs like this work.

Think of almost any other game that has a hitpoint system of some kind as well as some way to buff a unit's hitpoints. RPGs, Hearthstone, first person shooters, you name it.

I have 10hp. I get a buff that grants me 5 extra hp. I now have 15. I then take 14 damage and have 1hp left. Next, the buff gets removed.

In just about every other kind of game, the removal of the buff means I stay at 1hp. I don't lose 5hp, go into the negative and die.

So again, I did get convinced in the other thread that a Motti death can indeed cause other ships to spontaneously combust, but it still feels weird compared to how hitpoints work in other games. People seem to be baffled at why this rules situation keeps getting brought up, but this is the reason. It does play out very different than how a Motti death situation would play out in other games.

no your at zero and die.

I'm going to walk everyone through this, one last time, and then I'm washing my hands of this discussion because frankly its arrant and wistful pedantry.

Lets completely forget the text on Motti's card, for the moment.

First and foremost, Motti is a Commander.

"A commander is a special type of upgrade card..." RR, Page 3, Commanders

An Upgrade Card is "..placed next to the ship card to which they are equipped." RR, Page 13, Upgrade Cards

When a Ship is destroyed it is "...no longer in play. All ship and upgrade cards belonging to the destroyed ship are inactive. RR, Page 5, Destroyed Ships and Squadrons

The above is the RAW basis for Motti's effect ceasing when his ship is destroyed. The only seemingly valid argument against the verbatim rules above would be the "Golden Rule" that states rules on the card contradicting rules found in the Rules Reference take precedence.

Now, here is the text on Motti's card:

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

You will notice that no part of this card in any way contradicts the italicized text above. It does not specify that it permanently increases. It does not specify that the card effect persists after Motti's destruction. There is, therefore, no more weight to a RAI interpretation than there is flaw in the RAW interpretation. Spelled out, plain and simple, his effect ends when his ship is inactive. This is the way it will be played in tournaments and this is the correct ruling until and if ever Fantasy Flight decides to add or modify the text of the card in the way that they modified the Most Wanted objective. Arguing any further, one way or the other, is pointless until such an errata occurs.