l like the idea of a poll...I bet we would get 3-5 people out of 200+ that feel Motti's ability doesn't go away when he does.

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.

Uhm, no. The fact that he dies means that he was useful! For him to die, his ship must be destroyed. Which means it got 2 (or 3 if on an ISD) more damage cards dealt than it normally could've taken.

Yeah I agree about the RAW on ol motti. I guess he's really good at coordinating damage control or something.

I guess you stick him on a big bruiser and run a fleet of raiders/glads really aggressively?

I'm revisiting this Motti discussion from a fluff perspective again (because the fluff perspective seems to obviously be my favorite). There have been a few mentions of ships spontaneously blowing up upon his death among the "meh, Motti feels weird" opinions. And to be clear, I totally understand why that would look strange on the table. But when I thought about it, I don't think there has been much precedence for capital ships entirely exploding. I can think back to X-wing, TIE Fighter, and the older PC games where capital ships were literally disintegrated, but that was a technological limitation. Even forum-favorite Empire at War only has smaller ships "explode" and the larger ones break apart into pieces until they "explode" - but that feels like a mechanic primarily in place to prevent debris from slowly taking up the screen.

In the films, there is admittedly little capital ship combat, but the only obliterated large scale ships we see are by the hand of the second Death Star's superlaser. Hilariously enough, the only massive objects that explode into nothing are a planet and two Death Stars, even though we are led to believe that there is a massive asteroid field in place of Alderaan through Han Solo's lines and some little rocks floating around after coming out of hyperspace. Again, I believe this to be more of a technological limitation than the intention for what happens to moon-sized battle stations.

Motti's fame in A New Hope was his unwavering belief in the technological superiority of the Empire - overconfidence and arrogance to the point of mocking Darth Vader to his face. He would have been another corpse for the Stormtroopers to drag away if not for Tarkin's intervention. So combining who Motti was as a military commander with the idea that giant metal warships do not explode into nothingness, I think you can reach a pretty good game-world view on Motti as a commander card in your fleet.

When I'm playing Armada, I physically remove destroyed ships from the table, but this is a game limitation the same way that Empire at War clears that drifting Victory cruiser debris - that is space that must be utilized by the remaining game pieces. In my head, it plays out differently. The last time I lost a Nebulon-B, I imagined it listing to its side as the engines flicker out, with smaller secondary explosions and the sudden loss of control breaking the spar as compartments vented into space and escape pods fired off.

What Motti offers as a commander is the same overconfidence, arrogance and unwavering belief we see in the movie. His fleet is superior. The Rebels may be a danger to some fleets, but not to Admiral Motti's - and he has instilled this belief in all of his officers. The additional hull value is his presence reflected through all the ships under his command. Motti's flagship is likely already the most durable on the table, and so to destroy him there has to be sufficient damage to cripple it plus more. So that second Victory with 9 damage cards isn't spontaneously combusting, it's simply the highest order of the "Crew Panic" critical effect. Watching the Admiral's ship come apart before them is enough for them to abandon their faith in technological superiority and escape their badly damaged vessel with their lives.

And now for more gameplay perspective: To be fair, to trigger the above scenario you require 19 damage cards across two Victory Star Destroyers. That says two things to me; first, that Admiral Motti provided some serious mileage for his cost by keeping the destroyers on the table in the face of what would be a ridiculous assault. Second: If your opponent is capable of laying 19 hull damage on a pair of Star Destroyers within six turns, they are playing in a way that was going to kill those ships regardless of Motti's presence.

I originally believed that Motti,s effect ended when he dies.

Unfortunately, we do have precedence of a commander effect lasting after the commander is removed from play, specifically Garm. You do not loose the command token he gave out when he dies.

Now, given Motti's text is past tense, it seems like it is a one time effect. As in you get out a magic marker and write 10 as the hull value on the Victory.

This confusion wouldn't occur if Motti's card said "Increase the hull value by xyz." That effect would clearly end when he dies, as you would check for modifiers to the hull when receiving damage.

I originally believed that Motti,s effect ended when he dies.

Unfortunately, we do have precedence of a commander effect lasting after the commander is removed from play, specifically Garm. You do not loose the command token he gave out when he dies.

this is not technically correct

the command tokens are not Garm's ability

Garm's ability just hands them out

if Garm is dead and you hit round 5, he does not hand out command tokens. Simple as that.

This is true of every single commander, Motti is the only exception in that his ability is permanent and not a trigger (at the start round 1 and 5, and the start of each round, once per round when attacking, when you spend an evade token, when an enemy ship receives a face-up damage card...).

It still goes away when he dies, just like everyone else's. The two extra damage you had to deal to kill him, however, don't magically disappear. You just lose the benefit of his presence (the extra hull on other ships), just as you lose the ability to trigger any of the other commanders when they're too busy being dead.

you lose your extra hull

you lose your super evades

you lose your ability to modify dice

you lose your ability to cherry pick crits

you lose your command token generation each round

you lose your command token generation on rounds 1 & 5

All the others have a trigger.

Motti's ability occurs once before the start of the battle. That is why his ability is past tense.

All the others have a trigger.

Motti's ability occurs once before the start of the battle. That is why his ability is past tense.

it does not occur before the start of the battle because it lacks a trigger

were Motti's ability occurs once before the start of the battle, it would have read

"At the start of round 1, increase the hull value of all friendly ships according to their size class, permanently." similarly to Garm's first trigger

Motti has no trigger. Like EA or any other such upgrade, the ability is constantly active so long as the upgrade exists on the table.

also pretty sure the "is" (to be) in "is increased" denotes the present tense

"Motti is an arrogant son of a *****."

"Motti was an arrogant son of a ***** until Vader had enough of his ****."

or

"The hull of all friendly ships is increased so long as Motti is around."

"The hull value of all friendly ships was increased thanks to Motti, but then he a'sploded and it all went back to normal."

This debate has reached the "chicken or the egg" state. It will continue to pop up so long as people who vote chicken don't realize dinosaurs laud eggs long before chickens existed.

The bonus being permanent is the chicken btw.

Because the bonus isnt.

Do all the command tokens generated by Garm disappear?

Do all the crits dealt by Sreed repair themselves?

I've been avoiding this recurring topic, as it is has been almost uniformly negative, but at this point I feel its worth interjecting.

There seems to be a disconnect between people who prefer Motti's ability to be permanent and those who prefer it to be temporary. It has been my experience that most game systems that have a function or ability that increases the maximum "health" of something, also have a specific method of resolving this addition when that specific "maximum health increasing" ability expires. This is particularly necessary for electronic games, as it falls to the game's engine, not players interpreting a rulebook, to resolve this, and thus it must be resolved in very plain, black & white code.

It has also been my experience, that most of these electronic games, err on the side of "removing" the "temporary hit points" first, as opposed to retroactively "killing" the unit once it's ability expires (though there are, obviously, exceptions). A poster mentioned this earlier, wherein if Armada used a "health dial" for ships like it does squadrons, this would be clearer, almost a non-argument. But as it uses a "damage card" system, it befuddles it a little bit more. I've even seen some systems that even if it does not remove temporary health first and retroactively "damages" the unit once it expires, it will leave them with 1 health/hitpoint remaining, so that it must still be "killed" rather than randomly dropping dead somewhere to the side after the combat is over. Again, not always, but sometimes. And in almost all of these cases, the game designers specifically, and clearly, notify the players of the method used to resolve this conundrum.

Armada does not have this. It requires cross-referencing 3-4 different pages of the RRG. Now before any neck-beards get all excited, I agree with you, you're right. RAW, Motti's ability appears to retroactively "kill" ships that are over their new, reduced health threshold. But this is also not easily determined, nor specifically tailored and readily made available for Motti's owner... it requires citing very broad-stroke rules that encompass literally every other small fleet card in the game. The condescending derision toward some people for struggling to come to the same conclusion so swiftly can safely be dropped.

That being said, I'd like to put my vote in the "RAW, Motti's heavily damaged ships die with him" box, but with a side helping of "However, I think the text should either be cleaned up for the next FAQ, or preferably, altered so that the health increase is either permanent, including after his death, or at least that a ship that finds itself over its maximum threshold after Motti's death must still at least incur 1 more damage card before being removed from the game."

Because honestly, while some of the criticisms of the "fluff" supporting a permanent Motti bonus are valid, some of the "fluff" justifying a temporary health bonus have been equally absurd. If Dodonna can be changed to allow him to convince Asteroids to attack ships in a certain way, let's allow Motti's fleet live just a wee bit longer, hey?

Chicken or the egg? It was niether. The rooster came first!

Well, an FAQ is definitely needed...

So I read through the rules reference guide. Under damage, "when a ship has damage cards equal to its hull value, it is immediately destroyed".

... So let's look at the example of a Victory class with 9 damage cards. Motti dies, and as per this thread, the hull value of the Victory returns to 8. The Victory has now exceeded its hull value, and is henceforth immortal as the number of damage card will never equal the hull value.

(well, unless the controlling player is foolish enough to repair the hull...)

And the single cellular organism came first.

From a narrative stand-point, I prefer that Motti's ability is permanent, as I really hate the idea of losing ships that may be on the opposite side of the table from his when he dies. That being said, the RAW seem to be quite clear and consistent in saying that his bonus leaves with him, so ships that have damage in excess of their base stats will die when Motti dies. In any case, I don't think its too much of an issue, as both Tarkin and Screed are much more useful, and I'm not sure if I'll ever even use Motti.

Of course, thematically, I like the idea that Motti's arrogance offers the Imperial player a moderate advantage, on the surface, which could cost them the entire match in the end. (I.e., Rebels destroy Motti, triggering the destruction of allied ships which have sustained a great deal of damage, already, allowing the Rebels to score victory points for two ships by simply concentrating everything they can on Motti on turn 6...)

Go read the entry on Destroyed Ships, it says equals or exceeds.

All this debate has proven, time and again, is that some people will argue a point proven false on numerous occasions simply because they feel it should be otherwise. When Motti dies, ships lose bonus health. If they have more cards than they have unaltered health, they are destroyed. This is not difficult to understand and the RAW is explained verbosely in several posts above if you have any questions on exactly why this is so. We have considered all alternatives to the RAW -- the Golden Rule, so-called precedents that actually aren't, fluff-driven and wholly unsupported RAI interpretations -- and found no possible interpretation, based in an honest reading of the rules, that will allow Motti's effect to be permanent. So wrap your Jedi-swayable minds around this truth, accept it, carry it with you throughout the day, tell your children, and spread the good word as you wait patiently for an errata that may never come.

I'm going to requote this one paragraph from above, because I think it encapsulates my opinion about the Motti card and it might have gotten lost to many.

Armada does not have [easily shown rules for Motti increased hull]. It requires cross-referencing 3-4 different pages of the RRG. Now before any neck-beards get all excited, I agree with you, you're right. RAW, Motti's ability appears to retroactively "kill" ships that are over their new, reduced health threshold. But this is also not easily determined, nor specifically tailored and readily made available for Motti's owner... it requires citing very broad-stroke rules that encompass literally every other small fleet card in the game. The condescending derision toward some people for struggling to come to the same conclusion so swiftly can safely be dropped.

Do you get it?

While Armada's rules on the whole are nice and fairly simple, in this case I'd say they are not. When I first looked at Motti, I did think that his ability was permanent. Because the idea of ships just blowing up in the middle of combat is silly. RAW in this case can produce outcomes that make no real sense, which human minds are very attuned to figuring out.

Also there is truly no reason to mock people for having a hard time understanding some of the rules. Particularly in cases like this. It adds nothing to discussions but some small measure of self-satisfaction.

The issue is not people not getting the rules interaction right off the bat. The issue is people not getting it and never looking for it. Or not getting it, being shown the answer, and then disregarding it because it isn't how they want it to work.

And I think you highlighted the issue with people's approach to some of the more complex rules issues. Something comes up that they don't really have an answer for, but they make an assumption about how it should work, and then attempt to find the rules to justify thier position. This leads, often, to people cherry picking or twisting the rules to fit thier assumptions. The better way, I feel, is to read the applicable rules and then come to a conclusion based on that.

I'm going to requote this one paragraph from above, because I think it encapsulates my opinion about the Motti card and it might have gotten lost to many.

Armada does not have [easily shown rules for Motti increased hull]. It requires cross-referencing 3-4 different pages of the RRG. Now before any neck-beards get all excited, I agree with you, you're right. RAW, Motti's ability appears to retroactively "kill" ships that are over their new, reduced health threshold. But this is also not easily determined, nor specifically tailored and readily made available for Motti's owner... it requires citing very broad-stroke rules that encompass literally every other small fleet card in the game. The condescending derision toward some people for struggling to come to the same conclusion so swiftly can safely be dropped.

Do you get it?

While Armada's rules on the whole are nice and fairly simple, in this case I'd say they are not. When I first looked at Motti, I did think that his ability was permanent. Because the idea of ships just blowing up in the middle of combat is silly. RAW in this case can produce outcomes that make no real sense, which human minds are very attuned to figuring out.

Also there is truly no reason to mock people for having a hard time understanding some of the rules. Particularly in cases like this. It adds nothing to discussions but some small measure of self-satisfaction.

No, I don't get it. When I looked at Motti's card, I said "Hey, he's an upgrade card." And that was the end of it. I then treated him in exactly the same way as every other upgrade card and never gave it another thought until this forum post cropped up for the ninth time. And it requires citing no more additional passages to understand than any other upgrade card. In fact it requires citing the exact same passages because it functions exactly the same, hence the point echoed time and again by the majority of people in this thread. So that's what I don't get. I don't get that a small subset of people, who fail to understand that rules interpretations do not hinge on their personal feelings about fluff or what is or is not "silly", continue to peddle their incorrect assumptions.

And its intriguing that you make a point to dissuade mocking and "condescending derision", shortly after calling those who read the rules thoroughly a very derogative "neck-beards". Your assertions are as internally inconsistent as your rules interpretation.

Now, I would really, really like this thread to die. This dead horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp. I totally understand how an individual who is not thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of the Armada ruleset could be confused about this effect. But the issue is settled. I would hope that if someone out there came to this site to find the correct answer to this question, they might avoid having to wade through 5 pages of argument and instead be greeted with a very clear answer of "Yes, other ships can die when Motti dies if they have damage cards equal to or exceeding their original, unmodified hull value". There is a right side and a wrong side to this argument. An errata can change that, but only an errata. And until then, arguing about this very much settled question is pointless and potentially misleading to people coming here looking for clarity.

I am, right this moment, very unhappy that I am only able to give you just one like for this post, Freefall.

And its intriguing that you make a point to dissuade mocking and "condescending derision", shortly after calling those who read the rules thoroughly a very derogative "neck-beards". Your assertions are as internally inconsistent as your rules interpretation.

I was quoting someone. Should I have changed that one word, perhaps. I also don't consider the world neckbeard to be that mean.

who fail to understand that rules interpretations do not hinge on their personal feelings about fluff or what is or is not "silly"

Because FFG is known for getting the first printing of a card exactly right every time? Have you looked at how much some cards have changed in the X-wing FAQ? Changing "silly" rules is a huge part of what they do with those. And yes ships blowing up though no action of their own, after not being attacked or having any abilities used on them, is exactly that.

Calling for an FAQ clarification is hardly peddling incorrect assumptions, nor trying to explain why people come to the conclusions that they do.

Have you looked at how much some cards have changed in the X-wing FAQ?

Over the lifespan of X-Wing 9 cards have been changed, and most of those are pretty minor changes. 9 out of several hundred upgrades isn't too bad.

And yes ships blowing up though no action of their own, after not being attacked or having any abilities used on them, is exactly that.

It's not like they've never been attacked. They may not of been attacked in the last few moments, but it's not like a ship in a sci-fi movie or real life for that matter hasn't been destroyed some time after the last time it was shot.

Critical systems failing which causes the reactor to overload can take several minutes in fact. If we accept that Motti is very good at encouraging his crews, then the loss of his leadership could very likely cause the repair crews to perform poorly, which could result in a ship suddenly blowing up, even though no one is shooting at it.

Of course they've had to errata things. But if you actually look at what was errata'd and why it is mostly because the Upgrade/Ability could not function within the rules as written. Or they issued an Errata to effect a change in the balance of a certain ship (Large Ship Barrel Roll or Cloak). You'd be hard pressed to find many errata issued because someone thought the RAW was silly.

What you would not be hard pressed to find are dozens of threads in which people argue against clear RAW solely because it doesn't work the way they want or expect only to be told by FFG, "Yes it works the way we worded it". You don't even have to go further then the Armada Forums for that, just look for threads about Openning Salvo.

I think the main reason that many of the posters on this thread have become (or seem to have at least) condensecing is because the question was answered and explains based on the rrg and even explains with fluff on page 1... It is now page 5

This also is not the first thread on the subject.