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.

(Im breaking the quote pyramid up a skosh.)

The quoted post you're getting all lathered up about is mine, so rather than ask the other user to defend my words, I'll make another attempt at clarification.

Yes, it does require additional passages, and no, it is not as simple as just saying "hey look, an upgrade card." (Seriously?) It requires one to confirm that a Fleet Commander is in fact considered an "upgrade card" (1.), followed by confirming that the benefits of upgrade cards end when the ship they are on is destroyed (2.), followed by confirming that a ship is considered "destroyed" the moment it's damage card total meets its hull value (3.), with the amusing side dish of, by the way, a ship is destroyed if it meets OR exceeds the damage total (4.) This requires cross-referencing 3-4 different lines in different sections of the rulebook to come to the conclusion that yes, Motti's excessively damaged fleet dies with him. Me personally, I needed to look up #3, as I was unsure if my previously mentioned theory of "delayed death trigger" would come into play: i.e., the ship needing one more damage card to "trigger" checking if it is, in fact, dead. (Rather than a dead ship... walking? floating?) It turns out in fact, that hull value checking is essentially immediate and does not require previously damaged ships to be damaged further.

Yes, this, to me, was counter-intuitive (as the OP laid out as his/her own opinion, of which they are entitled to) and required a thorough rules-checking to confirm my inquiry. Not everyone who plays this game sleeps with the RRG or lives on these forums. Try not to get so worked up about people asking a common question. Could they stand to use the search function a little more? Yeah, probably. People have been fighting that war since 1994, let me know if anything changes.

And yeah, I will mock your condescending derision, and your exessive use of italics that reads like you're just so burdened to talk down to us peasants, and any other highfalutin attempt at shouting down a healthy debate. The number of people who have been solely expressing their belief that Motti's effect persists beyond death has already been very small- most (as I am) are instead expressing dismay that RAW, Motti's effect runs contrary to what we feel is best. I'll go ahead and Tarkin this "dead horse" of a thread with this analogy: As an avid fan, I recognize that in the canon, Arvel Crynyd took out (via a sequence of events, yeah yeah) the Executor by crashing into it. As an avid fan, I also recognize that this does not pass my personal "smell test", as it does many others. I'm still allowed to enjoy Star Wars, and I'm still allowed to express this feeling. Theres no need to tirelessly belabor the point that Arvel did it, I get that. I just dont care for it.

Has that not been the entire life of this thread? One group, including the OP, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Motti's ability works within the current RAW system, and another group, who tirelessly berated the former because they werent interpreting the rules the way they should be?

As for facial hair, if the fedora fits...

And on a last note, since we're referring to the FAQ, was Most Wanted not completely cut & dry upon the Core release? "When attacking"? Other than raised eyebrows, everyone pretty much took it (correctly so, IMO) that Most Wanted applied to Squadrons as well as ships. The FAQ completely 180'd that and arbitrarily changed the meaning of the clause. So let's not pretend that there isn't a precedent. (FWIW, I dont believe Motti will be changed, but I'll still advocate for it regardless)

Honestly, I would be happy if they correct the discrepancy between the Damage and Destroyed section of the Rules reference guide.

One states the ships is immediately destroyed when the number of damage cards equals the hull value, whereas the second reference states a ship is destroyed when it equals or exceeds the hull value.

And while you may b**** and moan about RAW and RAI, what it comes down to is the rules STATE two different and conflicting requirements for destruction. If the damage section states the ship is IMMEDIATELY destroyed when the number of damage cards equals OR EXCEEDS the hull value, we wouldn't be still taking about it after 5 pages.

And finally for the folks that keep brig up how great FFG is and how they only had to errata 7 card in X Wing. FFG got the base size wrong for large ships in the rules reference guide. They make mistakes like everyone else. This is another example of this.

what it comes down to is the rules STATE two different and conflicting requirements for destruction.

How in the world are those conflicting? If A = B then C is not in conflict with if A => B then C. They both work exactly the same. Unless someone wants to argue that if a ship has more damage cards then hull it's not destroyed...

Demothostes, you bring up the change to Most Wanted but I think you are overstating what that change means.

Yes, in the case of Most Wanted we can clearly saw that the RAW did not do what the designers intended, so they errata'd. They did so without anyone even questioning it as you said. But we only know it ran counter to designer intent be a use they changed it. We only know thier intent was contrary to what was written because of hindsight.

You can't make the assumption that because occasionally RAW will be altered to bring it in line with designer intent that every aspect of the rules isn't as the designer intended. The rules can't function like that. For every errata there is ten clarifications that rules work as written .

It's chucking up a Hail Mary to say, you don't like a rule as written, so therefore the designers must not have intended to work that way. Occasionally you may be correct, but most of the time things are purposefully stated.

Yes, in the case of Most Wanted we can clearly saw that the RAW did not do what the designers intended, so they errata'd. They did so without anyone even questioning it as you said. But we only know it ran counter to designer intent be[c]ause they changed it. We only know thier intent was contrary to what was written because of hindsight.

You can't make the assumption that because occasionally RAW will be altered to bring it in line with designer intent that every aspect of the rules isn't as the designer intended. The rules can't function like that. For every errata there is ten clarifications that rules work as written .

It's chucking up a Hail Mary to say, you don't like a rule as written, so therefore the designers must not have intended to work that way. Occasionally you may be correct, but most of the time things are purposefully stated.

I'm not making that assumption, and I'm not chucking any Hail Marys. I was not the one to originally bring up the FAQ. If memory serves, it has been used several times in this thread to dismissively put down people who feel Motti's ability does not feel right. Something in the vein of "Keep thinking that, maybe FFG will change the FAQ to make you correct" ?

I'm simply raising the point that FFG is fully within their rights to do exactly that. For all we know, Most Wanted's original text MET their original intent, and only after the Core set hit did they realize that they had misjudged its effectiveness with Squadrons, and decided a change was for the best.

This is not such a stretch as to be called a Hail Mary.

what it comes down to is the rules STATE two different and conflicting requirements for destruction.

How in the world are those conflicting? If A = B then C is not in conflict with if A => B then C. They both work exactly the same. Unless someone wants to argue that if a ship has more damage cards then hull it's not destroyed...

Well, technically, the logical comparison is A=B and A=>B, which are clearly not the same logical tests. Therefore, we would need to resolve the dilemma posed by the death of Motti.

Option 1 - the RAW in the RRG for damage are incorrect, and the correct test is A=>B.

Option 2 - the death of Motti does not reduce the hull value of the ship after his death. This means a ship is only destroyed when A=B.

Now under option 2 you may ask, under which circumstances can a destroyed ship have more damage than its hull value. Quite simple, as it was explained a while ago on this forum: when the ship is overkilled you are supposed to keep drawing the damage cards until they equal the amount of hull damage received.

Demo, I tried to make the point earlier that just because you read the rules right immediately doesn't mean they couldn't be better clarified. Some posters aren't interested in hearing it, I would let it go. I will say you were more eloquent though.

To all, can we all please let this post die? No one could possibly still be confused about what happens. Either you think it could use and errata or not. Let's please let this die.

I was hoping to be done with this thread but Demethostes took the time to draft that reply, it would be rude to ignore him.

Yes, it does require additional passages, and no, it is not as simple as just saying "hey look, an upgrade card." (Seriously?) (cont...)

That's fair. Personally I didn't have any hang ups understanding the card, and I did not find the effect ending when the card carrying ship was destroyed much of a brain-teaser. It seemed like a natural occurrence and I was not bothered by it. The ship that is being destroyed as a result of Motti popping has to have already taken enough damage to kill it normally. It also forces the opposing player to focus your flagship to weaken your overall fleet, allowing you additional control over the battle based on flagship positioning, which I thought was a neat aspect. So I very quickly got past "how does it work" and on to "how can I make it work." Others may have had varying experiences and I can totally understand that.

Yes, this, to me, was counter-intuitive (as the OP laid out as his/her own opinion, of which they are entitled to) and required a thorough rules-checking to confirm my inquiry. Not everyone who plays this game sleeps with the RRG or lives on these forums. Try not to get so worked up about people asking a common question. Could they stand to use the search function a little more? Yeah, probably. People have been fighting that war since 1994, let me know if anything changes.

I can see how it would be counter-intuitive. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though I would add that when debating a topic an opinion matters very little if it opposes fact. I obviously don't take issue with people popping in to ask rules questions. Its just kind of old checking the forums everyday and seeing the latest iteration of the "Motti debate", generally made and supported by the same few people every couple days. Clearly rehashing a topic on an internet forum dedicated to star wars miniatures isn't that big of a deal, but its every mans duty to correct people who are wrong on the internet. Or so I've been told. I'm just trying to do my part.

And yeah, I will mock your condescending derision, and your exessive use of italics that reads like you're just so burdened to talk down to us peasants, and any other highfalutin attempt at shouting down a healthy debate. The number of people who have been solely expressing their belief that Motti's effect persists beyond death has already been very small- most (as I am) are instead expressing dismay that RAW, Motti's effect runs contrary to what we feel is best. I'll go ahead and Tarkin this "dead horse" of a thread with this analogy: As an avid fan, I recognize that in the canon, Arvel Crynyd took out (via a sequence of events, yeah yeah) the Executor by crashing into it. As an avid fan, I also recognize that this does not pass my personal "smell test", as it does many others. I'm still allowed to enjoy Star Wars, and I'm still allowed to express this feeling. Theres no need to tirelessly belabor the point that Arvel did it, I get that. I just dont care for it.

I could have been very condescending, I really thought I reined it in. The jedi-swayed brain was a second draft replacement for foolish minds. I mean I was really kid-gloving that post. The emphasis made through italics is an attempt to convey emotive gestures through the cold, sterile medium of forum text. If I were shouting down an internet debate, I would have used CAPS. I was trying to lull it to sleep with rules quotations and run on paragraphs. I feel like I want to put a smiley emoji here but you were pretty hostile in your reply and I don't want you thinking we're friends.

Has that not been the entire life of this thread? One group, including the OP, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Motti's ability works within the current RAW system, and another group, who tirelessly berated the former because they werent interpreting the rules the way they should be?

I don't think we were berating anyone, and if we were it wasn't because they were interpreting the rules in a way that we weren't. It was because they were interpreting the rules incorrectly. The fact we were interpreting them correctly was beside the point.

As for facial hair, if the fedora fits...

I sport a very fine Van Dyke, thank you very much.

And on a last note, since we're referring to the FAQ, was Most Wanted not completely cut & dry upon the Core release? "When attacking"? Other than raised eyebrows, everyone pretty much took it (correctly so, IMO) that Most Wanted applied to Squadrons as well as ships. The FAQ completely 180'd that and arbitrarily changed the meaning of the clause. So let's not pretend that there isn't a precedent. (FWIW, I dont believe Motti will be changed, but I'll still advocate for it regardless)

You are right about Most Wanted. That's why I've repeatedly stated that its pointless arguing until and if ever an Errata is released. They could totally errata the text and make it permanent, or more likely, they would clarify the existing text. Either way, we'd know. But until that day arrives, if ever it arrives, the cards effects end when Motti goes boom. That's my one point. Let us let this argument die, and if the errata comes and changes the text of this card, I'll dance with you all in the street because as an Imperial player it would be just that much sweeter.

My initial thought ofMotti was that his effect is permanent. I went on to read the Star Wars wiki entry on him and my take is that he has his way with words. Now I'm more inclined that Motti has his way with words and therefore "increase the morale and fighting spirit" of the men under him.

So while he is alive, he continues to inspire and raise morale of the ship. Rhis's reflected in the increased ship survivability aka thru the HP. With him gone, the men would start to panic and abandon their stations, therefore causing them to loose their ship

Well, technically, the logical comparison is A=B and A=>B, which are clearly not the same logical tests. Therefore, we would need to resolve the dilemma posed by the death of Motti.

Option 1 - the RAW in the RRG for damage are incorrect, and the correct test is A=>B.

Option 2 - the death of Motti does not reduce the hull value of the ship after his death. This means a ship is only destroyed when A=B.

Now under option 2 you may ask, under which circumstances can a destroyed ship have more damage than its hull value. Quite simple, as it was explained a while ago on this forum: when the ship is overkilled you are supposed to keep drawing the damage cards until they equal the amount of hull damage received.

I only bring it up because this does not deserve space in the official FAQ. The shorter the official FAQ and Errata are, the less cumbersome the rules will be.

He phrased it badly by using logical terms.

Actually I was thinking in programing terms.

If I code something like if A == B then do C, but that's often a bad way to code because something could cause A to be greater than B, but I still want C to happen either way.

So I write if A => B then do C, because in either case as soon as A is equal to B even if it exceeds B then C still happens. The only reason I wouldn't do that is if I wanted something else to happen if A was greater than B.

But in Armada like X-Wing there's only two cases for C, a ship is destroyed or it isn't. So there's no contradiction. As soon as a ship receives damage cards equal to it's hull it's set to a destroyed state. The fact that you deal additional damage cards even after that state is achieved doesn't change anything and most definitely does not create a conflict.

But none of this really has any impact on Motti, the only way it could is if someone were try to argue that if you deal hull + X cards to a ship, it doesn't actually get destroyed.

Sorry VandorDM. I should have targeted that to megamen since he was the one asking for an official rule clarification.

Sorry VandorDM.

No worries. I was thinking in terms of programing code, which can seldom seem logical to someone who doesn't know it.

Either way we're saying the same thing.

In a way he's right, A=B and A=>B is not the same thing, from a purely logical comparison stance. But the only way they have any effective difference is if the two comparisons have different outcomes.

In Javascript for example if a==b then c and if a>=b then c are effectively the same thing, and both will trigger the same way if you are careful about what value A can have. The only time those two expressions would be different is if you had something like if a==b then c else if a>b then d

In Armada there's only two possible states for a ship Alive or Dead with alive being the default state. As long as Damage Cards > Hull the ship is alive, if at any point Damage >= Hull the ship is set to the Destroyed state.

There is in theory a possible issue with this, if the destroyed state can only happen when Hull == Damage then if Damage > Hull there could be a 3rd state. But seeing how that 3rd state doesn't exist then the two comparisons are effectively the same, and there can be no conflict.

what it comes down to is the rules STATE two different and conflicting requirements for destruction.

How in the world are those conflicting? If A = B then C is not in conflict with if A => B then C. They both work exactly the same. Unless someone wants to argue that if a ship has more damage cards then hull it's not destroyed...

Well, technically, the logical comparison is A=B and A=>B, which are clearly not the same logical tests. Therefore, we would need to resolve the dilemma posed by the death of Motti.

Option 1 - the RAW in the RRG for damage are incorrect, and the correct test is A=>B.

Option 2 - the death of Motti does not reduce the hull value of the ship after his death. This means a ship is only destroyed when A=B.

Mathematical, if A is equals and B is equals or exceeds, than A is a subset of B. There is no conflict in the rules anyhow, as the one rule reference states it is destroyed, if A happens. The other says, it is destroyed if A and B\A happens (or simply put, B happens). As none are saying, it is only detstroyed, if..., there is no conflict. Imagine, there will be an expansion with a small rulebook regarding the deathstar and the deathstar has an effact of destroy one rebel capital ship per turn - would this go against the RRG because it gives another destroying effect aside from the FFG? No, as the destruction effects in the RRG are not formulated as exclusive. They simply state: If this happens, that happens.

Okay guys, hopefully I have the answer that settles this.

I was at the FFG wave 1 tournament on Tuesday. I asked the TO who has been play testing Armada since before release if Motti's effect was permanent or went away when he dies. His answer: The effect goes away. Therefore, any ships with one hull left would also die.

If you are in a tournament - ask a TO before the match starts.

4WIW - I think when he dies the ships lose the extra hull points and potentially get destroyed.

How the hell did this turn in to six pages ?

The answer is blatantly obvious. Time for the mods to shut this one down.

How the hell did this turn in to six pages?

Sgt. Buzzkill reporting for duty I see?

How the hell did this turn in to six pages ?

The answer is blatantly obvious. Time for the mods to shut this one down.

Obviously it is not all that obvious to some.

If you're sick of the thread I'm pretty sure you're allowed to just not click on it anymore.

Tru dat!

Someone on the UK facebook page emailed FFG...

This is the response I got from ffg.

When the ship equipped with Motti is destroyed, Motti's effect is no longer active. If that reduction in hull value causes a ship to now have damage equal to its hull value, that ship is destroyed.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

7 pages to be told, "Yes it works how the rules say it does".

7 pages to be told, "Yes it works how the rules say it does".

Not like it's the first time that's happened.

indeed

we've had that over in the Warlord thread too, though whether or not it worked against all squadrons or not (confusion on the terminology of "attacking" and whether or not the anti-squadron barrage was a single attack or multiple attacks) was imo a legit query

so far, we know

*Motti works as he was written to work

*there is no double hit symbol, just a side with two hit icons, so Warlord works as it was written to work

*h9s and warlord can be combined against every squadron in range and arc to guarantee one damage

put them all together and you get a monster of a VSD