X17 Turbolasers states that a defender using a Redirect token cannot suffer "more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending zone"

Advanced Projectors states that "When you resolve the redirect token effect, you can choose more than one hull zone to suffer damage, which may include a nonadjacent hull zone"

So could a ship with Advanced Projectors targetted by ship with X17's redirect its damage to up to 3 adjacent hull zones, at a maximum of 1 damage each, for a grand total of 3 redirected? Or does the X17 supersede this and only allow no more than "1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone." For a grand total of 1 redirected.

Despite being a native speaker, I'm struggling with the subtleties of the wording.

X17 seems to be written acknowledging the existence of AP's, so I'm inclined to say AP has the upper hand here, but I still wanted to get a consensus.

Thanks

No.

FFG specifically state that when something states cannot, it trumps anything else that says can.

The X-17 says, "When attacking if the defender spends a (redirect) token, it cannot suffer more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone ."

So the damage across hull zones other than the defending one, cannot be more than one.

The only thing that advanced projectors would let you do is take that 1 damage on a non-adjacent facing.

Which makes the X-17's even more valuable and even more annoying that they are only in the frigate pack!

It depends on how you read it , can you have more than 2 adjacent hull zones? Either way, the way I read it, you could redirect 1 damage to each adjacent hull zone.

You always have 2 adjacent haul zones.

But The Turbo lasers use "cannot" which trumps all else.

Lasers tump projectors in this case.

It depends on how you read it , can you have more than 2 adjacent hull zones? Either way, the way I read it, you could redirect 1 damage to each adjacent hull zone.

Its not about the adjacentness of hull zones, its about the fact that the damage that is not on the defending hull zone cannot be more than one.

It depends on how you read it , can you have more than 2 adjacent hull zones? Either way, the way I read it, you could redirect 1 damage to each adjacent hull zone.

You may need to read it to begin with, because it doesn't say what you think it does

Thanks, the "cannot" wording helps clarify this quite a bit.

My biggest hangup honestly was on the total damage amount...: "1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone."

Are we talking 1 damage on other hull zones TOTAL, or 1 damage on EACH other hull zone(s)? (for 3 damage total)

I think the wording "zones other than the defending" makes it pretty clear that it's saying all damage that isn't on the defending zone cannot be more than one. If it said" A hull zone other than", it would be open to interpretation to argue 1 on each zone.

This one can easily be argued either way. Is there an appropriate way for me to ask for official clarification other than simply throwing things into this thread?

This one can easily be argued either way. Is there an appropriate way for me to ask for official clarification other than simply throwing things into this thread?

I really don't see how - it seems quite clear to me. But to answer your question: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

What are you actually finding unclear in this matter?

The phrase "hull zones" can be read either severaly or individualy.

If read as "individualy," if I suffer 1 damage to each of the other three hull zones, no zone has suffered more than 1 damage. Hull zones that are not the target zone have not suffered more than one damage.

OTOH, if read as "severaly," if I suffer 1 damage to each of the other three hull zones, the total damage done is 3. Hull zones that are not the target zone have suffered more than one damage.

I'm honestly not sure which is intended, but I'm leaning slightly twords "severaly."

The wording is crystal clear. It's only 1 point redirected, period. Only benefit of projectors is you can go non-adjacent.

I can somewhat see how this can be a little confusing, but I have to agree with the others that X17 overrides AP.

X17 limits the amount of damage that can be redirected to 1 (not per hull zone, just 1 damage can be moved). AP will still allow you to choose any hull zone, but you would only be able to choose 1 hull zone to take 1 damage, the rest will be applied to the defending hull zone.

For it to interact with Advanced Projects in the way certain posters are suggesting the Turbolaser would have to read "cannot suffer more then one damage on each hullzone other then the defending hullzone" or you could swap each for any.

But as it is worded it does not function in that manner as the wording restricts not how much damage the non-defending hullzone may have transfered to it, but simply the total damage transfered away from the defending hullzone.

I think the wording can be unclear, and could be interpreted in a couple ways. This would not be the first case of less than ideal wordage...

Both cards are six points, so should be roughly the same power. I see the X17 Turbolasers a great deal more often than the Advanced Projectors, which suggests to me either the lasers are just too awesome to not include, or the AP is maybe too expensive. But in any case, my thinking on the question:

While attacking, if the defender spends a [REDIRECT] token, it cannot suffer more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone.

When you resolve the [REDIRECT] token effect, you can choose more than one hull zone to suffer damage, which may include a nonadjacent hull zone.

Both these effects can exist together, and considering how rare the APs seem to be, perhaps giving them the benefit of the doubt in this case is not unwarranted. APs clearly allow a defender to Redirect any amount of damage to any number of hull zones under normal circumstances. If hit by nine points of damage on the nose, a Victory– class Star Destroyer could Redirect three to the port side, three to the starboard, one to the rear, and then take two to the front. That's a potential lifesaver, and not just when getting hit by the Really Big Guns. This is an especially useful upgrade for the Assault Frigates, since they could circle their targets and use the APs to Redirect damage to their opposite side hull zones, furthest away from the prey (and the presumable return fire).

The X17 Turbolaser suggests to me that any damage that is Redirected can not be more than one point to the selected hull zone. It does not say you cannot Redirect to more than one zone, but it could be interpreted that way, sure. Since you normally cannot Redirect to more than one hull zone anyway, all that extra text seems rather superfluous — why is it there? I believe it is there because, as the original poster suggested, the X17s acknowledge the existence of APs (or possible future upgrades along those lines).

If the X17 upgrade meant to restrict any and all Redirect actions to only one instance of one point of damage in total, the card text would be much better worded as:

"While attacking, if the defender spends a [REDIRECT] token, it cannot Redirect more than 1 point of damage."

That wording is very clear and would be unambiguous — spend a Redirect token and you only Redirect one point of damage.

But that's not the wording we have. Which makes me think that while both interpretations seem to be valid, I lean more towards AP allowing multiple Redirects of only one point of damage when being hit by X17 Turbolaser fire.

While attacking, if the defender spends a [REDIRECT] token, it cannot suffer more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone.

If you allow each hull zone to take one damage then you have taken 3 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone which clearly isn't allowed.

For it to interact with Advanced Projects in the way certain posters are suggesting the Turbolaser would have to read "cannot suffer more then one damage on each hullzone other then the defending hullzone" or you could swap each for any.

But as it is worded it does not function in that manner as the wording restricts not how much damage the non-defending hullzone may have transfered to it, but simply the total damage transfered away from the defending hullzone.

I'm in agreement with Scottie, it would have be worded something like that if it was going to work as some people are suggesting.

Send a question to FFG.

I think the wording is pretty clear, but on the off chance that FFG intended the card to work differently, you could get another answer.

Would make Projectors into a much more useful card.

Another example of invented ambiguity.

As Gibbobobo just highlighted, if you are Redirecting 1 damage each to 3 different hullzone then you are certainly suffering more then 1 damage on hullzone that are not the defending hullzone. That is exactly, and explicitly what the Turbolaser upgrade in question says you can not do. You can't move your interpretation past that issue, thus your interpretation is not valid.

You are suffering 1 damage on each hull zone that is not the original hull zone. So you are not suffering more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone. You are suffering one damage on hull zones that are not the defending hull zone.

I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation. I'm saying it's one way or the other, and the ruling will make one clearly the counter of the other.

As people have said, you're seeing XI7 Turbolasers everywhere. Ruling that XI7 trumps Advanced Projectors won't hurt my feelings, it'll just make certain that I never take Advanced Projectors.

And if the Turbolaser upgrade said "each" or "any" or even "a" then that interpretation would be correct. But it doesn't say any of those things and instead specifically limits the total damage taken to hullzones that aren't the defending hullzone to 1.

By saying "hullzones" instead of "each hullzone", "any hullzone", or "a hullzone the Turbolaser upgrade is forcing you to look at the total damage taken by other hullzones and limiting that to one as opposed to limiting the amount an individual hullzone can take.

If FFG wants that to work differently then then are going to need to errata the Turbolaser upgrade to one of the three different wordings highlighted above.

While attacking, if the defender spends a [REDIRECT] token, it cannot suffer more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone.

If you allow each hull zone to take one damage then you have taken 3 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone which clearly isn't allowed.

It is clearly not allowed to suffer more than one damage to a hull zone other than the defending zone — on this I think everyone agrees.

However, it does not clearly say that you cannot Redirect to more than one hull zone (suffering only one damage per non– defending zone). The card only says you may not suffer more than one damage to non– defending hull zones — it does not explicitly say that the total of all Redirected damage cannot exceed one point.

"Hull zones" is plural, and standard, normal English grammar allows for more than one interpretation of this card's text. As I mentioned in another post, there is far more clear and concise language available that the game devs could have used to make the point. They didn't, which makes me think it is possible that Advanced Projectors is the one currently available mitigating counter to the awesome and omnipresent power of the X17 Turbolasers (seriously, I see these upgrades every battle, on every ship my opponent can mount them — on the other hand, I don't think anyone has used Advanced Projectors...).

Cannot. More than 1.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Getting tired of watching this. I have sent the question to FFG's rules questions contact. When I get an answer I will post it here.

While attacking, if the defender spends a [REDIRECT] token, it cannot suffer more than 1 damage on hull zones other than the defending hull zone.

To me thus means if a AFII gets hit on yte nose with 6 dmg. And no AP upgrade. It can redirect only one point to a side shield.

However with AP card it can send 1 point to each of the other three zone. As the card and lasers only stop you from applying more then one dmg to the other three zones. So the AF looses one shield on the ledt right and aft arcs. And 3 on the front. Still effective