Hi all,
Now i saw this question being asked in the XI7 vs Advanced Projector's thread but no one really answered it or i can't the answer to it anywhere.
So with the new ruling for XI7s on how they interact with Advanced Projectors, how does it work with Foresight using redirect? Would it be the same as Advanced Projectors that XI7s only allow 1 hull zone to be redirected with 1 dmg suffered and the rest go to the defending hull zone?
It's been pretty finalized that XI7's "CANNOT" overrules any allowances that either upgrades or titles have.
The defender CANNOT suffer more than one damage on zones other than the defending hull zone.
Sure, with foresight, they can still select an additional hull zone, but they can't suffer more than one damage on either the first or the second selected hull zone, so it's effectively nullified.
Yep, in the rules FFG specifically states that "cannot" is a trump word of sorts, it overrules anything that says you can do something. Which is why the XI7 ruling vs advanced projectors makes sense (as opposed to the initial answer which didnt really). So in this case, Foresight says when redirecting you may essentially redirect to both adjacent zones, but then XI7 trumps that to say you "cannot" have more than one damage that isnt on the defending zone.
cheers just making sure before facing / using foresight!
It's not the cannot that is in question.
It is FFG choosing to use the ambiguity of the cards as they choose.
Currently you only get to move 1 damage to 1 hull zone. This may change in the future.
Yep, in the rules FFG specifically states that "cannot" is a trump word of sorts, it overrules anything that says you can do something. Which is why the XI7 ruling vs advanced projectors makes sense (as opposed to the initial answer which didnt really). So in this case, Foresight says when redirecting you may essentially redirect to both adjacent zones, but then XI7 trumps that to say you "cannot" have more than one damage that isnt on the defending zone.
As far as I could tell and based on one of the games designers initial ruling (james kniffen), the issue wasn't about the word can not, but rather about damage in each hull zone.
The wording was such that it wasn't clear if the total damage was only 1 in another hull zone or if it was total damage per hull zone that mattered.
They made their change to the initial rulling, as kniffen wrote, "Also, we’ve made a ruling on the interaction between XI7 Turbolasers and Advanced Projectors, opting to favor the turbolasers over the powerful defensive retrofit in the interests of future game balance ." Thus the issue wasn't about the word cannot, but rather due to balance.
As for the OP's question, i think it would follow the xi7/ap's new ruling.
Edited by Reiryc
As far as I could tell and based on one of the games designers initial ruling (james kniffen), the issue wasn't about the word can not, but rather about damage in each hull zone.
The wording was such that it wasn't clear if the total damage was only 1 in another hull zone or if it was total damage per hull zone that mattered.
Gah, this, so much! This "can" vs "cannot" argument somehow picked up steam in the XI7 vs AP threads, and now I keep seeing people bring it up on other completely irrelevant topics. Somebody brought it up earlier in the "slaved turrets when attacking squadrons" thread. It really needs to stop being shorthand for "I'm right and you're wrong." Take a minute and think about WHAT the card is saying "cannot" about, and recognize that it's possible to have ambiguity in a card that happens to also contain the word "cannot".
The XI7 vs AP argument isnt ambigious at all, the only thing that made it so was a small number of people who argued the other way, which then was backed up by FFG, throwing the rest of the community into confusion and making the card reading seem very ambiguous. Now that its clarified that it is actually the way that most people were reading it then there isnt any confusion.