Do we think the XI7 is going to negate Foresight the way it does with Advanced projectors?

The wording on Foresight is a lot more specific.

"When you resolve the (evade) defense effect, you can affect 1 additional die. When you resolve the (redirect) defense effect, you can choose 1 additional adjacent hull zone to suffer damage "

Projectors: "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."

versus

""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.""

the wording of Foresight and projectors are very similar, so I doubt the title will work around x17s

reading the wording now, I understand why FFG had it originally ruled that projectors could spread it out to 1 damage to each hullzone. But hey, rulings are rulings

Yes, it affects it in exactly the same way.

They should have worded it like this.

""While attacking, if the defender spends a (redirect) token, it cannot redirect more than 1 damage in total to the remaining 3 hull zones""

More importantly, have we worked out if it is Ecks Seventeen, or Ecks Eye Seven?

Lol Xi7.

All of the Lasers have alphabetical lettering then a numerical

Hopefully you're joking (stupid internet and lack of tone), but .....we have indeed worked it out, because the letters are on the card. It says XI7. It doesn't say X17. The 1 in that font does not look like an uppercase I.

Furthermore, they have existed since waaaay before the card, and it has always been XI7.

Of course, you're all missing the real joke, which is that you're placing a 7-11 on your ship.

Better than a Cuisinart!

7-11, Cuisinart, I don't care as long as we secure all animals in the zoo!

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

ಠ_ಠ

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

According to the cards, as written, you can redirect 1 damage to each of 3 different shields. That's english. What happened in the latest FAQ is what we call a NERF or rules change.

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

According to the cards, as written, you can redirect 1 damage to each of 3 different shields. That's english. What happened in the latest FAQ is what we call a NERF or rules change.

Actually, the wording is ambiguous, allowing for either interpretation to be considered true.

This is simple fact, and the reason for the ruling in the first place.

I don't like that they flip flopped on the ruling, but the fact remains that XI7 was poorly worded from the outset.

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

"Can" and "Cannot" were never in question. It was the term "Hull zones"

Ahhh, yes, I see that now. Sorry, I had a brief attack of NotReadingWhatsActuallyWritten-itis.

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

According to the cards, as written, you can redirect 1 damage to each of 3 different shields. That's english. What happened in the latest FAQ is what we call a NERF or rules change.

Actually, the wording is ambiguous, allowing for either interpretation to be considered true.

This is simple fact, and the reason for the ruling in the first place.

I don't like that they flip flopped on the ruling, but the fact remains that XI7 was poorly worded from the outset.

Second place.

Didn't someone point out in the RRG that "cannot" trumps "can"?

"Can" and "Cannot" were never in question. It was the term "Hull zones"

Ahhh, yes, I see that now. Sorry, I had a brief attack of NotReadingWhatsActuallyWritten-itis.