I try to find some information about this but i don´t find them.

Jainas Light "You can ignore the effects of overlapping obstacles. Your attacks cannot be obstructed."

Admiral Montferrat " While defending against a ship, if your speed is 3 or higher, the attack is treated as obstructed. After you execute a maneuver, if you overlapped a ship, discard this card."

My question is if always my attack with jainas to a ship with admiral is normal or is obstructed?

Thanks,

if a squadron with only 1 dice try to attack a ship with montferrat always fail?

To the second question, monterfat only applies to ships shooting.

To the first, using the xi7 faq as a guide, I would say lean toward jainas overriding. Ffg is leaning toward doing damage versus evasion of damage. But, those two cards could use a response from ffg

Under the Golden Rules (pg 1 of the Rules Reference) the word "cannot" is absolute so Jaina's attacks would never be obstructed.

Montferrat's ability only works on ships not squadrons.

Perfect, thanks

Jaina's Light would trump Montferrat

JL is the beast!

Pardon me while I whip out this wrench...

Specific wording on Monty: "While defending against a ship, if your speed is 3 or higher, the attack is treated as obstructed." (emphasis mine)

To me, that means it isn't technically an obstructed attack, but that whatever you would do to an obstructed attack, you do to this one.

The reason I find those two words compelling is because they run contrary to the general philosophy of saving space and using as few words on a card as possible. If the attack is actually obstructed, why not just have the text read "While defending against a ship, if your speed is 3 or higher, the attack is obstructed"? That would be consistent with the wording on Intel: "While an enemy squadron is at distance 1 on you, it has HEAVY " (emphasis from the card). Why go out of the way to add two additional, unnecessary words?

My interpretation of their inclusion is that they are a truncation of an implied "as if it were." My reading suggests that if there was infinite room on the card, the text would be: "While defending against a ship, if your speed is 3 or higher, the attack is treated as if it were obstructed."

Now, all this is not to say that my interpretation is the right one. Honestly, I wouldn't feel comfortable making a definitive call either way. However, I bring this up to illustrate that the rule isn't quite as clear-cut as the thread has thus far made it out to be.

I agree.

The wording you state is true - It is treated as if it is obstructed,

However, the golden rule says that cannot is absolute.

It cannot be obstructed. Wether its treated as obstructed, or is actually obstructed. It cannot be so. Ergo, it must not be so, even if it would be treated as such.

I feel this is a Mostly-Immovable Object versus an Irresistible Force.

It'll give in the end.

I think this argument comes down to, Montferrat's ship is (effectively) obstructed.

So how does Jaina's Light interact with an obstruction? She ignores it. I think this is more about Jaina's Light's interaction with obstruction, rather than the interaction between the two cards explicitly.

The wording you state is true - It is treated as if it is obstructed,

However, the golden rule says that cannot is absolute.

It cannot be obstructed. Wether its treated as obstructed, or is actually obstructed. It cannot be so. Ergo, it must not be so, even if it would be treated as such.

I feel this is a Mostly-Immovable Object versus an Irresistible Force.

It'll give in the end.

Ah ha, but, if the thing is never actually the thing, neither can it ever not be not that thing.

Or

If the attack is never actually obstructed, it's not breaking any rules by being obstructed.

To illustrate:

There are three facts we will assume as true:

1. It is illegal to wear the color red
2. Drasnighta hates the color red
3. LazorBeems is wearing a blue shirt.

The following happens:

1. LazorBeems tells Drasnighta to treat him as if he is wearing a red shirt
2. Drasnighta proclaims: "LazorBeems, you shirt is soooooo ugly. Blegh, gross, nasty."
3. LazorBeems is not in violation of the law because his shirt is, in fact, blue.

Regardless of Drasnighta's reaction, the color of the shirt never actually changes.

Regardless of how you treat the attack, if it's never actually obstructed, it's not violating any rules prohibiting obstruction.

The wording you state is true - It is treated as if it is obstructed,

However, the golden rule says that cannot is absolute.

It cannot be obstructed. Wether its treated as obstructed, or is actually obstructed. It cannot be so. Ergo, it must not be so, even if it would be treated as such.

I feel this is a Mostly-Immovable Object versus an Irresistible Force.

It'll give in the end.

Ah ha, but, if the thing is never actually the thing, neither can it ever not be not that thing.

Or

If the attack is never actually obstructed, it's not breaking any rules by being obstructed.

To illustrate:

There are three facts we will assume as true:

1. It is illegal to wear the color red
2. Drasnighta hates the color red
3. LazorBeems is wearing a blue shirt.

The following happens:

1. LazorBeems tells Drasnighta to treat him as if he is wearing a red shirt
2. Drasnighta proclaims: "LazorBeems, you shirt is soooooo ugly. Blegh, gross, nasty."
3. LazorBeems is not in violation of the law because his shirt is, in fact, blue.

Regardless of Drasnighta's reaction, the color of the shirt never actually changes.

Regardless of how you treat the attack, if it's never actually obstructed, it's not violating any rules prohibiting obstruction.

But by that context as well, if its only treated as obstructed, then its not really obstructed, and I do not implicitly have to apply the rules of obstruction at all ...

I think this is a case of Occam's Laser

But by that context as well, if its only treated as obstructed, then its not really obstructed, and I do not implicitly have to apply the rules of obstruction at all ...

I think this is a case of Occam's Laser

I would argue that you still must take action; the call to action is explicit in the card. Monty prescribes an action that must be take by the player (treat the attack as obstructed).

I mentioned earlier how I believe the action would be written if there were infinite room on the card, and while it made sense to the point I was making about hidden implicit language, I actually didn't quite go far enough in illustrating my overall point. So to be even clearer, if there were truly infinite room on the card, I would expect the full text to read:

"While defending against a ship, if your speed is 3 or higher, the attacker must choose and remove one die from his attack pool before he rolls dice during the 'Roll Attack Dice' step."

That would certainly not be in violation of Jaina's Light, as no where does it refer to the attack being obstructed, even though the outcomes are the same as if it were obstructed.

We know what obstructed does. An obstructed attack causes the attack to lose a die, and thus your attacks are less powerful. A designer wanted Monty to cause your opponent's attacks to be less powerful. Instead of having to completely define a new set of actions that must be taken, the designer can call upon our existing knowledge and instruct us to act the manner we would act if an attack were obstructed. This use of shorthand allows the designer to save a significant amount of space on the card, while reducing the confusion of adding new rules, and still achieving the desired result of weakened attacks. The card prescribes an action; it does not describe the game state.

PS - for all those watching at home, I would like to apologize for this ridiculous discussion of semantics. I agree with Dras that if FFG was to make an FAQ on this, the simpler explanation would almost certainly be the one they would go with. It's consistent to the change they walked back on XI-7s where they abandoned the complex in favor of common sense. It also fits the them of the universe with those scrappy Rebels being able to get away with shenanigans; try as they might, the big, hulking Empire can never quite entrap them (you might say the more they tighten their grasp, the more systems slip through their fingers). But if you can't be pedantic when discussing the minute rules of a miniatures game, when can you be?!

How is this a question again? Jaina's Light has " cannot be obstructed"

How is this a question again? Jaina's Light has " cannot be obstructed"

The question is: "Does Admiral Montferrat cause and unobstructed attack to become obstructed, or does it cause an unobstructed attack to behave as if it were obstructed without ever being obstructed?"

...It's disgustingly pedantic, I know.

Seems pretty simple. The attack is treated as obstructed and since Jaina'a Light ignores obstructions

It seems clear but I can totally imagine a rules lawyer saying "Oh but the attack isn't obstructed - its just TREATED like its obstructed."

In which case Jaina's Light still ignores it because it "cannot" be obstructed.

In which case Jaina's Light still ignores it because it "cannot" be obstructed.

"No, no you don't understand. The attack isn't obstructed."

"Jaina's Light couldn't be obstructed."

"This attack against the Admiral is TREATED like it's obstructed."

"That's different."

Look, I'm not saying that's the case. I think Jaina's trumps because of "cannot".

I'm just saying that I could see how someone would argue the other point.

You guys feel free to go around in circles


I ended my argument with Occam's Laser ...

This has been a Good Day .

In which case Jaina's Light still ignores it because it "cannot" be obstructed.

"No, no you don't understand. The attack isn't obstructed."

"Jaina's Light couldn't be obstructed."

"This attack against the Admiral is TREATED like it's obstructed."

"That's different."

Look, I'm not saying that's the case. I think Jaina's trumps because of "cannot".

I'm just saying that I could see how someone would argue the other point.

That's a bingo . The condition of "being treated as" or "as if" has not been directly defined, and it's used a number of places. It's probably least clear on Monty because it's not really necessary ("is obstructed" would suffice). Again, I personally think the attack would not be obstructed, but I cannot say for sure because there is some ambiguity to it. Until FFG says one way or the other, or defines what "treated as" means, we can't be 100%.

A hypothetical example of why this definition matters:

• Imagine there is a new Rebel commander that includes the text: "Squadrons cannot be activated by Squadron Commands." If you have both that commander and Han Solo in your list, could you use Han's unique ability? If the answer to JL/Monty is no it cannot be obstructed, then I would think Han would be unable to use his ability, which seems a bit odd.
• Now imagine that there's a commander that says: "Any squadron activated by a squadron command gains 2 extra blue dice while attacking a ship." Would Han get those extra dice when using his special ability? Again, if JL/Monty is no, then the answer here is yes, which seems right to me.
• The problem we have here is that one feels right and one feels wrong, but they must either both be right or both be wrong.

It still falls under "cannot".

Sure you attack, you are not obstructed, you cannot be treated as obstructed, or any variation of that.

Here is the issue with the argument. "Treated".

"Treated" is the issue because it is the word that tells you to go to the obstructed rule and follow what it. Once you start to follow it, Jaina's Light kicks it and ignores it

How do we "treat" an obstructed attack against Jainas Light? As if it was not obstructed yes?

Ergo, if we treat an attack as obstructed Jainas light will make it not obstructed. If not then we are not treating it as obstructed.

Final word:

Monty makes attack vs. his ship obstructed.

JL ignores obstructed.

That's all there is to say about that interaction.

Now move along, join the Academy, hang out in the Cantina, or whatever.