Out of interest: Plasma torps remove an extra shield. So if they dealt two damage and then ability triggers, does the reinforced deflector kick in or not?

You don't get a shield back. The attack itself only did 2 damage. The third damage came from a card ability.

"After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack regain a shield"

Surely resolving the effect of plasma torpedo (removing shield) still counts as part of the attack , this means you have suffered 3 damage and so should trigger the deflectors.

plasma torpedo is resolved: If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender.

the "after dealing damage" is merely there so that you can't use its special ability to remove a shield all the time, before applying the damage you rolled.

deflectors: After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

Now that the attack has resolved, the shield you lost for the special ability of the torpedo is still suffered damage from your point of view. no reason why it isn't.

If you want to argue that the deflector and torpedo can intermix, then you'd be able to do this (which I think is wrong):

suffer 3 damage and 1 crit (4 total) from any attack. I suffer 3 damage, recover 1 shield and use it to take the crit on my recovered shield.

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

adv. homing missiles deal a faceup card. are we saying this doesn't count as dealing damage? I think removing a shield token is damage. that wording on the torpedoes was just easier than saying "deal one damage that can only be applied to a shield".

plasma torpedo is resolved: If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender.

the "after dealing damage" is merely there so that you can't use its special ability to remove a shield all the time, before applying the damage you rolled.

deflectors: After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

Now that the attack has resolved, the shield you lost for the special ability of the torpedo is still suffered damage from your point of view. no reason why it isn't.

If you want to argue that the deflector and torpedo can intermix, then you'd be able to do this (which I think is wrong):

suffer 3 damage and 1 crit (4 total) from any attack. I suffer 3 damage, recover 1 shield and use it to take the crit on my recovered shield.

nope. after the attack includes dealing the damage cards, you eat that crit card and THEN cover the flesh wound with a shield token.

shield lost due to torp ability is no damage, because the definition of damage is amount of unsaved boom and kablam results.

plasma torpedo is resolved: If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender.

the "after dealing damage" is merely there so that you can't use its special ability to remove a shield all the time, before applying the damage you rolled.

deflectors: After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

Now that the attack has resolved, the shield you lost for the special ability of the torpedo is still suffered damage from your point of view. no reason why it isn't.

If you want to argue that the deflector and torpedo can intermix, then you'd be able to do this (which I think is wrong):

suffer 3 damage and 1 crit (4 total) from any attack. I suffer 3 damage, recover 1 shield and use it to take the crit on my recovered shield.

nope. after the attack includes dealing the damage cards, you yeat that crit card and THEN cover the flesh wound with a shield token.

shield lost due to torp ability is no damage, because the definition of damage is amount of unsaved boom and kablam results.

that's not correct because, for example, asteroids can deal damage, and antipursuit lasers and bombs can deal damage, and they all have nothing to do with attacks and defence dice rolled. I think paying close attention to the wording of rules is a good thing but to argue that removing a shield token is not dealing damage is a little excessive. I think it's just common sense that if you lose shield you suffered damage. if somebody tried to pull that on me at a tournament I'd consider them trying to rule-lawyer their way into an advantage.

"7. Deal Damage: If the defender was hit, it suffers one damage for each uncanceled [hit] result and one critical damage for each uncanceled [crit] result."

Then:

"If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender"

and

"After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

both try to happen.

Both of them happen after dealing damage in step 7. Plasma does not deal any more damage, and Deflectors reference damage, which is what happens in step 7 of the attack. Since they're both happening in the same window (after damage), they go in initiative order, potentially regenerating a shield for the Torpedo to eat if the Ghost has initiative.

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

adv. homing missiles deal a faceup card. are we saying this doesn't count as dealing damage? I think removing a shield token is damage. that wording on the torpedoes was just easier than saying "deal one damage that can only be applied to a shield".

That just made me think... Say you get hit with a AHM, that deals you a Major Explosion. You roll and get a direct hit. You've now suffered 3 damage from an attack. Reinforced Deflectors should proc shouldn't they?

Wow... The more and more cards we get the more obscure interactions.

My question is do u recover the shield be for or after the torps second effect takes place od removing the shield token?

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

adv. homing missiles deal a faceup card. are we saying this doesn't count as dealing damage? I think removing a shield token is damage. that wording on the torpedoes was just easier than saying "deal one damage that can only be applied to a shield".

That just made me think... Say you get hit with a AHM, that deals you a Major Explosion. You roll and get a direct hit. You've now suffered 3 damage from an attack. Reinforced Deflectors should proc shouldn't they?

Wow... The more and more cards we get the more obscure interactions.

I think yes, you suffered a total of 3 damage so you recover a shield. however, the people above might say no, just because : )

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

adv. homing missiles deal a faceup card. are we saying this doesn't count as dealing damage?

Correct. that doesn't count as dealing damage because the RRG says "If an effect instructs a player to deal a Damage card to a ship, this is different from the ship suffering damage."

"7. Deal Damage: If the defender was hit, it suffers one damage for each uncanceled [hit] result and one critical damage for each uncanceled [crit] result."

Then:

"If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender"

and

"After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

both try to happen.

Both of them happen after dealing damage in step 7. Plasma does not deal any more damage, and Deflectors reference damage, which is what happens in step 7 of the attack. Since they're both happening in the same window (after damage), they go in initiative order, potentially regenerating a shield for the Torpedo to eat if the Ghost has initiative.

when you remove the shield token, it's the same as if the card said "deal an additional damage to the shield only"

Out of interest: Plasma torps remove an extra shield. So if they dealt two damage and then ability triggers, does the reinforced deflector kick in or not?

You don't get a shield back. The attack itself only did 2 damage. The third damage came from a card ability.

I am pretty sure that resolving card effects from an secondary attack is still part of the attack. At what timing else should I resolve that card? It should be within the attack phase, after you deal damage, before something else starts. At least that would be my interpretation, but I am open to evidence which suggest otherwise. If the extra card damage should be dealt after the attack, it would have said so imo instead of after dealing damage.

The 'remove an extra shield' part of plasma torpedoes is not damage, it is a side effect of the card.

You remove a shield when you suffer damage and have shields, but the act of removing a shield does not constitute damage in and of itself and can be caused by other card effects (i.e. plasma torpedoes).

"7. Deal Damage: If the defender was hit, it suffers one damage for each uncanceled [hit] result and one critical damage for each uncanceled [crit] result."

Then:

"If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender"

and

"After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

both try to happen.

Both of them happen after dealing damage in step 7. Plasma does not deal any more damage, and Deflectors reference damage, which is what happens in step 7 of the attack. Since they're both happening in the same window (after damage), they go in initiative order, potentially regenerating a shield for the Torpedo to eat if the Ghost has initiative.

when you remove the shield token, it's the same as if the card said "deal an additional damage to the shield only"

That's not what the card says. If it said "if the target has any shields remaining, do 1 damage" you would have a point.

plasma torpedo is resolved: If this attack hits, after dealing damage, remove 1 shield token from the defender.

the "after dealing damage" is merely there so that you can't use its special ability to remove a shield all the time, before applying the damage you rolled.

deflectors: After you suffer 3 or more damage from an attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

Now that the attack has resolved, the shield you lost for the special ability of the torpedo is still suffered damage from your point of view. no reason why it isn't.

If you want to argue that the deflector and torpedo can intermix, then you'd be able to do this (which I think is wrong):

suffer 3 damage and 1 crit (4 total) from any attack. I suffer 3 damage, recover 1 shield and use it to take the crit on my recovered shield.

nope. after the attack includes dealing the damage cards, you yeat that crit card and THEN cover the flesh wound with a shield token.

shield lost due to torp ability is no damage, because the definition of damage is amount of unsaved boom and kablam results.

that's not correct because, for example, asteroids can deal damage, and antipursuit lasers and bombs can deal damage, and they all have nothing to do with attacks and defence dice rolled. I think paying close attention to the wording of rules is a good thing but to argue that removing a shield token is not dealing damage is a little excessive. I think it's just common sense that if you lose shield you suffered damage. if somebody tried to pull that on me at a tournament I'd consider them trying to rule-lawyer their way into an advantage.

you SUFFER damage. same for vaders, oicunns, prox mines and so forth.

but it's no attack. it's effect.

that's why deflector card explicitly speaks of suffering damage during attack. card effect resolves after the attack deals damage, what means stripping shield tokens and then dealing out damage cards for each unsaved hit\crit result.

plasma torp is card effect. exactly as you're not using vader before all damage is dealt

okay, time for some sequencing...

plasma torp triggers "after dealing damage"

deflectors trigger "after you suffer damage"

so both trigger the same moment

in case two or more effects are triggered the same moment in time, initiative takes effect.

so in case attacker has it, plasma torp goes "woop" and does nothing, because of no more shields left

in case defender has,m deflectors trigger first and the shield then gets stripped away.

THEN the attack is resolved, and you throw out tactician stress, and choose to vader-choke or not to vader-choke.

Plasma torps secondary effect doesn't do damage. It removes a shield token.

Good point.

edit:

Not 100% convinced, but still it is a good point.

adv. homing missiles deal a faceup card. are we saying this doesn't count as dealing damage?

Correct. that doesn't count as dealing damage because the RRG says "If an effect instructs a player to deal a Damage card to a ship, this is different from the ship suffering damage."

you have to take that comment into context:

"if an effect instructs a player to deal a Damage card to a ship, this is different from the ship suffering damage. The card is dealt to the ship regardless of whether the ship has any shield tokens remaining."

all it's saying is that dealing a damage card bypasses the shield, while when suffering damage it is normally applied to the shield. that doesn't mean that receiving a damage card doesn't count as suffering damage.

Wasn't aware Reinforced Deflectors needed fixing. Struck me as an appropriately costed systems upgrade for what it does.

Warpman sold it to me on this:

"plasma torp triggers "after dealing damage"

deflectors trigger "after you suffer damage"

so both trigger the same moment

in case two or more effects are triggered the same moment in time, initiative takes effect.

so in case attacker has it, plasma torp goes "woop" and does nothing, because of no more shields left

in case defender has,m deflectors trigger first and the shield then gets stripped away."

Sounds pretty spot on.

What is the issue with Reinforced Deflectors again?

Only 2 ships can take them: The Lambda Shuttle and the VCX.

What is the issue with Reinforced Deflectors again?

Only 2 ships can take them: The Lambda Shuttle and the VCX.

Crab bro looks surprised, then looks at the card and laughs in binary, hugging his Sensors and FCSes

Warpman sold it to me on this:

"plasma torp triggers "after dealing damage"

deflectors trigger "after you suffer damage"

so both trigger the same moment

in case two or more effects are triggered the same moment in time, initiative takes effect.

so in case attacker has it, plasma torp goes "woop" and does nothing, because of no more shields left

in case defender has,m deflectors trigger first and the shield then gets stripped away."

Sounds pretty spot on.

that only makes superficial sense, because then you can just argue that "after dealing damage" occurs after you deal the 1st hit, so then you can apply the torpedo to remove a shield, and then you deal the remaining hits. the card does not deny this weird interpretation.

similarly, you can just say "after suffering damage" occurs after you suffer the first 3 hits, then you recover a shield and you take the remaining damage.

the cards only make sense if you apply them with simple common sense without trying to read the language like a lawyer would. the torpedo card resolves all its effects, then you have suffered a total damage (including losing an extra shield) and you can apply your deflector.

What is the issue with Reinforced Deflectors again?

Only 2 ships can take them: The Lambda Shuttle and the VCX.

Crab bro looks surprised, then looks at the card and laughs in binary, hugging his Sensors and FCSes

Exactly, only 2 ships because bro bots won't be caught dead with them. Even A says no!

Warpman sold it to me on this:

"plasma torp triggers "after dealing damage"

deflectors trigger "after you suffer damage"

so both trigger the same moment

in case two or more effects are triggered the same moment in time, initiative takes effect.

so in case attacker has it, plasma torp goes "woop" and does nothing, because of no more shields left

in case defender has,m deflectors trigger first and the shield then gets stripped away."

Sounds pretty spot on.

that only makes superficial sense, because then you can just argue that "after dealing damage" occurs after you deal the 1st hit, so then you can apply the torpedo to remove a shield, and then you deal the remaining hits. the card does not deny this weird interpretation.

similarly, you can just say "after suffering damage" occurs after you suffer the first 3 hits, then you recover a shield and you take the remaining damage.

the cards only make sense if you apply them with simple common sense without trying to read the language like a lawyer would. the torpedo card resolves all its effects, then you have suffered a total damage (including losing an extra shield) and you can apply your deflector.

No, you can not, because when to resolve that damage is very clearly defined. You suffer damage, when you actually get damage and you get it all in the sevenths step of the combat phase ("Deal damage") unless the card or effect says otherwise, which it does in this case.

Warpman sold it to me on this:

"plasma torp triggers "after dealing damage"

deflectors trigger "after you suffer damage"

so both trigger the same moment

in case two or more effects are triggered the same moment in time, initiative takes effect.

so in case attacker has it, plasma torp goes "woop" and does nothing, because of no more shields left

in case defender has,m deflectors trigger first and the shield then gets stripped away."

Sounds pretty spot on.

that only makes superficial sense, because then you can just argue that "after dealing damage" occurs after you deal the 1st hit, so then you can apply the torpedo to remove a shield, and then you deal the remaining hits. the card does not deny this weird interpretation.

similarly, you can just say "after suffering damage" occurs after you suffer the first 3 hits, then you recover a shield and you take the remaining damage.

the cards only make sense if you apply them with simple common sense without trying to read the language like a lawyer would. the torpedo card resolves all its effects, then you have suffered a total damage (including losing an extra shield) and you can apply your deflector.

no, we don't "just say" things. There's a book. with rules.

read this. then come back.

you guys make no sense, because you're rule lawyering. you have to read the rules with some common sense and context.

for example step 7 of the combat phase says "All damage must be suffered before any critical damage may be suffered." a lawyer would tear this apart, because "all damage" "before any critical damage" implies that critical damage is not part of all damage. just nonsense. it's clear what the writer intended, if you don't start reading in a pedantic and purely literal sense.