To me, it seems clear that the intent is for two distinct/separate critical effects.

The example given says that it's possible to give three face up damage cards in an attack, using XX9 and FCT. THAT IS THE INTENT. Clearly there is some ambiguity due to the wording of XX9 being written when only one critical was possible.

Also the rules relating to an attack, were written with only one crit in mind, so they should be modified to account for two critical effects.

So I'm going with 3 face up, until the FAQ says otherwise.

I think it's safe to assume the Intent was that the crits would stack and until faq'd that's how I would treat it

Of course it's possible they faq it the other way but I just don't see it happening

I think we're all generally in agreement as to what the intent is, with a few minor edge-case exceptions, but i would venture to guess that that's largely a result of our experience with the game and the rulings history of FFG. I don't think a naive reading of the rules will necessarily get you to that conclusion.

The problem is, "I'm pretty sure that's what the designers meant" is not enough to go on when I'm trying to explain to somebody on tournament day why he can't deal his ACM cards face up. So, while I do think that, yes, the crit effect is not counted as damage dealt by the attack, and XX9/FCT should flip three face up, I still think it warrants an FAQ if for no other reason than it took four pages of arguing and digging through rules technicalities to come to that consensus.

I agree Ard

But this discussion is no longer productive and really the issue will continue until wave 4 drops and the FAQ for it is released

.

.

"In My Opinion."

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion"

"In My Opinion."

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion"

".,... In my opionion" mean?

Is it like in my opinion silence?

Or in my opinion this period represents the end of the discussion?

(Necessary side discussion FTW!)

"In My Opinion."

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion"

yes but what does

".,... In my opionion" mean?

Is it like in my opinion silence?

Or in my opinion this period represents the end of the discussion?

(Necessary side discussion FTW!)

Its his Signature.

It is a statement that everything he says is his opinion , and not neccessarily representative of anything larger. That he is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours, but he is letting you know that his is his...

So really, all that post did was say nothing (as it was editied away). And you read his Signature as a Post.

"In My Opinion."

IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion"

yes but what does

".,... In my opionion" mean?

Is it like in my opinion silence?

Or in my opinion this period represents the end of the discussion?

(Necessary side discussion FTW!)

Its his Signature.

It is a statement that everything he says is his opinion , and not neccessarily representative of anything larger. That he is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours, but he is letting you know that his is his...

So really, all that post did was say nothing (as it was editied away). And you read his Signature as a Post.

That was the point...

Yeah, I started writing something, read your response, decided it didn't need to be said, accidentally hit post, and went back and edited it out.

Then the dog puked up a lizard on the rug.

You forgot your double open ended sarcastimarks, so I treated your question as an actual question with respect, rather than knowing it was a sarcastically rhetorical question.

My sincere (and truly unsarcastic) apologies.

Reading it, it says you can exhaust to cause an additional crit effect, but can't use the same one twice. I'll use my nifty Rebel example. I have my m30 scout and roll a black crit setting of my APT, I can then exhaust fire control team teams to use a second critical effect during the crit effect phase. I listed TRC because you get the guaranteed crit every turn if you want it, but it could be xx-9 just as well. Like always you use the effect at that time, but the effect can specify the damage takes place during the damage phase. The standard crit and xx-9 would be examples of this. No one has mentioned it but this can also be used with ion upgrades and XX-9 to take out defense tokens that could limit the damage and not give you your 2 face up cards

Reading it, it says you can exhaust to cause an additional crit effect, but can't use the same one twice. I'll use my nifty Rebel example. I have my m30 scout and roll a black crit setting of my APT, I can then exhaust fire control team teams to use a second critical effect during the crit effect phase. I listed TRC because you get the guaranteed crit every turn if you want it, but it could be xx-9 just as well. Like always you use the effect at that time, but the effect can specify the damage takes place during the damage phase. The standard crit and xx-9 would be examples of this. No one has mentioned it but this can also be used with ion upgrades and XX-9 to take out defense tokens that could limit the damage and not give you your 2 face up cards

Just reading the cards, here's my interpretation:

The card is designed to allow multiple critical effects. This should be taken into account when it comes to determining what is allowed/not allowed.

XX9/Standard: The intent is to allow 3 face-up cards, but the result is only 2. This is due to the way in which it defines the result: the first two damage cards dealt by "this attack"

XX9/APTs: The result is 3 damage cards, if all would trigger. APT does not deal a damage card "from this attack." Instead the first card is dealt face-up, without preamble. It is not a part of "this attack," it is defined entirely by the APT critical effect. The APT critical effect is to simply deal a face up damage card to the defender, regardless of the attack results. Something could force the attack results to be no damage, but if a crit result occurred APT would cause a face-up card to appear.

XX9s/ACMs: Same as above: If the first 2 results of ACMs would be dealth as damage cards, XX9s would trigger becaue ACMs are not a part of the attack, they are a part of the critical result. This only occurs of the two damage cards are deal after ACMs, the ACM damage is not a part of the XX9 trigger. Those cards are not a part of the attack, they are caused separately by the damage result after the ACM critical effect.

It should be noted that so far, only two ships can potentially cause any of these combos. Those are the VSD-1, and the MC30.

I will say that this is perhaps the most confusing wording for attacks so far. An Errata to the XX-9 card or the Critical Damage rules would be best to define how this is supposed to interact with future upgrade cards.

Based on what rules? Are you assuming or using the rules?

Based on the rules that both effects trigger regardless of whether or not damage cards would be dealt.

Just reading the cards, here's my interpretation:

The card is designed to allow multiple critical effects. This should be taken into account when it comes to determining what is allowed/not allowed.

XX9/Standard: The intent is to allow 3 face-up cards, but the result is only 2. This is due to the way in which it defines the result: the first two damage cards dealt by "this attack"

XX9/APTs: The result is 3 damage cards, if all would trigger. APT does not deal a damage card "from this attack." Instead the first card is dealt face-up, without preamble. It is not a part of "this attack," it is defined entirely by the APT critical effect. The APT critical effect is to simply deal a face up damage card to the defender, regardless of the attack results. Something could force the attack results to be no damage, but if a crit result occurred APT would cause a face-up card to appear.

XX9s/ACMs: Same as above: If the first 2 results of ACMs would be dealth as damage cards, XX9s would trigger becaue ACMs are not a part of the attack, they are a part of the critical result. This only occurs of the two damage cards are deal after ACMs, the ACM damage is not a part of the XX9 trigger. Those cards are not a part of the attack, they are caused separately by the damage result after the ACM critical effect.

It should be noted that so far, only two ships can potentially cause any of these combos. Those are the VSD-1, and the MC30.

I will say that this is perhaps the most confusing wording for attacks so far. An Errata to the XX-9 card or the Critical Damage rules would be best to define how this is supposed to interact with future upgrade cards.

Based on what rules? Are you assuming or using the rules?

Based on the rules that both effects trigger regardless of whether or not damage cards would be dealt.

Quotes please.

What rules are you going off of.

Just reading the cards, here's my interpretation:

The card is designed to allow multiple critical effects. This should be taken into account when it comes to determining what is allowed/not allowed.

XX9/Standard: The intent is to allow 3 face-up cards, but the result is only 2. This is due to the way in which it defines the result: the first two damage cards dealt by "this attack"

XX9/APTs: The result is 3 damage cards, if all would trigger. APT does not deal a damage card "from this attack." Instead the first card is dealt face-up, without preamble. It is not a part of "this attack," it is defined entirely by the APT critical effect. The APT critical effect is to simply deal a face up damage card to the defender, regardless of the attack results. Something could force the attack results to be no damage, but if a crit result occurred APT would cause a face-up card to appear.

XX9s/ACMs: Same as above: If the first 2 results of ACMs would be dealth as damage cards, XX9s would trigger becaue ACMs are not a part of the attack, they are a part of the critical result. This only occurs of the two damage cards are deal after ACMs, the ACM damage is not a part of the XX9 trigger. Those cards are not a part of the attack, they are caused separately by the damage result after the ACM critical effect.
It should be noted that so far, only two ships can potentially cause any of these combos. Those are the VSD-1, and the MC30.
I will say that this is perhaps the most confusing wording for attacks so far. An Errata to the XX-9 card or the Critical Damage rules would be best to define how this is supposed to interact with future upgrade cards.

Based on what rules? Are you assuming or using the rules?

Based on the rules that both effects trigger regardless of whether or not damage cards would be dealt.

Quotes please.

What rules are you going off of.

The critical results rules:

"Resolve Damage: The attacker can resolve one of its critical effects. Then the attacker determines the total damage amount. Then the defending squadron or hull zone suffers that total damage, one point at a time."

APTs and ACMs deal immediate damage that is not suffered one at a time to the defending hull zone. They do not count for purposes of damage totals when accounting for defense tokens or other factors, and are not dealt one at a time to the target. I note something else that is important: the rule is to resolve a "critical effect" not a critical damage effect. These effects are entirely separate from the damage dealing part of the phase.

AS I STATED ABOVE, one or more rules here and/or the Fire Control Teams card needs an Errata. The game rules have not been written to account for multiple critical effects being caused by an attack result. Previously, these sorts of double face up results occurred by mission objectives and other unusual situations that separated their triggers from the Resolve Damage part of the attack rules.

Another thing people are forgetting.

ACM specifically cannot be affected by Brace/Redirect. Meaning the Crit damage is not part of the normal damage, because it is not legally a target for Def tokens.

Same with APT, it is not damage from the pool, it is an additional damage that ignores def tokens, and shields.

Another thing people are forgetting.

ACM specifically cannot be affected by Brace/Redirect. Meaning the Crit damage is not part of the normal damage, because it is not legally a target for Def tokens.

Same with APT, it is not damage from the pool, it is an additional damage that ignores def tokens, and shields.

I don't think anybody's forgetting this. The interaction of defense tokens with critical effects is well defined and is based on timing. The interaction of crit effects with other crit effects is not addressed by the same rules.

For example:

Brace: When damage is totaled during the “Resolve Damage” step, the total is reduced to half, rounded up.

the attacker determines the total

damage amount.

...

◊ If the attacker and defender are ships, the damage is the sum of all {hit} and {crit} icons.

It specifically defines that brace applies while totaling damage during the Resolve Step, and that to total damage during the Resolve Step, you add icons. No room for critical ambiguity there.

Reading it, it says you can exhaust to cause an additional crit effect, but can't use the same one twice. I'll use my nifty Rebel example. I have my m30 scout and roll a black crit setting of my APT, I can then exhaust fire control team teams to use a second critical effect during the crit effect phase. I listed TRC because you get the guaranteed crit every turn if you want it, but it could be xx-9 just as well. Like always you use the effect at that time, but the effect can specify the damage takes place during the damage phase. The standard crit and xx-9 would be examples of this. No one has mentioned it but this can also be used with ion upgrades and XX-9 to take out defense tokens that could limit the damage and not give you your 2 face up cards

Remember, you only need 1 crit symbol to activate a crit. Not 1 for each crit. So if you get a black crit, the MC30 can activate APTs and he standard critical effect

Sorry, but is there a reference for that? (on a train with minimal access), Is it confirmed that the crit isn't spent or otherwise allocated whwn used to trigger a special crit.

Granted, it still provides an additional point of damage, but when is is stated (if anywhere) that it can be used to trigger a second, default, crit.

The wording "Remember..." provides a weight of authority as if it is common knowledge, personally I think it's probably true, but where is the justification / validation please?

Sorry, but is there a reference for that? (on a train with minimal access), Is it confirmed that the crit isn't spent or otherwise allocated whwn used to trigger a special crit.

Granted, it still provides an additional point of damage, but when is is stated (if anywhere) that it can be used to trigger a second, default, crit.

The wording "Remember..." provides a weight of authority as if it is common knowledge, personally I think it's probably true, but where is the justification / validation please?

It was posted previously in the topic, but here it is for reference:

RRG, Page 4:

Critical Effects

A critical effect, denoted by the “CRIT:” header, can resolve if there is at least one CRIT icon in the attack pool.

• The attacker can resolve only one critical effect per attack.

• The attacker does not spend a die icon to resolve a critical effect unless the effect says otherwise.

Another thing people are forgetting.

ACM specifically cannot be affected by Brace/Redirect. Meaning the Crit damage is not part of the normal damage, because it is not legally a target for Def tokens.

Same with APT, it is not damage from the pool, it is an additional damage that ignores def tokens, and shields.

I don't think anybody's forgetting this. The interaction of defense tokens with critical effects is well defined and is based on timing. The interaction of crit effects with other crit effects is not addressed by the same rules.

For example:

Brace: When damage is totaled during the “Resolve Damage” step, the total is reduced to half, rounded up.

the attacker determines the total

damage amount.

...

◊ If the attacker and defender are ships, the damage is the sum of all {hit} and {crit} icons.

It specifically defines that brace applies while totaling damage during the Resolve Step, and that to total damage during the Resolve Step, you add icons. No room for critical ambiguity there.

Aye that is correct, I guess I should have said, I do not understand why people are asking if you can flip ACM cards with XX-9's, if we accept the premise that Crits are not damage, and they are extra effects generated during an attack, the only thing they should be interacting with is the damage being dealt, IE you have 4 damage, 2 goes on shields, 2 are going to be dealt as cards, XX-9s affect this damage, and nothing else.

Like you could not cause zero damage(no cards dealt) from the pool, but trigger XX-9s on the ACM damage if the adjacent hull zones had zero shields.

All the upgrade is saying, is you can trigger 2 different critical effects, just treat them as separate effects, that have no interaction with each other. (Based on the article, and expressed intent). they could of course say the opposite, but until then I'd be more than happy to have it work as intended, not like it favours one faction over the other, it is equally bad for both.

I played tested this on actual table top last night, as a largely rebel player, i had to say it was Freakin nasty to get 12 cards i can choose from with Dodonna. i do not think XX9 and standard crit can work together, the most you would get is 2 as they both make the 1st damage card face up... i play both empire and rebel, but i really hate saying this post, these words taste like vinegar coming out of my mouth.

Just reading the cards, here's my interpretation:

The card is designed to allow multiple critical effects. This should be taken into account when it comes to determining what is allowed/not allowed.

XX9/Standard: The intent is to allow 3 face-up cards, but the result is only 2. This is due to the way in which it defines the result: the first two damage cards dealt by "this attack"

XX9/APTs: The result is 3 damage cards, if all would trigger. APT does not deal a damage card "from this attack." Instead the first card is dealt face-up, without preamble. It is not a part of "this attack," it is defined entirely by the APT critical effect. The APT critical effect is to simply deal a face up damage card to the defender, regardless of the attack results. Something could force the attack results to be no damage, but if a crit result occurred APT would cause a face-up card to appear.

XX9s/ACMs: Same as above: If the first 2 results of ACMs would be dealth as damage cards, XX9s would trigger becaue ACMs are not a part of the attack, they are a part of the critical result. This only occurs of the two damage cards are deal after ACMs, the ACM damage is not a part of the XX9 trigger. Those cards are not a part of the attack, they are caused separately by the damage result after the ACM critical effect.

It should be noted that so far, only two ships can potentially cause any of these combos. Those are the VSD-1, and the MC30.

I will say that this is perhaps the most confusing wording for attacks so far. An Errata to the XX-9 card or the Critical Damage rules would be best to define how this is supposed to interact with future upgrade cards.

Based on what rules? Are you assuming or using the rules?

Based on the rules that both effects trigger regardless of whether or not damage cards would be dealt.

Quotes please.

What rules are you going off of.

The critical results rules:

"Resolve Damage: The attacker can resolve one of its critical effects. Then the attacker determines the total damage amount. Then the defending squadron or hull zone suffers that total damage, one point at a time."

APTs and ACMs deal immediate damage that is not suffered one at a time to the defending hull zone. They do not count for purposes of damage totals when accounting for defense tokens or other factors, and are not dealt one at a time to the target. I note something else that is important: the rule is to resolve a "critical effect" not a critical damage effect. These effects are entirely separate from the damage dealing part of the phase.

AS I STATED ABOVE, one or more rules here and/or the Fire Control Teams card needs an Errata. The game rules have not been written to account for multiple critical effects being caused by an attack result. Previously, these sorts of double face up results occurred by mission objectives and other unusual situations that separated their triggers from the Resolve Damage part of the attack rules.

Now what Cactus said in the spoiler is true to a degree but minus one point. The Critical Effect is a part of the Attack phase so dealing a Crit with ACM or APT's is indeed part of the attack.