So, with this beauty...
Along with XX-9 Turbolasers
And the DEFAULT Critical Effect...
What do people think? Are the first '3' Cards dealt face up, or does the following wording:
"The First Card is dealt Face up." (Default)
"The First Two cards are dealt face up" (XX9)
mean that you're only going to get 2 cards?
The Article tends to say 3 cards, but are we assuming that's because its on something with APTs as well? (Like a Victory-I ? )
Edited by DrasnightaFrom the ffg article " Even though your Fire-Control Team will not allow you to resolve the same critical effect twice, you can potentially force an opponent to suffer as many as three faceup damage cards by equipping a Fire-Control Team on the same ship as your XX-9 Turbolasers. "
Definitely.
I'd go with no on the XX9 and the standard crit effect as the standard effect is "If the defender is dealt at least one damage card by this attack, deal the first damage card faceup.” and for XX-9 is says "The first 2 damage cards..." so for this combo I think it's still just the 2 face up cards.
From the ffg article " Even though your Fire-Control Team will not allow you to resolve the same critical effect twice, you can potentially force an opponent to suffer as many as three faceup damage cards by equipping a Fire-Control Team on the same ship as your XX-9 Turbolasers. "
Unfortunately, the wording of the article - from a rules discussion - is something that must be discarded based on previous examples...
I was wondering about XX9 and APT also but on an MC30 but would the APT card count as the 1st card dealt during the attack and so the defender would still only get the 2nd card face up and not a 3rd?
Hmmm... Okay, now I see the counter-argument. Interesting...
Hmmm... Okay, now I see the counter-argument. Interesting...
I'd say that the crit effect on the card is not the standard crit effect, it is a totally separate effect generated by the upgrade card, it just happens to deal cards face up.
Would you say you couldn't resolve APT/ACM and the standard critical effect? with fire control team?
I'd say that the crit effect on the card is not the standard crit effect, it is a totally separate effect generated by the upgrade card, it just happens to deal cards face up.
Would you say you couldn't resolve APT/ACM and the standard critical effect? with fire control team?
The Trick is the wording of those Crits...
"The First card you deal is Face Up."
"The First Two Cards you deal is face up."
I have 5 Cards to Deal.
I deal the first card. Its Face up. That satisfies the Default Crit.
I deal the second card. Its Face Up. That satisfies XX-9, as the first two cards were dealt face up.
Ergo, the rest of the cards are face down...
------
It could be interesting... If I resolve both ACM and the Default... If one of the "Splash Damage" points is on Hull, would that card be face up...
So, for example:
I shoot at a hull zone that has 3 shields. But the adjacent shields are down.
I only do a HIT/CRIT with a Black Die.
I activate both ACM and Default...
The ACM triggers, dealing 1 damage to each side... Is that first card face up? Even though my 2 damage doesn't actually break shields on my target hull zone?
We could Double or Nothing with XX-9s and ACMs that way........
If we were hitting a zone with Shields, but with the adjacents down... You wouldn't even have to bother with defence tokens... I mean, even if they brace it, you're still dealing 2 Face Up Cards... it snot like they can redirect it away either...
Edited by DrasnightaI'd say that the crit effect on the card is not the standard crit effect, it is a totally separate effect generated by the upgrade card, it just happens to deal cards face up.
Would you say you couldn't resolve APT/ACM and the standard critical effect? with fire control team?
ACM is irrelevant because you're not feeling face-up cards with it.
APT+XX9 is the subject of the same discussion.
I'd say that the crit effect on the card is not the standard crit effect, it is a totally separate effect generated by the upgrade card, it just happens to deal cards face up.
Would you say you couldn't resolve APT/ACM and the standard critical effect? with fire control team?
ACM is irrelevant because you're not feeling face-up cards with it.
APT+XX9 is the subject of the same discussion.
But could it? if you hit a zone with no shields with your ACM splash damage?
I'd say that the crit effect on the card is not the standard crit effect, it is a totally separate effect generated by the upgrade card, it just happens to deal cards face up.
Would you say you couldn't resolve APT/ACM and the standard critical effect? with fire control team?
ACM is irrelevant because you're not feeling face-up cards with it.
APT+XX9 is the subject of the same discussion.
But could it? if you hit a zone with no shields with your ACM splash damage?
That's a valid question, but either way because ACM doesn't grant face ups in its own right , it doesn't conflict with XX9 or standard crit.
Yay! Discussion!
APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
I see, yes very tricky.
I'm guessing here, the intent is you can resolve 2 critical effects, regardless of wording on said upgrade cards, (going off of the article) but you guys raise some great counter points as to why that may not be so.
I was wondering about XX9 and APT also but on an MC30 but would the APT card count as the 1st card dealt during the attack and so the defender would still only get the 2nd card face up and not a 3rd?
No, APT is it's own effect, it's not a cosidered a damage dealt by the attack itself. Thus APT and XX-9 cou;d potentially be 3 face up damage cards.
APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
No, ACM and APT are not damage dealt by the attack, otherwise they would be subject to defense tokens.They are critical effects that cause damage as a result using a critical effect.
Edited by Silver CraneI feel that the intent is for it to stack but the intent due to the cost of the card itself could be more along the lines of APTs and NK-7's (if anyone could take that combo) or MS 1 and XX-9's etc.
No, ACM and APT are not damage dealt by the attack, otherwise they would be subject to defense tokens.They are critical effects that cause damage as a result using a critical effect.APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
They're not subject to defense tokens because of the timing, not because they're not "damage dealt by that attack," though. Criticals resolve before damage is totaled, and thus before brace and redirect resolve.
No, ACM and APT are not damage dealt by the attack, otherwise they would be subject to defense tokens.They are critical effects that cause damage as a result using a critical effect.APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
They're not subject to defense tokens because of the timing, not because they're not "damage dealt by that attack," though. Criticals resolve before damage is totaled, and thus before brace and redirect resolve.
Right, it's a critical effect, not damage from the attack. It's similar to using XX9's and the first crit being structural damage. You don't flip the card dealt by structural damage for the second as that's not damage from the attack, you would flip the next card. This is also why damage caused by say ACM's would not be subject to being flipped by XX9's
Edited by Silver CraneFrom the ffg article " Even though your Fire-Control Team will not allow you to resolve the same critical effect twice, you can potentially force an opponent to suffer as many as three faceup damage cards by equipping a Fire-Control Team on the same ship as your XX-9 Turbolasers. "
The keyword there is "potentially." It doesn't read "you deal" three face-up damage cards. You could potentially deal them.
If you're sporting both XX-9 and APT you're going to get around a contain token. As opposed to just the XX-9 and then using the default.
The question is if XX-9 counts ANY face-up damage card.
I'd look to resolving simultaneous effects where you pick the order they resolve. If you're dealing three hits (2 crit including a black/1 reg) against no shields you're good. Do the two up with XX-9 and the one from APT or the default critical effect.
Against one shield those same three hits may or may not be three face-up. You do the APT first you might have bypassed one from the XX-9 having triggered the text of XX-9. You do the XX-9 first you're only dealing one damage card as the shield comes in so it's certainly face-up, then you can do the APT face-up.
If APT does not trigger the XX-9 you'll deal three face-up against one shield. With APT's hit taking the shield and giving a face-up. And your remaining two being face-up because of XX-9.
I'm thinking Silver Crane has it. APT's face-up is not from damage. You can still get three face-up if you have the potential damage against shields and tokens for two more from XX-9.
Edited by FrimmelRight, it's a critical effect, not damage from the attack. It's similar to using XX9's and the first crit being structural damage. You don't flip the card dealt by structural damage for the second as that's not damage from the attack, you would flip the next card.They're not subject to defense tokens because of the timing, not because they're not "damage dealt by that attack," though. Criticals resolve before damage is totaled, and thus before brace and redirect resolve.No, ACM and APT are not damage dealt by the attack, otherwise they would be subject to defense tokens.They are critical effects that cause damage as a result using a critical effect.APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
The damage card can be both damage from the attack and from a crit at the same time. It's like how you can be a Taco Bell manager and a Taco Bell employee at the same time: one is a subset of the other.
The rules as written do not appear to clearly delineate damage dealt by a crit effect from that dealt by an attack. The relevant section:
RRG 2:
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.
◊ If the attacker or defender is a squadron, the damage
is the sum of all F icons.
◊ If the attacker and defender are ships, the damage is
the sum of all F and E icons.
◊ Each ship has the following standard critical effect:
“E: If the defender is dealt at least one damage card
by this attack, deal the first damage card faceup.”
Just to be clear, I am not set on one position or the other. I don't think there is enough evidence either way in the rules to make a call one way or the other. It does appear that the intent is that they should stack, but for it to unequivocally function that way, either XX9 would need to be errata'd, or an FAQ would need to define the damage referenced on both XX9 and in the default crit effect to not include damage dealt by critical effects.
*inb4 Lyraeus' BUT DODONNA. We can argue about true randomness in card decks somewhere else, but I don't want to sidetrack this, and for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter.
Edited by ArdaedhelUnder what circumstances would you want to deal 3 face up crit cards? What ship have you not just killed anyway?
Are you sure about that? It functionally doesn't currently matter which card is flipped when*, so it's never come up.
Right, it's a critical effect, not damage from the attack. It's similar to using XX9's and the first crit being structural damage. You don't flip the card dealt by structural damage for the second as that's not damage from the attack, you would flip the next card.
They're not subject to defense tokens because of the timing, not because they're not "damage dealt by that attack," though. Criticals resolve before damage is totaled, and thus before brace and redirect resolve.
No, ACM and APT are not damage dealt by the attack, otherwise they would be subject to defense tokens.They are critical effects that cause damage as a result using a critical effect.APT/XX9 is tough.
Is the damage from APT (and incidentally, ACM) counted as being dealt "by this attack"? From a certain point of view, they obviously are; from another, they're not affected by defense tokens, so... Maybe not?
I'm leaning towards air/XX9 not stacking absent a clarification, but it's a tough call tbh.
The damage card can be both damage from the attack and from a crit at the same time. It's like how you can be a Taco Bell manager and a Taco Bell employee at the same time: one is a subset of the other.
The rules as written do not appear to clearly delineate damage dealt by a crit effect from that dealt by an attack. The relevant section:
RRG 2:
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.
◊ If the attacker or defender is a squadron, the damage
is the sum of all F icons.
◊ If the attacker and defender are ships, the damage is
the sum of all F and E icons.
◊ Each ship has the following standard critical effect:
“E: If the defender is dealt at least one damage card
by this attack, deal the first damage card faceup.”
Just to be clear, I am not set on one position or the other. I don't think there is enough evidence either way in the rules to make a call one way or the other. It does appear that the intent is that they should stack, but for it to unequivocally function that way, either XX9 would need to be errata'd, or an FAQ would need to define the damage referenced on both XX9 and in the default crit effect to not include damage dealt by critical effects.
*inb4 Lyraeus' BUT DODONNA. We can argue about true randomness in card decks somewhere else, but I don't want to sidetrack this, and for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter.
I disagree with your example. The attack provides the trigger for the critical effect. It does not provide the effect itself. Damage from the attack is what you calculate after defense tokens are taken into consideration. APT's, ACM's, and the additional card dealt by Structural Damage are, not damage dealt by the attack, the attack may be the trigger for those effects but they are different from, technically speaking, damage dealt by the attack.
