not sure if this has been asked before but just came up again and someone made a good argument.

so adv projectors let's you redirect to any hull zone even non-adjacent. so xi7 as i understood it would only let you redirect 1 damage, so if someone hit me from my front hull zone , i could only redirect 1 damage to either my left, right, or rear hull zone.

the argument presented is the wording on xi7, someone is saying that it will allow me to redirect up to 3 damage to the other hull zones.

xi7 card:

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.

so their argument which i now think is valid, is that if someone hits me for 5 damage using xi7, i can with adv projectors , redirect 1 damage to left hull zone 1 damage to right hull zone, 1 damage to rear hull zone, then remaining 2 damage on the front hull zone.

they are arguing that there is no wording saying that "total" damage you can redirect is 1.

All good logic, and we all support that stance....

But

They nerfed it with a faq.

So you cant use adv projectors in that way. X17 wins, for now at least.

Yep, FAQ'd

So thoughts on which way it should be are irrelevent.... because this is the way it is:
:

XI7 Turbolasers

Even if the defender is equipped with Advanced Projectors, XI7 Turbolasers prevents the defender from suffering more than one damage in total on hull zones other than the defending hull zone.

For example, if an attack deals four damage, a defender with Advanced Projectors must suffer at least three damage on the defending hull zone; the fourth damage can be suffered on any hull zone.

They (The developers) also stated that this was done for Future Game Balance reasons.

I thought it was because it followed the Golden Rule, that CANNOT trumps all others and thus you cannot take more than 1 damage on another shield when fired upon by a ship with XI7.

The way out was worded, even with the"cannot" there was a solid argument that it could mean no more than one damage on each other hull facing total.

Frankly, I'm almost wishing they'd go back. The ruling has made X17s very powerful on most ships that can take them.

I thought it was because it followed the Golden Rule, that CANNOT trumps all others and thus you cannot take more than 1 damage on another shield when fired upon by a ship with XI7.

As Cactus stated, its not so much the cannot, it is the hull zone s . Plural. That is the contentious part.

I also believe that APs should get their full effect, but, I'm not a game designer for FFG, so my voice goes into the nothing on the subject

geez, brain fart guys, sorry, we were pressed and i didn't think about the FAQ i haven't looked at it in a while. thanks all.

I suspect that they let XI7 win out because AP is almost a Rebel only upgrade (yeah, I know, one version of one Imperial ship can equip it, and it's the most expensive ship in the game.)

Allowing AP to nerf XI7 may have just made it a bit too powerful to combo with things like Projection Experts, and Salvation, etc.

It would be nice if there was a middle ground, but ECM is the better card anyway.

What would happen if APs weren't nerfed?

A LOT of REBEL ships would take APs, plus the ISD-II. The drawback (so to speak) is that Rebels have low hull, high shields, so would benefit MUCH more than the Imps, even if the Imps had more Def Retro ships, which they don't. MC80s with AP? Yes please. AF2s? Yes! MC30s? Hell yeah (maybe not if using titles). Even som key CR90s would benefit (7 shield, 4 hull is quite something to chew through).

- No one would take XI7s, because being able to shift 3 dmg is good enough to more or less neuter most attacks. Except...all those Imp ships without Def retros. Double redirects and no defense against XI7s. So sad.

- With more ships packing APs, rebels would also be less afraid of black dice-chugging ships, especially ones unable (or unlikely) to generate accuracies: brace + AP really cuts down dmg. It's more of the same really. Again Imps would still be just as vulnerable.

So to me it looks like it's a faction thing: Rebels would get so much more mileage out of APs. Then again they also get more mileage out of ECMS, which are also considered a very strong upgrade, so not sure how much it would upset things.

True, Rebels do get more use out of ECM, but it doesn't compound nearly as much the way that APs do. More shields, shields are cheaper to repair, and everything else.

True, Rebels do get more use out of ECM, but it doesn't compound nearly as much the way that APs do. More shields, shields are cheaper to repair, and everything else.

Quite. Too bad more Imps don't have Def Retros. I think it would have been really interesting to have un-nerfed APs. Make the choice between APs and ECMs harder.

It would also make HTTs more interesting, no? XI7s would still be useful, but more niche. HTTs are already useful, but niche. So there would be some balance there as well.

While I'm at it: too bad the AS cluster bombs aren't competitively priced.

Ah, wishing will do no good, lets get back to reality