What is your guys' interpretation of the triggering (if any) between XX9 and structural damage?

Example:

A Liberty MC80 with XX9 Turbolasers fires on a Victory and manages to push through a single critical, which he declares usage for hix XX9 Turbolaser. Using Jan Dodonna, he fishes for structural damage and finds it. The first damage card (structural damage) is applied faceup. The language of structural damage requires an additional damage card to be dealt. Is that second damage card a continuation of the Liberty's "this attack", or is it considered to be its own source?

XX9: "The first 2 damage cards dealt to the defender by this attack are dealt faceup"

What is your guys' interpretation of the triggering (if any) between XX9 and structural damage?

Example:

A Liberty MC80 with XX9 Turbolasers fires on a Victory and manages to push through a single critical, which he declares usage for hix XX9 Turbolaser. Using Jan Dodonna, he fishes for structural damage and finds it. The first damage card (structural damage) is applied faceup. The language of structural damage requires an additional damage card to be dealt. Is that second damage card a continuation of the Liberty's "this attack", or is it considered to be its own source?

XX9: "The first 2 damage cards dealt to the defender by this attack are dealt faceup"

Well, there's a corresponding set of arguments that can be made either way... And they are being made in the FireControlTeams - XX9/Default Crit Thread, in regards to mixing APTs and XX9s and things like that....

I feel that it *shouldn't* apply... But that's the default means of what we, as a group, in the greater Armada world, have been doing thusfar... I do not believe the intent is for the "nested" crits to apply that way...

BUT, we may be wrong, and FFG simply hasn't told us the right way as of yet...

But again, GOOD NEWS... its entirely possible that this situation WILL be clarified in 30-40 days, after FFG puts out either a Wave3/4 Errata/FAQ, Or, at the very least, starts answering Questions that are directly related to this matter.

TL'DR: I feel that cards need to be dealt directly by the attack , whereas cards that are dealt incidentally by critical hits do not count.

The XX-9 does 1 damage, that damage is Structural Damage(as per your example). End of interaction.

Then you read Structural Damage, take a face down damage, and then flip SD face down.

Why on earth would you think XX-9 interacts with the writing on the damage card?

You're dealing one point of damage, XX-9 only does something if you deal 2 or more damage in the attack, and you are not dealing 2 damage.

I think Eastern had the most logical argument. XX-9 says cards dealt by the attack. The bonus card from SD is dealt by the crit, not the attack, so it is face down.

The XX-9 does 1 damage, that damage is Structural Damage(as per your example). End of interaction.

Then you read Structural Damage, take a face down damage, and then flip SD face down.

Why on earth would you think XX-9 interacts with the writing on the damage card?

You're dealing one point of damage, XX-9 only does something if you deal 2 or more damage in the attack, and you are not dealing 2 damage.

So....I punch you in the head and break your nose. My punch knocks you off balance, you fall down and break your neck and die. I don't get charged with manslaughter?

In the examination of cause and effect, there is direct and indirect causation. I'm sure someone could make an argument that structural damage is a continuation of the damage caused by XX9 Turbolasers. I'm sure someone could also make an argument that it's not. Both are irrelevant; I'm looking for rules based data or wording that supports the correct interpretation.

Jan Dodonna triggers when an enemy ship lands on a rock. One might ask "Why on earth would you think Jan Dodonna triggers a crit when the enemy lands on a rock; an event that is completely divorced from your fleet firing or Jan Dodonna interacting in any way shape or form?" Yet he does, because that's how he is worded.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, mind you; I suspect you're right. But an appeal to logic outside the RAW, and the level of certainty you demonstrate (ie, by saing "Why on earth would you think...."); they aren't necessary.

Dodonna triggers when an enemy takes a face up damage card, from any source.

XX-9s deal the first 2 damage dealt by the attack, face up.

If you deal 1 damage XX-9 does nothing special, it is dealt 1 face up.

Did you deal 2 damage, yes / no?

No you dealt one damage.

The benefit is your opponent cannot use Contain to stop it being dealt face up.

XX-9's interaction has ended, as soon as the card is dealt face up, this is the rules of the game. And I said why on earth would you think that, because it is ridiculous to even suggest it.

Structural damage is its own effect, nothing else interacts with it.

Just so we are clear, Critical Effects are generated, then they take effect, then your opponent applies Brace/Redirect, then they apply the damage remaining, to shields, hull, damage cards.

If you trigger APT, it goes off, and your opponent takes 1 face up damage, before the application of Brace/Redirect.

If you trigger ACM, it goes off, and your opponent takes 1 damage on each of the adjacent hull zones, before the application of Brace/Redirect.

If you trigger XX-9's, your opponent resolves Brace/Redirect and any remaining damage that would be dealt as cards, the first 2 of that damage is dealt face up.

Same for every other Crit effect in the game. Nothing interacts with the text written on the damage cards from the attacker.

.... And the hostility is exactly why I said there were arguments both ways...

.... And the hostility is exactly why I said there were arguments both ways...

Hostility? I think you need to stop projecting on to me.

Typing in a clear concise manner is not being hostile, do I need to start adding smileys?

Saying something is ridiculous, is not being hostile. I've seen you be plenty angry with people, and tell others their ideas are absurd.

.... And the hostility is exactly why I said there were arguments both ways...

Hostility? I think you need to stop projecting on to me.

Typing in a clear concise manner is not being hostile, do I need to start adding smileys?

Saying something is ridiculous, is not being hostile. I've seen you be plenty angry with people, and tell others their ideas are absurd.

Honestly TEK - It wasn't your response I was considering hostile

.... And the hostility is exactly why I said there were arguments both ways...

Hostility? I think you need to stop projecting on to me.

Typing in a clear concise manner is not being hostile, do I need to start adding smileys?

Saying something is ridiculous, is not being hostile. I've seen you be plenty angry with people, and tell others their ideas are absurd.

Honestly TEK - It wasn't your response I was considering hostile

Well now I feel like a right muppet.

Sorry Dras.

.... And the hostility is exactly why I said there were arguments both ways...

Hostility? I think you need to stop projecting on to me.

Typing in a clear concise manner is not being hostile, do I need to start adding smileys?

Saying something is ridiculous, is not being hostile. I've seen you be plenty angry with people, and tell others their ideas are absurd.

Honestly TEK - It wasn't your response I was considering hostile

Well now I feel like a right muppet.

Sorry Dras.

Its okay. We've headbutted each other before, and in the context of rules discussions, I hope we continue to do so... I do enjoy being proven wrong