This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

Didn't PT106 talk to the Head developer as well?

I mean, 8 points for a non stacking upgrade that only works when you meat the condition of having a bomber attack a ship is EXPENSIVE! You get more mileage from Ordnance Experts than BCC's in that case.

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

Didn't PT106 talk to the Head developer as well?

I mean, 8 points for a non stacking upgrade that only works when you meat the condition of having a bomber attack a ship is EXPENSIVE! You get more mileage from Ordnance Experts than BCC's in that case.

Yup, but Ollie spoke to the caretaker so......

And shmitty

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

Didn't PT106 talk to the Head developer as well?

I mean, 8 points for a non stacking upgrade that only works when you meat the condition of having a bomber attack a ship is EXPENSIVE! You get more mileage from Ordnance Experts than BCC's in that case.

I can see the points cost since you don't exhaust the card when you use it and can use it for every bomber attack each turn within range

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

You are also assume that the developers didn't stop and rethink that after Gencon. It's easy enough to forget something when you are trying to make a ruling on the fly in a hectic environment. I've done it myself with some of the games I've developed and used at conventions.

You are also assume that the developers didn't stop and rethink that after Gencon. It's easy enough to forget something when you are trying to make a ruling on the fly in a hectic environment. I've done it myself with some of the games I've developed and used at conventions.

This reminds me of all the people saying we'll never get an ARC 170 in X-Wing because some developer apparently said off the cuff once that X-Wing was set in the civil war era.

THAT'S RIGHT - I'M BRINGING MY ARC 170 SMUGNESS TO THE ARMADA FORUM!

Ollie you can have Vader, Ordnance Experts & Leading shots (or Veteran Gunners) on an ISD I/II and all of them can reroll dice from the same attack.

That is rules as written, rules as intended and they have the same wording on them as Bomber Commands.

Because each card is its own generator, what you cannot do however is use Vader multiple times on the same attack, because he can only be used once, as per the "while" ruling.

And cannot in the rules can be overridden by effects on cards.

As per Dras's post in my question of using Vader to reroll at speed zero

The Golden rule is this:

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

However, the Cannot in question here is not a Card Effect. Its a Rule effect...

So, Cannot doesn't actually apply as a Golden Override, so we look at the previous part of the Golden Rule:


Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

Ollie you can have Vader, Ordnance Experts & Leading shots (or Veteran Gunners) on an ISD I/II and all of them can reroll dice from the same attack.

That is rules as written, rules as intended and they have the same wording on them as Bomber Commands.

Because each card is its own generator, what you cannot do however is use Vader multiple times on the same attack, because he can only be used once, as per the "while" ruling.

And cannot in the rules can be overridden by effects on cards.

As per Dras's post in my question of using Vader to reroll at speed zero

The Golden rule is this:

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

However, the Cannot in question here is not a Card Effect. Its a Rule effect...

So, Cannot doesn't actually apply as a Golden Override, so we look at the previous part of the Golden Rule:

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

The three you listed for the ISD example are effects coming from distinctly different cards. The issue being discussed is stacking effects from identical cards. And one thing we learned from the XI7/Advanced Projectors debate from way back, is that "cannot" is absolute regardless. Not to mention also Advanced Gunnery

Ollie you can have Vader, Ordnance Experts & Leading shots (or Veteran Gunners) on an ISD I/II and all of them can reroll dice from the same attack.

That is rules as written, rules as intended and they have the same wording on them as Bomber Commands.

Because each card is its own generator, what you cannot do however is use Vader multiple times on the same attack, because he can only be used once, as per the "while" ruling.

And cannot in the rules can be overridden by effects on cards.

As per Dras's post in my question of using Vader to reroll at speed zero

The Golden rule is this:

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

However, the Cannot in question here is not a Card Effect. Its a Rule effect...

So, Cannot doesn't actually apply as a Golden Override, so we look at the previous part of the Golden Rule:

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

The three you listed for the ISD example are effects coming from distinctly different cards. The issue being discussed is stacking effects from identical cards. And one thing we learned from the XI7/Advanced Projectors debate from way back, is that "cannot" is absolute regardless.

Except cannot is not absolute as per FFGs say so in the rule book, it is only absolute when it is on a card, and as per their written say so, components can and DO overrule cannot in the printed rule books.

Bomber Command allows reroll of attack dice.

Vader allows reroll of attack dice

Veteran Gunners allow reroll of attack dice

Leading Shots allow reroll of attack dice

All of them cards generate the same effect, and your argument was multiple bomber commands cannot stack because "while" is an effect that cannot be generated more than once per attack, well if other multiple rerolls of the same dice, during the same attack is allowed as per the rules, then each and every incidence of bomber command can also work because each one is its own generator, just as Vader/VG/LS is.

Yes the "Cannot" on Gunnery Teams is absolute, so in that incidence the golden rule is applied in full, you cannot shoot the same ship twice if you have Advanced Gunnery as an objective, with a ship that has Gunnery Teams on it.

But the golden rule you are arguing is written in the rule book, it is not on an upgrade card. And FFG state : Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

Actually XI7/AP interaction want decided by the word "cannot".

Initially, they decided that you could redirect 1 to each other hull zone. They changed it later presumably due to balance.

Going just off the card's wording, it's the fact that "hull zones" is plural that gives XI7 the precedence, not the word "cannot".

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

Didn't PT106 talk to the Head developer as well?

I mean, 8 points for a non stacking upgrade that only works when you meat the condition of having a bomber attack a ship is EXPENSIVE! You get more mileage from Ordnance Experts than BCC's in that case.

I can see the points cost since you don't exhaust the card when you use it and can use it for every bomber attack each turn within range

So for 8 points you have an EXTREMELY narrow set of conditions.

Secondly, answer this question, can you use Targeting Scramblers on the same attack from two different Interdictors?

Secondly, answer this question, can you use Targeting Scramblers on the same attack from two different Interdictors?

He gave this as an example of something he thinks you can't do alongside BCC way back.

Secondly, answer this question, can you use Targeting Scramblers on the same attack from two different Interdictors?

He gave this as an example of something he thinks you can't do alongside BCC way back.

Ships are different entities so each is a separate trigger.

Each ability triggers individually before the next ability is even looked at. They fully trigger then you move to the next.

I agree, just mentioning that he already covered his perspective on that.

so as this thread continues on and on .... I'm starting to think I shouldn't be counting down the days till Wave5 or the Campaign, I should be counting the days till the next FAQ!

so as this thread continues on and on .... I'm starting to think I shouldn't be counting down the days till Wave5 or the Campaign, I should be counting the days till the next FAQ!

~6

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

This 'random FFG employee' is one of the Armada playtesters.

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

This 'random FFG employee' is one of the Armada playtesters.

Which still matters little because that information could have EASILY changed AND we dont know the last time that "Tester" checked the forums for any updates.

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

This 'random FFG employee' is one of the Armada playtesters.

Which still matters little because that information could have EASILY changed AND we dont know the last time that "Tester" checked the forums for any updates.

Well seeing as how he works with the developers everyday, not sure how keeping up to date on the forums would be of help to him.

Good God, this place is ripe for a FAQ update...

Or an Errata, or a FAQ covering Errata.

This is a most instructive thread, and I can't wait to see the official answer.

Except we have given you the official answer

Developers word beats random ffg employee....

No. With all due respect to the various forum rules Meisters, the only answer I really consider official is in the form of a published Q&A or errata. An email from a developer I consider a strong guideline, but the only official answer is as I've stated.

That is not to say that I don't take these forums as a good source of clarification.

To further expand on my previous answer, I have had a situation were a game DESIGNER, himself, stated a rule was a certain way...only to have the company post an official errata that contradicted this. And of course, the errata was the last word.

This is why I only go off posted company documents, and use everything else as only guidelines. Kinda like the Pirate Code.....lol.