Guys. Can you keep rules discussions in the rules forum in the appropriate threads please.

By all means suggest topics for entry into known issues, but go have the discussion in the appropriate forum thread.

FCT should not be in there, for details read the rules forum.

Maybe I did a bad job with the comment. I like this idea and I have looked at that thread. I didn't comment there as I wouldn't be helping the goal.

I did know that the council idea led to this. I was just saying that this is a much better way to go about it.

Just updated to include all the G-8 stuff, BCC and Luke. Also added in the email about Tagge/Devastator.

I think my description of Luke is a rather poor argument because it seems everyone said "If you think of it that way, the game is broke so don't do that" or "It's RAI, not RAW in this situation." So any suggestions on how to make the argument more logical is welcomed.

So any suggestions on how to make the argumentmore logical is welcomed.

Personally - I feel that's half of the point of the counter-argument.

If the Argument made is not logical, or workable in a way that works in such a way as to have the game continue to work... Its not a good argument, and should be ignored.

The Rules Forum equivelant of "I hit you upside the head with a rulebook" kind of idea.

So any suggestions on how to make the argumentmore logical is welcomed.

Personally - I feel that's half of the point of the counter-argument.

If the Argument made is not logical, or workable in a way that works in such a way as to have the game continue to work... Its not a good argument, and should be ignored.

The Rules Forum equivelant of "I hit you upside the head with a rulebook" kind of idea.

I wanted to ask "Can someone make an argument that is not RAI because this RAW is pretty **** good. And just because everyone played the game like this for 2 years doesn't make them right so that isn't a reason why the RAW is incorrect."

But that comes off as brash and biased. If someone were to bring this question to me, and simply based off of RAW, I would have to go with the crit does not hurt the shields. Obviously I don't play it like that, but because I can make that statement, I feel the RAW argument is almost too good and there isn't a counter argument to it.

So any suggestions on how to make the argumentmore logical is welcomed.

Personally - I feel that's half of the point of the counter-argument.

If the Argument made is not logical, or workable in a way that works in such a way as to have the game continue to work... Its not a good argument, and should be ignored.

The Rules Forum equivelant of "I hit you upside the head with a rulebook" kind of idea.

I wanted to ask "Can someone make an argument that is not RAI because this RAW is pretty **** good. And just because everyone played the game like this for 2 years doesn't make them right so that isn't a reason why the RAW is incorrect."

But that comes off as brash and biased. If someone were to bring this question to me, and simply based off of RAW, I would have to go with the crit does not hurt the shields. Obviously I don't play it like that, but because I can make that statement, I feel the RAW argument is almost too good and there isn't a counter argument to it.

I do advocate for RAW above most others, but there are Rules that simply break the game . Again, this is always considering the futher interactions you get that the rule, when followed, also applies to. Perhaps it is the one main weakness I have from my time in Game design... Don't Break the Game .

Breaking the game is where an interaction has far on, far loading and follow-on effects that work for a negative experience to other game components or interactions.

For example. Demolisher fundamentally ignores a part of the Rules as Written, but it does not break the game as it is encapsulated within itself and which rules it ignores.

Its all well and good to Argue that Luke Skywalker, in "ignoring shields", would ignore all shields all the time, whenever shields are referenced... But that then has follow on effects. Because the same mechanic that allows that to happen, allows such things as APT + Fire Control Team to do nothing , as the First Damage Card dealt this turn was the APT card, and thus, it doesn't stack as it was Already face up...

I think this is mostly the reason why my Hyperspace Assault question hasn't been answered in almost a Year, despite being asked 4 Times, and Once directly to the person who answers the questions at their request .

because although it requires a simple yes/no answer, there are so many other interactions that utilise similar wording, and providing a precedence on one provides a framework precedence on another - even if we don't want it to be so .

So I stand by my point.

I made my decision, as a TO, and Judge for my League.

I also stated that if someone were to ask me this at a Tournament, I would Defenstrate them.

They are lucky the Sentry Box does not have any windows.

Or perhaps, even more Succinctly:


- I agree with the assertion that - this is an Issue .

- I disagree with the assertion - that it should be .

Nothing wrong with that.

I will leave it as it then.

So any suggestions on how to make the argumentmore logical is welcomed.

Personally - I feel that's half of the point of the counter-argument.

If the Argument made is not logical, or workable in a way that works in such a way as to have the game continue to work... Its not a good argument, and should be ignored.

The Rules Forum equivelant of "I hit you upside the head with a rulebook" kind of idea.

I wanted to ask "Can someone make an argument that is not RAI because this RAW is pretty **** good. And just because everyone played the game like this for 2 years doesn't make them right so that isn't a reason why the RAW is incorrect."

But that comes off as brash and biased. If someone were to bring this question to me, and simply based off of RAW, I would have to go with the crit does not hurt the shields. Obviously I don't play it like that, but because I can make that statement, I feel the RAW argument is almost too good and there isn't a counter argument to it.

I do advocate for RAW above most others, but there are Rules that simply break the game . Again, this is always considering the futher interactions you get that the rule, when followed, also applies to. Perhaps it is the one main weakness I have from my time in Game design... Don't Break the Game .

Breaking the game is where an interaction has far on, far loading and follow-on effects that work for a negative experience to other game components or interactions.

For example. Demolisher fundamentally ignores a part of the Rules as Written, but it does not break the game as it is encapsulated within itself and which rules it ignores.

Its all well and good to Argue that Luke Skywalker, in "ignoring shields", would ignore all shields all the time, whenever shields are referenced... But that then has follow on effects. Because the same mechanic that allows that to happen, allows such things as APT + Fire Control Team to do nothing , as the First Damage Card dealt this turn was the APT card, and thus, it doesn't stack as it was Already face up...

APT never uses the word "ignores shields". It just states that it Deals 1 faceup damage card. In addition, the wording on the Luke Skywalker squadron card isn't remotely like the wording on APT.

A game is only broken if it is rendered unplayable. Even if APT were ruled to not stack using Fire Control Team the game could still be played.

I am glad to see a central clearinghouse for all the strange interactions, wording issues, and possible glitches. This thread is mighty useful just to help us spot speed bumps before game night.

Thanks!

So before Dras gets at you, if Luke was ruled to ignore shields for the entire attack, then it could translate to APT counting as the first damage face up for the attack. Which means you can't XX9 and do a standard crit because you already dealt 1 face up this attack.

It's convoluted and crazy, but it's one interpretation of the Luke RAW ruling.

APT never uses the word "ignores shields". It just states that it Deals 1 faceup damage card. In addition, the wording on the Luke Skywalker squadron card isn't remotely like the wording on APT.

No, but the implication is that Luke Skywalker's effect applies universally throughout the entire attack step, rather than just when dealing damage.

That's what has the problems moving foward.

.... The Bogey-Dras is after you....

APT never uses the word "ignores shields". It just states that it Deals 1 faceup damage card. In addition, the wording on the Luke Skywalker squadron card isn't remotely like the wording on APT.

No, but the implication is that Luke Skywalker's effect applies universally throughout the entire attack step, rather than just when dealing damage.

That's what has the problems moving foward.

Huh. We already treat it as if it applies throughout the entire attack step, critical effects and all. Hasn't caused us any problems.

Certainly hasn't broken the game.

Rules discussions in rules thread pls

It's a meta-discussion about how "logical argumentation" and RAW can be accomplished when all agree on a common definition of terms.

For example: " game breaking " is a powerful term. It should only refer to something that makes a game unplayable - rather than something that makes a game less enjoyable or sensible to a particular player.

APT never uses the word "ignores shields". It just states that it Deals 1 faceup damage card. In addition, the wording on the Luke Skywalker squadron card isn't remotely like the wording on APT.

No, but the implication is that Luke Skywalker's effect applies universally throughout the entire attack step, rather than just when dealing damage.

That's what has the problems moving foward.

Huh. We already treat it as if it applies throughout the entire attack step, critical effects and all. Hasn't caused us any problems.

Certainly hasn't broken the game.

As a General Discussion Point .

Does that mean you are okay with the concept that taking One Upgrade Card, will completely invalidate another upgrade Card?

Not just "provide reduced benefit".

Completely Invalidate.

And not your Enemies

Your own.

Rules discussions in rules thread pls

AWWWWW,

But I spent ALL MORNING building that Strawman Argument, Unca-Gink...

Can't I at least set on fire first?

APT never uses the word "ignores shields". It just states that it Deals 1 faceup damage card. In addition, the wording on the Luke Skywalker squadron card isn't remotely like the wording on APT.

No, but the implication is that Luke Skywalker's effect applies universally throughout the entire attack step, rather than just when dealing damage.

That's what has the problems moving foward.

Huh. We already treat it as if it applies throughout the entire attack step, critical effects and all. Hasn't caused us any problems.

Certainly hasn't broken the game.

As a General Discussion Point .

Does that mean you are okay with the concept that taking One Upgrade Card, will completely invalidate another upgrade Card?

Not just "provide reduced benefit".

Completely Invalidate.

And not your Enemies

Your own.

Totally okay with that concept. After all, it's my choice on what cards to bring.

Totally okay with that concept. After all, it's my choice on what cards to bring.

But it worked Yesterday...

And the last 2 years I played it.

Granted, It is an absolute corner case, and it is a perfect-storm of situations that has to come up for it to not work ... But it happened, and despite the people being involved being Canadians, it almost ended up in violence.

So yes, I make no apologies for being over-alarmist over the situation. People ahve demonstrated to me, both online and in real life, that they need to take things a certain way, and make certain assumptions.

I mean, I'm expecting my Hyperspace question to be answered in a certain way - and that way will make the Card useless to both players, should it be taken in a certain place... But the alternative, to have the card provide some use, would have follow on effects to any and all cards which have a "Do X, and maybe Y", to make Y no longer Conditional on X....

Totally okay with that concept. After all, it's my choice on what cards to bring.

But it worked Yesterday...

And the last 2 years I played it.

Your length of time playing the game has no bearing on what the rules are.

You know this.

Totally okay with that concept. After all, it's my choice on what cards to bring.

But it worked Yesterday...

And the last 2 years I played it.

Your length of time playing the game has no bearing on what the rules are.

You know this.

I do.

But I also admit it has bearing on rules as written, when said rules are not updated in order to accommodate an evolving rules formula area in upgrades.

Rules as Written may be a bit of a misnomer.

Rules as Read is more accurate. Just because the words are there in black-and-white doesn't mean two people can't read them with honest intent and get different impressions.

Also what is a "rules formula area"?

Also what is a "rules formula area"?

I am sober and decaffinated, so I apologise for the rambling (and the arguments above, I normally don't do that....)

Its a design-space term.

Effectively, you have two areas of Rules space:

1) "Here are my Rules. My Rules are Absolute. My Rules are Involiable. My Rules as the Last Word."

Those are the rules you put into your Rulebook. Carve them into Stone, whatever... These are the rules that, basically, shouldn't have to change.

Then you have the second space.

2) "Here are the way we mess about with the Rules. They're rules themselves, but they overrule rules, or find ways about rules."

That is the Upgrade Rules Formula area. That is where changes are made. Often, its where the complications happen, because that is the space that evolves . You can change, modify, and even out rightly ignore the original rules if you want... But you can't make rules. That's what the first space is for.

If I were to show an upgrade that does not respect the Rules space, then I would point first up to Jun Sato . But beyond that, I feel that the Luke issue does that in part, as well. Perhaps it is me applying a little too much Occam's Razor to the rules space and what I believe to be design intent - but the game does start getting wonky when you start calling two different things the same thing...

Then again, FFG has done that before, in Armada... I have a whole separate Rant on "Attack" vs "Attack".

Nevertheless, this is purely the reason why I initially made a suggestion on committee and discussion being made.

Because I am opinionated jerk who has no life, and struggles to communicate effectively even online.

It was encouraging to have some people say that I was the only committee needed, but again.

Gotcha. Not a term I'd heard before and I have been in game design and testing for decades.

That isn't how I have seen games design behave. Nothing need be inviolate in a game. Nothing is sacred.

In fact, new cards and updates can and do stomp all over the original ruleset. In a good game this is handled gracefully.

It takes a lot of discipline to maintain this over time with a prolific game expansion schedule.