3 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:You just quoted a passage that says they're destroyed before the end of the game so I have no idea what you're arguing here.
Because HR says they are not scarred after the battle.
Do you have a better argument?
Hyperspace retreat says not to scar it after the battle had been resolved, and the ship is destroyed before that rule happens (because that's an after the battle effect)
4 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:You just quoted a passage that says they're destroyed before the end of the game so I have no idea what you're arguing here.
It matter cause is a timing issue.
1. A ship is destroyed during the battle. Does Riekan prevent destruction? No. But the ship counts as not destroyed for all purpose until the end of the status phase.
2. The destroyed ship activates thanks to Riekan and jump to hyperspace as it plays as it doesn't be destroyed.
3. At the star of the status phase the DESTROYED ship remains on the play area so you can remove it from the play area. It will count as destroyed to score purpose but it doesn't become scarred.
4. At the end of the status phase there is no ship to be destroyed.
The thing is that every ship or squadron destroyed during the battle become scarred but every ship (destroyed or not) that jumped to hyperspace and remains in the play area at the start of the status phase doesn't becomes scarred. In fact Riekan doesn't prevent scarring, hyperspace jump does. What happens is that Riekan is the only way to remain in the play area at the start of the status phase. But hyperspace escape doesn't ask you for not being destroyed during the battle. It asks you for remaining on the play area at the start of the status phase.
This is the way I see it.
51 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:Hyperspace retreat says not to scar it after the battle had been resolved, and the ship is destroyed before that rule happens (because that's an after the battle effect)
So the order of ruling is as follows:
So does HR overrule the scarring/destroyed rule? I'm fairly certain it does because Rieekan's FAQ does not come into play.The FAQ removes things from the board. Where are you removing the ship that used HR? It is no longer in play, so you cannot remove it via Rieekan.
3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:The blood choose who is the king (first player). The king sits on the throne (initiative token).
The king (first player) is the guy whith the crown (initiative).
The crown (initiative) determines who will govern (act first). Whoever governs (acts first) is the king (first player) and sits on the throne (initiative token).
The king (first player) retains the crown (initiative) for his entire life.
Are the king, the throne and the crown the same thing? No. Does it matter? Probably not.
Sure it matters. Is there any upside to redundant terms? No.
Is there any downside? Yes, confusion.
Opting to write rules in a way that invites confusion instead of a way that does not matters. If they hadn't written the core rules regarding first player and initiative poorly, then it wouldn't have been an FAQ question later.
43 minutes ago, Sekac said:Sure it matters. Is there any upside to redundant terms? No.
Is there any downside? Yes, confusion.
Opting to write rules in a way that invites confusion instead of a way that does not matters. If they hadn't written the core rules regarding first player and initiative poorly, then it wouldn't have been an FAQ question later.
I am not sure how it could be confusing.
Redundancy is not confusing, is useless, and is not always.
What I intend is that you confused the player with the less fleet points as the player with the initiative but it cannot happen due to redundancy. It happened due to missreading. All we know that it happens but I wouldn't point to a redundancy as the cause, as it is pretty clear in the RRG.
What can cause confusion is a non consistent use of terms as it happens with... EDIT: <wrong example>.
EDIT 2: there is nothing about initiative and first player in the FAQ as long as I read, probably because it never cause confusion before or it didn't be asked with enough frequency.
Edited by ovinomanc3r
But the initiative token and the round token are different tokens, aren't they?
The Initiative token sits with the player with initiative, and displays either Orange or Blue.
But the Round token is the little number tokens that go along side it to state the round number...
Edited by Drasnighta8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:But the initiative token and the round token are different tokens, aren't they?
The Initiative token sits with the player with initiative, and displays either Orange or Blue.
But the Round token is the little number tokens that go along side it to state the round number...
Oh, man! Thanks!! I forgot those tokens as I always played with a 6D hahaha.
So initiative token is not a right example, sorry.
2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:I am not sure how it could be confusing.
Redundancy is not confusing, is useless, and is not always.
What I intend is that you confused the player with the less fleet points as the player with the initiative but it cannot happen due to redundancy. It happened due to missreading. All we know that it happens but I wouldn't point to a redundancy as the cause, as it is pretty clear in the RRG.
What can cause confusion is a non consistent use of terms as it happens with... EDIT: <wrong example>.
EDIT 2: there is nothing about initiative and first player in the FAQ as long as I read, probably because it never cause confusion before or it didn't be asked with enough frequency.
The question is on page 1 of this very thread. Question 7 specifically.
Using 2 interchangeable terms to express 1 mechanic can lead to confusion. Evidence? I, and others, were confused. Enough so that the question was important enough to be askedWhether or not you were confused as well is irrelevant.
If they eliminated every reference to "initiative" and instead used "first player" there couldn't be confusion.
One term per mechanic, no more, no less is good rules writing. Redundant terms is bad rules writing, whether you fell victim to it or not.
4 hours ago, Sekac said:The question is on page 1 of this very thread. Question 7 specifically.
Using 2 interchangeable terms to express 1 mechanic can lead to confusion. Evidence? I, and others, were confused. Enough so that the question was important enough to be askedWhether or not you were confused as well is irrelevant.
If they eliminated every reference to "initiative" and instead used "first player" there couldn't be confusion.
One term per mechanic, no more, no less is good rules writing. Redundant terms is bad rules writing, whether you fell victim to it or not.
Read the terms as they are is good rules reading.
How can you miss that the first player is the player with the initiative and not who choose which player is the first player when the rules tell you twice?
2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:Read the terms as they are is good rules reading.
How can you miss that the first player is the player with the initiative and not who choose which player is the first player when the rules tell you twice?
Yes I understand the rulebook is clear on it. It is possible to comprehend poorly written rules, but that doesn't make them good ones. There is no reason whatsoever to have both initiative and first player to exist. Choose one and use it consistently. That's how rules are supposed to be written.
Otherwise you open the door for people to (mistakenly) assume that the reason you have 2 different terms is because they are 2 different things.
On 2/26/2017 at 10:58 PM, Jo-Bu said:when attacking a planet with a Rebel Presence sticker it says in the Management Phase that if a rebel base or Outpost was revealed then place the appropriate sticker over the presence sticker. This is mentioned after "if a player wins a battle with a Base or Outpost sticker . . . .place a destroyed sticker." The way it is worded makes it seem like a player must assault a planet twice if it has a Rebel Presence sticker and proves to have a rebel base. This seems wonky to me. Is that the way it works or is the rebel base destroyed in the same turn as wining an attack on a planet with rebel presence sticker?
Any help please with this is appreciated?
You replace the presence sticker before the battle phase with the appropriate base or output sticker
On 03/03/2017 at 1:56 AM, ovinomanc3r said:It matter cause is a timing issue.
1. A ship is destroyed during the battle. Does Riekan prevent destruction? No. But the ship counts as not destroyed for all purpose until the end of the status phase.
2. The destroyed ship activates thanks to Riekan and jump to hyperspace as it plays as it doesn't be destroyed.
3. At the star of the status phase the DESTROYED ship remains on the play area so you can remove it from the play area. It will count as destroyed to score purpose but it doesn't become scarred.
4. At the end of the status phase there is no ship to be destroyed.
Is Number 4 actually a rule? Does the ship have to be on the table to be 'destroyed'? I mean, the ship doesn't stop existing, in either a physical or game-mechanics sense. It's just not on the table.
I can't think of another example where this would be relevant, but in this particular case we've got an interaction between something we previously knew to be true (models not on the table cannot be affected by anything ever) and something new (things can happen to models that are not on the table) so my question is, can the model still be destroyed (not dealt a damage card or suffer damage or anything like that, just flat out destroyed as written on Rieekan's card) if it's not on the table?
12 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:Is Number 4 actually a rule? Does the ship have to be on the table to be 'destroyed'? I mean, the ship doesn't stop existing, in either a physical or game-mechanics sense. It's just not on the table.
I can't think of another example where this would be relevant, but in this particular case we've got an interaction between something we previously knew to be true (models not on the table cannot be affected by anything ever) and something new (things can happen to models that are not on the table) so my question is, can the model still be destroyed (not dealt a damage card or suffer damage or anything like that, just flat out destroyed as written on Rieekan's card) if it's not on the table?
Does it matter?
What do you need when checking hyperspace retreat? The ship on the table at the start of the status phase.
Is the ship on the table? Yes so it jumps to hyperspace and escape.
As long as a ship escape to hyperspace it doesn't become scarred.
If Riekan destroys it later doesn't affect that the ship jumped and escape.
EDIT: in fact what could cause bigger problems would be if the scarred rule triggered as soon asi a ship is destroyed. If it would be this way, someone could argue that as the ship is destroyed it becomes scarred, Riekan keep it on the battlefield but at the end of the status phase the ship is destroyed (this is the wording of Riekan's faq) and as it was scarred boom! This would start another debate.
Edited by ovinomanc3r3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:Does it matter?
What do you need when checking hyperspace retreat? The ship on the table at the start of the status phase.
Is the ship on the table? Yes so it jumps to hyperspace and escape.
As long as a ship escape to hyperspace it doesn't become scarred.
If Riekan destroys it later doesn't affect that the ship jumped and escape.
EDIT: in fact what could cause bigger problems would be if the scarred rule triggered as soon asi a ship is destroyed. If it would be this way, someone could argue that as the ship is destroyed it becomes scarred, Riekan keep it on the battlefield but at the end of the status phase the ship is destroyed (this is the wording of Riekan's faq) and as it was scarred boom! This would start another debate.
Yes, I think what most people fail to realize is that the rules for Hyperspace Escape explicitly state that ship which escapes does not become scarred.
It does not say "a ship which escapes and is not later destroyed does not become scarred." So, as written, the rules clearly state that any ship which escapes via hyperspace is not scarred, regardless of what happens to that ship after escaping.
Now, was this intended? Probably not, but as written the rules prevent Reikaan ships from getting scarred when hyperspacing. But it's a bit silly that the devs didn't consider the fundamental interaction of one of the most popular commanders with the hyperspace rules. Honesty, I think this is fine. Reikaan doesn't help win those battles, just helps reduce the effects of scarring (something the Rebels could really use in CC, in my opinion, since they are asymmetrically affected by it). Otherwise, there is very little reason to use Reikaan in the campaign at all, since using his ability necessitates getting your own stuff scarred....at that point better to just run a different Admiral.
Hi, noob player reading the rules here.
I'm a little concerned the imperial players will be able to see every time we build a rebel base in 'secret'.
The rules give the values for income that you get every turn and then it says in a note on secrecy, 'all other information (including resource income) is public knowledge'.
Would the imperial players not notice the jump of 25+locale in resource income opposed to 5+locale when we place a presence sticker?
Sorry if this has already been covered.
Right, Hyperspace Retreat specifically mentions that ships which escape are not destroyed.
But I think it's fair to say that the designers assumed that a ship which escaped would not be able to be destroyed afterwards.
If we assume that a ship CAN be destroyed after escaping via hyperspace, then I think it's fair to question if the 'will not be scarred' part of the rules still applies.
Guys,
Reiken specifically states that " When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase "
I read that to say that destroyed ships under Reiken cannot hyperspace retreat.
It remains in the play area .
Golden Rule : components such as cards take precedence over the rule book.
1 minute ago, Ginjo Halan said:Guys,
Reiken specifically states that " When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase "
I read that to say that destroyed ships under Reiken cannot hyperspace retreat.
It remains in the play area .
Golden Rule : components such as cards take precedence over the rule book.
If you want to take that line, sure... But make sure you quote things correctly:
RRG, Page 1, "Golden Rules"
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.
Which brings us to this point:
Hyperspace Retreat is not found in either the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets .
Ergo, its status of irrefutability is questionable.
25 minutes ago, Ginjo Halan said:Guys,
Reiken specifically states that " When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase "
I read that to say that destroyed ships under Reiken cannot hyperspace retreat.
It remains in the play area .
Golden Rule : components such as cards take precedence over the rule book.
Even if you are right:
- It doesn't say that the ship cannot hyperspace retreat. You can declare the retreat as normal.
- hyperspace rule doesn't say IF YOU DO IT (remove the ship). It just enumerates some things to do. One is to remove the ship but removing the ship is not the condition to apply all the rules of hyperspace (one of them is that the ship doesn't become scarred). The condition is to remain in the play area at the start of the status phase and Riekan allow you to do it.
So at the very end you can destroy the ship at the end of the status phase as you cannot remove it at the start of the status phase but the ship remains in the play area at the star of the status phase so it counts as destroyed to score purpose and it doesn't become scarred. Riekan still works.
13 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:Even if you are right:
- It doesn't say that the ship cannot hyperspace retreat. You can declare the retreat as normal.
- hyperspace rule doesn't say IF YOU DO IT (remove the ship). It just enumerates some things to do. One is to remove the ship but removing the ship is not the condition to apply all the rules of hyperspace (one of them is that the ship doesn't become scarred). The condition is to remain in the play area at the start of the stays phase and Riekan allow you to do it.
So at the very end you could destroy the ship at the end of the status phase as you cannot remove it at the start of the status phase but the ship remains in the play area at the star of the strut phase so it counts as destroyer to score purpose and it doesn't become scarred. Riekan still works.
So, reread page 9 of the CC Campaign Guide (it may or may not be one of the Rules Reference booklets {plural} Dras
)
Under "Tracking Fleet Condition"
"Scarred Ships and Squadrons: each ship or squadron that was destroyed during the battle becomes scarred ..."
From the card Reiken: " When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed , it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase "
All that said....I think I'll just bring an Interdictor
.....
But its not the Rules Reference Guide.
Its the Corellian Conflict Campaign Guide.
BIG difference
The ship or unique squadron would remain in the play area at the time of it being destroyed. It doesn't say it must stay in the play area until the end of the status phase, otherwise it would have free reign to fly at the edge of the table and hit a magical wall that doesn't allow it to leave the play area. Therefore it should be able to hyperspace retreat because Reiken's rule is not holding it in the game, it merely kept it there on that one occasion.
It's like adding dice to your dice pool, you don't assume they are there forever more, it's a reactive effect that lasts as long as it takes for you to resolve the current action. In Reiken's case it cuts out the line that says remove the model from the play area, and inserts it into the end of the status phase.
I would however rule thematically on this one that:
A: The ship has massive hull damage, more than it should normally sustain (it literally wont survive sitting stationary), and you're going to fire it into hyperspace. Sure Captain, let me just slowly edge towards that escape pod over there before you do that...
B: The ship is in hyperspace and is no longer under Reiken's command, therefore his leadership skills of holding the hull together by pushing it together like it's automatic doors and slapping on sticky tape, doesn't work so well any more.
17 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:But its not the Rules Reference Guide.
Its the Corellian Conflict Campaign Guide.
BIG difference
Ah,
But make sure you quote things correctly:
RRG, Page 1, "Golden Rules"
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.
Golden Rule does not refer to the Rules Reference Guide.... just booklets!
Just jerking your chain dude.....I get your point