Hmmmm, I see your point. There is definitely an implied "you," which following other precedence would have to refer to Luke. I can see your argument as well, and it was really well constructed and presented. English sentence structure really isn't one of my strong suits, despite it being my first language.

I'll leave it to you an Dras to discuss from here, since I tend not to jump in these issues

In Short:

"While Luke is attacking, treat the defender as if he has no shields."

While Luke is attacking, He's rolling Dice.

While Luke is attacking, you're using defense tokens

While Luke is attacking, He's choosing a critical effect to resolve (default).

While Luke is attacking, you're drawing damage cards.

While Luke is attacking, you're drawing the first damage card face up.

While Luke is attacking, you're seeing that damage card is projector misaligned.

While Luke is attacking, you're resolving that card.

While Luke is attacking, you're drawing another damage card (because you forgot to brace, earlier).

THEN, and ONLY THEN... Does Luke Stop attacking and do you count as having Shields again.

Just because Luke is "under" the shields doesn't mean he can't hit the shield projector.

2 hours ago, Vetnor said:

Just because Luke is "under" the shields doesn't mean he can't hit the shield projector.

True, but theme has no bearing on this conversation, nor does practicality. This is specifically about wording and how that interacts with the RAW.

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

While Luke is attacking, you're drawing the first damage card face up.

While Luke is attacking, you're seeing that damage card is projector misaligned.

While Luke is attacking, you're resolving that card.

The ship being attacked resolves the crit card, not Luke; there is no reason to think the ship being attacked is ignoring shields.

Projector Misaligned and Shield Failure work as normal with Luke.

9 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

The ship being attacked resolves the crit card, not Luke; there is no reason to think the ship being attacked is ignoring shields.

Projector Misaligned and Shield Failure work as normal with Luke.

Doesn't matter who resolves it... Luke is still attacking at that point in time, so the Defender has no shields - by RAW

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Doesn't matter who resolves it... Luke is still attacking at that point in time, so the Defender has no shields - by RAW

Only as far as Luke is concerned.

32 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Only as far as Luke is concerned.

That is the crux of the argument. English vs Good English.

The target vessel still has shields. (assuming you know it actually does have shields.)

Luke is allowed to treat it as having no shields, but Luke does not remove them shields, they exist before he attacks, they exist while he attacks, and they exist after he attacks, the Defender is just not allowed to use them to soak the damage from Lukes attack.

Lukes text does not say "set all shield facings to zero, then reset to correct values after his attack.
What it does say, in a way that leaves no ambiguity is that the defender cannot use shields to soak damage from Lukes attack.

I see no reason why Crit cards that affect shields, should not be resolved in full.

The actual wording:

"While attacking, treat the defender as having no shields"

One reading.

"While Luke is attacking, everyone treat s the defender as having no shields"

Based on things I don't know. It seems that American English shortcuts subjects and morphemes freely without providing context in formal speech (rules writing). About that I have no idea.

Also, it seems that Luke's writer should be the worst, cause with every other squadron character, they wrote similar structures with their subjects (why they would do that if they don't have to?):

Ciena: "while you are defending, the attack is treated as obstructed" instead of "while defending, treat the attack as obstructed".

Morna: "while attacking, you may spend 1 defenses token to reroll..."

Maarek: "while attacking, you may..."

Vader: "While attacking, each of your crit icons adds..."

Or objectives.

Most Wanted: "while attacking an objective ship, the attacker may add..." instead of "while attacking an objective ship, may add...".

The only difference I see between Luke and those other wording is the imperative mood (Luke would not be optional) where the subject is there but unspoken. Actually, Vader and Shara are not optional but the subject there is a third person (crit icons) so imperative mood is not possible.

However, they omit the subject of the subordinate clauses several times. It is right cause there are no-tense verbs and in most of them the subject is the same from the main clause, but it is not with Vader and Shara. Not sure if it is incorrect or just an impersonal sentence. Anyway, we have context there: your crit icons points to you.

Another reading:

"While you are attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields"

That is how I read it the first time. It follows the correct use of English, I think. It doesn't add anything that is not there. It doesn't suppose anything about the writer's writing, in fact, it just understands he wrote following English rules (no matter if he knew them consciously or not).

However, I will ask for a quick (haha hopefully) clarification. I don't want to bring anyone to a misreading of Luke.

As a side note: I found something about subjects (and other things) eroded from a linguistic dissertation (University of Michigan? I didn't go deeper). It is called Conversational Deletion and it only happens in speaking English. Written would be completely wrong English, it seems. Does it matter? No idea.

EDIT: I looked the Spanish translation. It uses what we call pasiva refleja , some kind of passive voice, built with an verb in active and more boring stuff I won't put here. Short story: this structure has the purpose of keep the "real" subject (not the grammar subject) undefined so, in Spanish, the correct reading would be, undoubtedly, that the defender is treated no matter who is actually treating it at a certain moment.

However, the spanish translator made a lot of jumps to end there. He/She built a passive voice where we have an active one and change the subordinate adverb clause as having no shields into a subordinate noun clause. Not sure how much credit I would give (considering other translations) but as long as I have not a translation degree I will trust in that wording (that seems to be right with some english speakers) and, for me, everybody will ignore shields (while Luke is attacking) until I got a clarification.

In the rules it states "when a ship suffers damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time. For each point, reduce the shields in the defending hull zone by one. If the defending hull zone has no shields to lose, deal a face down damage card to the ship instead."

Lukes ability is a direct override to shields taking damage first, Lukes attack means the defender cannot reduce the shields in the defending hull zone, one point at a time. Instead they take a damage card, either face up or face down depending on the attack roll.

But the ship still has them shields, this is no different than something that temporarily reduces a ships speed, and it not triggering a face up damage card that goes off on the ship changing speed, the speed dial is not adjusted, and so the trigger criteria are not met. In this case if you draw a face up damage card that removes shields, there are shields there to be removed. While Luke is attacking, the Defender CANNOT use shields to stop damage from Lukes attack.

Luke shoots at ISD front hull zone (has 4 shlds remaining).

Rolls a HIT/CRIT.

Defender spends defense tokens.

In the event this is Devastator with Needa, so spends 1 Evade, 1 Brace, 1 Redir, 1 Contain.

So nothing much happens, except Brace reduces total dmg to 1.

Luke now resolves a crit.

Since Norra is at distance 1 he can choose: standard crit or Norra crit.

He opts to resolve Norra's - presumably to pave the way for further attacks - so ISD front shld drops to 3.

ISD suffers 1 face down damage card.

Maybe should have just gone for the standard crit, except then contain would have nerfed it.

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

"While you are attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields"

That is how I read it the first time. It follows the correct use of English, I think. It doesn't add anything that is not there. It doesn't suppose anything about the writer's writing, in fact, it just understands he wrote following English rules (no matter if he knew them consciously or not).

That is how I would read it as well, "While attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields." As you say this would be correct grammar. I would agree this is rule as written (RAW) and would preclude Luke from resolving Norra's crit effect. I do not believe this is the rule as intended (RAI) with regards this interaction between Luke and Norra. I think you're meant to be able to choose between the default and Norra if Luke rolls a critical effect result.

As long as one way is chosen before the game/tourney and stuck with throughout I'd be "good" with it. One way or the other is not enough of a difference to change my mind about whether I'm including both of those squadrons in my list. Unlike Rapid Launch Bays the way it works doesn't completely change whether or not you'd run it.

Or maybe those extra seven points for Luke over a generic really do argue for the interaction between Luke and Norra to work?

11 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

That is the crux of the argument. English vs Good English.

I mean, I see that, but if we're assuming the writers don't know how to speak English that opens up basically everything to mean whatever you want it to mean.

5 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

"While Luke is attacking, everyone treat s the defender as having no shields"

...

"While you are attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields"

Sheepcaster, usually your grammatical analysis is on point, but I disagree with the conclusion you made. The second sentence is the only correct way to interpret it. This is an imperative sentence, so implied "you" is the subject. Yes, it's informal and badly written within the context of the rest of the game, but the meaning is clear.

So, if we make the subject explicit, you have:

"While attacking, [you] treat the defender as having no shields."

Which means that

1) any face up damage card dealing with shields works as normal, because the defender resolves the card, not the attacker,

and

2) Luke can't benefit from Norra, because Luke is resolving the critical effect and treating the defender as having no shields.

2 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Sheepcaster, usually your grammatical analysis is on point, but I disagree with the conclusion you made. The second sentence is the only correct way to interpret it. This is an imperative sentence, so implied "you" is the subject. Yes, it's informal and badly written within the context of the rest of the game, but the meaning is clear.

Not sure what I finally concluded .

I would swear I said the second sentence would be the right one for me, but I wrote the post with tons of interuptions and even cooking at the same time so maybe I mised the track somewhere and I said otherwise, lol.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

Not sure what I finally concluded .

I would swear I said the second sentence would be the right one for me, but I wrote the post with tons of interuptions and even cooking at the same time so maybe I mised the track somewhere and I said otherwise, lol.

Oh, I might have misunderstood you then. I'm going to co-opt Dras' go-to and blame it on lack of coffee.

Why do you have to reference back to Luke's game text when resolving a crit?

If Luke can't use Norra, he can't use Projector Misaligned either. Or at the very least all 4 zones have 0 shields and you can pick any one...isn't that a can of weird worms right there?

37 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Why do you have to reference back to Luke's game text when resolving a crit?

If Luke can't use Norra, he can't use Projector Misaligned either. Or at the very least all 4 zones have 0 shields and you can pick any one...isn't that a can of weird worms right there?

In brief: the distinction is that the face up damage card is resolved by the defender; the special crit is a critical effect being dealt by Luke himself.

His text covers the entirety of the attack, but pertains to him (hence the relevance of the implicit "you" and all the grammar shtick), not to the defender.

Damage cards, including faceups, are dealt to the defender and thus owned and resolved by the defender. The text of Projector Misaligned is:

Projector Misaligned said:

Your hull zone with the most remaining shields loses all of its shields, if multiple are tied, choose between the tied hull zones, then flip this card face down.

Norra, on the other hand, grants a special crit effect that is owned and thus resolved by the attacker, just like any other crit effect is.

Norra Wesley said:

...<crit>: The defending hull zone loses 1 shield. ...

Be careful not to equate resolving a face up card dealt by a crit effect to the crit effect itself . The faceup card is dealt as a result of the default crit, but then the text on that card is resolved by the ship to which it was dealt. The two are of course closely correlated, but are distinct in that one is done by the attacker and one by the defender.

TL;DR - I'm sure you're right, but I sure don't quite follow

But you can't actually prevent Luke from triggering the Norra-crit...it just doesn't resolve?

Hmm...much weirdness there is, a FAQ reply we must seek.

24 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

In brief: the distinction is that the face up damage card is resolved by the defender; the special crit is a critical effect being dealt by Luke himself.

I'm not sure this is ever made clear. More to the point, one could argue that "reduce the shield dials by one point" is also resolved by the defender. Particularly since the text says:

Then the attacker determines the total
damage amount. Then the defending squadron or hull
zone suffers that total damage, one point at a time.

Notably, it is not "the attacker deals damage," but "the defender suffers damage."

On the other hand, your argument IS a pretty solid point to hang your hat on.

30 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Hmm...much weirdness there is, a FAQ reply we must seek.

I absolutely agree there. I think the answer is there, it's just so **** obscure it should definitely be explicitly called out in an FAQ.

18 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

I'm not sure this is ever made clear. More to the point, one could argue that "reduce the shield dials by one point" is also resolved by the defender. Particularly since the text says:

Then the attacker determines the total
damage amount. Then the defending squadron or hull
zone suffers that total damage, one point at a time.

Notably, it is not "the attacker deals damage," but "the defender suffers damage."

On the other hand, your argument IS a pretty solid point to hang your hat on.

Actually I just realized there is something wrong (or not quite clear) with my reading:

"While you are attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields"

Just cause what you pointed about suffering damage and redirect token . Who redirects damage? I would say the defender but the defender would be able to "see" the shields and redirect the damage then, no matter what Luke said. All too confusing right now for me. My head melted with the grammaticaly explanation . I let you that part. If something came to my mind (or my mail) I'll let you know.

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Actually I just realized there is something wrong (or not quite clear) with my reading:

"While you are attacking, you treat the defender as having no shields"

Just cause what you pointed about suffering damage and redirect token . Who redirects damage? I would say the defender but the defender would be able to "see" the shields and redirect the damage then, no matter what Luke said. All too confusing right now for me. My head melted with the grammaticaly explanation . I let you that part. If something came to my mind (or my mail) I'll let you know.

As I see this point, the defender indeed can use the redirect, but he'll have no damage to redirect as all the damage from Luke will go straight to the hull

21 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

As I see this point, the defender indeed can use the redirect, but he'll have no damage to redirect as all the damage from Luke will go straight to the hull

Except that we are arguing it won't, if one is to claim that Luke is treating the ship as having no shields. Luke will simply total up damage, and hand a number to the defender. The defender then suffers damage, and since only Luke is pretending there are no shields, the defender can take the damage on the shields.

As much as I hate to say it, I think this is one where analysing the text won't get us the answer. We need an FAQ. Until then, I'm gonna have damage and crit effects ignore shields, but face-up damage cards still hit the shields.

18 hours ago, JgzMan said:

Except that we are arguing it won't, if one is to claim that Luke is treating the ship as having no shields. Luke will simply total up damage, and hand a number to the defender. The defender then suffers damage, and since only Luke is pretending there are no shields, the defender can take the damage on the shields.

As much as I hate to say it, I think this is one where analysing the text won't get us the answer. We need an FAQ. Until then, I'm gonna have damage and crit effects ignore shields, but face-up damage cards still hit the shields.

The ship has shields, the dials tell you the ship has shields, the only thing is the Defender cannot use them. Hence the words "treat the defender as having no shields." this is direction to a specific section of the rules for taking damage, usually damage is applied to shields first and only, once you have no shields it is applied to the hull, Ergo you're treating the defender as if it has already lost its shields, thats all.

It does not say anything about the attacker not being able to damage the shields, so if Crits are considered part of the Attack damage, then they can be damaged by the attacker.