I found something. It could mean something or not:

"When a ship suffers damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time. For each point, you reduce the shields in the defending hull zone by one. If the defending hull zone has no shields to lose, deal a facedown damage card to the ship instead." (Bold added)

So, in fact, the ship does not do anything with the shields. Who suffers damage is not who reduces shields (you-rule applies for upgrades and squadrons, not rules). He just can choose the hull zones where the damage is suffered.

"Redirect B: The defender chooses one of its hull zones adjacent to the defending hull zone. When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zone’s shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone."

I know, the ship still suffering the damage and the ship doesn't treat itself as having no shields but...

"Ships and squadrons can suffer damage from attacks, obstacles, and other game effects."

So technically we have sources of damage (attacks, obstacles, abilities, face up damage cards...). That sources has rules depending on its nature (squadron's attacks don't sum crit icons). Luke's attack is a source and it "ignores" shields. When the ship redirects, the source still being Luke's attack so, no shields, sorry, take the damage. When the ship resolves a face up damage card, the source is the damage card and it doesn't ignore shields.

What do you think?

The "you" is referring to the ship owner, aka the defender, the attacker does not touch your ship or your dials, you do.

3 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

The "you" is referring to the ship owner, aka the defender, the attacker does not touch your ship or your dials, you do.

Yes, I didn't say otherwise.

I think Luke+Norra will not reduce the shields by 1 because Luke treats the defender as having no shields, thus Luke+Norra, the source of the damage, will not do anything.

But Luke flipping a Projector Misaligned will drop the shields on an ISD to 0 because the source is from a face up damage card that the defender applies.

8 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

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.

Several people are pointing at the imperative "you," which, in the context of the rules means that the attacker treats the defender as having no shields. If that is correct, there is no reason that the Defender should treat the defender as having no shields. If, on the other hand, EVERYONE is to treat the defender as having no shields, then crit effects that damage shields won't work.

There is absolutely no justification in the rules for saying that the Defender should treat the defender as having no shields while the Attacker should not.

8 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

DOUBLE POST!

On 5/15/2017 at 1:26 PM, Truthiness said:

The real question is why are you trying to trigger Nora instead of a standard critical effect with Luke? Take the card. Go big or go home.

I was literally reading this because if no one else had said it I would.

11 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

I was literally reading this because if no one else had said it I would.

I had wondered the same thing and someone pointed out that if you're shooting a ship with a Contain token then you would be better off with the Norra effect instead.

11 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

I was literally reading this because if no one else had said it I would.

If the ship has a Contain is might come up. But Luke is also better at shooting low hull ships.

Good points.

On 16/5/2017 at 9:36 AM, TheEasternKing said:

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.

I totally agree with you and your following. Was about to write the exact same thing myself, but no reason to as you did it so well.

The arguments that Norra doesn't allow Luke to remove a shield is IMHO polemic. "Treat" and "Remove" (if only temporary) are not the same.

Resolved by FAQ.

Wait... is there a FAQ?

2 minutes ago, Norell said:

Wait... is there a FAQ?

Yes.

On 19/12/2017 at 9:54 AM, TheEasternKing said:

Resolved by FAQ.

But the FAQ didn't clear out the relation between Norra and Luke. If it did, I can't find it.

I think it cleared the point of Luke and defender with shields regardless of the instance. Don't think it specifically touches on Luke and Norra, but it is FAQ'd generically and can be put to rest.

Looks like Luke can't use Norra's loaned crit ability because it is Luke attacking and therefore treating the ship as if it had no shields.

The FAQ specifically cleared up Luke for those two cards.

32 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I think it cleared the point of Luke and defender with shields regardless of the instance. Don't think it specifically touches on Luke and Norra, but it is FAQ'd generically and can be put to rest.

I'm not sure that it applies the same, as with “Projector Misaligned” and “Shield Failure” it is the defending ship who applies the effect and with Norra it's Luke at the moment of resolving the critical effect, and Luke treats the defender as having no shields. So it would be different cases and at least in my understanding, Luke still can't use Norra's abbility.

To be fair if Luke gets a crit would you want to be dealt a face up card or take an extra point of damage on a sheild? As Luke I'd want the card against him I'd rather lose the shield... so in my eyes it's a symantic argument as it will rarely see light of table time

I put “resolved by FAQ” on a bunch of topics.

this was not one of them.

becatse I felt it was not resolved - but also not the most pertinent of questions, too.

(personal opinion)

I just submitted the question. Agree that it's not the highest priority, but I'm sure there are scenarios where it could be worthwhile to know.

I think the question was submitted. The lack of Norra would me meaningful... but who knows?

4 hours ago, slasher956 said:

To be fair if Luke gets a crit would you want to be dealt a face up card or take an extra point of damage on a sheild? As Luke I'd want the card against him I'd rather lose the shield... so in my eyes it's a symantic argument as it will rarely see light of table time

It's the attacker's choice whether to use the standard crit or Norra's crit effect, so you could pick which you think would be most beneficial at the time.

Her crit effect says "the defending hull zone loses a shield" - the wording is identical to projector misaligned ("hull zone ... loses all of its shields"), and both crit effects are also applied during the "resolve damage" step of the attack.

I would say that the two situations are virtually identical, so there's no reason to expect that the FAQ would not also apply to Norra's ability.

1 hour ago, rasproteus said:

It's the attacker's choice whether to use the standard crit or Norra's crit effect, so you could pick which you think would be most beneficial at the time.

Her crit effect says "the defending hull zone loses a shield" - the wording is identical to projector misaligned ("hull zone ... loses all of its shields"), and both crit effects are also applied during the "resolve damage" step of the attack.

I would say that the two situations are virtually identical, so there's no reason to expect that the FAQ would not also apply to Norra's ability.

The difference is that the text on the Projector Misaligned card isn't being resolved by Luke, whereas Norra's crit effect is.

Not saying that's the end of it, but there is a relevant distinction between the two.

1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

The difference is that the text on the Projector Misaligned card isn't being resolved by Luke--Norra's crit effect is.

Not saying that's the end of it, but there is a relevant distinction between the two.

Isn't Luke resolving the standard crit effect? That's what is turning that card face-up, after all?

I do see the distinction.