This is just a hypothetical question and I expect no one would ever do this, but if Luke rolls a crit and Norra is at 1, does can Luke still strip a shield?

I assume no because Luke treats the defender as having no shields, which means the crit would do nothing.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

This is just a hypothetical question and I expect no one would ever do this, but if Luke rolls a crit and Norra is at 1, does can Luke still strip a shield?

I assume no because Luke treats the defender as having no shields, which means the crit would do nothing.

This is a question that has no official answer. Because the answers we have for other questions frame contradictory responses.

18 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

This is a question that has no official answer. Because the answers we have for other questions frame contradictory responses.

Explain?

If Damage is separate from Critical Effects:

- Then you can resolve your critical effect, and then the Damage from Luke is applied to the hull.

If Damage includes the critical effect as we are lead to believe by the FireControl+APT ruling:

- Then you will ignore the shields with Luke and never resolve the Norra Crit (and thus, always use the default). However, if you ever draw a Critical Effect that references losing, changing, or modifying shields (such as Projector Misaligned), it also has no effect, as the enemy will treat all shields as 0 because it was a Luke Attack, and do nothing....

or, as I have stated multiple times, "Can Of Worms".

But hey, who listens to me, anyway.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

This is just a hypothetical question and I expect no one would ever do this, but if Luke rolls a crit and Norra is at 1, does can Luke still strip a shield?

I assume no because Luke treats the defender as having no shields, which means the crit would do nothing.

Luke can both directly damage the hull of the ship, and utilize Norra's ability.

Norra says that squadrons at distance 1 "gain" her crit effect.

To my knowledge, Luke's ability is not a crit effect.

Therefore, Luke can do both.

Also, I think this is a great question that might come up more than you think.

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Luke can both directly damage the hull of the ship, and utilize Norra's ability.

Norra says that squadrons at distance 1 "gain" her crit effect.

To my knowledge, Luke's ability is not a crit effect.

Therefore, Luke can do both.

Also, I think this is a great question that might come up more than you think.

Eighter you or me missunderstand the question.
The question is not if you can trigger both. There is no question that you can do this. The question is how does it work together. Lukes Effect with treat defender as having no shields and the crit from Norra that says the defender lose one shield.

I would say it does work (if you really want to do it). Luke says only threat, not that the defender has no shields. You are not turning down all the shield dials to 0 when Luke attacks. The shields are still there. You just ignore them for the damage. But yes, this lead to the problem that the crit is part of the damage (something they ruled with APT).

So the order is:

1. Luke declares attack against ISD front at 4 shields.
   1. Defender treated as having no shields.
2. Luke rolls hit/crit.
3. Norra is at range 1. Luke triggers Norra's ability.
4. Due to the APTvsFCT ruling, you cannot strip a shield because the defender is treated as having shields.
   1. If APT is considered damage as part of the attack, then we assume Luke's ability is always in effect for the entire duration of the attack.
5. Deal 2 face down damage.

10 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

However, if you ever draw a Critical Effect that references losing, changing, or modifying shields (such as Projector Misaligned), it also has no effect, as the enemy will treat all shields as 0 because it was a Luke Attack, and do nothing...

I understand what you say and I agree but not sure about this. Luke can deal face up damage cards but he doesn't resolve them. The ship resolves them and the ship doesn't ignore shields, right?

4 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I understand what you say and I agree but not sure about this. Luke can deal face up damage cards but he doesn't resolve them. The ship resolves them and the ship doesn't ignore shields, right?

It does not say Luke, or You, or anything.

It says "WHILE ATTACKING A SHIP, TREAT THE DEFENDER AS HAVING NO SHIELDS."

The argument of timing that was made by me (and failed) was that an attack was only encapsulating certain portions - and things that happen while an attack is in place can be separate (but parallel) to the attack... but that is not the case thanks to FC/APT .

Ergo, Resolving the Critical effect is still happening during the attack, so during the attack , the defender is being treated as having no shields . Until the attack is over. The attack isn't over until everything is resolved, done, and finished..

20 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It does not say Luke, or You, or anything.

It says "WHILE ATTACKING A SHIP, TREAT THE DEFENDER AS HAVING NO SHIELDS."

The argument of timing that was made by me (and failed) was that an attack was only encapsulating certain portions - and things that happen while an attack is in place can be separate (but parallel) to the attack... but that is not the case thanks to FC/APT .

Ergo, Resolving the Critical effect is still happening during the attack, so during the attack , the defender is being treated as having no shields . Until the attack is over. The attack isn't over until everything is resolved, done, and finished..

And how you would prevent me from using Luke's ability while attacking with anything else?

It doesn't say during Luke's activation or whatever.

It doesn't say friendly.

Looks like jamming fields but instead of restricted to squadrons attacking squadrons the restriction is just attacking ships.

Poor wording then?

4 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

And how you would prevent me from using Luke's ability while attacking with anything else?

It doesn't say during Luke's activation or whatever.

It doesn't say friendly.

Looks like jamming fields but instead of restricted to squadrons attacking squadrons the restriction is just attacking ships.

Poor wording then?

On my Part. The crux is:

It is still While Luke is attacking a Ship.

But Luke is attacking a Ship until the attack is resolved and finished.

The Attack isn't resolved until all of the things that generate during the attack are dealt with.

This includes Generating and resolving Damage cards (as they are done so during the attack ). And during that attack, the Enemy is treated as if it has no shields...

So, for example:


All Hull Zones have 0 Shields, as I have no shields, so we just flip this card face down - even though it shows 4 shields on the front...

27 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Ergo, Resolving the Critical effect is still happening during the attack, so during the attack , the defender is being treated as having no shields . Until the attack is over. The attack isn't over until everything is resolved, done, and finished..

Resolving the crit effect is dealing the cards face up. Resolving the effect is not part of the attack.

Reviewing the rules seems to support your position, but I think "effects and timing" gives us an out.

* A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified
event and cannot occur again during that instance of the
event.

So, something that happens "while" attacking doesn't necessarily happen across the entire duration of the event. It happens just once, in this case during the "determine damage" part, but not during the "resolve damage card effects" part.

Don't give me too much credit cause English is not my first language but for me treat the defender as having no shields is the main clause and while attacking a ship is a subordinate clause. The first one is an order so the subject is you, always, as an imperative. When the subject of a subordinate clause is the same that appears in the main clause the subject could be omitted.

In Spanish this is easier for me to identify cause we have conjugations. Of course I could be completely wrong. I am Spanish linguist, my knowledge of English grammar is far to be proud about

Y'know, I've said enough on it. Between this and a few others, y'know, sanity is questioned.

I'm probably wrong.

I mean, Technically, I am wrong, because the FAQ exists for FC/APTs... Doesn't matter how incorrect I think it is.

I wish we had some guidance as to why certain rulings were made, especially when they changed between email ruling and FAQ.

But we don't.

Between this and a certain other thread , I am starting to feel mocked for my position - and, I do want to point out that this is not the fault of anyone here - the vigorous discussion is a good thing, and its not anything taht's personally been said, and isn't a case of me being personally abused or singled out (for once, so thankyou )

Its just that I've made all of these arguments and discussions before. I recognise and acknowledge that.

I also acknowledge that no-one who can makes a difference cares.

So, I'm out.

Hey, look at that. Problem solved.

16 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

This is just a hypothetical question and I expect no one would ever do this, but if Luke rolls a crit and Norra is at 1, does can Luke still strip a shield?

I assume no because Luke treats the defender as having no shields, which means the crit would do nothing.

I say no. Why? When you are attacking me and say, "Oh, Luke did a hit/crit and is next to Norra, suffer 1 to that hull zone shield." I respond back "Shields? What shields? Luke don't see no shields. You can't have it both ways mister!"

4 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

I say no. Why? When you are attacking me and say, "Oh, Luke did a hit/crit and is next to Norra, suffer 1 to that hull zone shield." I respond back "Shields? What shields? Luke don't see no shields. You can't have it both ways mister!"

That's how I see it too.

This is all a moot point anyway, we all know Luke rolls blanks, even with 3 BCCs!!

In other news...I think Dras has a logical point here. I don't think it's how Luke's ability was intended , but I can see the argument. Another item that should be clarified....someday....if we are lucky.

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.

41 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

This is all a moot point anyway, we all know Luke rolls blanks, even with 3 BCCs!!

43 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

In other news...I think Dras has a logical point here. I don't think it's how Luke's ability was intended , but I can see the argument. Another item that should be clarified....someday....if we are lucky.

Maybe I was misunderstood. I completely agree with Dras about Luke-Nora interaction. I do not about Luke and Projector Misaligned.

It is true that Luke don't use the term you but what happens when the imperative mood has an unspoken you. I mean, it is how imperative works right?

55 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Maybe I was misunderstood. I completely agree with Dras about Luke-Nora interaction. I do not about Luke and Projector Misaligned.

It is true that Luke don't use the term you but what happens when the imperative mood has an unspoken you. I mean, it is how imperative works right?

I think Dras potentially has logical grounds for his assessment about Luke and Projector Misaligned. I 100% do not think that is how Luke is intended to interact with those crits, but it is more open to interpretation than it should be.

To further clarify. I will continue to play that whatever crit Luke pulls will fully trigger, UNLESS officially FAQed the other way. I could see and FAQ choosing to make that choice, purely based on the logical grounds Drasnighta has pointed out. I doubt it would happen, but the possibility is there.

1 hour ago, 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.

Exactly. One more damage to a shield versus a faceup damage card isn't worth the argument.

40 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

I think Dras potentially has logical grounds for his assessment about Luke and Projector Misaligned.

How?

On 12/5/2017 at 7:20 PM, Drasnighta said:

It is still While Luke is attacking a Ship.

But Luke is attacking a Ship until the attack is resolved and finished.

The Attack isn't resolved until all of the things that generate during the attack are dealt with.

This includes Generating and resolving Damage cards (as they are done so during the attack ). And during that attack, the Enemy is treated as if it has no shields...

True.

True.

True.

False. It must read during that attack, the Enemy is treated as if it has no shields by Luke . Not because is the way Luke is intended rather than is the way Luke is writen. If Luke was written:

While attacking, the defender is treated as having no shields.

It would be different. It seems the same but it is not. What we cannot do is to take an active sentence (the Luke wording) with a subject (you), make it passive turning the subject into an agent and then omitt the agent (cause we can do it) to argue that nowhere it is said that Luke resolve his ability. This way we are playing with the language to change the rules.

If we are going to play RAW, let's do it properly.

While attacking, treat the defender as having no shields.

Who treat the defender as having no shields? Not the defender , it is the object. It is you and you is Luke. So only Luke treat the defender as having no shields. Projector Misaligned point to you in its wording ( your hull zone with more... ) and that you is the ship with that damage card, so it resolves the effect.

The only way I could understand that the defender should treat itself as having no shields is intending that you is plural and points to Luke and the defender. That could be but moves into other problems. As the subordinate clause must have a subject and it is unspoken it must be the same of the main clause, so it must be Luke and the defender, so we would have while Luke and the defender are attacking but the defender cannot attack, it interacts during the attack, but it doesn't attack. IMHO it has no sense.

But again, I am not English. If there is a possibility that the subject of treat the defender as having no shields could be anything else than you (Luke), let me know, seriously (I will be happy with whatever that improved my English ). I know there is an exception (let's) but we don't have it here.

Taken to PM