The card is not exhausted by the target of the attack, so it's not a matter of "stacking" per say, as it exhausts each friendly ship that drops the damage. Can see it working either way... It works similar to BCC then.. a fighter can tap multiple BCC's from different ships. In the foresight article the mistake was a basic rule from the core game, not technically foresight (if you could use 2 evades, foresight would eliminate 4 dice).

The APT question is a good one, although I would think if they could shunt the APT damage, it's APT damage and would not be converted to a shield (as it's a direct face up card that ignores shields).. Now.. what about concussion missle damage?

The APT crit effect causes the target to be dealt a card, in the same way that "suffering damage" can cause a target to be dealt a card if there are no shields in the target zones. Two distinct causes , same result.

TF Antilles affects instances of "suffering damage", but the APT crit effect is not one.

The ACM crit effect, on the other hand, delivers "damage", so it's definitely affected.

The uber-interesting question is, if TF Antilles does not stack, does the ACM effect (which is resolved separately from the attack damage) still count as a separate instance of "when you suffer damage from an attack"? Meaning, could you shunt 1 damage from the ACM and 1 from the main attack? I say yes, but FFG works in mysterious ways...

I think it is a bit clear when they SHOWCASE it's use by allowing more than one. I can bet £10'000 that this will be the FAQ ruling in December for wave VI

6 hours ago, Visovics said:

I think it is a bit clear when they SHOWCASE it's use by allowing more than one. I can bet £10'000 that this will be the FAQ ruling in December for wave VI

Sure, sure.

To Repeat:

Do you spend both Evades on Foresight to Drop 4 attack dice from the enemy at once?

Totally showcased that, too

If it doesn't stack, then it's a pretty bad title. Keep in mind that once each ship has exhausted its title it can't shed damage for another of its kind again that turn. So the first in a formation of 4, 1 gets smacked by an isd front arc, takes 8 damage, bounces 3 to its friends and takes 5. ISD takes a second shot with gunnery teams and second ship can only bounce 1 hit to the first ship that was attacked.

if it can only push one damage I don't think we'll see it played often or ever.

2 hours ago, Jukey said:

If it doesn't stack, then it's a pretty bad title. Keep in mind that once each ship has exhausted its title it can't shed damage for another of its kind again that turn. So the first in a formation of 4, 1 gets smacked by an isd front arc, takes 8 damage, bounces 3 to its friends and takes 5. ISD takes a second shot with gunnery teams and second ship can only bounce 1 hit to the first ship that was attacked.

if it can only push one damage I don't think we'll see it played often or ever.

Ruling on a card to make it utterly worthless has not dissuaded them from ruling that way none-the-less in the past. How many Fire Control Teams or XX-9s do we see played?

25 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Ruling on a card to make it utterly worthless has not dissuaded them from ruling that way none-the-less in the past. How many Fire Control Teams or XX-9s do we see played?

A lot more of the latter than the former, though I still see the former every now and again.

4 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

A lot more of the latter than the former, though I still see the former every now and again.

I live in an incredibly competitive meta area, and I have never once in all my time playing Armada seen either of these cards appear. I am not saying they aren't allowed to be used, anyone can do whatever they want.

If it is 1 damage per attack for TF Antilles I am sure some people will use them. But arguing that you should be able to move more than 1 damage per attack purely on the stipulation that being limited to one would make the card bad is insufficient reason given the past track record of FFG.

Just now, BrobaFett said:

I live in an incredibly competitive meta area, and I have never once in all my time playing Armada seen either of these cards appear once. I am not saying they aren't allowed to be used, anyone can do whatever they want.

If it is 1 damage per attack for TF Antilles I am sure some people will use them. But arguing that you should be able to move more than 1 damage per attack purely on the stipulation that being limited to one would make the card bad is insufficient reason given the past track record of FFG.

I certainly agree with the rules logic. The fun part about where I live is that it is its own idiosyncratic meta bubble where things like Aceholes poke in, but rarely dominate ( @MasterShake2 excepted), either in performance or numbers.

I will also point out that while not as good against ships, non stacking TFA is still useful, and even more so against smaller attacks (IE squads)

Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

I certainly agree with the rules logic. The fun part about where I live is that it is its own idiosyncratic meta bubble where things like Aceholes poke in, but rarely dominate ( @MasterShake2 excepted), either in performance or numbers.

While now we tread into off topic waters, I am envious of that type of community. In my area it is whatever the "op" list is or whatever list dominated top spots at recent tournaments.

3 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

I will also point out that while not as good against ships, non stacking TFA is still useful, and even more so against smaller attacks (IE squads)

True. So I guess in this case with one interpretation being useful at mitigating one big shot, while the other being useful at mitigating lots of tiny shots isn't really so much a card is good/not good option but rather just changing how you use it situationally.

I think the reason it stacks is that damage is dealt one at a time in the deal damage phase. Therefore, if a ship takes 4 hits, suffer one damage=exhaust another of the same title on different ship, Suffer second damage=exhaust another of the same title on a different ship, suffer third damage=so on and so forth until your out of duplicate titles to exhaust. If the cards ability were based on affecting the target ship and not an effect that triggers an ability for same ships within x range it would not stack.

At least that's the way I understand it. not sure why I'm standing with it does stack, I'm an imp only player and any nerf on rebels is good, but I think the article was right this time.

I,m with the 'does stack,' side.

What's with waiting so long for an FAQ? Is it so hard to write a consistent rules set? (Apparently it is! ? )

I'm also with the multiple uses for one attack, mostly because it seems as though that is the intent and the card would be worthless if it didn't.

I'm tiring of every release having 1 or 2 cards that can't be used until a FAQ comes out 6 months after the pack is released. Why can't they put full examples in the pack text? It would solve 99% of all these questions. And, they should also release and maintain a full action sequence diagram like they have for X-Wing. Grrrrrrr, very annoying.

On 6/6/2017 at 5:52 AM, JJs Juggernaut said:

I will also point out that while not as good against ships, non stacking TFA is still useful, and even more so against smaller attacks (IE squads)

maybe, just maybe, if it is non-stacking, the aim could be to make a team of ships that are resilient to damage plinking(which has been a reliable way to push damage) while at the same time making heavier ships that can carry gun teams or XI7/one-shot-wonders more relevant. sounds like a good idea for variety to me. If the task force picks up steam.

On 6/3/2017 at 11:36 AM, Undeadguy said:

This is my interpretation of it. It has "when" as a key word so it can only be triggered once.

It's a weird mechanic on the card, because instead of you, the ship, doing something, it's another friendly ship taking the action in a sense. Furthermore, the ship needs to be equipped with this upgrade in order for it to work. It says "When you", which means the ship it's equipped too. Toss in the "when" rules and there you have it.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Also, would this prevent APT? I would say no since you don't suffer damage, but rather dealt a face up damage card. Or does dealing a face up from the attack fall into "suffer damage" as a key word that can then be manipulated?

"you may choose and exhaust a copy of this card on another friendly ship at distance 1-3"

Technically, it is the ship that is currently activating that is doing something, not your friend at distance 1-3. The card expressly states that the current ship is the one doing the action of exhausting its friend's title. "that ship suffers" is the event of something happening to your friend, but as the result of the action that you(current ship) did.

just wanted to point that out

Barring any further insight from an FAQ, I would agree with the multiple use camp. The rules state that you suffer damage one point at a time. If that's the case, "When you suffer damage" means each point of damage is its own triggering event.

Now, if that turns out to be true, then swarms of these things could get. . .ugly. Three naked Hamvettes (do they have a nickname yet?) with TFA would cost the same as a naked ISD-II. But you're getting three ship activations instead of one, fifteen shields and hull versus twelve and eleven (or fourteen with Motti), and three Red/Blue/Black dice front arc versus four Red/Blue. And if they can spread damage around. . .yeesh.

Actually, I have an idea for a list. . .

I'm going with it does not stack.

"When you suffer damage from an attack, you may choose and exhaust copy of this card on another friendly ship, at distance 1-3, if you do, that ship suffers 1 of your damage instead."

It also says in the RRG, the defending hull zone suffers the total damage , and that damage is dealt one point at a time.

So you have a damage total, you exhaust the card, and shunt 1 point away, and take the remaining amount of damage.

I think a very sound argument can be made either way. The main issue hinges on the fact that the rules use "Suffer/s damage" both in the total sense (all damage from an attack) and in the point-by-point sense. Hell, the first sentence describing ships suffering damage in the Rules Reference uses both senses:

"When a ship suffers damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time."

When a ship suffers [a total amount of] damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time. So is each point "suffering damage," or is the "suffering damage" only applied once per attack?

Personally, I feel like once per attack makes the upgrade not so great. You have to take another 40pt ship to use this ability. And how often is a single point of damage negation going to save a 5 Hull ship that has one shield on the flanks? It wouldn't be worthless, but not worth a lot and very situational.

Squadron attacks.

Rebels do not need another way of totally mitigating the once per game full dice front arc attack of a VSD/ISD.

I mean other than front arc shots at close/med range, you're looking at 2-4 dice for an attack, being able to shunt one away is big, on a 1 damage, 100% reduction, 2 damage a 50% reduction, 3 damage a 33% reduction, 4 damage a 25% reduction, 5 damage, a 20% reduction.

Or you get hit by several bombers, and you shunt the 1 damage around from each attack.

Just because you cannot shunt 3-4 damage at once, does not in any shape or form make this a poor card.

I'm simply shaking my head at this whole thing

Why doesn't the TF applies to any kind of damage, like APT triggered cards?

On 2.6.2017 at 11:09 PM, GhostOfArdaedhel said:

The current wording should not allow multiple titels to stack.

IF it would stack (because each damage is a "new" stack of damage), we have some really nice cards:
Bright Hope could stack as well. Hard to do some damage to this ship, if you can reduce every single damage by one (i know, Bright hope has a different wording and two triggers and will only trigger once because of the "while defending"). But alone this idea was nice .
Gallant Haven would suddenly be able to prevent each damage the squadron would suffer.
Same with Biggs. Suddenly you would be able to transfer as many damage to other escort squadrons as you want to.

The suffer damage from an attack only trigger once per attack. This is because the wording in the rules say: "◊ If the attacker and defender are ships, the damage is the sum of all hit and crit icons". The damage just has to be applied one by one, because of the shields. You cannot just deal X damage to the ship as you can on the squadrons. You have to deal one by one because you first hit the shields, and after this hitting the hull. But these are not single stacks of damage. If it would be, a redirect token would suddenly not work anymore.
The ship is suffering X damage, and this one trigger and one pack of damage. And not X*1 stack.

And this is ONCE AGAIN a point where the FAQ ruling from the APT is stupid and causing problems. Suddenly damage from outside the attack is attack damage. And messing up with the rules.

So the current wording should only allow you to exhaust one copy on another ship to transfer one damage. And not more.
If they want it to work with multiple copies, they need to change the wording on the card.

And yes, when you can only transfer one damage, this titel is a bit worthless (at least it lost some of its great bonus). I want as well a swarm with 4-6 Hammerheads and shuffle the damage around. This way the ship can at least survive a broadside. But with only one transfer of a damage, it will not last so long.

To be entirely fair, Tokra, all three of those cards reduce the total damage, which is only calculated once. Also note that all three indicate that they take effect before suffering damage from the attack. TFA uses conspicuously different wording.

Are those differences significant ? Are they intentional ? Or simply the byproduct of a change in the development team?

That's not to say I necessarily disagree with your analysis (I think it's a muddy case at best), but I think this point needs addressing.

Suffering damage one point at a time has its own timing: when a ship suffers damage .