Except it explicitly states, total damage is suffered. That is not excluded, just because it also says you suffer that damage total one point at a time.

One does not prohibit the other.

You have a damage total, which you take first from any shields, then from hull, and you stop taking damage cards once your hull point total is equaled. You do not keep taking damage cards once that limit is exceeded.

That is why they say you suffer it one point at a time, because several mechanics are involved, not because each point is its own instance of damage being taken.

Another question. Can you chain these bad boys? So HH1 is facing off with an ISD and you have 4 in a row all within range of each other going to your back field. Ping 1 and scoot it all the way back.

On 6/2/2017 at 8:22 PM, JJs Juggernaut said:

Guys....it doesn't stack....

Is there a RAW argument for this? Because the more I look at this, the more it seems they do stack because the card does not say you total the damage like the other upgrades that reduce damage.

It all depends on wheather "suffer damage" refers to all the damage (total damage) or each point of damage.
For the first case it would be strange that it doesn't say "total damage" as the other examples like Gallant Haven for example, but for the second caso also would be strange that it explicitly says that the other ship suffers 1 damage. If its the 1 damage at a time, it would be meaningless to explicitly say that, as for "passing" that damage you have to exhaust the card on the receiving ship, so it wouldn't be possible for it to receive more than 1 damage.

Also, I don't know if someone already pointed this out, but to me the wording seems a bit confusing as it says "when you suffer damage" instead of "when you would suffer damage" or "before you suffer damage". It means that you have to suffer damage already to be able to use it.

28 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Another question. Can you chain these bad boys? So HH1 is facing off with an ISD and you have 4 in a row all within range of each other going to your back field. Ping 1 and scoot it all the way back.

I don't think so, but it's very imprecisely written so hard to say for sure.

When you suffer damage from an attack , you may choose and exhaust a copy of this card on another friendly ship at distance 1-3. If you do, that ship suffers 1 of your damage instead . While this card is exhausted, you cannot spend engineering points.

This is again worded differently from precedent, and raises the question of whether the "your damage" counts as having been dealt by an attack.

Note that this is very different phrasing from Biggs', which explicitly cancels a damage and then deals a new damage itself rather than actually transferring a point of the existing damage.

"When you suffer damage from an attack, you may choose and exhaust a copy of this card on another friendly ship at distance 1-3. If you do, that ship suffers 1 of your damage instead. While this card is exhausted, you cannot spend engineering points."

We are not looking at the total amount of damage.

We suffer damage one at a time. "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 facedown damage card to the ship instead."

The trigger is "When you suffer damage from an attack..."

For example:

ISD II rolls its attack at close range.
Total is 6 damage (1 crit) and 2 Accs. Contain and Redirect cannot be spent.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage.
Exhaust TF:A on ally HH. Move 1 damage.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage.
Exhaust TF:A on ally HH. Move 1 damage.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage.
Exhaust TF:A on ally HH. Move 1 damage.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage. Front shields down to 1.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage. Front shields down to 0.
Hammerhead suffers 1 damage. Face up damage dealt.

Per RAW, is there anything incorrect about this? Because this differs from BH, GH and Biggs because it happens before damage is suffered, but after you total the damage.

The only thing I see limiting stacking is When: "A “when” effect occurs at the moment that the specified event occurs and cannot occur again for that instance of the event."

So the "When" rules specifies a specific event: "When you suffer damage from an attack" and "When a ship suffers damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time."

17 minutes ago, GhostOfArdaedhel said:

I don't think so, but it's very imprecisely written so hard to say for sure.

This is again worded differently from precedent, and raises the question of whether the "your damage" counts as having been dealt by an attack.

Note that this is very different phrasing from Biggs', which explicitly cancels a damage and then deals a new damage itself rather than actually transferring a point of the existing damage.

What if I said the APT vs FCT rule allows it? You trace damage, which is why you can't APT and then do the standard crit, since the "first" damage has already been dealt. Therefore, the ship tapping TFA is "suffering damage from an attack" (still in the attack step and YOU have suffered damage).

It's a stretch.

Sorry, what's the decision on whether this stop APT damage and how did we arrive at it?

Just now, Valca said:

Sorry, what's the decision on whether this stop APT damage and how did we arrive at it?

I wish I knew.

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Another question. Can you chain these bad boys? So HH1 is facing off with an ISD and you have 4 in a row all within range of each other going to your back field. Ping 1 and scoot it all the way back.

On 2017-6-3 at 1:05 AM, ovinomanc3r said:

Actually there is a funny difference between Biggs and TF Antilles: the moved damage is indeed moved. So you can trigger it on the receiving ship to move it again and again until all your task force titles are exhausted.

@BiggsIRL we have a new achievement here.

Trilero (I don't know the English equivalent): to move a damage point along the entire fleet ending on the initial ship.

I see people totally ignoring the front of the RRG which also qualifies in English for the wording on the upgrade card.

And totally and utterly ignoring the context of the section they are quoting for justification of their views.

On 6/2/2017 at 6:52 PM, Drasnighta said:

Yes, I feel moreso that Biggs has that as an inbuilt restriction.

Biggs has before, TFA does not. Is before not a once off event keyword?

Just now, Darthain said:

Biggs has before, TFA does not. Is before not a once off event keyword?

Man, I thought this topic was waiting for FAQ.... Seriously. Almost 3 Weeks

Before , When and While , are all Once-off-events.

The trick and the discussion isn't about that .

The trick is parsing out wether "suffer damage" itself only happens Once (as in, reference to the Suffer Damage step )... Or Suffering Damage happens multiple times - Each time you take a point of Damage from an attack...

That determines wether Damage is a Single Event... Or Multiple Events... If you're limited to Once Per Event... You still need to know how many Events there are...

15 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I'm.... Struggling to find relevancy... Help me Gink-i-po-kenobi...

Just stirring

15 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I'm.... Struggling to find relevancy...

So am I.

IMO...I think the main thing that is being dismissed about this whole situation is the fact that these ships are using title cards that are designed to work together as a unit...hence "Task Force". I also am not buying the fact that just because FFG has made mistakes in their articles in the past (Foresight), that any future article will be flawed as well.

1 hour ago, itzSteve said:

IMO...I think the main thing that is being dismissed about this whole situation is the fact that these ships are using title cards that are designed to work together as a unit...hence "Task Force". I also am not buying the fact that just because FFG has made mistakes in their articles in the past (Foresight), that any future article will be flawed as well.

Well, I agree as far as that goes, BUT...

1) It's happened much more than once. Just about once per wave, really.

2) The restrictive interpretation doesn't prevent them working together at all.

3) Those are all just secondary circumstantial evidence. The primary evidence for the restrictive interpretation is that the condition appears to be triggered only once per attack. And because it's the card on the defending ship that provides the effect, that card can only resolve once per instance of the triggering effect. (This being distinct from, for example, BCC, where each BCC on a ship in range triggers separately).

Have "we" submitted a question to FFG on this, and for the Sloane uncertainties?

I'd hate to have to wait anothet 6 months before these cards are playable, like RLB.

I did, Day one, of course.

Me submitting is rarely "frequently asked" though.

I did as well.

That said, I also just got a response from a (now-obviated) question from January, soooo... not real optimistic here.

Any official resolution to this? If not, what is the unanimous consensus?

I'm running a store championships thus weekend and want to at least lean one way when presented by this.

Can't give you either of those, mate... Sorry. Arguments are too much either way.

Can only give you my personal thoughts on the matter...

But otherwise - Make a call and make it loud so people know beforehand.

Yeah. Most players will appreciate if you just make an announcement on questionable rulings likely to be announced. Make a point to tell players that if they have a card that might not be 100% clear, to bring it up with you before any games and you can give them a ruling. Right or wrong. I will when I run our Wtore Championship.

Now, In honor of Ginkapo, I'm gonna stir the pot a little more on this card. If ship A is being attacked while near ship B, both have TFA, and ship B has Major Derlin: Can Derlin be used on ship B when the damage is transferred? Derlin is when "suffers damage from an attack." It isn't like Biggs (worded so Gallant Haven isn't horrifying) where you deal a point of damage with his effect. TTA says the other ship suffers that damage instead.