3 minutes ago, saint1012 said:Duh. Got it now. I had to reread the card.
Except, of course, they still screwed up by stating that damage is applied one at a time, which then should allow you to use the card for every point of damage...
Hence the very core of the Debate.
Both are legitimate interpretations as far as the rules are concerned, and without design intent, we can't really determine which has precedence.
Just now, Drasnighta said:Hence the very core of the Debate.
Both are legitimate interpretations as far as the rules are concerned, and without design intent, we can't really determine which has precedence.
Yeah, I had to understand the card before I could understand the debate. I can be a little slow sometimes, but luckily I am catching up!
Just now, saint1012 said:Yeah, I had to understand the card before I could understand the debate. I can be a little slow sometimes, but luckily I am catching up!
The little nuances of clauses with "While", "When", "Before" and "After" (and yet not "during") are often a core component of the discussions.
But other little wording tweaks here and there would make things better as well.. "Salvo" and "Attack" versus "Attack" being used twice, for example... Huge difference.
They're not legally-tight rules. But they're not the loosest rules I've operated under, either... They do require an actual reading - by vitue of the fact that the rules are not written as you would encouter them in an example, but rather as a proper index attempt. All the rules do need tobe actually read first independantly of each other, and then with references around to be able to gain the full understanding... The amount of times I've written out the attack sequence to answer a defense token or critical effect question, for example...
95% of the time, the "problem" that generates questions here is shortcutting. Inherently, we gain a basic understanding of the rules flow, and then don't reference the rules directly, rather we create our own internal flowchat that abridges some things because we have 'understanding' of it... Which generates corner-cast queries that are often resolved by referencing the rules in total quickly. ACC Results that are rerolled to by Evades not being able to be spent is an example of that.
But occasionally (Rapid Launch Bays, Task Force Antilles, Jamming Field) you get a question arise which is a direct result of the rules actually being written permitting two legitimate interpretations, or simple not fitting any intended intepretation.
Those are usually the big debates. And they're the ones that DA or I break down into Colour interpretations, too. Only he seems to do things a little differently on that front, too (I try to keep my colour choices inherently neutral)
2 minutes ago, saint1012 said:damage is applied one at a time, which then should allow you to use the card for every point of damage...
But there's the rub.
Does "suffer damage from an attack" refer to each individual instance of receiving damage, or does it refer to the Resolve Damage step as a whole?
To throw some precedence into the mix, RRG pg 4 DAMAGE:
When a ship suffers damage and a hull zone isn’t specified, the ship’s owner chooses which hull zone suffers all of that damage.
Indeed, the very reference for the "one point at a time" rule reads, RRG pg 4 DAMAGE:
When a ship suffers damage , it suffers that damage one point at a time.
Or other upgrade cards that have well-established functionality:
If "before you suffer damage" was before each individual point of damage, Bright Hope would halve damage taken rather than reducing it by one.
I'm pretty sure TFA is only once per attack. I have waffled on it, but the evidence has been mounting in favor of the once/attack side, while I haven't seen a strong argument in favor of multiple/attack that isn't solidly refuted by the conservative interpretation.
8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:The little nuances of clauses with "While", "When", "Before" and "After" (and yet not "during") are often a core component of the discussions.
But other little wording tweaks here and there would make things better as well.. "Salvo" and "Attack" versus "Attack" being used twice, for example... Huge difference.
They're not legally-tight rules. But they're not the loosest rules I've operated under, either... They do require an actual reading - by vitue of the fact that the rules are not written as you would encouter them in an example, but rather as a proper index attempt. All the rules do need tobe actually read first independantly of each other, and then with references around to be able to gain the full understanding... The amount of times I've written out the attack sequence to answer a defense token or critical effect question, for example...
95% of the time, the "problem" that generates questions here is shortcutting. Inherently, we gain a basic understanding of the rules flow, and then don't reference the rules directly, rather we create our own internal flowchat that abridges some things because we have 'understanding' of it... Which generates corner-cast queries that are often resolved by referencing the rules in total quickly. ACC Results that are rerolled to by Evades not being able to be spent is an example of that.
But occasionally (Rapid Launch Bays, Task Force Antilles, Jamming Field) you get a question arise which is a direct result of the rules actually being written permitting two legitimate interpretations, or simple not fitting any intended intepretation.
Those are usually the big debates. And they're the ones that DA or I break down into Colour interpretations, too. Only he seems to do things a little differently on that front, too (I try to keep my colour choices inherently neutral)
My main problem was not reading the card before posting. I forgot that the card effect is from the ship being attacked and not the one using the ability. Hence, the "duh" moment from me. The actual text is important. I've been playing Armada since the beginning and have play tested for FFG in the past, so just bad on my part.
Edited by saint101242 minutes ago, saint1012 said:Duh. Got it now. I had to reread the card.
Except, of course, they still screwed up by stating that damage is applied one at a time, which then should allow you to use the card for every point of damage...
Exactly. That\s what\s been discussed.
On 9/18/2017 at 1:36 PM, Green Knight said:Exactly. That\s what\s been discussed.
I know, I know. I was so far behind the game, I'm only just now seeing the score! Close to tied...
Has FFG answered the questions on this in any emails? Seems as though they should have by now? I've lost track of the status of this debate.
8 minutes ago, Thraug said:Has FFG answered the questions on this in any emails? Seems as though they should have by now? I've lost track of the status of this debate.
They have not.
No reason why they should. Turnaround for these can be 6+ Months on "low average".
I mean, heck, my Hyperspace Assault answer was 2 Years.
Resolved by FAQ