4 hours ago, Hiemfire said:Uses "a" and not "1". If Soontir ends up in the bullseye of 3 Belbullabs simultaneously all 3 instances are processed as separate opportunities.
"A" charge, not "any number of charges."
There's literally zero reason to think multiple friendlies can get locks. Nothing on the card implies it in any way.
The opportunity is the enemy ship moving, however, not a friendly ship having a bullseye. That only happens once, so Kalani only works once.
2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:There is nothing limiting the number of times Kalani's ability can trigger in a Round other than the number of charges Kalani has.
Times per round? Limited only by charges.
Times per enemy maneuver? Once. That's just the rules of the game.
Now, it's easy to conceive of alternate language for Kalani which doesn't run into Once-Per-Opportunity issues. Barrage Rockets has text which clearly explains that multiple charges can be used for larger effects, and the upcoming Multi-Missile Pods are somewhat similar. Kalani just says "spend a charge."
Could FFG rule that Kalani works for multiple friendly ships on a single opportunity? Sure, they can rule anything. But it won't because they wrote a card that allows this; it'll be by fiat and degree rather than the text of the card. I don't mind if they do that, but it's worth understanding that it's not what they wrote.
2 hours ago, svelok said:It's that after a maneuver into ship A's bullseye, a (first player) ship places FTC into the ability queue, Kalani's requirement is satisfied and enters the ability queue, FTC resolves and rolls out of ship A's bullseye but into ship B's bullseye, Kalani's requirement is satisfied by ship B and resolves, Kalani grants a lock/stress to ship B.
I'm not convinced by that.
Since an ability has to meet the requirements both to enter the queue and to be resolved, and the text on Kalani refers to "that friendly ship," it seems like the most accurate reading is that it has to be the same ship for both the trigger and the resolution. Since "that friendly ship" no longer has bullseye on the enemy, I think the requirements aren't met.
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
23 minutes ago, LUZ_TAK said:Gosh, this is the kind of convoluted ruling that puts me of.
Keep it simple, FFG.
I kinda think FFG has (mostly). I think it's mostly us who've complicated it.
To me, it seems like FFG's goal in their ruling about requirements and timings was specifically to prevent situations where there's some change in meeting the requirements. The "overly simplified" version of the ruling is this:
- If you want to add something to the queue, you have to be able to do it right then.
-
If you don't meet the requirements, you can't add it to the queue.
- It can't be "I'll add it now, and meet the requirements later.
- When you resolve the ability, you still have to be able to do it.
- If you don't meet the requirements anymore, it doesn't resolve, and the effect is ignored.
If I'm a judge, and given a question along these lines, that's how I'd rule things. You have to be able to do the whole thing on entering the queue, you have to be able to do the whole thing when resolving.
Edited by theBitterFig
