18 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Well, the logical follow through to your statement is “why bother discussing rules at all because you were wrong about RLB...”

And rather, the statement that *I* am applying rules that may be thrown out the window....

sure, might be.

might be effing spot on, too.

Call me arrogant, but I’m right more than I am wrong, after all, when it comes to rules. Because I explicitly search for precedence and then rigorously test to see if it makes sense.

also, it’s my rule to set. My group needs and wants a ruling do they can PLAY it, and not ignore it like RLB was. I have that duty to them.

As has been stated time and again - mostly by me - I am not a goddamn rules guru. I do not have special knowledge.

But I do have a responsibility to those who game in my group to make these decisions, and make them fairly on their behalf so they can get on enjoying their games.

part and parcel of that is testing various designs of rules. Part of it is officially asking for advice. Part of it is opening and continue discussions here so I can get feedback and sculpt my decisions around it.

im the end, it is my decision, and no one not in my group, specifically playing in a tournament I run, needs to pay any goddamn attention to what I do decide. Because my decisions have no impact on you.

if your point is that I am wasting my time discussing because it’s pointless and irrelevant to do so...

fine.

ill spend my time how I want, and that will involve a modicum of seconds specifically attributed and set aside to tell people like that to kindly **** off

Feeling somewhat testy today?

My point was the card clearly breaks rules, clearly breaks them, so why not do what you did with RLB? which I approved of immensely, this is not a simple confusion on interaction, or wording. Yet here you are setting your stall out in a rather bullish manner, where as previously when something was so clearly unfathomable you refused point blank to commit one way or another.

And please both you and Ovinomancer stop with the tiresome "so you're saying we can't talk about it." That is not what was said at all.

All I said was, for this card to work as it seems to be intended to by the designers, then the current rules are wrong in how "discarded" is applied to this upgrade. And it is not a card that is clear on how it is supposed to actually be handled hence my reference to the RLB thread, and how that eventually proved we had all not got it right.

But by all means carry on having a tantrum.

I mean you are not allowed to have duplicate upgrades equipped to the same ship, that is also a rule. The argument that they are kept on the ship face down means you can end up with several of the same card on the one ship.

So is the intent to only allow the use of each fleet command once, and once only. Meaning you have a choice of what you start with and only two replacements to pick from?

Or is Replace handled like Sato where something is removed and something is added, then you aren't looking at several of the same card on the same ship, as each one is taken away before the new one is put in place.

@TheEasternKing

I still get crap and jokes made about RLB and what I did.

Between that and my real life, I’m tired of putting in unappreciated effort.

Really tired.

Doubly so when thusly referred as “testy”.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

My point was the card clearly breaks rules, clearly breaks them,

First we need to be sure which rules it is breaking. From a certain point of view based on the rules it is allowing to equip upgrades during a game but not breaking anything else at all.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

All I said was, for this card to work as it seems to be intended to by the designers,

I pray all days to get a glance of what designers intend. I suppose I am not worthy enough.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

then the current rules are wrong in how "discarded" is applied to this upgrade.

Not necessarily. As said from a certain point of view, this upgrade would treat discarded upgrades as usual.

The rules say discarded upgrades remain equipped for purpose of scoring. It is not a crazy thing to think that they are not for other purpose. As long as we don't have any other exception we can suppose that discarded upgrades are not equipped except for purpose of scoring and only scoring.

You also could argue that those upgrades remains equipped for certain purposes (scoring between them) but, again, rules don't point to other cases where they count or not so following this path they would be actually equipped for every purpose (scoring would be just one of then). In this case this rule would be quite meaningless cause there is another in the scoring section that point to discarded upgrades counting as long as they are equipped. And another in the effect and timing section where is said that discarded upgrade are just inactive. So, if anything says discarding an upgrade it is unequipped, what is the point to say it remains equipped for purpose of scoring? The only rule that says they are unequipped (at least indirectly) is, in fact, the rule in the upgrade section.

So if you intend that the upgrade ruling is saying discarded upgrades are unequipped (except for purpose of scoring) all works fine. If not, that rule could be removed from the RRG and nothing would happen.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

And it is not a card that is clear on how it is supposed to actually be handled hence my reference to the RLB thread, and how that eventually proved we had all not got it right.

I read here you think RLB was clear when actually anyone got close to what it does but could be my poor English. That "not" confuse me. Or maybe you are saying Chimaera and RLB are similar. That's completely my fault. Sorry.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

I mean you are not allowed to have duplicate upgrades equipped to the same ship, that is also a rule. The argument that they are kept on the ship face down means you can end up with several of the same card on the one ship.

No ON rather than NEXT TO. As I said, discarding would mean the upgrade is unequipped so Chimaera would not break the rule you point in any sense.

4 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

Or is Replace handled like Sato where something is removed and something is added, then you aren't looking at several of the same card on the same ship, as each one is taken away before the new one is put in place.

Replace is one of the interesting things here. I agree. I also said that it will depend on the discarding rule.

If discarding unequips upgrades then "replace" is used as it would do normally in a general way. The new upgrade would take the place where the other was (the fleet command slot). Of course if it was this way ffg could write it better with just equip instead of replace. I think the only reason to write it this way would be to clarify that this is not breaking the rule of one upgrade per slot. But as I said it depends on if discarded=unequipped.

If discarding doesn't unequip stuff, the replace has a huge role here cause it would mean an in-game mechanic that tells us how to proceed. First we have to think on status, not physical places. The discarded upgrade is equipped AND discarded. Replace must be to take the equipped status but not the discarded status or it wouldn't have any sense at all. Look that here replace HAVE to mean unequipping one and equipping the other or Chimaera would break the rule of one upgrade per slot and it is not overwriting that rule directly as ECM doesn't allow to spend tokens targeted by Sloane cause doesn't overwrite general defense token ruling. Replace also have to explain what to do with the replaced upgrade. We just agreed about unequipping it. Is it removed? Could be. But that not necessarily remove the discarded status. It needs to clarify it also remove it or we ended with contradictory rules. Scoring says discarded only count if equipped, Chimaera unequipped the discarded rule and the upgrade ruling says discarded upgrades count as equipped for purpose of scoring (no matter if they are not equipped anymore). This contradiction seems to me to be won by the upgrade ruling so the discarded upgrade score no matter where it is. This ends at the same place the other reading so we move around to nothing and all we get was a core rule that did anything until the Chimaera arrival. Or replace clarifies that the replaced upgrade also loose its discarded status to prevent it from scoring.

But we don't have a replace mechanic that could work as precedence. Sato is not enough cause discarded dice doesn't mess with other things. They were gone for good and that's all. Discarded upgrade has things to say though.

I'm 100% with Baa Baa here. The scoring rule says:

"Discarded upgrade cards do not count toward a player’s score unless they are equipped to a destroyed ship."

I have always read this simply as:

"Discarded upgrade cards only count toward a player's score if the ship they are equipped to has been destroyed ." (i.e. do not count discarded cards of non-destroyed ships)

Whereas @ovinomanc3r seems to interpret it as (also) meaning:

"Discarded upgrade cards only count toward a player's score if they are still equipped to a ship when it is destroyed." (i.e. if they have not somehow become un-equipped* before)

I don't think the RRG as written contemplates, even implicitly, the possibility of cards becoming un-equipped. But this can now definitely happen, see Profundity .

It is clear that discarding an upgrade cards does not un-equip* it. As our woolly friend says, the question is whether replacing a discarded card causes it to also become un-equipped and, if so, for which purposes (scoring and/or determining uniqueness)?

In my opinion, the answer to the first question is no : The term "replaced" must be understood as "taking the slot that used to be taken by this card before it was discarded".

And therefore the old card remains equipped both for scoring and is still contained within the fleet for determining uniqueness, such that it cannot be re-equipped by Chimaera.

...but based on past experience I can totally see FFG (and especially Michael Gernes) having a completely different understanding of what their words mean.

*: at least for scoring purposes

21 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Speed 5 Firesprays.

That....would be awesome

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

@TheEasternKing

I still get crap and jokes made about RLB and what I did.

Between that and my real life, I’m tired of putting in unappreciated effort.

Really tired.

Doubly so when thusly referred as “testy”.

I think, Dras, that you're simply a very logical guy, who has to deal with people illogically interpreting things that seem logical to you. To whit:

I think that when you 'replace' a fleet command, the old fleet command is taken entirely out of play. The new fleet command takes the place of the old one, and entirely replaces it. If you want to swap out later for the same one you had originally, you can (as it was entirely taken out of play). If Chimaera gets blown up, you only score points for the fleet command it had equipped at the moment of destruction, which could take it over 400 (401, if you built to 400 and swapped a five for a six pointer).

Is this based on rules? No. It's based on what I 'feel' should be, based off keeping the game as simple as possible, and what I 'think' was intended. Am I right? Heck if I know....probably not. But seeing there's no hard consensus yet here, and until FFG actually FAQs it, that's how I'm rolling with it (if I even use it, I think a Cymoon will do fine by itself).

To whit we seem to have the following camps on what happens when the Chimear title is used to discard and replace a FC card....

1) replaced FC cards are not part of the fleet for any reason going forward

2) replaced FC cards cost only is added to the Chimeara's cost if the chimeara is destroyed

2b) FC can only be re-used if you have another copy of the card... if you have 3 copies it can be re-used 3 times in a match.

`3) replaced FC cards count as being in use for uniqueness & cost added to the Chimeara if destroyed.

8 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

To whit we seem to have the following camps on what happens when the Chimear title is used to discard and replace a FC card....

1) replaced FC cards are not part of the fleet for any reason going forward

2) replaced FC cards cost only is added to the Chimeara's cost if the chimeara is destroyed

2b) FC can only be re-used if you have another copy of the card... if you have 3 copies it can be re-used 3 times in a match.

`3) replaced FC cards count as being in use for uniqueness & cost added to the Chimeara if destroyed.

4) Something bizarre and completely different to the above, which will unexpectedly show up in the next FFG FAQ six months down the line.

1 minute ago, DiabloAzul said:

4) Something bizarre and completely different to the above, which will unexpectedly show up in the next FFG FAQ six months down the line.

Six months?? Methinks you're too optimistic, my friend.....

An issue that doesnt need color code is as much as we can hope for in armada.

@BiggsIRL

Huh.

4 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

@BiggsIRL

Let me get up to speed.

My eyes glazed over by page 2.

Needa like all good Imperial Captains gives us the answer we seek. As does our good friend Tagge.

If you recall, you can't recover Needa tokens with Tagge, because it is a replace, not a discard. In this case, we have a cost "discard" for an effect "replace". So, for example:

160 pt ISD with Chimera and AFFM (5 pts) equipped. Plus another ISD with Entrapment Formation equipped.

ISD triggers Chimera, discarding AFFM (turns it face down). It then resolves the effect of replacing AFFM. It can at this point choose either Intensify Firepower or Shields to Maximum, but not Entrapment formation as it is unique and already in play. It chooses Shields to Maximum (6 points) making the ship worth 161 if destroyed at that moment. Because it has been replaced, not just discarded, AFFM is no longer equipped, much the same way a Needa ship doesn't have a token for Tagge to recover.

It can trigger Chimera in a later round to do bring back AFFM, as it is no longer equipped on any ships, thus meeting the uniqueness rule.

I am not yet 100% sure if you can cheat yourself above 400 points this way. I will look into it more.

6 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

My eyes glazed over by page 2.

Needa like all good Imperial Captains gives us the answer we seek. As does our good friend Tagge.

If you recall, you can't recover Needa tokens with Tagge, because it is a replace, not a discard. In this case, we have a cost "discard" for an effect "replace". So, for example:

160 pt ISD with Chimera and AFFM (5 pts) equipped. Plus another ISD with Entrapment Formation equipped.

ISD triggers Chimera, discarding AFFM (turns it face down). It then resolves the effect of replacing AFFM. It can at this point choose either Intensify Firepower or Shields to Maximum, but not Entrapment formation as it is unique and already in play. It chooses Shields to Maximum (6 points) making the ship worth 161 if destroyed at that moment. Because it has been replaced, not just discarded, AFFM is no longer equipped, much the same way a Needa ship doesn't have a token for Tagge to recover.

It can trigger Chimera in a later round to do bring back AFFM, as it is no longer equipped on any ships, thus meeting the uniqueness rule.

I am not yet 100% sure if you can cheat yourself above 400 points this way. I will look into it more.

It’s no longer in play, it only counts for scoring, and list legality, for better or worse of a term, is not checked after game start.

paying the price penalty if you lose Chimaera seems to be perfectly fine to me... You are the one who is making it worse on yourself by jumping around on fleet commands and relying on that as a tactic. ?

And if you’re cheating yourself above 400, it’s to 401... To get a 1 point advantage, you pay a minimum 4 point penalty tax on the chimaeras loss ?

As it stands, the question is asked of FFG and we await an answer ?

The World Cup is your Baby. The ruling I have applied there - to me - is the best compromise I can find to keep Chimaera unique and flexible (‘enabling’) but not making it so good that it’s uniquitous. (‘Zero-drawback’)

Spirit of the rules vs letter of the rules. Imo you just get the VP's for the Fleet Command you have equipped at the time of destruction, and not those that you have switched between in the previous turns, since those are functionally free.

5 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Spirit of the rules vs letter of the rules. Imo you just get the VP's for the Fleet Command you have equipped at the time of destruction, and not those that you have switched between in the previous turns, since those are functionally free.

But when you discard a card it remains with the ship for scoring purposes. That's the rules. Why should this be different?

Also, how exactly does Chimaera bypass the Unique rule?

By assuming that discarded cards no longer count as unique?

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Also, how exactly does Chimaera bypass the Unique rule?

By assuming that discarded cards no longer count as unique?

Since they're not Equipped or "Contained in the fleet" for anything but Scoring Purposes. Yes.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Since they're not Equipped or "Contained in the fleet" for anything but Scoring Purposes. Yes.

Ok, that's what I figured.

But if I read the Unique section of the RRG I isolation there is no such exception.

A minor point, however. But FAQ-worthy.

IMO it is demonstrably wrong to say that the points cost of a destroyed Chimaera includes the points values of all the Fleet Command upgrades with which it has been equipped during the game.

The reason for this opinion is as follows:

Chimaera Title upgrade card: “ You gain 1 Fleet Command icon in your upgrade bar. You cannot equip this card if you have a Fleet Command icon in your upgrade bar. At the start of the Command Phase, you may discard 1 Fleet Command upgrade card you have equipped and replace it with another Fleet Command upgrade card.” I have emphasised the two most important words in order to help the subsequent explanation. Page numbers relate to the Armada Rules Reference.

P5: “ When a card is discarded or flipped facedown, its effect is no longer active in the game.” This means that a Fleet Command upgrade card that was previously equipped, but which has been discarded using the Chimaera title card, is eligible to be equipped again later.

P9: “A destroyed ship’s fleet point cost includes the costs of all upgrade cards equipped to that ship.” & “ Discarded upgrade cards do not count toward a player’s score unless they are equipped to a destroyed ship.” This means that any discarded upgrade cards that are equipped to a to a destroyed ship count to its fleet points cost, but any discarded upgrade cards that are not equipped do not count to its fleet points cost.

P13: “For each upgrade icon in a ship’s upgrade bar, it may equip one upgrade card with the matching upgrade icon.” This means that the Chimaera Title upgrade card’s ‘replace’ signifies that the old Fleet Command upgrade card is no longer equipped when the new one takes its place. As a result, previously, but no longer, equipped Fleet Command upgrade cards do not count towards the Chimaera's fleet points cost.

P13: “ If a ship’s upgrade card is discarded, it is flipped facedown but remains equipped for the purposes of scoring.” This was the case before the Chimaera Title upgrade card was introduced, but that card now provides a way of having discarded upgrade cards that are not equipped. N.B. “Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.”

24 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Ok, that's what I figured.

But if I read the Unique section of the RRG I isolation there is no such exception.

A minor point, however. But FAQ-worthy.

I don't disagree.

The title and the rules it is enabling is, essentially, unprecedented , so guidance would be appreciated.

In the meantime - my opinion is known

For what it's worth, just got some information on this. It's second-hand from a dev to me, so take it for what third-hand is worth... though this is how it was ruled at FFGC Regionals:

===================

1) What matters for scoring is what's written on the fleet sheet. The card will likely be errata'd to reword "discard" to "remove" or something like that; it will at least be FAQ'd to clarify that you don't score for each FC that has cycled through it. So an ISD2 Chimaera that deployed with EF, switched to STM, and then died, is only worth 129 points.

2) For similar reasons, there is no uniqueness conflict when reusing a previously-Chimaera-discarded upgrade a second time, e.g., IF -> STM -> IF, because "discard" is not used in the rigorous sense.

3) The uniqueness rule is a constant check, though, which means that you can't bring both Chimaera and an STM Cymoon and swap in a second copy of STM onto Chimaera to double up on it. I think we had pretty much nailed this one down anyway.

4) There is nothing preventing you from bringing a 5-point FC upgrade on Chimaera in a 400-point fleet and then swapping in a 6-pointer after that. Grats, you spent 4 points to gain 1, you sly dog. Again, I think this one was already pretty clear.

==================

Take it or leave it. I'm keenly aware that some of these interpretations conflict with RAW, which means TOs are well within their rights to rule differently until the FAQ rolls out in June 2018.

3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

1) What matters for scoring is what's written on the fleet sheet.

Poor Leia, she cannot escape on Tantive IV with Profundity.