I never said I disagree that it's a dumb ruling, but I am trying to construct a case of why it would be ruled as such. I will absolutely admit that I'm wrong defending this, and that there is very solid evidence against it which a few exceptions. As a whole, yes Leebo should override ISYTDS.

16 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Chewie and Determination use the same f'ing "when" language as Leebo.

They use the same language but you're confusing the interaction here. For Chewie, ISYTDS absolutely comes into contact with your ship before being flipped face down. Determination likewise lets the card hit you and be assigned to your ship before it is removed. Leebo chooses one to resolve and one to discard, meaning it has not finished occuring as it has not resolved. Under the assumption that ISYTDS is resolved only when the assigned crit card is also resolved, it is still in effect and could override it. Yes, that means that there would need to exist an assumption that the ISYTDS condition card attaches any game effects to whatever card they are assigned to, and that they are resolved together. If that assumption is not true, then ISYTDS would be satisfied prior to Leebo and would have no effect.

24 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

There is nothing about ISYTDS that suggests that its faceup damage card cannot be discarded by a pilot ability.

Even if your interpretation is right and this means that the card never finished the action of being 'dealt,' it was still discarded and ISYTDS is therefore also discarded. It can't be placed on Leebo without being dealt there, and if it's dealt there then Leebo's ability can discard it.

It can absolutely be discarded by pilot abilities or upgrade cards after it's resolution. Chewie and Determination are prime examples of that. The text on ISYTDS prevents it from being discarded without that resolution and would jump in to be dealt to Leebo instead.

31 minutes ago, ZealuxMyr said:

ISYTDS instructs a specific card to be dealt.

When the specific card is dealt Leebo can draw an additional card, chose 1, and discard the other.

Even if Leebo chooses the additional card ISYTDS is still satisfied as the specific card was dealt - as evidenced by the fact that Leebo had the opportunity to trigger and resolve his ability.

ISYTDS triggers and Leebo triggers yes, but because Leebo was triggered is not sufficient to say ISYTDS has been resolved fully. That therein is the issue.

Again, these statements would be supported or destroyed by the assumption that ISYTDS is resolved after the card assigned to it is resolved and removed from ISYTDS, which would in this case be after Leebo's ability is resolved. If that assumption is false, Leebo trumps it.

So you are kind of the devil's advocate that can't find logical argument anymore ?!?

I will tend to take any view that is presented against and try to build a case for it yes. If we don't analyze why something was ruled the way it was and dissect the argument, the forums just become an echo chamber and no one bothers to see if they're actually correct. The loudest voice is not always the correct one.

If you see a flaw in the argument, point it out! That's why we're here after all. Just make sure you support it with evidence.

"Read. The. Card" is not a reason to believe your interpretation, but "FAQ 4.4.0 pg X states abilities must fully resolved once triggered" and "such and such precedent shows this resolves at this timing" is irrefutable support for your interpretation.

The entire argument supporting ISYTDS trumping Leebo boils down to the assumptions on the order of resolution, and the conditions by which ISYTDS is fully resolved; namely can it be considered resolved without the card attached also being resolved? Show that the order of operations isnt: crit suffered, ISYTDS and Leebo Trigger, Leebo resolved, Damage card resolved, ISYTDS resolved (card is no longer attached). Once you have shown that, there is literally no support for this ruling and all the TO's, interested players and anyone from FFG that sees this will be inclined to use that ruling.

7 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

"Read. The. Card" is not a reason to believe your interpretation, but "FAQ 4.4.0 pg X states abilities must fully resolved once triggered" and "such and such precedent shows this resolves at this timing" is irrefutable support for your interpretation.

So the card text doesn't matter to you, this all makes sense now.

What you want to see is every card individually explained in the FAQ rather than read the card and apply the rules as already defined.

Got it.

Just now, ZealuxMyr said:

So the card text doesn't matter to you, this all makes sense now.

What you want to see is every card individually explained in the FAQ rather than read the card and apply the rules as already defined.

The card text does matter, but arguments arise because we follow different steps in the logical decision making process. If you don't defend your interpretation of it (like you're doing now by trying to attack my character instead of the issue), you're showing that you have no support for why your interpretation is correct beyond "you're just an awesome player". This is what leads to multiple interpretations and everyone's inability to decide what is correct.

There is nothing in the text of ISYTDS that supports your assumption. It does not require that the damage card be resolved , only that it be dealt . There is no language anywhere on the card dealing in resolution of the damage card nor is there any requirement that a faceup damage card must be resolved in order to be considered dealt. If Leebo discards the damage card, it must necessarily have been dealt because 'dealt' is a necessary condition for triggering Leebo's ability. There's no room for interpretation there, you can't trigger Leebo until the card has been dealt. You can't have it both ways, where Leebo triggered (the card is dealt) while simultaneously also ISYTDS isn't finished triggering (the card has not been dealt). There's no Schrodinger's faceup damage card here.

25 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

"Read. The. Card" is not a reason to believe your interpretation

Not attacking your character, attacking your statement which clearly says reading the card doesn't back up an interpretation. You literally said this.

Most important step in understanding how something works in X-Wing is to start by reading the card. If the card confuses you then you check the rules reference. If you're still confused try looking it up in the FAQ. You certainly shouldn't be looking at the FAQ rather than the card.

13 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

you're showing that you have no support for why your interpretation is correct

Oh really? I've repeated myself 10 times now:

If you read the card and apply clarifications from the rules reference and FAQ based on similarly worded cards (like @theBitterFig pointed out) the only Rules as Written interpretation is that ISYTDS ONLY cares that the selected Damage card was dealt. If that damage card is discarded during/after/while being dealt ISYTDS DOES NOT CARE . It has one goal, one objective: deal this chosen damage card the next time the ship it is assigned to would suffer a critical damage from an attack. If the card is dealt, and discarded in the process by Leebo, ISYTDS DOES NOT CARE because the card (in fact) was dealt. Leebo works because he only needs a faceup damage card to be dealt, where that card originates from does not impact his ability. ISYTDS contains no card text, no Rules Reference text, no FAQ text, and no clarifications anywhere that changes the dealing of that damage card to mean the damage card must be assigned and suffered by the defender.

1 minute ago, ZealuxMyr said:

Not attacking your character, attacking your statement which clearly says reading the card doesn't back up an interpretation. You literally said this.

Reading the card creates the interpretation. Rereading the same information with no new or additional input and expecting a different interpretation is not a logical statement. Performing the same action over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity supposedly.

4 minutes ago, ZealuxMyr said:

you're showing that you have no support for why your interpretation is correct

This was directed at the idea that if you only have your opponent to attack and not the issue, then you've already lost.

5 minutes ago, ZealuxMyr said:

If you read the card and apply clarifications from the rules reference and FAQ based on similarly worded cards (like @theBitterFig pointed out) the only Rules as Written interpretation is that ISYTDS ONLY cares that the selected Damage card was dealt. If that damage card is discarded during/after/while being dealt ISYTDS DOES NOT CARE . It has one goal, one objective: deal this chosen damage card the next time the ship it is assigned to would suffer a critical damage from an attack. If the card is dealt, and discarded in the process by Leebo, ISYTDS DOES NOT CARE because the card (in fact) was dealt. Leebo works because he only needs a faceup damage card to be dealt, where that card originates from does not impact his ability. ISYTDS contains no card text, no Rules Reference text, no FAQ text, and no clarifications anywhere that changes the dealing of that damage card to mean the damage card must be assigned and suffered by the defender.

These clarifications are exactly what I want to see. Give me source material that substantiates your claim. Similarly worded cards were addressed above; the similarities confirmed the trigger opportunity, but not the resolution time. In case you weren't aware, you should recognize that these timings are not necessarily the same. There is no text on ISYTDS that would show that it cares about the resolution of the attached card, but is ISYTDS resolved before or after the attached damage card and Leebo? If the attached card is not resolved, is it removed from ISYTDS? Does ISYTDS have an opportunity to trigger again after Leebo if it's still in play / during the chain of events? These are important questions that needs evidence one way or the other, of which I have none. It's an open court for you to shut that down. Show me that the RAW confirm that ISYTDS is satisfied and resolved when the card is dealt and any other effects occurring after are non-issues, and I'll absolutely say you have the correct interpretation.

If this information doesn't exist yet, then it needs to be brought to its simplest yet complete statements for TO consideration, and no one has any right to refute an individual TO's ruling because the "correct" ruling doesn't exist.

45 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

I never said I disagree that it's a dumb ruling, but I am trying to construct a case of why it would be ruled as such. I will absolutely admit that I'm wrong defending this, and that there is very solid evidence against it which a few exceptions. As a whole, yes Leebo should override ISYTDS.

Then what are we even doing here? You seem to be deliberately misreading and misinterpreting cards for what?

44 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

They use the same language but you're confusing the interaction here. For Chewie, ISYTDS absolutely comes into contact with your ship before being flipped face down. Determination likewise lets the card hit you and be assigned to your ship before it is removed. Leebo chooses one to resolve and one to discard, meaning it has not finished occuring as it has not resolved. Under the assumption that ISYTDS is resolved only when the assigned crit card is also resolved [emphasis added], it is still in effect and could override it. Yes, that means that there would need to exist an assumption that the ISYTDS condition card attaches any game effects to whatever card they are assigned to, and that they are resolved together. If that assumption is not true, then ISYTDS would be satisfied prior to Leebo and would have no effect.

Fundamentally, Leebo is telling you what to do with a damage card you've been dealt, rather than choosing which card you are dealt. Contrary-wise, Maarek Stele tells you "choose one to deal." This is happening before the card would be dealt. However, Leebo doesn't say that doesn't say "chose one to be dealt, and discard the other." It starts from having been dealt the card (that's clearly the trigger for Leebo--you are dealt a face-up damage card), and gives you choices for how to treat it. Leebo does not determine which card you are dealt.

I don't see any way to interpret Leebo, based on the text of the card, other than that the triggering damage card is dealt and possibly discarded, like how a card is dealt and possibly discarded from a ship with Integrated Astromech. As with Determination, in all cases the card is dealt to your ship, and then you do something with it, prior to resolving its effects. There is zero reason from the text of the cards to interpret Leebo as doing something differently from the other cards which "do something" to crits prior to resolving their effects.

Meanwhile, going to the text I bolded, that's not what ISYTDS says. It doesn't say "When you suffer critical damage from an attack, you are instead dealt the chosen card and must resolve it ." The text literally stops when you are "dealt the chosen card." ISYTDS is done at this moment. Then Leebo happens.

2 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

Give me source material that substantiates your claim.

It's the text of the f'ing cards! That's the source material.

3 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

If the attached card is not resolved, is it removed from ISYTDS?

Yes. Because ISYTDS say nothing at all about whether the damage card is resolved, only that it be dealt.

If ISYTDS couldn't be resolved without the damage card being resolved, then it would also override Chewie.

45 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

Give me source material that substantiates your claim.

• "L EEBO " - When you are dealt a faceup Damage card , draw 1 additional Damage card, choose 1 to resolve, and discard the other.

• I' LL S HOW Y OU THE D ARK S IDE - When this card is assigned, if it is not already in play, the player who assigned it searches the Damage deck for 1 Damage card with the Pilot trait and may place it faceup on this card. Then shuffle the damage deck. When you suffer critical damage during an attack, you are instead dealt the chose faceup Damage card . When there is no Damage card on this card, remove it.

As you've admitted to playing the devils advocate just for the sake of it and WILL CONTINUE TO TROLL this tread, I will say this one final time: You don't need anything else beyond the cards and a basic understanding that "dealt" and "suffer" are two different things in terms of the S tar Wars: X-Wing Miniatures game.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Then what are we even doing here? You seem to be deliberately misreading and misinterpreting cards for what?

If you can't show it's a misreading or misinterpretation, you can't say that the TO's decision was wrong. If no one presents the argument from the TO's perspective, there is no discussion to be had.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Fundamentally, Leebo is telling you what to do with a damage card you've been dealt, rather than choosing which card you are dealt. Contrary-wise, Maarek Stele tells you "choose one to deal." This is happening before the card would be dealt. However, Leebo doesn't say that doesn't say "chose one to be dealt, and discard the other." It starts from having been dealt the card (that's clearly the trigger for Leebo--you are dealt a face-up damage card), and gives you choices for how to treat it. Leebo does not determine which card you are dealt.

This is a solid case showing Leebo should trump ISYTDS, and leads into the next point. Because Leebo is triggered by ISYTDS and stops its card from being dealt, does it stop or just interrupt the resolution of ISYTDS? Determination and Chewie both say they stop the resolution of the card in question while Leebo does not, which invalidates your second paragraph there. All effects in the game that are triggered must resolve with very few exceptions, all of which have clear call outs (case in point, determination). While it lacks that clarification, what interaction do we get from ISYTDS and it's card wanting to be discarded instead of being dealt? Is this a giant seated interaction, or is it linear?

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

It's the text of the f'ing cards! That's the source material.

Which cards or what rules? If Leebo and ISYTDS are the only text existing in this vacuum, then we have an uncertainty. Hence why it came down to TO interpretation and everyone disagreeing with it.

56 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

If ISYTDS couldn't be resolved without the damage card being resolved, then it would also override Chewie.

If we use this as a precedent, we have a seated interaction. Crit suffered, ISYTDS triggered, card dealt. Chewie flips the card that was dealt prior to its resolution specifically by the text from his ability "...immediately flip it face down (without resolving its ability)." Since it is now a facedown card, it has no special text to resolve and is instead resolved merely by existing. Chewie's ability has resolved, dealt damage card is resolved (it has no other effect beyond existing), ISYTDS is resolved (because the card was dealt). Everything is triggered, resolved and the game is in a valid, legal game state without overriding Chewie.

If we were to take that same chain to Leebo we get: Crit suffered, ISYTDS triggered, Card A dealt, Leebo triggered (Card B drawn), Choice of cards made to resolve, then work backwards.

Since Card A is being discarded instead of resolved, do we consider the effect that generated it (ISYTDS) resolved as the chain has been broken? We know that condition cards on ships are not discarded when the ship is removed (case in point harpooned!), as well as tokens on upgrade cards are not removed when they are discarded (case in point Boba vs Rey interaction). Are condition cards discarded from damage cards when the damage card is discarded? Precedent would say no, but RAW would say nothing. If the damage card still exists as part of the game and is still attached to ISYTDS, then we need an interaction to resolve these abilities. A fine order of events here is to consider discarded card A as its resolution, as well as removing it from ISYTDS, allowing it to be resolved as the card was dealt and removed from the condition. Can anyone find something that would confirm you do that?

@ZealuxMyr I know it's frustrating to argue, but I'm not intending to troll anyone. I'm trying to find a concrete resolution, or as close to one as we can find. If you can't understand the basic flow of a cause and effect chain, or even acknowledge that there might be some validity to a general lack of hard precedent and why the decision was made in the first place, then we won't get anywhere.

Precedent for damage cards tells us that they do not stay on their card once discarded. A damage card that gets discarded goes to the discard pile. Upgrades have a reason to stay on their card when discarded, damage cards do not.

In order to function, Leebo's ability requires that a faceup damage card be dealt to him. If Leebo's ability was triggered, then the card must have been dealt to him, and if the card was dealt to him, then ISYTDS has satisfied its requirement. There is no reasonable way to argue that the card was both dealt and not dealt, nor is there any ruling that insists that a damage card must be resolved before it is considered dealt.

53 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

If you can't show it's a misreading or misinterpretation , you can't say that the TO's decision was wrong. If no one presents the argument from the TO's perspective, there is no discussion to be had.

We've shown it several times here.

It's like you're asking me to show my work on 1+1=2. That is the work.

You're participating in a discussion, you're being a jerk.

54 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

This is a solid case showing Leebo should trump ISYTDS, and leads into the next point. Because Leebo is triggered by ISYTDS and stops its card from being dealt, does it stop or just interrupt the resolution of ISYTDS? Determination and Chewie both say they stop the resolution of the card in question while Leebo does not , which invalidates your second paragraph there. All effects in the game that are triggered must resolve with very few exceptions, all of which have clear call outs (case in point, determination). While it lacks that clarification, what interaction do we get from ISYTDS and it's card wanting to be discarded instead of being dealt? Is this a giant seated interaction, or is it linear?

Dude. Read the f'ing text of Leebo. Yes it f'ing does . We've told you this like 15 times today already. Go the away or actually read the f'ing card. Do each step in process.

So all ISYTDS instructed us to do was deal a particular card, so it's DONE before Leebo even starts.

"When you are dealt a face-up damage card," check.

"draw 1 additional damage card," yep yep.

"choose 1 to resolve," Ok.

"and discard the other." Right here. RIGHT F'ING HERE. This is the part which stops the resolution of the face-up damage card.

Surprise, surprise, it was in the text of the card, right where we've been telling you it was.

1 hour ago, Jimbawa said:

Which cards or what rules? If Leebo and ISYTDS are the only text existing in this vacuum, then we have an uncertainty. Hence why it came down to TO interpretation and everyone disagreeing with it.

'Leebo' and I'll Show You The Dark Side , which we've quoted for you like 15 times, and you apparently refuse to read.

1 hour ago, Jimbawa said:

Since Card A is being discarded instead of resolved, do we consider the effect that generated it (ISYTDS) resolved as the chain has been broken? We know that condition cards on ships are not discarded when the ship is removed (case in point harpooned!), as well as tokens on upgrade cards are not removed when they are discarded (case in point Boba vs Rey interaction). Are condition cards discarded from damage cards when the damage card is discarded? Precedent would say no, but RAW would say nothing. If the damage card still exists as part of the game and is still attached to ISYTDS, then we need an interaction to resolve these abilities. A fine order of events here is to consider discarded card A as its resolution, as well as removing it from ISYTDS, allowing it to be resolved as the card was dealt and removed from the condition. Can anyone find something that would confirm you do that?

How many times to we have to say "Yes." This isn't unclear on the cards. ISYTDS says "you are instead dealt the attached damage card." It moves off of ISYTDS and onto Leebo, where he does his thing, and possibly discards it or not. But as soon as it moved off ISYTDS and onto Leebo, ISYTDS was done.

As we've all said clearly before.

Here's my question for you. Where the **** are you getting any of this ****. What set of rules or flowcharts are you referencing to NOT JUST DO WHAT THE F'ING CARDS SAY . You're trying dime-store sophistry to obscure the fact that this is not an unclear rules situation, only that a TO of prominence goofed and got it wrong.

Nest this, chain that. Just follow the cards man. It's not too hard. Only you've decided to be a jerk.

1 hour ago, Jimbawa said:

@ZealuxMyr I know it's frustrating to argue, but I'm not intending to troll anyone. I'm trying to find a concrete resolution, or as close to one as we can find. If you can't understand the basic flow of a cause and effect chain, or even acknowledge that there might be some validity to a general lack of hard precedent and why the decision was made in the first place, then we won't get anywhere.

You aren't arguing. You're not trying to find a concrete resolution. You're refusing to acknowledge the bare text of the cards.

I've gone back and forth with @ZealuxMyr a bunch on Viktor Hel and "perform this attack twice," but there's an actual argument to be had there about how to resolve one "after defending" check against two attacks. I prefer a logic gate, he prefers a sum. But there's something to debate about there.

Here, you're just not reading the cards . You've made up some idea that Leebo substantially different from Integrated Astromech, when there's absolutely no reason to think that based on the cards or other rulings. Likewise, you seem to keep insisting that ISYTDS keeps doing stuff after it was clearly done. It passes the attached damage card to Leebo, and the condition is discarded--exactly what the card says--and what Leebo does with it afterwards isn't relevant. Because nothing on the cards gives us any indication it would be.

How has nobody brought up the last line of ISYTDS ? Did I somehow skip it on these mere three pages? I think it neatly solves the argument:

"When there is no damage card on this card, remove it."

That is the resolution for this condition. When the selected P ilot damage card is dealt this last sentence is triggered; without a damage card physically on top of the ISYTDS condition card, ISYTDS must be removed from play and no longer has any impact on any aspect of the game.

@Jimbawa @ZealuxMyr @theBitterFig

5 hours ago, Jimbawa said:

...

Since Card A is being discarded instead of resolved, do we consider the effect that generated it (ISYTDS) resolved as the chain has been broken? We know that condition cards on ships are not discarded when the ship is removed (case in point harpooned!), as well as tokens on upgrade cards are not removed when they are discarded (case in point Boba vs Rey interaction). Are condition cards discarded from damage cards when the damage card is discarded? Precedent would say no, but RAW would say nothing. If the damage card still exists as part of the game and is still attached to ISYTDS, then we need an interaction to resolve these abilities. A fine order of events here is to consider discarded card A as its resolution, as well as removing it from ISYTDS, allowing it to be resolved as the card was dealt and removed from the condition. Can anyone find something that would confirm you do that?

Side note to address the above bolded question: ISYTDS is attached to a target ship. Currently there are not any condition cards that attach to damage cards, which is why there's no rules regarding it.

This clarification might seem incidental but it's worth noting as it appears to be important to your understanding of this ISYTDS vs "Leebo" interaction.

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:57 AM, ZealuxMyr said:

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:57 AM, ZealuxMyr said:

Not sure how you got to Maarek interacting with Leebo, that wasn't part of the discussion...just how Maarek interacts with ISYTDS and (separately) how Leebo interacts with ISYTDS .

I know it wasn't the OP, I was just building off the discussion and interposing a question. I can see that resolution though, since the ISYTDS states that you are instead dealt the face-up card, Maarek is basically cut out of the equation.

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:08 PM, nitrobenz said:

How has nobody brought up the last line of ISYTDS ? Did I somehow skip it on these mere three pages? I think it neatly solves the argument:

"When there is no damage card on this card, remove it."

That is the resolution for this condition. When the selected P ilot damage card is dealt this last sentence is triggered; without a damage card physically on top of the ISYTDS condition card, ISYTDS must be removed from play and no longer has any impact on any aspect of the game.

@Jimbawa @ZealuxMyr @theBitterFig

Right, so the sequence would run like this in the proposed scenario:
1) Leebo suffers ISYTDS (from some source)
2) Leebo Suffers un-cancelled crit.
a) Leebo is dealt the ISYTDS card
i) ISYTDS condition termination trigger is met and it is removed
b) Leebo draw second critical and chooses to resolve one
c) Leebo discards unchosen card (if it was the ISYTDS card, it can not return to the condition card-as its termination trigger has already been met).
3) Leebo suffers effects of chosen card.


I see the argument for the card returning to the condition, but that last line neatly negates that possibility.

We have an answer!

2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

We have an answer!

It's the same answer we had before!

That said, clarification is good.