2 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:But it does mean that a hard "you must always be interpreted as this ship" stance is untenable ...
Interesting. Why so?
2 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:I will also note that if a hard line is followed, this has a huge impact on how Thrawn is played.
Sorry, again I don't follow you.
15 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:Interesting. Why so?
Because the "always" part of the statement has been shown to be false. A single exception is sufficient to disprove an "always" or "never" statement and downgrade it into "in most cases".
16 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:Sorry, again I don't follow you.
If you always means "this ship" (no exceptions), then Thrawn must be read as follows:
"At the start of each Ship Phase, this ship* may reveal and discard 1 of those dials."
Therefore, revealing Thrawn's extra dial will immediately trigger any "When/before/after this ship reveals a dial" abilities affecting Thrawn's ship. Because Thrawn caused this ship to reveal a dial. Such effects include, for example:
You could argue that Thrawn is not intended to work that way, and that these effects only affect the dial revealed in the Reveal Dial Step. But whatever you think RAI is, the card and the rules both clearly and unambiguously say that:
As further evidence, I submit Comms Net:
"After the Reveal Command Dial Step, you may..."
Cards worded this way do NOT trigger with Thrawn's dial, because it specifies that it only happens at the Reveal Command Dial Step. All the other examples above, trigger whenever a ship reveals a dial.
As far as I'm concerned, this (especially Pursuant and Wing Commander) puts a nail in the coffin of the "you always means this ship" dogma.
This does not prove that Strategic Advisor must be played permissively - but it means that those saying that the "you" rule is enough to disprove it need to find better arguments (or accept that Thrawn is broken).
*: Thrawn's ship. Not Thrawn, not the player, but the flagship itself.
Yep. "Shields to the Max", "Pursuant", and the various and sundry command-changing officers would introduce flexibility that is too nice for an already-very-flexible commander. Imagine you put a stack of dials on Thrawn at the beginning, but then when it came time to resolve them, you could change them to exactly what you need instead. You have to guess at what that is when you build your list, but that would mean there is at least one command you don't need to dial up in your Thrawn Stack, because the officer would allow you to change it before you reveal it and then give the new command away to all your ships.
"Pursuant" resolving right then at the start of the Ship Phase? Even if you are second player, you could get your alpha strike in before the first player gets to activate a ship.
Oy.
Good points. I now understand what you are saying, thank you.
26 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:Because the "always" part of the statement has been shown to be false. A single exception is sufficient to disprove an "always" or "never" statement and downgrade it into "in most cases".
Personally, I don't find the statement false, but that's not surprising because we are each starting from a different premise and your opinion is as valid as mine.
30 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:You could argue that Thrawn is not intended to work that way, and that these effects only affect the dial revealed in the Reveal Dial Step. But whatever you think RAI is, the card and the rules both clearly and unambiguously say that:
- Stuff will happen before/when/after Thrawn's ship reveals a dial, and
- At the start of the Ship Phase, Thrawn's ship reveals a dial.
Haha, you're not as green as you're cabbage-looking! 
It's good that you see both sides.
Yes, that is indeed the way I would look at. The thing that differentiates Thrawn's dials and his flagship's dial is timing and I would argue that is the critical point, just as you have said.
There are so many ways that these cards could have been written more clearly. Thanks again for the detailed reply.
PS I have been thinking about FFG's options with regard to these ambiguous cards. I believe they will uphold the "hard you" line, partly because I think that is what was meant, but the clincher is to avoid lots of additions to an already substantial FAQ.
2 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:PS I have been thinking about FFG's options with regard to these ambiguous cards. I believe they will uphold the "hard you" line, partly because I think that is what was meant, but the clincher is to avoid lots of additions to an already substantial FAQ.
My guess is, the "hard you" line (thanks, that's great shorthand!) makes StA work as intended... but breaks Thrawn and is hard to reconcile with Bail. And the "soft you" line solves the Thrawn and Bail issues but makes StA (and potentially other cards) much fuzzier.
Having said that... can't we ask @JJs Juggernaut directly about the RAI for Thrawn?
5 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:Having said that... can't we ask @JJs Juggernaut directly about the RAI for Thrawn?
You've got my vote. That would be interesting whatever is eventually decided.