I hate to jump on the bandwagon here SkullNBones, because my intention isn't to insult or demean, but hopefully offer some clarity as well.

3 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

If the rerolled results of HLC are no longer HLC results (meaning they are no longer bound by the card rule, due to the trigger having passed), then why is the AB rule still in effect since its results have been canceled (by AC)?

I believe this might be the crux of your misunderstanding. The game rules do not differentiate between where results are from. Rolled results and rerolled results, snap shot results, results added by evade dice, etc. etc. are not differentiated by the game at all. This is why there is an unwieldy timing chart, so that the timing of triggers can resolve in a consistent manner. There are a few other constants to remember here as well. Immediately also has been changed to mean nothing on the timing chart, but simply as a reminder keyword. Cannots override cans when rules and cards contradict. Dice cancellation occurs at a specific opportunity determined by the card or rule effect, and is not a considered a modification. Since Autoblaster Turret and Heavy Laser Cannon can't be used in the same attack, the way the rules are handled is specific to each card.

Heavy Laser Cannon and Accuracy Corrector (as you've quoted) have been clarified by the FAQ. The crit result is changed to a hit result prior to the dice modification step in the timing chart. This means that it has to occur before Accuracy Corrector has cancelled the dice results, since the Modify Attack Dice step has not yet occurred. Once the attack dice have had a chance to be modified, then then you may cancel all of your dice results and add 2 hit results to your roll. Then, at that time, those dice can no longer be modified during this attack. Autoblaster turret simply states that your hit results cannot be cancelled by evade results. The game does not differentiate where these hits came from, but just stops the ability to spend results to cancel them during the compare results step.

It's impossible to have a productive discussion when one side of the conversation doesn't know what the **** they're talking about.

14 hours ago, Smitty said:

It says they can't be canceled by evade results, not they can't be canceled at all.

The point is hlc says do stuff after rolling, it is specific in when it occurs. It doesn't say crits are banned for the duration of the attack just after the initial roll do the alteration.

Abt however has very different wording it is an effect in play during the entire attack sequence that forbids any attempt to use evade results to cancel hits. It doesn't care how you produce hits, it doesn't mind canceling from sources other than evade results.

You're not making a devils argument here, that would imply it is potentially a valid interpretation which is contrary to common opinion and needs discussing (devils arguement also implies you disagree with it yourself and only make the case in order to provoke discussion of the issue, it wouldn't be the devils arguement if you agree, then its just your argument).

You are stating how you want it to work, acknowledging it doesn't work that way, then getting offended when told this isn't productive to the thread. This sub forum isn't for debating how rules should work, its for explaining how rules do work to people asking a question. Making a knowingly faulty case here could confuse a new player.

I wish I could like this more than once! It's almost everything I was about to type.

@SkullNBones the only additional counterpoint I can offer against changing HLC results after re-rolling is the 'once per opportunity' rule. If you trigger HLC's special effect (changing crit to hit) before anything else then you are not allowed to use that effect again during that attack which will prevent you from changing the re-rolled crit results.

14 hours ago, Smitty said:

It says they can't be canceled by evade results, not they can't be canceled at all.

The point is hlc says do stuff after rolling, it is specific in when it occurs. It doesn't say crits are banned for the duration of the attack just after the initial roll do the alteration.

Abt however has very different wording it is an effect in play during the entire attack sequence that forbids any attempt to use evade results to cancel hits. It doesn't care how you produce hits, it doesn't mind canceling from sources other than evade results.

You're not making a devils argument here, that would imply it is potentially a valid interpretation which is contrary to common opinion and needs discussing (devils arguement also implies you disagree with it yourself and only make the case in order to provoke discussion of the issue, it wouldn't be the devils arguement if you agree, then its just your argument).

You are stating how you want it to work, acknowledging it doesn't work that way, then getting offended when told this isn't productive to the thread. This sub forum isn't for debating how rules should work, its for explaining how rules do work to people asking a question. Making a knowingly faulty case here could confuse a new player.

I wish I could like this more than once! It's almost everything I was about to type.

@SkullNBones the only additional counterpoint I can offer against changing HLC results after re-rolling is the 'once per opportunity' rule. If you trigger HLC's special effect (changing crit to hit) before anything else then you are not allowed to use that effect again during that attack which will prevent you from changing the re-rolled crit results.

19 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

this is devil's advocate argument, I know how it has been currently ruled...

From your initial post stating your arguement.

17 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

I do not acknowledge I am incorrect.

Ya, you did. A devil's advocate arguement means you are taking a stance that is not your own, in order to facilitate a debate. But fine I'll drop the semantics, you misused the term, its your position not the devil's fine ok then... except...

Your very next sentence you acknowledge your awareness of the FAQ ruling and that its against your arguement. That sounds like you know you're wrong in advance of talking.

" I know how it has been currently ruled"

13 hours ago, Juunon said:

The game does not differentiate where these hits came from, but just stops the ability to spend results to cancel them during the compare results step.

No, your reply was intelligently and politely crafted.

This is the crux of what I am getting at. Like I said before (though no one seems to read that part). I understand how the mechanic function. What I am trying to put forth (you @Juunon got it in one) is exactly what I quoted from you. The game currently does not have a "state" that differentiates where the hits come from. Because of which the (high powered) combo of ABs and AC function.

That being said, the interaction of HLC (and yes again, I understand the timing of the trigger or HLC and premise of only triggering once logic holds) can be interpreted to create a "state" of differentiation and thus another potential "future" timing phase or definition (as I stated before, ownership of a result/modification is already in place in certain scenarios such as Jostro or Omega).

Consider then the ship attacks with ABC, results are Focus, Hit, Blank. Those results are directly created by the ABC and thus the rule applies. So now if you trigger AC, and cancel those results, ABC has been voided. Its results now replaced with Hit, Hit from AC (and therefore not subject to the rule of ABC).

Anyway, that is all I was trying to point out (and possibly suggest) that there exists within the mechanics already (though non-definitively) a solution to the combo (that many have considered over powered (given that the only real balance to it is its limited occurrence potential at the moment).

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Those results are directly created by the ABC and thus the rule applies.

Incorrect. This may be your issue. Those results are not created by ABC. Those results are created by rolling attack dice as per the core rules. ABC adds a rule to the attack, not to the dice.

As such...

6 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

So now if you trigger AC, and cancel those results, ABC has been voided.

Nope.

If there were a card like Lightweight Frame but for attacking, i.e. if there were a way to "roll" attack dice a second time during an attack, then the HLC downgrade effect would definitely still apply to the second roll. The fact the you don't downgrade results off a reroll has always and only ever been about the difference between rolls and rerolls, not some assumed limitation on secondary weapon card text vis a vis red dice.

If FFG decided they wanted to prevent AC+ABT from working as it currently does, they could accomplish that goal without upending years of rules precedent by just errataing ABT.

So the hypothetical rules justification for not allowing AC+ABT both relies on an interpretation of existing rules that is, let's say "creative", and is also completely unnecessary.

8 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

That being said, the interaction of HLC (and yes again, I understand the timing of the trigger or HLC and premise of only triggering once logic holds) can be interpreted to create a "state" of differentiation and thus another potential "future" timing phase or definition (as I stated before, ownership of a result/modification is already in place in certain scenarios such as Jostro or Omega).

Your problem right now is you ignore the reply that give you the answer to continue to hold your wrong belief. This is in no way related to the once trigger, that is your wrong starting point:

ROLL AND REROLL ARE DIFFERENT IN THIS GAME. HLC stop changing the result after a Target Lock because it is a REROLL not a ROLL... If there is an upgrade that woudl make you ROLL additional dice after the initial ROLL, HLC WOULD APPLY TO IT !!!!

We already told you so many time now, you start from the wrong interpretation of the rules.

Textual from the FAQ:

Q: Does an effect that triggers when rolling dice trigger when
rerolling dice?
A: No. Rolling dice and rerolling dice are different game effects.

So stop acting like HLC create a precedent, it create nothing, it just follow the rules, like everything else.

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:04 AM, muribundi said:

Your problem right now is you ignore the reply that give you the answer to continue to hold your wrong belief.

Actually it is not a problem. You (and everyone else that ignores the discussion point) keep assuming I do not understand the current ruling/card/mechanic. I have stated already (multiple times) that I do. So your (and everyone else that stops at "I am wrong", rather than read what I wrote) comments are moot.

Regardless, the majority of these comments have just turned into ignoring what I was attempting to discuss to tell me I am wrong and therefor deviated significantly from the OP. So let's just let this one die now. Thank you to those (one or two) that saw the discussion point at least. To the rest...yeah well... cheers.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Actually it is not a problem. You (and everyone else that ignores the discussion point) keep assuming I do not understand the current ruling/card/mechanic. I have stated already (multiple times) that I do. So your (and everyone else that stops at "I am wrong", rather than read what I wrote) comments are moot.

Regardless, the majority of these comments have just turned into ignoring what I was attempting to discuss to tell me I am wrong and therefor deviated significantly from the OP. So let's just let this one die now. Thank you to those (one or two) that saw the discussion point at least. To the rest...yeah well... cheers.

To me, it looks like your argument is "if we want to change the Accuracy Corrector/Autoblaster interaction, we can use this valid rules interpretation to cover our rears."

However, the key to it--that it is a valid and reasonable rules interpretation--isn't there. We're left feeling the breeze, because there is no similarity between the mechanics of HLC and Autoblaster other than that they are both secondary weapons. The presupposition that we're trying to come up with a way to errata-by-consensus the interaction is a bit of a reach, too, but that's just reading the room, not reading the cards, so kinda irrelevant.

On 04/03/2018 at 3:04 PM, SkullNBones said:

I have stated already (multiple times) that I do.

No you don't, and I will quote you:

Quote

That being said, the interaction of HLC (and yes again, I understand the timing of the trigger or HLC and premise of only triggering once logic holds) can be interpreted to create a "state" of differentiation and thus another potential "future" timing phase or definition (as I stated before, ownership of a result/modification is already in place in certain scenarios such as Jostro or Omega).

Here you are wrong, HLC have nothing to do with once per rule. HLC would still trigger if there was other Roll during the attack phase, but there is nothing in this game that make you Roll dice after the intiale Roll. So no it does not create a "sate" or any weird interpretation you try to add. HLC never stop working, you try to imply that but it is not the case at all. FFG never said so, they never said it stop working, that just said that HLC apply to Roll, not to Reroll.

Quote

since the rerolled (modified) dice are no longer subject to the HLC rule (Crit to Hit ), then any results from Accuracy Corrector (modified results) should no longer beholden to the original weapons rule, thus in the case of Autoblaster, the inability for the hits to be canceled.

Yes they are subject to it, here again you did not uderstand what the HLC do. But HLC do not trigger on Reroll, the fact that HLC can only trigger from Roll does not mean the dice are not from him anymore. HLC have a specific game effect that it is watching to trigger and it is Roll, it ignore anything else, but ignoring does not mean its effect have stopped working.

You clearly shown that you "understand" that HLC do not modify dice later on in combat, but you clearly do not understand why it is doing so....

Please stop feeding him. He isn't reasonable. Just let the threads go away so we don't have to watch.

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:32 AM, muribundi said:

No you don't, and I will quote you:

Here you are wrong, HLC have nothing to do with once per rule. HLC would still trigger if there was other Roll during the attack phase, but there is nothing in this game that make you Roll dice after the intiale Roll. So no it does not create a "sate" or any weird interpretation you try to add. HLC never stop working, you try to imply that but it is not the case at all. FFG never said so, they never said it stop working, that just said that HLC apply to Roll, not to Reroll.

Yes they are subject to it, here again you did not uderstand what the HLC do. But HLC do not trigger on Reroll, the fact that HLC can only trigger from Roll does not mean the dice are not from him anymore. HLC have a specific game effect that it is watching to trigger and it is Roll, it ignore anything else, but ignoring does not mean its effect have stopped working.

You clearly shown that you "understand" that HLC do not modify dice later on in combat, but you clearly do not understand why it is doing so....

Again, you are missing what I was attempting to discuss, and yes, yet again, I do understand how the current iteration and interaction is played out and the reasoning behind it. Repeatedly bring it up under the misguided assumption that I do not, only results in a continued non event. The discussion is dead (basically never actually getting off the ground since very few seem to be able to see forest for the trees and simply assume that a different vector of discussion equates to a lack of understanding), let it lie.

31 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

Again, you are missing what I was attempting to discuss

No I'm not. But it was answered.

You said Accuracy Corrector could be fixed by forgetting its dices, like HLC do.

We said no, becauss HLC do not forget its dices like you assume.

You are the one that continued to say: yes HLC forget its dices.

Telling you you're wrong is not ignoring your points. It's addressing them, just not the way you want.

You are wrong. There is no foundation to your points.

We all know you're trying to play devil's advocate. You are doing it badly, because playing devil's advocate is not 'making an argument you know to be wrong', it's 'making a correct argument you don't agree with to further discussion.

I'm quite happy for people to argue devil's advocate positions when there is genuine debate, and the rules are unclear. I do it myself occasionally. And there are a great many cases where that is true.

This is not one of them. THis case is perfectly clear, and the position you're arguing is just flat out wrong. Continuing to argue it, knowing that, is just trolling.

7 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Telling you you're wrong is not ignoring your points. It's addressing them, just not the way you want.

You are wrong. There is no foundation to your points.

We all know you're trying to play devil's advocate. You are doing it badly, because playing devil's advocate is not 'making an argument you know to be wrong', it's 'making a correct argument you don't agree with to further discussion.

I'm quite happy for people to argue devil's advocate positions when there is genuine debate, and the rules are unclear. I do it myself occasionally. And there are a great many cases where that is true.

This is not one of them. THis case is perfectly clear, and the position you're arguing is just flat out wrong. Continuing to argue it, knowing that, is just trolling.

Okay, once again, if I am arguing as a "devil's advocate" than I can not be "wrong" because my nature the argument would be from the opposing point of view and if it is simply dismissed as "wrong" than you are defeating the entire point of the "devil's advocate" argument...which is exactly what you are doing, simply dismissing it as "wrong" rather than considering it.
Now not participating in such a discussion is fine, maybe its not for you, maybe you do not want to explore "possible" mechanics, etc. that's fine. They way to do that is simply do not participate, not say "you are wrong.. period, end of discussion" that is not discussion.

That being said, let try one more time to explain what I was trying to pull forth. There exists in the game the potential for another "state" of results to exist. This is demonstrated by HLC's mechanic. That mechanic could be extrapolated and used to define a state of ownership of results (in this case attributed to HLC). IF this were used, then once could state that since the dice were rolled because of a particular card, then those dice are under that cards rule, until modified by something else (i.e. target lock, accuracy corrector etc.) and thus rendering the new results void of the original results rule.

This discussion is spawned by the OP and further explores its possible mechanics. IT IS NOT trying to countermine the existing mechanic or rule, rather it is attempting to provide further discussion into a deeper mechanical level.

The thing is: none of the current card wordings support ANYTHING like that.

That's not an accurate explanation of how HLC works. It doesn't define "a state of ownership of results," there is a trigger which happens once (when you roll the dice) and never again.

Could mechanics based on initial dice rolls used on cards in the future? Sure. But that's of zero use in a discussion of how the rules actually apply to cards now.

Once again SkullNBones has dredged through the rules and cards in an attempt to find an interpretation that he (and only he) asserts is correct, and everyone else in the world is wrong. The premise that it's "promoting discussion" is quite moot, as he refuses to accept the fact that once again, he's wrong, and despite the many, many answers that contradict his "logic" he still refuses to accept it. There's really nothing to discuss, because there's no real point. The cards, rules and FAQ in this scenario are crystal clear. His "logic" is not.

It was stated further up this thread that the Rules Sub-Forum is designed as a "question and answer" forum, not a "what-if debate" forum. Ask a question, get an answer. Simple as that.

@SkullNBones , dude just stick to the main forum, because you've demonstrated in multiple threads that you're well out of your depth in the Rules Sub-forum! I'm not saying we're all experts here. But at least we know how the game works.

13 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Okay, once again, if I am arguing as a "devil's advocate" than I can not be "wrong" because my nature the argument would be from the opposing point of view and if it is simply dismissed as "wrong" than you are defeating the entire point of the "devil's advocate" argument

Clearly, you don't actually understand the concept of devil's advocate. Of course you can be wrong if your argument is invalid.

13 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Now not participating in such a discussion is fine, maybe its not for you, maybe you do not want to explore "possible" mechanics, etc. that's fine.

But it's not a possible mechanic. It's something you invented whole cloth that has no supporting evidence.

13 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

There exists in the game the potential for another "state" of results to exist.

No, there doesn't.

13 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

IF this were used, then once could state that since the dice were rolled because of a particular card, then those dice are under that cards rule, until modified by something else (i.e. target lock, accuracy corrector etc.) and thus rendering the new results void of the original results rule.

2

It looks like you've conflated 'devil's advocate' for 'suggesting alternatives'. This is not playing devil's advocate. The thing you're talking about does not exist in the rules and therefore asserting it as an argument makes you expressly wrong. Suggesting it as an alternative is irrelevant as this is a rules forum about discussing how thing are .

14 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

This discussion is spawned by the OP and further explores its possible mechanics.

No.

1. This is the rules forum. Feel free to discuss that stuff elsewhere, but this isn't the place.

2. At no point have you actually said that that's what you're doing until now. You have provided misinformation to confuse other players and all posts regarding this insanity should be deleted.

14 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

IT IS NOT trying to countermine the existing mechanic or rule, rather it is attempting to provide further discussion into a deeper mechanical level.

No, it isn't, because you're mishandled it horribly, used the wrong words, and utterly failed to explain yourself at every turn. You said that people were ignoring what you were trying to do but that's because you never told anyone what you were trying to do . I'm not sure what result you expected, but this is clearly a giant failure to communicate, the fault of which I am unequivocally laying at your feet.

To be clear, playing Devil's Advocate involves arguing a point that is not one that you personally hold. It does not remove the need for an argument to be valid. If you make an argument and it is shown to be incorrect, then it is justifiably dismissed.

16 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Clearly, you don't actually understand the concept of devil's advocate. Of course you can be wrong if your argument is invalid.

Funny part in his assertion of he can't be wrong is the origin of the phrase: A person selected to act as a sort of prosecutor against the cause of canonization of a saint. The job literally demands the likely possibility of being wrong or there would be no saints.

SkullNBones: Think Riker forced to argue in court that Data isn't sentient. If you're familiar with tng.

3 hours ago, Smitty said:

Funny part in his assertion of he can't be wrong is the origin of the phrase: A person selected to act as a sort of prosecutor against the cause of canonization of a saint. The job literally demands the likely possibility of being wrong or there would be no saints.

SkullNBones: Think Riker forced to argue in court that Data isn't sentient. If you're familiar with tng.

Yeah, I know the episode. I am just amused that rather than engage in a furthered discussion of the OP, albeit a hypothetical one. A large portion would simply prefer to jump on the "you're wrong" band wagon without actually thinking about what I was proposing. Mayhap the initial post assumed too much and was negligent in explaining its intent, but as this is a rules discussion forum and no other forum exists (currently) for mechanics questions, and it was related to the original post, I had hoped that most would infer the state of the "devil's argument" (which is the closest colloquialism I could think to label it). All of that said, it is clear that that aspiration sailed long ago.

As to @Parravon 's attempt at a slight to my knowledge and comprehension of the rules, you're entitled to your opinion, C'est la vie. But it is a sad state when one stoops to the point of sending insults via a forum that provides anonymity.

46 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

Yeah, I know the episode. I am just amused that rather than engage in a furthered discussion of the OP, albeit a hypothetical one. A large portion would simply prefer to jump on the "you're wrong" band wagon without actually thinking about what I was proposing. Mayhap the initial post assumed too much and was negligent in explaining its intent, but as this is a rules discussion forum and no other forum exists (currently) for mechanics questions, and it was related to the original post, I had hoped that most would infer the state of the "devil's argument" (which is the closest colloquialism I could think to label it). All of that said, it is clear that that aspiration sailed long ago.

As to @Parravon 's attempt at a slight to my knowledge and comprehension of the rules, you're entitled to your opinion, C'est la vie. But it is a sad state when one stoops to the point of sending insults via a forum that provides anonymity.

Where was the insult? I was merely stating the facts. Every time you state a "point", it's categorically wrong.

10 minutes ago, Parravon said:

Where was the insult? I was merely stating the facts. Every time you state a "point", it's categorically wrong.

A categorically incorrect statement (unless you have accumulated every statement I have made, and can provide a cross-referenced validated source that contradicts those statements). If you can render your statement valid, please do...I'll wait. Until then, it simply an attempt to illicit an antagonistic response with the intention to cause defamation to my character within this social media. And given that this media is technically a "print" media, it could prove cause for a case of liable (granted I would have to prove that the defamation caused personal injury (in some form), but the case can still be made regardless if it carried through or not.

You want examples? Well, there's plenty in this thread for a start. As well as the Setup Question thread. A few months back, there was the fruitless attempt to explain to you how nested actions work and have always worked which you just wouldn't accept regardless of the number of members that tried to explain it.

But you continually stick to your weird and invariably incorrect logic, which has been proven wrong on numerous occasions, and will not accept that it might possibly be you that's wrong.