The question is, does the attack that triggers the HARPOONED Condition do damage? I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but I gave up searching after 4 pages.

There was a disagreement the other night whether or not damage is taken from the attack that triggers the condition, after the condition is resolved. One player said it does and referenced the wording on Ion Torpedoes. The other player said it didn't. That, when the condition resolved after the "compare dice" step, that was the end of the attack.

I believe it does do damage, but I'd like some confirmation from those more knowledgeable.

Yes it does. Nothing says it doesn't. The criit just has to be present, it's not spent or cancelled in any way.

1 hour ago, Stoneface said:

One player said it does and referenced the wording on Ion Torpedoes. The other player said it didn't. That, when the condition resolved after the "compare dice" step, that was the end of the attack.

Scratching the itch of curiosity. Did person B give any reasoning for this? Its one of those moments when I really want to see how someone comes to a belief because this idea seems to go against almost every single ruling and ability in the game.

Note the difference in the texts. Both attack using the normal procedure up to and including Step 6 "Compare Results". If the Ion Pulse Missiles hit, then the damage listed on the card is applied instead of Step 7 and all dice results are canceled. If the Harpoon Missiles or Ion Torpedoes hit, there's no mention of cancelling any results, so they are processed in Step 7 in the normal fashion, and then you assign the condition card or splash some ion tokens.

A more interesting discussion is if the damage from the HM attack destroys the ship, does the condition card still get assigned if the destroyed ship is kept in play due to the Simultaneous Attack rule?

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Scratching the itch of curiosity. Did person B give any reasoning for this? Its one of those moments when I really want to see how someone comes to a belief because this idea seems to go against almost every single ruling and ability in the game.

Because of how the clarification was worded in the FAQ with HARPOONED! being resolved after comparing dice and before deal damage. Probably confusing resolution of the condition with the end of combat.

Not everyone follows the forum or keeps up with the latest FAQ.

5 hours ago, Parravon said:

Note the difference in the texts. Both attack using the normal procedure up to and including Step 6 "Compare Results". If the Ion Pulse Missiles hit, then the damage listed on the card is applied instead of Step 7 and all dice results are canceled. If the Harpoon Missiles or Ion Torpedoes hit, there's no mention of cancelling any results, so they are processed in Step 7 in the normal fashion, and then you assign the condition card or splash some ion tokens.

A more interesting discussion is if the damage from the HM attack destroys the ship, does the condition card still get assigned if the destroyed ship is kept in play due to the Simultaneous Attack rule?

The Ion Torpedo has been a source of contention in the past, especially for those who are told "do what the card says to do and don't do what the card doesn't say". It doesn't say to cancel dice nor does it say to deal damage other than the ion tokens. We've all lamented over FFGs lack of consistency and clarity.

6 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

The Ion Torpedo has been a source of contention in the past, especially for those who are told "do what the card says to do and don't do what the card doesn't say". It doesn't say to cancel dice nor does it say to deal damage other than the ion tokens. We've all lamented over FFGs lack of consistency and clarity.

Proton Torpedoes don’t tell you that the defender suffers damage from a hit either. But the Rules do. It’s only when a secondary weapon cancels results that the allocation of damage is different from the ‘normal’ procedure.

i wonder if it’s been ‘officially’ clarified that Ion Torpedoes give two ion tokens to the defending ship since it receives one and then each ship at range one also get a token. It was ruled long ago that a ship is at range one of itself. The card never specifies ‘each other ship’, just each ship. For 5 pts I better be able to ionize a large ship with this torp!

22 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Because of how the clarification was worded in the FAQ with HARPOONED! being resolved after comparing dice and before deal damage. Probably confusing resolution of the condition with the end of combat.

I don't understand. What does the clarification have to do with skipping the damage step?

23 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Not everyone follows the forum or keeps up with the latest FAQ.

There's clearly still something unsaid going on here. Keeping up with the forum or FAQ doesn't change whether you have a reason to skip the damage step or not.

10 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

It doesn't say to cancel dice nor does it say to deal damage other than the ion tokens. We've all lamented over FFGs lack of consistency and clarity.

Because it doesn't cancel die and because no secondary weapons tell you to deal the attack dice's normal damage. That's not a thing that's ever happened before; that's why the assumption confuses me and I'm trying to work out how someone got to it. There's no inconsistency here and it's perfectly clear.

1 minute ago, GrimmyV said:

i wonder if it’s been ‘officially’ clarified that Ion Torpedoes give two ion tokens to the defending ship since it receives one and then each ship at range one also get a token. It was ruled long ago that a ship is at range one of itself. The card never specifies ‘each other ship’, just each ship. For 5 pts I better be able to ionize a large ship with this torp!

The ship being at range 1 of itself is irrelevant. The ability does not give an ion token to the target ship and then to each ship at range 1; the ability gives 1 ion token to a series of ships, that series includes the target ship and all ships at range 1 of it. There is no case here for Ion Torps giving 2 ion tokens.

27 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

The ship being at range 1 of itself is irrelevant. The ability does not give an ion token to the target ship and then to each ship at range 1; the ability gives 1 ion token to a series of ships, that series includes the target ship and all ships at range 1 of it. There is no case here for Ion Torps giving 2 ion tokens.

It says ‘the Defender and each ship at range one of itself received one ion token.’

pretty sure this does include the defending ship. You aren’t giving a token to each ship until you give one to the defender, and the defender is specifically called out as receiving an ion as well.

Yeah it’s splitting hairs but when people were telling me I couldn’t double-GONK because separate actions on one card counted as the same action, I stuck to my guns. And today we can all safely and inefficiently double-GONK EI all day.

Do what the card says, not what the card doesn’t say. It’s most likely not what was intended and the majority of players are against my interpretation but it can be read that way. Oh if only they used the phrase ‘other ship’...

Fleet Officer and Inspiring Recruit vs Systems Officer.

also this is one of many reasons why I should never be TO.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

I don't understand. What does the clarification have to do with skipping the damage step?

There's clearly still something unsaid going on here. Keeping up with the forum or FAQ doesn't change whether you have a reason to skip the damage step or not.

Because it doesn't cancel die and because no secondary weapons tell you to deal the attack dice's normal damage. That's not a thing that's ever happened before; that's why the assumption confuses me and I'm trying to work out how someone got to it. There's no inconsistency here and it's perfectly clear.

To the first two comments. As I said probably confusing resolution of the condition with the end of combat.

For the third comment you have to go back 3+ years. I'm not sure how long you have been playing X-wing but there was at least one fairly long thread about Ion Torps. Space Invader was involved in that at length.

X-wing is my first table top miniature game but I've been playing historical simulationation games since the third grade. Cards are usually very specific in what they want you to do or what effect they are supposed to have. Hence the confusion.look at the wording on IPM vs IT. Both are very specific but the damage from IT (hits or crits) is assumed or implied but never stated.

If you think the lack of templating has not caused confusion, just look at the number of pages in this forum. Add to this lack of templating, rulings that allow you to spend a focus token, to change no dice, in order to activate an ability or that "zero is a valid number" you get a lack of consistency that causes a lot of questions.

In addition to the lack of templating for cards, add in the changing developers. Every person writes differently. This is another source of the inconsistencies.

Going back to Ion Torpedoes, if you were fresh to the game, without your experience, would you take that card at face value?

Edit. I changed the last line. After I posted it I realised that it came off as sarcastic and it wasn't meant to.

I don’t get it, Flatchet torps came before Ion Torps but I don’t remember anyone saying they only gave stress.

Also, for Torp secondary weapons you can see that none of them cancel dice results but multiple Missile, Turret and Cannon secondaries do. Just shows that Torps are the best...at making you spend that TL.

1 hour ago, GrimmyV said:

I don’t get it, Flatchet torps came before Ion Torps but I don’t remember anyone saying they only gave stress.

Also, for Torp secondary weapons you can see that none of them cancel dice results but multiple Missile, Turret and Cannon secondaries do. Just shows that Torps are the best...at making you spend that TL.

Notice the different wording on the flechette torpedo. The stress is applied after the attack is performed or resolved. A bonus, if you will, if the hull is 4 or less. IT on the other hand states, "If the attack hits" the defender and each within range one receives an ion token. If flechette torpedo was written, "If this attack hits, the defender receives a stress token if the hull value is 4 or less" people wouldn't use the device at all. Or there would be a couple of threads explaining why damage is taken in addition to the stress.

In hindsight, you're right about torpedoes cancelling dice results but does anyone sit down with a new torp or missile card and compare the wording on the card to previous releases? If they do it's usually to compare cost, attack die and usefulness.

No you just read it, do what it says and don't do what it doesn't.

7 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

pretty sure this does include the defending ship.

It does; that much isn't in question, but since the defender is already covered under 'the defender', then the being at range 1 of itself is irrelevant.

Essentially, 'the defender and every ship at range 1 of the defender' and 'every ship at range 1 of the defender' are mechanically identical: 'the defender and' is redundant.

7 hours ago, Stoneface said:

To the first two comments. As I said probably confusing resolution of the condition with the end of combat.

Yes, but why has someone conflated them? That's what I was trying to understand. I assume there is something that has lead someone to make this assumption.

7 hours ago, Stoneface said:

look at the wording on IPM vs IT. Both are very specific but the damage from IT (hits or crits) is assumed or implied but never stated.

It doesn't need to be stated; the rules work the same for every attack. During the damage step, hits and crits cause damage. There are no exception to this in the game so there is no need to state it. It is exactly because of this that cards like Ion Pulse Missile and Twin Laser Turret cancel all dice, because if they didn't then those dice would cause damage. If the dice aren't cancelled then they deal damage.

Heavy Laser Cannon doesn't say it deals damage. Snap Shot doesn't say it deals damage. Proton Torpedoes doesn't say it deals damage.

None of them do because there is absolutely no reason they would. What other card takes the time to tell you to do exactly what the rules tell you to do anyway?

7 hours ago, Stoneface said:

If you think the lack of templating has not caused confusion, just look at the number of pages in this forum

I didn't say anything about templating in general. I only said the templating for Harpooned Missiles and Harpooned! was entirely correct and consistent.

I would never dream of defending the depth and wealth of wording and templating screwups made by FFG, but I see no reason to stand by while they are lambasted for things they haven't gotten wrong.

7 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Going back to Ion Torpedoes, if you were fresh to the game, without your experience, would you take that card at face value?

Yes. It does exactly what it says on the tin. You have to ignore the basic rules of the game to get it wrong. It has an effect that happens when you score a hit; it does not have an effect that changes how damage is dealt.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse.

Scramblers ended up using that word ‘other’ to show that the defender only gets one (raspberry) Jam token. Perhaps this is just a different design teams using slightly different phrasing to do the same thing...or Ion Torpedoes can indeed be read in a way that the defender gets double ions. I think you know where I’m leaning on this one

11 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

I think you know where I’m leaning on this one

That FFG have all the consistency of water?

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

That FFG have all the consistency of water?

I find water to be a lot consistent. Always act and look the same

12 hours ago, muribundi said:

I find water to be a lot consistent. Always act and look the same

The Titanic would beg to differ.

12 hours ago, muribundi said:

I find water to be a lot consistent. Always act and look the same

Check out "Ice X"

Exception does not invalidate general rules

On 2/24/2018 at 9:09 AM, GrimmyV said:

It says ‘the Defender and each ship at range one of itself received one ion token.’

pretty sure this does include the defending ship. You aren’t giving a token to each ship until you give one to the defender, and the defender is specifically called out as receiving an ion as well.

Yeah it’s splitting hairs but when people were telling me I couldn’t double-GONK because separate actions on one card counted as the same action, I stuck to my guns. And today we can all safely and inefficiently double-GONK EI all day.

Do what the card says, not what the card doesn’t say. It’s most likely not what was intended and the majority of players are against my interpretation but it can be read that way. Oh if only they used the phrase ‘other ship’...

Fleet Officer and Inspiring Recruit vs Systems Officer.

also this is one of many reasons why I should never be TO.

Do you have those crew in the wrong order? Systems Officer seems clear, with "another ship" in the card text, while Inspiring Recruit and Fleet Officer have no such clause, implying that it is intended to work with the active ship as well.

Ion torpedoes does not cancel damage (if for any reason someone is still arguing that) and looks like it was intended to give only 1 ion token to the original targeted ship, but as written, gives 2 to the original target of the attack, and 1 to all nearby ships.

To weigh in on the original question, I think that the Harpooned Condition card is pretty obvious.

What is required it to be hit by the attack, and see if there are any uncancelled crits. The harpooned condition does not override damage dealt by the triggering attack, so those hits and crits still do damage as normal.

8 minutes ago, Yakostovian said:

Ion torpedoes does not cancel damage (if for any reason someone is still arguing that) and looks like it was intended to give only 1 ion token to the original targeted ship, but as written, gives 2 to the original target of the attack, and 1 to all nearby ships.

No, it doesn't. As written it creates a list of ships that gain 1 token. On that list is the defender and every ship at range one – the fact that the defender is at range one of itself does not mean it is on the list twice, so to speak. That would require two seperate clauses: "The defender receives one ion token, then every ship at range 1 of the defender receives an ion token."

As I said above, the 'The defender and' part of Ion Torpedoes does exactly zero and is essentially redundant. It does not give 2 tokens because of the way it is worded.

The part I disagree with you on is that a ship is always at range 1 of itself. "The defender and each ship at range 1 of it..."

A list of all ships at range 1 includes the ship, otherwise things like the Black One title do not work for the ship it is applied to. Therefore, the wording is vague, and technically, the defending ship should receive 2 ion tokens. Is that the intent? Probably not, but barring a FAQ, that is the side of the line that I fall on.

1 hour ago, Yakostovian said:

The part I disagree with you on is that a ship is always at range 1 of itself. "The defender and each ship at range 1 of it..."

Who are you disagreeing with? I don't think anyone has claimed that a ship is not at range 1 of itself.