9 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

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

Poor word choice on my part; the part I disagree with you on is that the ship is effectively called out twice; once as the defender, and then again as being within range 1 of the defender.

Do I think FFG intended to assign the defender 2 ion tokens? No, but without the "other" clause delineating the defender and each ship at range 1, I think the rules as written indicate that the defender receives 2 ion tokens.

35 minutes ago, Yakostovian said:

Poor word choice on my part; the part I disagree with you on is that the ship is effectively called out twice; once as the defender, and then again as being within range 1 of the defender.

Again, no-one has said that it isn't called out twice. Where is the disagreement?

On 2/24/2018 at 12:09 PM, 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.

I had discussed this with my local TO a few months back, and here's how I tend to view it: While the defender is double-counted (both as the defender, and a ship at range 1 of the defender), that doesn't necessarily imply that the ion tokens should be double-applied. For balance reasons, I think it'd be great for Ion torpedos to do this (and would love if a future FAQ ruled it thus), but that's not how I see the text.

Basically, Ion Torpedos first specifies a number of ships, then specifies what you do to them. Even though the defender is in both groups, the card doesn't say "assign 1 ion token to the defender, and to each ship at range 1 of the defender." If that was the wording, that would be clearly two steps, two waves of assigning ion tokens.

The text of Ion Torpedos, however, doesn't read to me like "do something to group A, and then do something to group B" but rather "do something to (anything in group A or group B)." These aren't the same: f(X)+f(Y) doesn't necessarily equal f(X+Y).

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

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 ,.

13 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Again, no-one has said that it isn't called out twice.

uh, looks like you did.

1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:

uh, looks like you did.

Umm... the quote you just used doesn't show me saying that it isn't called out twice. I mean, you literally highlighted me not saying the thing you say I said.

I said it isn't on the list twice. Those are two different things. So no, you just proved that I didn't.

ADDENDUM: " 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."

The whole point of saying that these two variants are mechanically the same is to highlight how it does call the defender out twice, but that doing so has no effect. Please stop lying about what I've said.

15 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Umm... the quote you just used doesn't show me saying that it isn't called out twice. I mean, you literally highlighted me not saying the thing you say I said.

I said it isn't on the list twice. Those are two different things. So no, you just proved that I didn't.

ADDENDUM: " 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."

The whole point of saying that these two variants are mechanically the same is to highlight how it does call the defender out twice, but that doing so has no effect. Please stop lying about what I've said.

"The defender and every other ship at range 1 of the defender" is mechanically identical to " every ship at range 1 of the defender" but not mechanically identical to 'the defender and every ship at range 1 of the defender.' The latter does list the defender twice, based on how range 1 of oneself is defined.

1 hour ago, Yakostovian said:

"The defender and every other ship at range 1 of the defender" is mechanically identical to " every ship at range 1 of the defender" but not mechanically identical to 'the defender and every ship at range 1 of the defender.' The latter does list the defender twice, based on how range 1 of oneself is defined.

It lists the defender twice as in the defender is listed twice in the text. It is not 'listed twice' if you were to make a list of ships affected.

All three variations fo the text are mechanically identical. All three create the same list of targets. Mentioning the target once, twice, or four-hundred and fourty-two times does not mean it appears more than one in the list of targets.

Example:

Person A says that Dave was present at the event.

Person B says that Dave, Regina, and Billy were present at the event.

Is the list of people at the event A) Dave, Dave, Regina, and Billy, or B) Dave, Regina, and Billy.

The answer is B. The defender is in the list of targets: he is mentioned twice but affected once.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

It lists the defender twice as in the defender is listed twice in the text. It is not 'listed twice' if you were to make a list of ships affected.

All three variations fo the text are mechanically identical. All three create the same list of targets. Mentioning the target once, twice, or four-hundred and fourty-two times does not mean it appears more than one in the list of targets.

Example:

Person A says that Dave was present at the event.

Person B says that Dave, Regina, and Billy were present at the event.

Is the list of people at the event A) Dave, Dave, Regina, and Billy, or B) Dave, Regina, and Billy.

The answer is B. The defender is in the list of targets: he is mentioned twice but affected once.

"Present" and "affected" are a little different. As it stands, present is more similar to mentioned. If the sentence was "give a free drink to Dave and everyone that showed up to the party," then a reasonable interpretation is to give Dave two free drinks. It might not be the intent, but it is a valid way to read the sentence.

In your example, Dave may be listed twice, but he's there by two different clauses: Person A speaking and Person B speaking. In which case, he is present for both of their individual effects.

In the case of the ion torpedoes, only one "person" is speaking and the defender is mentioned twice. Since English does not have an "exclusive and" feature, then the defender is legally counted twice, and affected twice.

8 hours ago, Yakostovian said:

In the case of the ion torpedoes, only one "person" is speaking and the defender is mentioned twice. Since English does not have an "exclusive and" feature, then the defender is legally counted twice, and affected twice.

Sorry, but that claim is empty unless you explain why that would be the case – it makes no sense at all. The ability only has one instance of 'X ships gain 1 ion token'. There is literally no way to make it give 2 ion tokens to any ship.

Listed twice =/= affected twice.

Do what the card says, don't do what the card doesn't say. It does not say give out tokens twice. It does not say give out 2 tokens. It does tell you which ships to give exactly 1 token to.

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Sorry, but that claim is empty unless you explain why that would be the case – it makes no sense at all. The ability only has one instance of 'X ships gain 1 ion token'. There is literally no way to make it give 2 ion tokens to any ship.

Listed twice =/= affected twice.

Do what the card says, don't do what the card doesn't say. It does not say give out tokens twice. It does not say give out 2 tokens. It does tell you which ships to give exactly 1 token to.

Again, this wording would be more in line with your interpretation, and the likely intent of Ion Torpedoes. But the card itself doesn't state that. Listed twice can mean affected twice; that is literally how English works, and US Courts have had to intervene in cases of similar usage of language (Kevin O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy .)

Since I don't think we are going to be able to convince each other at all, let's just stop talking about this.

57 minutes ago, Yakostovian said:

Again, this wording would be more in line with your interpretation, and the likely intent of Ion Torpedoes. But the card itself doesn't state that. Listed twice can mean affected twice; that is literally how English works, and US Courts have had to intervene in cases of similar usage of language (Kevin O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy .)

Since I don't think we are going to be able to convince each other at all, let's just stop talking about this.

In which case, we need to go to the judicial philosophy of X-Wing.

Here's how I see this case: [1] the language can be read either way.* The double-listing can be used to mean double-effect or single-effect. [2] long-standing community tradition has been to treat it as single effect [3] there is no indication specifically that double-effect was intended. No hints from the TOs at the FFG game center, no stray email or twitter line that hasn't been incorporated into a FAQ yet.

As such, I think the right thing for a TO to do is to treat Ion Torpedos as a single-effect. The double-token argument does have merit. Just not enough to reverse prior rulings.

* Going to a similar example you made earlier: if a friend told me "me and everyone at the bar were given a free drink" I'd presume they got one, the same one that everyone in the bar got. I can interpret it differently but at least for me, that's not the natural way I would have heard it.

3 hours ago, Yakostovian said:

But the card itself doesn't state that.

My whole point was that that's exactly what the card states.

3 hours ago, Yakostovian said:

Since I don't think we are going to be able to convince each other at all, let's just stop talking about this.

Given that I think your reading of the card is simply illegitimate, yes.

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

My whole point was that that's exactly what the card states.

Given that I think your reading of the card is simply illegitimate, yes.

Is the snark necessary?

Just now, Yakostovian said:

Is the snark necessary?

There is no snark. Stop inventing things.

Perform +1 ion token on list.

List: A, B, C, A

Execution:

A+1 token

B+1 token

C+1 token

A+1 token

Result:

A = +2 tokens

B= +1 token

C= +1 token

I don't think this is an unresonable interpretation when read in a "programatic" way. It's not he most intuitive read when reading it as every day language between humans. But I think we have plenty of rulings to show that the X-wing rules often are to be read more technicaly. We allso have plenty of cases where final ruling in FAQ turns out to be just "becous FFG sys so". So mabye send it in as a rules question and get this settled instead of continue to disagrea with no added arguments from either side?

On 2/28/2018 at 11:15 AM, InquisitorM said:

My whole point was that that's exactly what the card states.

Given that I think your reading of the card is simply illegitimate, yes.

Remember the whole Targeting Synchronizer thing? You need to learn to separate "InquisitorM's interpretation of a card" from "the legitimate interpretation of a card".

RAI, you're almost definitely right. RAW, there's a case to be be made for double-application, since the syntax allows for there to be either one or two lists (despite one being the very likely intent).

I, for one, would welcome our new Ion Torpedo overlords if it were to apply two to the defender, but alas, we can't always get what we want.

10 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

Remember the whole Targeting Synchronizer thing? You need to learn to separate "InquisitorM's interpretation of a card" from "the legitimate interpretation of a card".

RAI, you're almost definitely right. RAW, there's a case to be be made for double-application, since the syntax allows for there to be either one or two lists (despite one being the very likely intent).

I, for one, would welcome our new Ion Torpedo overlords if it were to apply two to the defender, but alas, we can't always get what we want.

Yeah I don’t think Ion Torps will be taking over the meta anytime soon. Although Ion Torp GUNBOATS should totally be a thing. GUNBOATS should always be a thing.

On 2/24/2018 at 5:00 PM, InquisitorM said:

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.

The same reason people always argue vehemently for bizarre interpretations of rules. Wishful thinking. He has just been hit by a harpoon and he wants to avoid the damage.

This is not unique to X-Wing players and you can google up a dozen fascinating psychology studies about why fans of opposing teams can look at the same play a hundred times and still see very different things...

19 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

Remember the whole Targeting Synchronizer thing?

You mean the thing where you couldn't understand the difference between what a card says and how the card is ruled?

Yes, I remember that.

17 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

You mean the thing where you couldn't understand the difference between what a card says and how the card is ruled?

Yes, I remember that.

Bruh.

• Is it intended?
  • Is the possibility of double-ion hits justified by the cost?
  • Ion Torpedoes are expensive, but note that they are the only ion weapon that does not cancel hits but instead does full damage - and with a 4-dice attack that can be boosted by Guidance Chips, that's a lot.
  • In addition to this, it's the only 'splash damage' ion weapon.
  • On the other hand, it's a 4-dice torpedo which mandates spending the target lock but provides no dice modification - making it the equivalent of plasma torpedoes (3 points).
    • That means that you're 'trading' 2 points and the 'plasma burn' effect (I'd use the precedent of crack shot to say a one-use extra point of damage is worth 1 point) for the ion effect.
    • 2 ion tokens are worth a couple of points (ion pulse missiles less 1 point of damage), as is a damageless 'token splash' (scrambler missiles).
    • non-burn plasma torpedoes (2 points) plus 2 ions on the main target with no damage (2 points) plus token splash (2 points) is worth a total of 6. A touch more than Ion torpedoes, but not stupidly so if there's a 'bundle effect discount' intended.
    • On the other hand, it's only one point more than non-burn torpedoes plus non-damage ion pulse, and there's an argument that a one-point surcharge should apply because you're squeezing both simultaneously through the same target lock and attacking ship.
• Is it legal?
  • 
  • Sorry, couldn't resist.
  • There's no question that the defender is called out twice in the effect list.
  • This is different to the scrambler missile effect, which uses 'other' to make sure they are only called out once.
  • Where the debate is is whether this means you get hit with the effect once or twice.
  • I would probably default to one ion token, on the precedent of Minefield Mapper:
    • Ion torpedoes is a single rules trigger - we have a list of targets which can be as convoluted as you like, but only one actual trigger - "each receive one ion token".
      • If it said "the defender receives one ion token and then each ship at range 1 receives one ion token" or it was a separate sentence or paragraph, I'd be defending to the hilt the ability to double-taze a target.
    • The precedent from minefield mapper/extra munitions is that 'once per opportunity' means a single legal target cannot be picked twice by the same trigger.
  • I'm trying to think of other useful precedents. Can anyone think of another card effect which uses two distinct options to determine the legal target of a trigger (such as 'range 2 or inside your firing arc' or similar) where the same ship could theoretically be valid under both options?

Thank You @Magnus Grendel for possibly the best analysis I've read in these threads!

10 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

• • I'm trying to think of other useful precedents. Can anyone think of another card effect which uses two distinct options to determine the legal target of a trigger (such as 'range 2 or inside your firing arc' or similar) where the same ship could theoretically be valid under both options?

How about...

You don't get two modification opportunities for being at Range 3, and outside of the attacker's firing arc. I mean, I wish you did...

EDIT: I'm curious... for those of you with more experience with logic gates, as Autothrusters is worded, would you theoretically be denied the modification, if you fulfilled both requirements? does "if A or B, then C" include "if A and B, then C"?

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

How about...

You don't get two modification opportunities for being at Range 3, and outside of the attacker's firing arc. I mean, I wish you did...

A good example. Thank you.

I'd like to think that the answer to the question @emeraldbeacon suggests is like the linear code logic that I have the profession of evaluating. In computer logic, if there's a an expression "If A or B, then C", the evaluation stops as soon as A or B is satisfied, evaluating as true and moves on to doing C. Additionally evaluating if A and B are true is a different line all together than "if A or B is true". If A is true, no further evaluation happens and a true result is given. Move to doing C. If A is false, then continue to evaluate B. If B is true, then the expression is true and move to doing C. If B is also false, then C cannot happen.