1 hour ago, toffolone said:

WHy? guardian X interacts with Pierce X.

You can't use Guardian to cancel Crits on the original target.

OK...but Impact still works only against units with armor. So I still don't see your point

That's what's the discussion is really about. The RRG version of Impact doesn't require armor; only the reminder text. The question is just whether reminder text trumps the RRG. At the moment, Guardian is the only situation where it matters and at this point its just an open question for FFG to respond to at some point.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

That's what's the discussion is really about. The RRG version of Impact doesn't require armor; only the reminder text. The question is just whether reminder text trumps the RRG. At the moment, Guardian is the only situation where it matters and at this point its just an open question for FFG to respond to at some point.

RRG is merely non-specific, as opposed to saying Impact functions on anything in particular.

Two pieces of rules text work together.

There's no contradiction in play, for that to happen would require the RRG to make the affirmative claim that it functions on units without the Armor keyword, which it never says.

This looks like a mistake in one of the descriptions, so I think it would be hard to define which takes precedence because the difference in the wording does not seems to be intentional. That would make it quite hard to compare.

19 hours ago, Derrault said:

RRG is merely non-specific, as opposed to saying Impact functions on anything in particular.

Two pieces of rules text work together.

There's no contradiction in play, for that to happen would require the RRG to make the affirmative claim that it functions on units without the Armor keyword, which it never says.

RRG also does not say that it ONLY works on units with Armor...

3 minutes ago, pstalker said:

RRG also does not say that it ONLY works on units with Armor...

Which does not a contradiction make. Both rules apply absent any contradiction, ergo only armored units apply.

9 minutes ago, pstalker said:

RRG also does not say that it ONLY works on units with Armor...

The RRG does not say I can't throw your minis off the table...

On 3/22/2018 at 9:30 AM, Undeadguy said:

The RRG does not say I can't throw your minis off the table...

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse.

If you read just the RRG entry for ARMOR without applying any of the REMINDER text from the card, there is nothing there to justify that IMPACT applies only to units with ARMOR.

On 3/22/2018 at 9:25 AM, Derrault said:

Which does not a contradiction make. Both rules apply absent any contradiction, ergo only armored units apply.

And what I have been arguing is that what is written on the card is not a rule at all but simple REMINDER text.

1)RRG states that it is the definitive source for all Legion rules

2)RRG states that the keywords on the cards include REMINDER text that is not an "exhaustive definition" and that should any questions arise on how to use an ability you should refer to the RRG

3)The RRG entry for IMPACT does not in any way define that IMPACT should only be used on units that have ARMOR.

27 minutes ago, pstalker said:

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse.

If you read just the RRG entry for ARMOR without applying any of the REMINDER text from the card, there is nothing there to justify that IMPACT applies only to units with ARMOR.

Why are you deliberately not reading the text on the card though? You really like to skip the part where you read the card. If we are playing a game, are you going to see Impact on the card, stop reading, and pull out the RRG to say you can change hits to crits while attacking troops?

Why don't you play the game logically instead of constructing your own perfect scenario where a player reads the RRG instead of the card text.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Why are you deliberately not reading the text on the card though? You really like to skip the part where you read the card. If we are playing a game, are you going to see Impact on the card, stop reading, and pull out the RRG to say you can change hits to crits while attacking troops?

Why don't you play the game logically instead of constructing your own perfect scenario where a player reads the RRG instead of the card text.

Have you missed the inconsistency of how to interpret the rule?

the RR tells us that card effects take precedence over RR, but it also tells us that the "reminder text" does NOT and any question regarding keywords to be referred to the RR entry.

All that taken into account, Impact does indeed apply on all targets, armored or not, according to what and how FFG themselves tells us to read the rules.

There is no need to get snappy at others when the rules are in fact unclear on this matter. For now it might not matter in most situations but sooner or later it will and its a good thing that people are on top of things like this immediately as it will help us all get a clear and concise ruleset.

8 hours ago, Soulless said:

Have you missed the inconsistency of how to interpret the rule?

the RR tells us that card effects take precedence over RR, but it also tells us that the "reminder text" does NOT and any question regarding keywords to be referred to the RR entry.

All that taken into account, Impact does indeed apply on all targets, armored or not, according to what and how FFG themselves tells us to read the rules.

There is no need to get snappy at others when the rules are in fact unclear on this matter. For now it might not matter in most situations but sooner or later it will and its a good thing that people are on top of things like this immediately as it will help us all get a clear and concise ruleset.

Nothing in the RRG says Impact applies to non-armor units specifically. The card specifies it only applies to units with armor.

There’s no contradiction there, end of story.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Nothing in the RRG says Impact applies to non-armor units specifically. The card specifies it only applies to units with armor.

There’s no contradiction there, end of story.

The RRG says it applies, always.

The card "reminds" you to apply the effect against armored targets. This text on the cards is not considered rulings but simply, as FFG states themselves, "reminder text". Being a reminder text and not a ruling, it cannot trump anything written in the RRG.

Also, on p.31 in the Keyword entry we are told to NOT use the cards as rulings for keywords but to refer to the RRG.

Its possible that whoever wrote the IMPACT entry for the cards didnt realise there might be situations aside from armored targets where the effect is important and decided that it was well enough to remind people to apply the effect only when it actually HAS an effect.

Equally possible is that the RRG entry for IMPACT is wrong as it applied to all attacks, not only against armored targets.

Whatever the case, dont try to claim there isnt a contradiction in the rules when it clearly is. Or tbh, there isnt a contradiction since if you follow the rules as written then IMPACT clearly applies to all attacks. But there is certainly confusion since the cards reminder text is written as is. It will all be sorted eventually for those who find this an issue, and the rest can just happily play in whatever way they think the rules apply or even feel the rules should apply.

20 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Why are you deliberately not reading the text on the card though? You really like to skip the part where you read the card. If we are playing a game, are you going to see Impact on the card, stop reading, and pull out the RRG to say you can change hits to crits while attacking troops?

Why don't you play the game logically instead of constructing your own perfect scenario where a player reads the RRG instead of the card text.

So by your logic FFG could write an entirely new definition of IMPACT in the RRG and you will never follow it based on what the REMINDER text on the card tells you....Guess we better hope rules errata never happens....people won't follow what's in the RRG if the card says something different...

talk about a LOT of arguements over impact and nonarmored when its a completely moot point.
The only thing crits do is they cant be cancelled by cover or armored, but Cover is applied before you modify your results so you dont even get a chance to use impact to bypass cover ... leaving only Armored thats actually affected by it.

10 hours ago, Soulless said:

The RRG says it applies, always.

The card "reminds" you to apply the effect against armored targets. This text on the cards is not considered rulings but simply, as FFG states themselves, "reminder text". Being a reminder text and not a ruling, it cannot trump anything written in the RRG.

Also, on p.31 in the Keyword entry we are told to NOT use the cards as rulings for keywords but to refer to the RRG.

Its possible that whoever wrote the IMPACT entry for the cards didnt realise there might be situations aside from armored targets where the effect is important and decided that it was well enough to remind people to apply the effect only when it actually HAS an effect.

Equally possible is that the RRG entry for IMPACT is wrong as it applied to all attacks, not only against armored targets.

Whatever the case, dont try to claim there isnt a contradiction in the rules when it clearly is. Or tbh, there isnt a contradiction since if you follow the rules as written then IMPACT clearly applies to all attacks. But there is certainly confusion since the cards reminder text is written as is. It will all be sorted eventually for those who find this an issue, and the rest can just happily play in whatever way they think the rules apply or even feel the rules should apply.

The RRG text only describes how impact changes a die, it doesn’t say it works on all units, you’re attributing additional text which is not present. There’s no text that contradicts the card.

If you want to claim a contradiction back it up with text showing a contradiction.

Edit: It’s the difference between a RRG entry prescribing a set of valid options and merely being silent on the topic. Saying nothing is not the same as saying it applies to everything.

Because the RRG does not contradict the card text, we merely continue to follow the card text, which clearly indicates that it is used when a target has armor.

20 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The RRG text only describes how impact changes a die, it doesn’t say it works on all units, you’re attributing additional text which is not present. There’s no text that contradicts the card.

If you want to claim a contradiction back it up with text showing a contradiction.

But the rules of the game says only to change hits to crits, nothing about armored targets. That is an assumption made by you based on the text on cards that is stated in the rulebook to NOT be taken as rules. If anyone are attributing additional text in this matter it is you.

Let me make it clear that im only arguing how the rules are written and why this is not as clear as you make it out to be, I think we agree completely on what is intended and how it should be applied. Just to ease the tension here, were all enjoying a new game!

1 hour ago, Vineheart01 said:

talk about a LOT of arguements over impact and nonarmored when its a completely moot point.
The only thing crits do is they cant be cancelled by cover or armored, but Cover is applied before you modify your results so you dont even get a chance to use impact to bypass cover ... leaving only Armored thats actually affected by it.

As people have mentioned, the keyword GUARDIAN could come into play where this would matter. And in the future, other effects and abilities might also come into play.

But this discussion is mainly about how the rules are actually written, not how big of an impact it currently has on the gameplay.