A few questions about a little-used defense card... Reinforced Deflectors.

ERRATA: After defending, if you suffered a combination of 3 or more damage and critical damage during the attack, recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

1. First off, one contentious question that I've seen brought up before: Do you have to absorb both regular and critical damage to trigger this card, or will only one or the other do the job? (I know this one sounds silly, but it's a topic that should at least be addressed)
2. Furthermore, does this effect look at the damage dealt (via dice results), or the damage received (via cards)? This could have implications upon certain edge cases:
3. Does the card activate if you receive two damage cards, one of which is a Direct Hit? EDIT: Turns out this was specifically answered in the FAQ
4. Does the card activate if you chain extra damage from Major/Minor Explosion?

1. I know some folks might argue to the contrary (out of nothing more than empty rules sophistry), but the clear intent of the card and errata is that any combination of regular and critical damage adding up to 3 or more will trigger the card. I've seen jerks argue that because the errata says "damage and critical damage" that it wouldn't trigger if you suffered only regular and not also critical damage. I find that style of argument quite despicable. It's like someone is trying to break the game, just to prove they can. RAI is crystal clear: three damage = trigger.
2. Given the errata, I don't think I'd limit it to damage via dice results, but all damage suffered. For example, if there was some sort of "Heavy Turbolaser" which said "if this attack hits, cancel all dice results and the defender suffers 3 damage," I'd certainly think it trigger Reinforced Deflectors.
3. Nailed it, addressed in the FAQ: Direct Hit doesn't count as "two damage" for Reinforced Deflectors.
4. I'm inclined to think that Major/Minor Explosion would count, because the critical hit cards specify "suffer damage."
   • For Harpooned! , where the text of the condition says "receive one facedown damage card," tradition has held that receiving damage and suffering damage are not the same thing, I think this would *NOT* count towards Reinforced Deflectors.
   • With I'll Show You The Dark Side , the text of the condition says "when you suffer critical damage during an attack", so I'd consider this damage card to count towards Reinforced Deflectors, if you've suffered at least two more damage.

I will just throw in my two cents to say I agree with fig on all points.

Also, the errata to number 1 was frankly unnecessary. Since it says damage as a word rather than using the symbol that makes it crystal clear that critical damage would be included as part of damage. Critical damage is still damage. The argument that you can only trigger if you have at least one of each is ridiculous on its face and it's probably only the same tools who would argue crits didn't count pre-erratta taking that position now.

I'm not sure ISYTDS would actually count towards the 3 damage minimum for reinforced deflectors. Yes, it triggers when you would suffer a critical damage, but you do not end up suffering that damage. ISYTDS replaces that critical damage with its effect to deal the chosen face up damage card. Other than that minor difference, I think theBitterFig hit the nail on the head.

38 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

I'm not sure ISYTDS would actually count towards the 3 damage minimum for reinforced deflectors. Yes, it triggers when you would suffer a critical damage, but you do not end up suffering that damage . ISYTDS replaces that critical damage with its effect to deal the chosen face up damage card. Other than that minor difference, I think theBitterFig hit the nail on the head.

unless there's a rule that indicates that dealing a face up damage card isn't critical damage suffered, I don't see why ISYTDS plus 2 more uncancelled booms or kabooms couldn't trigger this card. Sure, you don't suffer that damage but you still suffer critical damage.

23 minutes ago, Juunon said:

unless there's a rule that indicates that dealing a face up damage card isn't critical damage suffered, I don't see why ISYTDS plus 2 more uncancelled booms or kabooms couldn't trigger this card. Sure, you don't suffer that damage but you still suffer critical damage.

There is.

Being dealt a damage card is explicitly not suffering damage, though suffering damage often leads to it.

3 hours ago, Juunon said:

unless there's a rule that indicates that dealing a face up damage card isn't critical damage suffered, I don't see why ISYTDS plus 2 more uncancelled booms or kabooms couldn't trigger this card. Sure, you don't suffer that damage but you still suffer critical damage.

I think @thespaceinvader is right, here.

ISYTDS seems to replace your first "suffered" critical effect with a (directly) dealt damage card. That means, if you're stuck with the ISYTDS condition card, you'd need FOUR uncancelled "boom/kaboom" results to get your shield back... since one of the crit results would become a dealt damage card rather than a suffered damage.

Yep, an effect that deals a damage card is different from suffering damage, as stated in the rules reference.

Quote

• If an effect instructs a player to deal a Damage card to a ship, this is different from the ship suffering damage. The card is dealt to the ship regardless of whether the ship has any shield tokens remaining.

Rules Reference - Damage (pg 9)

On 3/24/2018 at 8:57 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

First off, one contentious question that I've seen brought up before: Do you have to absorb both regular and critical damage to trigger this card, or will only one or the other do the job?

Zero is a valid number in many instances in X-wing, such as spending a TL to reroll zero dice or spending a focus to change zero focus results. So deflectors can kick in with 3 hits and zero crits suffered, 0 hits and 3 crits, or any combination between. This damage must be from an attack, so bomb damage, etc. won’t trigger the effect.

And as above damage cards dealt and damage suffered is a subtle difference. If a ship with RD is hit by an Advanced Homing Missile and it receives a major explosion followed by a direct hit, it did NOT suffer damage. It did receive damage cards though, faceup ones at that, counting as three damage cards.

18 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I think @thespaceinvader is right, here.

ISYTDS seems to replace your first "suffered" critical effect with a (directly) dealt damage card. That means, if you're stuck with the ISYTDS condition card, you'd need FOUR uncancelled "boom/kaboom" results to get your shield back... since one of the crit results would become a dealt damage card rather than a suffered damage.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The condition only kicks in when you suffer critical damage, not when you would suffer critical damage. So as far as I can tell it replaces the effect, but not the trigger.

11 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

I'm not sure this is accurate. The condition only kicks in when you suffer critical damage, not when you would suffer critical damage. So as far as I can tell it replaces the effect, but not the trigger.

It is triggered when you suffer the damage, but it then replaces suffering the damage with a different effect, so the damage is not suffered.

It would have been better phrased 'the next time you would suffer...' but FFG

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

It is triggered when you suffer the damage, but it then replaces suffering the damage with a different effect, so the damage is not suffered.

It would have been better phrased 'the next time you would suffer...' but FFG

But if it triggers when you suffer the damage, the damage is suffered even if the damage effect is replaced.

Why assume it's sloppy, inaccurate wording when taking it at face value works just fine?

18 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Yep, an effect that deals a damage card is different from suffering damage, as stated in the rules reference.

Rules Reference - Damage (pg 9)

I think that reference applies to things like Wampa, Proton Bombs, and AHM. None of those reference suffering damage the way ISYTDS does.

To suffer the critical damage before taking the ISYTDS crit would mean that you would have to take the shield or damage card for the trigger, then take the ISYTDS crit. That keyword "instead" negates the damage you suffered and replaces it with its effect. If the triggering damage is no longer being suffered because it's been replaced, it shouldn't be considered for any other effects on either player's' side. The wording, I believe, is to say that the damage must go through as a critical. So TLTs and non damaging cannons can't trigger it.

9 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

But if it triggers when you suffer the damage, the damage is suffered even if the damage effect is replaced.

Why assume it's sloppy, inaccurate wording when taking it at face value works just fine?

Because by definition if an effect is replaced, the replacement happens and the effect does not. The damage is never actually suffered, regardless of the wooly wording.

46 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

To suffer the critical damage before taking the ISYTDS crit would mean that you would have to take the shield or damage card for the trigger, then take the ISYTDS crit. That keyword "instead" negates the damage you suffered and replaces it with its effect. If the triggering damage is no longer being suffered because it's been replaced, it shouldn't be considered for any other effects on either player's' side. The wording, I believe, is to say that the damage must go through as a critical. So TLTs and non damaging cannons can't trigger it.

But it IS being suffered. It is by default being suffered, because otherwise it can't trigger. I don't think RAI it's supposed to not count for RD, and RAW there's nothing to indicate that a suffered damage can be unsuffered. Other abilities that rely on uncancelled crits getting through (like Bossk, Draw Their Fire) reference the results themselves. "After an attack hits but before dealing damage" would satisfy the same timing window as what you suggested the intent was, but that isn't the wording. The card specifically indicates that critical damage is suffered.

ISYTDS can (and IMO, should) be read as a replacement for the damage effect, and not the damage itself. DWTCSDDWTCDS would seem to apply here, because there's nothing that contradicts the premise that critical damage is being suffered other than the suffered effect, and applying default rules to a card that specifically alters them goes against every single FAQ precedent we have to this point.

45 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Because by definition if an effect is replaced, the replacement happens and the effect does not. The damage is never actually suffered, regardless of the wooly wording.

No, if by definition an effect is replaced, the effect is replaced. The trigger for that effect is not. Why is the suffering of damage that triggers the altered damage effect then unsuffered because the damage effect was altered?

What reason do you have to complicate the wording, instead of reading it exactly as written?

Because of what 'instead' means.

OK, normally I don't do bad analogies.

But.

I drive somewhere. But instead, I get the train.

Did I drive there? No, I got the train, and I'm bad at grammar.

Also, because suffering damage is a specific thing in this game, involving losing a shield if you have any, or being dealt a damage card if not.

And that thing *does not happen* with ISYTDS.

13 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Because of what 'instead' means.

OK, normally I don't do bad analogies.

But.

I drive somewhere. But instead, I get the train.

Did I drive there? No, I got the train, and I'm bad at grammar.

Also, because suffering damage is a specific thing in this game, involving losing a shield if you have any, or being dealt a damage card if not.

And that thing *does not happen* with ISYTDS.

Of course it doesn't happen, because the critical damage effect has been replaced. On what basis do you read it that the critical damage is in fact not suffered?

I want to make it clear that I understand what you're saying. I'm asking on what basis are you replacing the trigger, that is already stated to have happened , and not the effect?

I've answered the question already. Asking it again in bold italic isn't going to change the answer.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

I've answered the question already. Asking it again in bold italic isn't going to change the answer.

No, no you didn't. You stated what suffering critical damage normally entails, which is not in contention.

I'm bolding and italicizing to clarify points of emphasis, because you're clearly not getting what's in contention. I know that you're a smart person and generally good poster, so I'm working with the assumption that you don't realize what I'm getting at.

ISYTDS is worded differently than cards like Proton Bomb, Wampa, or Advanced Homing Missiles which deal cards but make no reference to damage whatsoever. It's worded differently than a card like Bossk or DTF, which change what you do with uncancelled cirtical results.

So there are two options here:

Option A:

THING 1 HAPPENS. Instead of applying what Thing 1 normally applies, apply condition instead. Thing 1 has still happened, but the effect has been replaced.

Option B:

THING 1 HAPPENS. Instead of Thing 1 having happened, something totally different that is normally worded differently than Thing 1 has happened instead. Thing 1 never happened.

You're asserting Option B, doing something the card specifically condradicts, with no evidence other than what the normal rules normally indicate to do. Even though upgrade cards break rules all the time, and X-Wing documentation specifically asserts that what upgrade cards do take precedence. Not only that, but there are already several examples of cards that apply effects after hitting but change how damage is assigned by cancelling/re-assigning results. This card does not do that. So either they forgot their own wording and meant it to be the same as those other cards, or maybe we should consider DWTCS (suffer critical damage but apply a different effect) and DDWTCDS (unsuffer the critical damage once the effect is applied). I happen to think the latter is more likely, and repeating the default rules to me when we're dealing with upgrade cards, which inherently alter default rules isn't a satisfactory explanation to me for why the former would be more likely.

To further my point, I want to look at a card that game out in the same expansion, the Kylo Ren's Shuttle title. " At the end of the Combat phase, choose an unstressed enemy ship at Range 1-2. Its owner must assign a stress token to it or assign a stress token to another ship at Range 1-2 of you that that player controls." It is also a little clumsily worded, but despite that it pretty clearly describes what it wants to happen. If there is an unstressed enemy ship at R1-2 (the trigger), a stress token must be assigned to a ship at R1-2 that the enemy player controls. One of the good little quirks of this wording is that it specifically allows for the possibility of a 3+ player game without having to fudge the wording or make assumptions about intent.

When it comes to ISYTDS, we have "When you suffer critical damage during an attack, you are instead dealt the chosen faceup Damage card." This is (obviously) not quite as clear, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. But to achieve Option A, we insert for RAI " When you suffer critical damage during an attack, (in place of the normal effect) you are instead dealt the chosen faceup Damage card." To achieve Option B while maintaining the current trigger, we insert for RAI "When you suffer critical damage during an attack, you are instead dealt the chosen faceup Damage card. (This suffered critical damage does not count towards critical damage being suffered.)"

If you or anybody else want to assert that the trigger is actually supposed to read as " When you (would) suffer critical damage during an attack, you are instead dealt the chosen faceup Damage card." then you need to support that with an FAQ entry or examples or precedents from prior rulings.

I'm going to quote the FAQ here for ISYTDS:

"If a ship with this card assigned to it suffers critical damage during an attack, it must suffer the Damage card assigned to I'll Show You the Dark Side instead (even if it has shield tokens)."

"If Maarek Stele attacks a ship with I'll Show You the Dark Side assigned to it, the effect of the condition will deal the ship the Damage card on it and Maarek Stele's ability does not trigger. If the attack would cause the defender to suffer additional critical damage, Maarek Stele's ability would trigger."

These also seem to indicate that critical damage is suffered, and that the Damage card on ISYTDS is a "suffered" damage effect as opposed to just an if x ----> deal card effect.

OK, fine. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume you're right.

So, how many critical damage does ISYTDS cause?

0. No damage is suffered, and the card from ISYTDS is dealt instead of the normal procedure.

Either way you look at it, the ISYTDS damage doesn't add anything to the total for RDs, because it either doesn't happen, or it happens, but has a value of 0.