Quick official clarification needed for Collateral damage.

Collateral damage is one of those old cards that existed before indirect damage existed. It does not follow the format of other damage cards and does not use the plain "showing damage" text that a lot of other cards do. However, it also allows you to resolve more than one die at once, which is why it originally seems to have segmented what kinds of damage you can resolve with its either/or choice. (So for example you could resolve 3 ranged damage dice or 2 melee damage dice... but not both). There seems to be no reason this card should not work with indirect damage as well (and arguably for flavor reasons even more so) but it does not neatly fit into the rules guide, nor the previous examples saying just ignore the reminder text... because well.. this isn't reminder text because this card forced you to choose a damage type for different reasons. Logically, there doesn't seem a reason to single out an extra gimping of this card relative to other old cards that get to add indirect into the mix for themselves, but I am sure some will argue "no, no... this card says choose just ranged or melee, can't choose indirect" even though it would have been impossible for it to say that at the time because indirect did not exist (just as the other cards don't have it either for similar reasons).

Can we get an official ruling or a point to an official ruling on whether this card works with indirect damage as well?

Thanks!

It does not work with indirect damage.

No official ruling needed. The card specifies melee or ranged damage, and not as reminder text for "damage".

As expected, here is the first of the "some will argue" that I predicted. But actually yes, an official ruling is needed because it is not clear, and the rules only specifically address cards that are structured differently and for a different purpose than this one.

Also, by definition, since if I have read all the relevant rules guides, and it is not specifically addressed, and I think it is still unclear, than yes I do need an official ruling. Maybe you don't, but I do (as will those who play with me and use this card ... which agreed seems to be rare that people even play this card... and will be rarer if doesn't work with indirect).

If there is an official ruling out there already on this specific card, would be glad to see it. The general guidelines do not adequately address it though.

This is covered clearly on page 21 of the rules reference guide.

• Effects which reference a certain symbol showing on a die work with any side showing that symbol, even if it is a modified side. Showing damage includes ranged, melee, and indirect damage.

The wording on this card is:

Resolve one or more of your dice showing either melee damage ([melee]) or ranged damage ([ranged]). Then force an opponent to lose 1 resource.

This card doesn't reference "showing damage" it explicitly states showing melee damage or showing ranged damage.

If the RRG isn't enough then email the developers for an answer. Though how does "some card nobody ever plays work" might not be the fastest question they get around to responding to.

12 hours ago, mandroid71 said:

 But   actually yes, an official ruling is nee

No it isn't.

Your deliberate, intentional ignorance of how the game works, your desire to fundamentally change what words on a card mean, does not require an official ruling.

You are wrong. It really is that simple.

If that card was made today it probably would include indirect or maybe it would only include indirect as that would fit the theme of the card better. What the card doesn't do is reference unspecified damage so it doesn't fit under the "just add indirect where ever damage is reference" umbrella. As to how FFG would actually rule what this card does, no one here actually knows. The responses here seem logical but the rulings aren't always what everyone on this board thinks they should be.

Submit it as a question and you might get a response. If enough people ask this question, it will make it into FAQ. Until then, don't go adding text to any cards and just play the card with the text given.

This is an intelligent response

Unlike Stu.. who is just a troll evidently. Go away.

Thanks Mep, and also to Joshstix.

I have to ask what would make you think that indirect damage should be tied to this?

Would a reprint of this card today probably include indirect as a third option? Absolutely. It wouldn't break anything, fits the card's theme, and so forth.

Does the way the card is written permit it to be played this way? No. And I don't think it's on anybody's radar as crucially needing errata to change it.

Parenthesis text across all FFG games are reminder text only. Its probably the only consistency they have across games.

Otherwise older cards would kinda break Legacy cards. For instance, Datapad could be used to mod a die to Indirect Damage if the blanket "damage" text didnt include Indirect via the RRG update.

The only time a damage type isnt valid is when the actual text of the card (not in parenthesis text) calls out the damage type directly (eg: melee damage, ranged damage, indirect damage). Such as Guard specifically states remove a die showing melee damage so it cant be used on ranged or indirect.

Yeah. Echoing others, in this area of card writing FFG is crystal clear. No need for any ruling, it means what it says.

However, we’ve had a few nonsensical “clarifications” before, so who’s to say this doesn’t somehow change in the future? Given low impact of the card, still unlikely IMO.

4 hours ago, Lobokai said:

However, we’ve had a few nonsensical “clarifications” before, so who’s to say this doesn’t somehow change in the future? Given low impact of the card, still unlikely IMO.

Like?

I find being able to choose an effect that cannot be fulfilled (i.e. Let the Wookiee Win) to be a nonsensical ruling.

6 hours ago, gokubb said:

I find being able to choose an effect that cannot be fulfilled (i.e. Let the Wookiee Win) to be a nonsensical ruling.

Even though it actually follows the rules as per the rule book? I would have thought the opposite, it is a very good clarification because it follows the rules.

The original rule book didn’t say that in the beginning. Wasn’t until the question was answered in the RRG update. Every other card game I’ve ever played does not allow an impossible choice to be chosen when a possible choice is available. Arguing the idiocracy of this ruling isn’t worth anyone’s time and isn’t the purpose of this post. But, the rulebook did not address that in the first set before the rules reference guide.

So, in my opinion this is an instance where there was a nonsensical ruling.

5 hours ago, gokubb said:

The original rule book didn’t say that in the beginning. Wasn’t until the question was answered in the RRG update. Every other card game I’ve ever played does not allow an impossible choice to be chosen when a possible choice is available. Arguing the idiocracy of this ruling isn’t worth anyone’s time and isn’t the purpose of this post. But, the rulebook did not address that in the first set before the rules reference guide.

So, in my opinion this is an instance where there was a nonsensical ruling.

Yes it did.

p20: CHOOSE- EITHER
If an ability uses “choose” and “either,” the player using the ability may choose either option, even if the chosen one will have no effect. Once the player has made their choice, they have to resolve as much of it as possible.
Some cards force an opponent to make a choice. The opponent can also choose either option.

Going Back to November 2016: