7 hours ago, Abyss said:

If Luke's dice showing shields count as showing melee, can I spot old Finn as a Red character because he's kind of sort of like one, maybe?

It comes down to the wording. Old Finn never says he is red, just that you can play Red villain cards in your deck. You knew this was a massive leap in logic and hyperbole the moment you wrote it.

Luke's specifically states that you may resolve the shield sides as if they were showing Melee. vs Ataru strike which states to resolve a die showing melee. In this case Luke specifies that while resolving the die, which is what you are doing, you may treat it as if it were showing melee and showing is the only requirement here the wording of the two statements match ataru has the stipulation of resolving a symbol that is showing and Luke's ability states that when resolving it can be showing.

49 minutes ago, tunewalker said:

It comes down to the wording. Old Finn never says he is red, just that you can play Red villain cards in your deck. You knew this was a massive leap in logic and hyperbole the moment you wrote it.

Luke's specifically states that you may resolve the shield sides as if they were showing Melee. vs Ataru strike which states to resolve a die showing melee. In this case Luke specifies that while resolving the die, which is what you are doing, you may treat it as if it were showing melee and showing is the only requirement here the wording of the two statements match ataru has the stipulation of resolving a symbol that is showing and Luke's ability states that when resolving it can be showing.

Luke's text actually omits the word showing. Which could just be a space decision, because his card is already very crowded. Or it could be an indication that this is a new construction that the designers will use for inherent dice abilities. But it does weaken the approach that "showing" rulings can be used for guidance as to how to resolve interactions with Old Luke. I think at this point FFG is going to have to address this in the RRG.

18 minutes ago, kingbobb said:

Luke's text actually omits the word showing. Which could just be a space decision, because his card is already very crowded. Or it could be an indication that this is a new construction that the designers will use for inherent dice abilities. But it does weaken the approach that "showing" rulings can be used for guidance as to how to resolve interactions with Old Luke. I think at this point FFG is going to have to address this in the RRG.

I reread it and you are correct. In this case I would agree that I do not believe it can work with cards that require a dice side to be showing. I still believe it to be an inherent die ability so Luke doesnt need to be in the field in the case of a draft tournament with Way of dark or the like, but I am on board with the idea that it doesnt count as "showing" since it doesnt specify it.

15 hours ago, tunewalker said:

I reread it and you are correct. In this case I would agree that I do not believe it can work with cards that require a dice side to be showing. I still believe it to be an inherent die ability so Luke doesnt need to be in the field in the case of a draft tournament with Way of dark or the like, but I am on board with the idea that it doesnt count as "showing" since it doesnt specify it.

That's what I was getting at; yes, the Finn example was intentionally ridiculous. But it feels like people are going off what they want the card to say, rather than what it says. Luke doesn't say his shield dice show melee, it says you can resolve them as melee (and if it did, I agree it would work). Ataru Strike requires the dice to be showing melee. Now it still needs to be ruled on, because FFG sometimes like to be idiots, but IMO there shouldn't be any real question about it based on how it's written, and not based on the fact that people want it to work that way.

I believe the recent post in the stickied clarification thread solves this:

"Clandestine Operation Clarification

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

I believe the recent post in the stickied clarification thread solves this:

"Clandestine Operation Clarification

A player can resolve their dice showing the same symbol, even if those dice were not showing that symbol when this card began to resolve."

The wording on that card is the same thing, "Resolve any number of your dice showing the same symbol"

Only difference is this is referring to multiple dice compared to Ataru Strike only resolving 1

...why they chose that card for this is beyond me rather than specifically state "Dice that can be resolved as another symbol can be resolved as though they were showing those symbols" - unless Luke/Zeb are involved the only way i can think of this would be relevant is if you were doing specials that modded other dice (i.e. Datapad)

Actually I think that is the exact relevance they are talking about here. Just like when you "resolve specials' you can special chain or Focus chain into more focuses and continue to keep resolving.

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

Only difference is this is referring to multiple dice compared to Ataru Strike only resolving 1

This is actually a very big difference, especially in how it interacts with the new target check for playing a card (which is actually the more meaningful rule addition here).

Clandestine Operation targets "any number of dice". That can be zero. It's literally impossible for you to not find a target and clear the new Step 3.

Ataru Strike's target has to be showing melee. This is now a requirement to be cleared in Step 3. You don't start resolving the ability until Step 7 (well, after, technically - 7 just puts it in the queue). When you make that check in Step 3 Luke's shield die doesn't meet the requirements, so it's not a legal target. You cannot progress to playing the card.

I think you will find when they rule on it that cards that resolve a die showing melee will be able to work with old luke.