Just now, joeshmoe554 said:

"Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round." vs "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round."

How is one of those statements "pretty clear", and the other one not "completely clear"? It seems very cut and dry to me that a ship can only drop or launch one device per round, until there is an upgrade that explicitly allows a ship to drop or launch more than one device per round.

Because bonus attacks exist.

A ship is normally only gets one attack, bonus attacks change that.

There's totally room for a "no, you can't ever drop more than once" interpretation. But I think there's room otherwise. I've made a choice, like everyone else here has done with their interpretations. That's why I'd love to see clarification.

7 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

"Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round." vs "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round."

How is one of those statements "pretty clear", and the other one not "completely clear"? It seems very cut and dry to me that a ship can only drop or launch one device per round, until there is an upgrade that explicitly allows a ship to drop or launch more than one device per round.

Under the Golden Rule on Page 1. If a card disagrees with the Rules the card takes precedence.

Look at Deathfire's ability. "After you are destroyed, before you are removed..." Deathfire can "die" in any one of three phases. System, Activation and engagement. If she is destroyed in the system phase does she get to shoot? If she is destroyed in the activation phase does she get to shoot and drop a bomb? If she dies during the engagement phase by an I1 ship does she get to attack and drop a bomb?

The time frame for her ability is after you are destroyed. Her card implies that her ability is not restricted to the normal phases. If you accept that her ability can trigger in one of three phases why is it so hard to accept that her ability is an exception to the rules? Obviously there are some restrictions. She can't launch a bomb but can drop it if she has a bomb. She can attack if she has a target.

As @theBitterFig posted there are exceptions to the rules of one attack per turn or taking more than one action per turn. Deathfire's ability is an excption to the rules.

Here we are, I won, people say that bomb are different then bonus attack. They can't show any real rule why a ship giving bonus attack is limited to one bonus attack, but a ship giving "bonus" bomb drop are not limited to one bomb like the rule say. But they still say it is not the same thing lol. You are all priceless...

Edit: Bonus attack and bonus bomb use the exact same wording, in the rule and on card but according to your logic, bonus attack do not bypass the one bonus attack, but bomb by pass the one bomb lol

you can only ever perform one bonus attack per round. you can only ever drop or launch one device per round.

card abilities do take precedence over the rules, but unless explicitly stated on a card, the rules still apply to the cards.

Where is it written that the wording on an upgrade has to explicitly state that it trumps the rules?

2 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Where is it written that the wording on an upgrade has to explicitly state that it trumps the rules?

It's indirect information extrapolated from the fact that any card we are sure is bypassing these basic rules says so. E.g.;

Dutch - "...ignoring range restrictions..."

Afterburners - "...even while stressed..."

Etc.

4 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Where is it written that the wording on an upgrade has to explicitly state that it trumps the rules?

Because then we play a lot of stuff wrong. You can do any number of bonus attack, because card tell you to do a bonus attack without "if you did not do a bonus attack this turn" and card tell you to do a Barrel Roll action without "if you did not do a Barrel Roll action this turn and you are not stressed".

Because when an upgrade tell you to acquire a Lock, we should not follow the restriction of range, because the card did not say: "according to normal range restrictions of acquire Lock"

And because we know we can acquire a Lock on ship that normally can't because the rule says we can do give effect by other upgrade even if we don't have them normally as action. Not because the card bypass rule without saying...

But more to the point, because this is how exception based rules work, generally.

There are rules, that tell you what you can do.

Then there are things which provide exceptions to those rules (in this game, pilots, upgrades and conditions) - but those exceptions only except the rules they say they except. Otherwise, you'd basically have to rewrite the entire ruleset on every card to tell you which rules it's NOT excepting.

'Perform a bonus attack' for instance - attacks are normally limited by the rules for range, but because it doesn't say you're limited byt he normal rules for range, you can attack anything on the board, right? Nothign says you CAN'T*. Or, when you're told to perform an action, you can perform any action in the game, right - so I'll choose the 'drop rigged cargo' action, or the 'drop conner net' action, even though I don't have either upgrade equipped. Nothing says I can't*, right? Etc etc etc

*except for the general rules, which say what you CAN do, and only your cards give you options outside them.

In short, exception based rules systems don't allow for the 'but nothing says a labrador CAN'T pay football' argument.

So everyone is excited for the 2 new factions and all the new cards that will be out in a couple of months? More arguments to be had over badly designed and worded interactions, and more of FFG ignoring their own rules.

So is FFG just really terrible at copy editing? They shouldn't have different wording templates for the exact same effects printed in the same waves.

Wasn't second edition supposed to be better than this?

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

But more to the point, because this is how exception based rules work, generally.

There are rules, that tell you what you can do.

Then there are things which provide exceptions to those rules (in this game, pilots, upgrades and conditions) - but those exceptions only except the rules they say they except. Otherwise, you'd basically have to rewrite the entire ruleset on every card to tell you which rules it's NOT excepting.

'Perform a bonus attack' for instance - attacks are normally limited by the rules for range, but because it doesn't say you're limited byt he normal rules for range, you can attack anything on the board, right? Nothign says you CAN'T*. Or, when you're told to perform an action, you can perform any action in the game, right - so I'll choose the 'drop rigged cargo' action, or the 'drop conner net' action, even though I don't have either upgrade equipped. Nothing says I can't*, right? Etc etc etc

*except for the general rules, which say what you CAN do, and only your cards give you options outside them.

In short, exception based rules systems don't allow for the 'but nothing says a labrador CAN'T pay football' argument.

Based on what you have written, can Deathfire perform an attack in the System or Activation phases? Can she drop a bomb in the Activation or Engagement phases? Of course we will assume for the latter she didn't drop one in the System phase.

If she breaks the normal rules for attacking outside of the engagement phase and can drop a bomb outside of the System phase why is it so difficult to believe that she can violate the one drop per turn? Aside from the Golden Rule, there's also the "Once per Opportunity" rule. Shee only gets to use her ability once, then she's removed.

I'm not trying to be a rectal orifice about this. For years I've heard the mantra of "Do What the card says...", now the cards are starting to read like the manifesto of Animal Farm.

9 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Based on what you have written, can Deathfire perform an attack in the System or Activation phases? Can she drop a bomb in the Activation or Engagement phases? Of course we will assume for the latter she didn't drop one in the System phase.

If she breaks the normal rules for attacking outside of the engagement phase and can drop a bomb outside of the System phase why is it so difficult to believe that she can violate the one drop per turn? Aside from the Golden Rule, there's also the "Once per Opportunity" rule. Shee only gets to use her ability once, then she's removed.

I'm not trying to be a rectal orifice about this. For years I've heard the mantra of "Do What the card says...", now the cards are starting to read like the manifesto of Animal Farm.

She can attack outside the normal point (and drop a bomb outside the normal point, if she's not done so already this round) because she provides a specific exception to the normal timing of those things - she specifically says to do those things when she dies.

She does not specifically except herself from the rule about number of bonus attacks, or the rule about number of bombs.

51 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

She can attack outside the normal point (and drop a bomb outside the normal point, if she's not done so already this round) because she provides a specific exception to the normal timing of those things - she specifically says to do those things when she dies.

She does not specifically except herself from the rule about number of bonus attacks, or the rule about number of bombs.

Is her ability actually a Bonus Attck? I don't think it is. If you read the section on Bonus Attacks and the Aftermath step, her ability doesn't seem to fit. Unless you consider "after defending" to be the same as "after you are destroyed".

One of the other reasons that I think she can drop a bomb even if she did so in the System Phase is the wording on the card. "...you may perform an attack and drop or launch a device". Why do I think that? We've established that she can attack outside of the Engagement Phase and she has the ability to attack twice in the Engagement Phase. The and links the bomb drop ability to the perform an attack ability.

Obviously her ability is a one time thing. This coupled with my doubt that the attack is actually a bonus attack, the Golden Rule of upgrades trumping the RRG, the and joing the attack to a device drop, is why I think the double drop works. I don't think we will have a situation where it will throw everything else into chaos, dogs and cats won't be living together and nobody will try and get two or more bonus attaacks or drop multiple devices in one round..

To quote Mooney Wurther, "There's food on the table, the roof don't leak and Frieda has all her buttons". In other words all will be right with the world, or the game in this case.

Without a specific exception to the general rule (the one for extra attacks is annoyingly found in the FAQ entry for rebel Han gunner, because FFG), you don't get do ignore the general rule.

This is the second part of the basic rule of thumb you missed earlier: do what the card says. Don't do what it doesn't say.

it doesn't say you can ignore the rule about dropping more than one bomb, so you can't. It doesn't say you can ignore the rule about making multiple extra attacks, so you can't.

1 hour ago, Stoneface said:

Is her ability actually a Bonus Attck? I don't think it is. If you read the section on Bonus Attacks and the Aftermath step, her ability doesn't seem to fit. Unless you consider "after defending" to be the same as "after you are destroyed".

When Han Solo (Gunner, Rebel) was clarified to be considered a bonus attack, it was established that any attack outside of the attack taken while a ship engaged counted as a bonus attack.

9 hours ago, ConomeOnTheVine said:

When Han Solo (Gunner, Rebel) was clarified to be considered a bonus attack, it was established that any attack outside of the attack taken while a ship engaged counted as a bonus attack.

You're correct and I stand corrected. Good catch!

Well if this interpretation is correct Paige would be able to drop three bombs in one round. Once in system phase. Bomb goes off end of activation. Once after firing primary. If destroyed in same Engagement phase another could be dropped those bombs would detonate end of following activation. This would all be limited by charges and of course destruction and primary attacks, but with 12 health and a reload action that could be alot of bombing.

What rule or card text forces a ship to spend a charge token from a bomb when dropping it with Paige's ability outside of the system phase?

5 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

What rule or card text forces a ship to spend a charge token from a bomb when dropping it with Paige's ability outside of the system phase?

The device itself. Paige lets you ignore the phase requirement, but not the charge requirement.

On 1/12/2019 at 1:54 AM, Kanawolf said:

Well if this interpretation is correct Paige would be able to drop three bombs in one round. Once in system phase. Bomb goes off end of activation. Once after firing primary. If destroyed in same Engagement phase another could be dropped those bombs would detonate end of following activation. This would all be limited by charges and of course destruction and primary attacks, but with 12 health and a reload action that could be alot of bombing.

Also, the Starfort has double gunner slots, so Paige+Vet Turret Gunner is a thing that could happen.

IMO, the specification of "if you have not dropped or launched a device" on "Genius" and Kappehl exists to limit the action of dropping a device to after a maneuver is fully executed - a very specific limitation that replaces the device drop in the System Phase. The lack of the same text on Paige Tico and "Deathfire" suggests to me that those abilities are intended to work outside of the "normal" rules for dropping devices - otherwise, Paige Tico's "after you are destroyed" ability to drop a bomb would be completely useless and impossible to perform if she'd already dropped a device in the System Phase.

4 hours ago, feltipern1 said:

IMO, the specification of "if you have not dropped or launched a device" on "Genius" and Kappehl exists to limit the action of dropping a device to after a maneuver is fully executed - a very specific limitation that replaces the device drop in the System Phase. The lack of the same text on Paige Tico and "Deathfire" suggests to me that those abilities are intended to work outside of the "normal" rules for dropping devices - otherwise, Paige Tico's "after you are destroyed" ability to drop a bomb would be completely useless and impossible to perform if she'd already dropped a device in the System Phase.

card rules overrule the RR, but there is no conflict here. paige and deathfire can still drop or launch devices when they're killed with their abilities, just not if they've already done it during the same round. we do what the cards and the rules say, we don't do what they don't say.

Q: Do Paige Tico [Crew] and "Deathfire" [TIE Bomber]'s abilities supersede the "one device per round" limitation?

A: Yes. These abilities allow one ship to drop a second device in the same round (at the relevant timing windows), as they do not include the "if you have not dropped or launched a device this round" limitation (as included on Elon Kappehl).

from:

Another "because we said so" ruling from FFG official. Things like this set a bad precedent and are stacking up far too quickly for my liking

I would have greatly preferred if they had removed the "one device per turn" from the rules reference instead of giving us the counter-reasoned ruling. That way Page and Death fire would instantly and logically be allowed to drop all the bombs while Elon and Genius would still carry their native restrictions.