@eagletsi111 , your TO is wrong. It sucks if you cannot convince him of that.

Please stop using the word "and" when you meant to use the word "an." My OCD is at DEFCON 1

2 hours ago, impspy said:

The   way you're describing it is how it works...

 

...in First Edition

I think this is the crux. They're playing the old version of the game.

Maybe if you presented the situation that started the discussion it might be clearer.

Quote

During the Neutralize Results step, if the attack would hit and there is more than one hit/crit result remaining, one evade result is added to cancel one result.

It is determined if the attack would hit after evade results have cancelled hits. Therefore if an A-Wing shooting at a reinforced Wookiee Gunship rolls 2 hits and the Wookiee rolls 1 evade, the hit and the evade would cancel out before determining if Reinforce would trigger.

Quote

During the Neutralize Results step, if the attack would hit and there is more than one hit/crit result remaining, one evade result is added to cancel one result.

more than one = two or more. If an A-Wing shooting at a reinforced Wookiee Gunship rolls 2 hits and the Wookiee rolls 1 evade, there will only be 1 hit remaining when it comes time to determine if the attack would hit which is also when it is determined if Reinforce would add an evade. Since there is only 1 hit result remaining, the requirements for Reinforce to add an evade have not been met.

Quote

During the Neutralize Results step, if the attack would hit and there is more than one hit/crit result remaining, one evade result is added to cancel one result .

Yes, even though you've already gone through the steps of cancelling hits with evade results, it explicitly says right there in the rules that an evade granted from a Reinforce (assuming you've met all the other criteria) will cancel another hit result.

Maybe dig out the ordinary Rulebook, as opposed to the Rules Reference. "When a reinforced ship defends, if the attacker is in only the full arc (∧ or ∨) matching the token (fore or aft respectively), reduce the damage the attack deals by 1, to a minimum of 1." (Rulebook, p.17). The end result is the same in either case, but it's explained in a way so that a TO can't ignore the "minimum 1 damage" aspect to Reinforce. Once someone knows that the two rules are exactly the same, it might be easier for them to parse the Rules Reference.

It's also entirely possible that the TO understands the right rule, but is just an *** who likes cheating, in which case, yikes...

We had this issue before where he insisted all measurements be made from cardboard to cardboard.

On 2/25/2019 at 1:23 PM, theBitterFig said:

Maybe dig out the ordinary Rulebook, as opposed to the Rules Reference. "When a reinforced ship defends, if the attacker is in only the full arc (∧ or ∨) matching the token (fore or aft respectively), reduce the damage the attack deals by 1, to a minimum of 1." (Rulebook, p.17). The end result is the same in either case, but it's explained in a way so that a TO can't ignore the "minimum 1 damage" aspect to Reinforce. Once someone knows that the two rules are exactly the same, it might be easier for them to parse the Rules Reference.

It's also entirely possible that the TO understands the right rule, but is just an *** who likes cheating, in which case, yikes...

Alternatively (or in addition), the fact that the rules reference for Reinforce says "if the attack would hit" - you can't determine that until you've done all the cancelling of rolled and modified results from previous stages, so you can't add the bonus until you've used up all the rolled ones

33 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Alternatively (or in addition), the fact that the rules reference for Reinforce says "if the attack would hit" - you can't determine that until you've done all the cancelling of rolled and modified results from previous stages, so you can't add the bonus until you've used up all the rolled ones

Yep. But this is stuff which is obvious to people with reading comprehension abilities beyond those of a rusted toaster.

The challenge seems to be how to get someone unwilling to actually read the rules to understand.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

Yep. But this is stuff which is obvious to people with reading comprehension abilities beyond those of a rusted toaster.

The challenge seems to be how to get someone unwilling to actually read the rules to understand.

Honestly the answer is to refuse to play with people who don't play by the rules. It's hard, but if people keep doing it, the intentional rulebreakers will not change their behaviour and will just keep hiding behind the geek social fallacies and making all their opponents' games miserable.

18 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Honestly the answer is to refuse to play with people who don't play by the rules. It's hard, but if people keep doing it, the intentional rulebreakers will not change their behaviour and will just keep hiding behind the geek social fallacies and making all their opponents' games miserable.

Which...is fine for a standing policy. But when the individual in question is apparently the TO at your local store, and hence their opinion becomes a de facto ruling for any event you can conveniently get to without a major out-of-town expedition, you kind of have to get involved in the rules debate by default, no matter how much you can feel your brain trying to flee for its life through your ears.

I had a similar experience re Accuracy Corrector/Cluster Missiles.

1 minute ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Which...is fine for a standing policy. But when the individual in question is apparently the TO at your local store, and hence their opinion becomes a de facto ruling for any event you can conveniently get to without a major out-of-town expedition, you kind of have to get involved in the rules debate by default, no matter how much you can feel your brain trying to flee for its life through your ears.

I had a similar experience re Accuracy Corrector/Cluster Missiles.

You contact all the local players and make an agreement to play at a different location, and you let said TO know. Or you refuse to attend tournaments he will be TOing at.

Or you suck it up and deal. Those are your two choices.

But always remember that no gaming is often better than bad gaming.

20 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

You contact all the local players and make an agreement to play at a different location, and you let said TO know. Or you refuse to attend tournaments he will be TOing at.

Or you suck it up and deal. Those are your two choices.

But always remember that no gaming is often better than bad gaming.

I still think there's at least theoretical space for a 3rd option: convincing them of the right rules. At least attempting it seems worthwhile. On this specific issue, the basic rulebook seems like the least-onerous way to try to accomplish this. There aren't mechanics to parse, and the rule clearly sets up the key "minimum 1" aspect.

Given the level of resistance described on both occasions this TO has been described, I can only say, good luck with that.

26 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Given the level of resistance described on both occasions this TO has been described, I can only say, good luck with that.

Oh, I'm not saying sooner or later you don't reach the point of giving up in the name of sanity, but I figure you at least have to try .

On 2/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, eagletsi111 said:

I agree, I know what FFG is stating, but lots of people don't see it that way. And as such will play it the way it is written not the way it was intended.

It seems like very few people don't see it that way. Like, localized to a single individual or handful of people at a single store.