5 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

If words appear on a card and have an effect on the game, they are (or ought to be, for clarity’s sake) “card effects.”

Except the words in brackets after squadron keywords on squadron cards don't have an effect on the game. If you took away those words (as with some of the squadron cards, particularly the alt- or extended-arts), the card works in the same way.

For example, the Top-'n'-by-faction prizes for Primes this season were double-sided X-Wing/TIE Fighter extended art cards . The X-Wing has the Escort keyword, but not the parenthetical text. If that parenthetical text had any impact on the game, this card would be different to the main one.

Or to put it another way, if we take the parenthetical part to be a card effect (rather than a reminder of the rules), IG-88B wouldn't be able to shoot past a normal X-Wing, but would be able to shoot past the alt-art X-Wing.

27 minutes ago, Grumbleduke said:

The keyword text isn't a reminder. The thing saying " Bomber " or " Escort " is a card effect, telling you the squadron has that keyword.

But the keyword doesn't do anything on its own. For example, it tells you that Biggs has Escort, but doesn't tell you what Escort does.

The effects of Keywords are set out in the Rules Reference (page 12, Squadron Keywords):

So the card tells you "Biggs has Escort", but the Rules Reference tells you "Squadrons [Biggs is] engaged with cannot attack squadrons that lack Escort."

Old IG-88 says "You ignore the escort and counter keywords on enemy squadrons." That is a card effect, which affects other card effects. Effectively, it means that as far as IG-88 is concerned no enemy squadrons have the Counter or Escort keywords. But it doesn't change what those keywords mean. So if IG-88 is engaged with a Biggs, IG-88 can attack someone else (without Escort) because as far as IG-88 knows, Biggs does not have the Escort keyword.

Moving on to IG-88B, there is a card effect "you may perform an anti-squadron attack..." and it does not ignore any keywords - so squadrons involved still have all their keywords including Escort and Counter - so squadrons attacked by IG-88B's special attack can still counter (and wouldn't be obstructed unless in the normal way). However, then we get a conflict between rules. IG-88B's card effect says he "may perform an ... attack" and the Escort rule says that he "...cannot attack..." things. But The Golden Rules tell us that if there is a conflict between a card effect and a Rules Reference rule, the card effect wins.

So to answer your question; the Keyword itself is not a reminder, it is a card effect telling you that the squadron has that keyword. The parenthetical bit is a reminder, telling you what the Rules Reference says that keyword does.

The reason that part is in parentheses is that it can be removed without changing anything. Parenthetical bits on cards are reminders or clarifications, but don't change the rules. For example:

In each case, the card effect is not changed by removing the parenthetical statement. It just clarifies or reminds us of the normal rules. Of course, the RitR objectives break this principle; Ion Storm, Surprise Attack, Asteroid Tactics, Doomed Station, Infested Fields all use parentheses to change the rule. Did a different person write them?

I understand what you’re saying, but what we’re doing is adding unnecessary complexity to an already complex system.

Look, to say that a keyword is a card effect which does nothing except indicate that one needs to look to the rulebook to get the necessary text which will then override any card effect conflicts because it’s a rulebook rule and NOT a card effect is absolutely strange. It is worlds simpler to just rule that a keyword is itself a card effect, and the rulebook simply defines what that effect is, in game terms.

2 minutes ago, Grumbleduke said:

Except the words in brackets after squadron keywords on squadron cards don't have an effect on the game. If you took away those words (as with some of the squadron cards, particularly the alt- or extended-arts), the card works in the same way.

Yes. I’m afraid you misunderstood the entire point of that post (sorry if I was unclear, this is complicated).

My entire point was that the parenthetical text is irrelevant. It merely appears as a reminder. Its omission or inclusion changes nothing. Karnek had said that the keywords were reminders. I was trying to illustrate that you don’t use reminder text on reminder text, that’s silly, and that keywords themselves are card effects.

Now I’m hearing, yes, the keywords are card effects, but they actually have no effect except to point you to the rulebook, so the effect of the card effect isn’t to have an actual effect, it’s to trigger a rule. Which is even sillier.

My position is: Here we see the word Escort. This is a card effect. What does it do? There is reminder text in parentheses... sometimes. But if not, it is defined in the rulebook!

The effect is still generated by the keyword on the card, not the rule in the book.

58 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Now I’m hearing, yes, the keywords are card effects, but they actually have no effect except to point you to the rulebook, so the effect of the card effect isn’t to have an actual effect, it’s to trigger a rule. Which is even sillier.

It's not silly - it tells you a property of that thing. Same as every other bit of information on a Ship or Squadron Card other than the special abilities for unique squadrons.

The Defense Token graphics are probably the clearest example. They tell you what Defense Tokens that ship or squadron has access to. But it doesn't tell you anything about how those Defense Tokens work, what they do, when you can use them - that is all in the rules reference.

The Squadron Keyword on a squadron card acts like the Defense Token graphic. It tells you "this squadron has a Brace Token/this squadron has the Escort keyword." But all the rules for what that means are in the Rules Reference - so they're a Rules Reference thing, not a card effect. Spending a Defense Token (in the normal way) isn't a Card Effect, so its rules are overriden by card effects.

So there are various card effects that override normal Defense Token use; e.g. XI7s - and the word "cannot", when it applies to Defense Tokens, isn't absolute, e.g. the rule "if the defender’s speed is “0,” it cannot spend defense tokens" is overridden by Concord (and hence why they needed to add so many clarifications to things like ECMs and Sloane).

Quote

Karnek had said that the keywords were reminders.

And I think they were wrong about that. Or rather, I think they could have clarified further; that the Keyword itself isn't a reminder - it tells you a property of the squadron. But the parenthetical text is a reminder.

Ok, sure. But by that logic, almost any text that appears on a squadron is dependent on the rules reference. For example, IG-88B talks about making attacks. How to make attacks is covered in the Rules. Is his special text a “card effect?” Or a “rule?” The entire game is built upon a core set of assumptions, and using the cards to break those rules. When we get into arcane distinctions about which text on cards creates “card effects” and which doesn’t, we’re just asking to confuse people. No one has yet addressed why we ought to embrace an interpretation of the rules that is counterintuitive, confusing, and creates zero benefit to the game system. Would it not be better to just say, keywords ARE card effects? It certainly makes more sense.

33 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Ok, sure. But by that logic, almost any text that appears on a squadron is dependent on the rules reference. For example, IG-88B talks about making attacks. How to make attacks is covered in the Rules. Is his special text a “card effect?” Or a “rule?” The entire game is built upon a core set of assumptions, and using the cards to break those rules. When we get into arcane distinctions about which text on cards creates “card effects” and which doesn’t, we’re just asking to confuse people. No one has yet addressed why we ought to embrace an interpretation of the rules that is counterintuitive, confusing, and creates zero benefit to the game system. Would it not be better to just say, keywords ARE card effects? It certainly makes more sense.

Because keywords can get overwritten by other effects.

The golden rules are why the distinction exists.

It boils down to an intention of absoluteness when “cannot” is involved.

And in those rare instances, they ought to just write, “This attack ignores Escort,” or whatever needs to be written.

I have seen good games crushed under the weight of well-intentioned but overly-convoluted rules. If the players in the play group who don’t have any interest in this level of rules-lawyerdom can’t understand why the rules make sense, they get frustrated and quit. Clean, easy-to-follow, obvious rules are essential in a game, triply so in one that has a high base level of complexity.

Alright, I’ve said my peace. Thanks everyone for your input. Unless someone has a new piece of information, I think I’m gonna sit back and wait 6-9 months for a ruling on this one.

IG88B text also says ”treat these attacks as obstructed".

If you are obstructed, you are not engaged, therefore Escort doesn't affect him.

1 hour ago, Liggur90 said:

IG88B text also says ”treat these attacks as obstructed".

If you are obstructed, you are not engaged, therefore Escort doesn't affect him.

That would only be true when shooting the escort itself.

When you are making an attack treated as obstructed against a non-escort target, you are very much engaged with any other squadrons, including those with escort, which is the source of debate.

Respect the fresh approach, though.

21 hours ago, Liggur90 said:

IG88B text also says ”treat these attacks as obstructed".

If you are obstructed, you are not engaged, therefore Escort doesn't affect him.

I agree with Jabbawookiee. That doesn’t quite untangle this particular can of space slugs. But it’s an interesting take!

Exogorths also get to attack all squads in range too.

But re-reading the whole thread, I think Karnack is correct, Escort is a keyword,the rules are in the rulebook. IG88B is a card power, so it supercedes it. The term "cannot” is frequently over ruled by other card effects. e.g. Weapons Team.

6 hours ago, Liggur90 said:

Exogorths also get to attack all squads in range too.

But re-reading the whole thread, I think Karnack is correct, Escort is a keyword,the rules are in the rulebook. IG88B is a card power, so it supercedes it. The term "cannot” is frequently over ruled by other card effects. e.g. Weapons Team.

The argument isn't that card effects overrule "cannot" for base game rules.

The entirety of the debate is whether or not squadron keywords are card effects or base game rules.

Appearing in the rule book, but also appearing on printed cards makes this a grey area that needs clarification.

Personally, I agree there are indications keywords are base rules, such as their explicit mentions of base rules ("even if you are engaged.")

But we don't have a particularly solid argument either way at this time.

It’s officially resolved!

IG88B must target escorts he is engaged with first. If there are any remaining that he is engaged with after attacking all escorts, he can’t attack anyone else.

Not... How I expected that to go... But an answer is an answer.

On 3/2/2020 at 11:03 AM, Karneck said:

Not... How I expected that to go... But an answer is an answer.

I’m just glad the thread won’t exceed 4 pages.

Edit: 5

7 hours ago, Astrodar said:

It’s officially resolved!

IG88B must target escorts he is engaged with first. If there are any remaining that he is engaged with after attacking all escorts, he can’t attack anyone else.

It’s a answer a lame answer. As it makes ig-88b somewhat useless.

51 minutes ago, Sobonis01 said:

It’s a answer a lame answer. As it makes ig-88b somewhat useless.

Ummm... not really at all?

Drop IG-88B into a Biggsball and attack four escorts all at once? Even obstructed, that sounds great to me.

1 hour ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Ummm... not really at all?

Drop IG-88B into a Biggsball and attack four escorts all at once? Even obstructed, that sounds great to me.

Versus "I fly one X-Wing into Range and make him only attack him, despite him being in the middle of my Fighter Ball."

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Versus "I fly one X-Wing into Range and make him only attack him, despite him being in the middle of my Fighter Ball."

I honestly do not have a strong opinion on how IG-88B *ought* to work. I can see an argument for Escorts interfering with his ability, and I can see an argument for him overriding Escort. The reasons I thought Escort should stop him had nothing to do with the result I wanted to see.

Either way, I think he’s still useful.

1 hour ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I honestly do not have a strong opinion on how IG-88B *ought* to work. I can see an argument for Escorts interfering with his ability, and I can see an argument for him overriding Escort. The reasons I thought Escort should stop him had nothing to do with the result I wanted to see.

Either way, I think he’s still useful.

He's just more matchup-dependant than before. And he was already reliant on matchup as it was. Thats all.

More generally-useful, rather than matchup dependant, is typically what I'm after.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

He's just more matchup-dependant than before. And he was already reliant on matchup as it was. Thats all.

More generally-useful, rather than matchup dependant, is typically what I'm after.

I can’t disagree with that. In all honesty, I’d have been happy if he had been given text that said, “this ability ignores Escort.”

In other words, the thing that I was objecting to was not how he worked, it was more the rationale behind how he worked, which I thought was overly convoluted.

Stick him on an asteroid, he is obstructed and not engaged, he doesn't loose any more dice.

6 minutes ago, Liggur90 said:

Stick him on an asteroid, he is obstructed and not engaged, he doesn't loose any more dice.

And don't forget to ask your opponent if he could place his squadrons in the right way, that this will work 😁

So he is intended to play as the defense turret of the station.

It kinda a big nerf, as all you need is one squadron with escort and he is greatly weaken. I used to love using rapid launch bays and flight control drop him in a squadron ball with a raider as the last activation. Ig88b hits everything then the raider flak’s anyone who is left. Instead now Ig88b will shoot at one escort and politely stop shooting.