So I hate to ask this because I feel like it's a RAW vs RAI situation but here goes. Can a ship (let's say Braylen with an ion cannon) that is locked by Midnight use the ion cannon to deal damage to Midnight?

Dealing damage with an ion cannon requires spending a result (not canceling). The RRG is very clear that spending a result (again not canceling) is a type of dice modification. Also, it doesn't matter that the result isn't spent during the modify dice step, it still counts as a dice modification. Now because Midnight stops dice modification then arguably Braylen would not be allowed to spend the necessary result to do 1 damage with ion cannon.

Does the rest of ion cannon still trigger then? Does the result that was not spent now deal an ion token because it remains behind as an uncanceled result? This would mean that it's impossible for Braylen to deal damage to Midnight while using the ion cannon but he would be able to ion her that much more easily because he would only need to get 1 hit/crit through instead of the normal 2.

Thoughts? Is this a RAW vs RAI situation or is it just another necessary consequence of Midnight's ability in the same way that she stops HLC shots from converting crits to hits?

Changing what type of damage a hit does is not modifying dice. If it where 1.0 where cards like that had the wording of cancelling dice you would have an argument but that's not good the cards are worded in 2.0

Just now, mcgreag said:

Changing what type of damage a hit does is not modifying dice. If it where 1.0 where cards like that had the wording of cancelling dice you would have an argument but that's not good the cards are worded in 2.0

You're right that changing the type of damage is not a modification which is why I say that Midnight would still be dealt ion tokens. However, the ion cannon upgrade clearly says "spend 1 [hit] or [crit] result to cause the defender to suffer 1 [hit] damage". It doesn't say "the first uncancelled [hit] or [crit] result deals 1 [hit] damage as normal". Normal attacks don't require you to spend results to deal damage, they simply do. Ion cannon and ion cannon turret require you to spend a result in order to damage, they are different than other attacks.

Is spending a hit or crit result a requirement to deal ion tokens?

11 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Is spending a hit or crit result a requirement to deal ion tokens?

No. Spending a result is only a requirement for dealing a damage.

@MadTownXWing , I think your explanation is sound.

• RE: DAMAGE... If Midnight has the Ion Cannon ship locked, then its dice can't be modified, including spending results. As the Ion Cannon has the effect of spending (i.e. modifying) a hit/crit to deal 1 damage, that effect would not be able to be placed into the ability queue.
• RE: ION... Subsequently, there would be one extra hit/crit result in the dice pool, to enact the second part of the Ion Cannon effect. As replacement effects are not modifications, then instead of suffering damage, Midnight would suffer ion tokens.

It's an artefact of the way that Ion cannons are written, not a necessity of it. They could have said 'if this attack hits, cancel 1 [hit or crit] result and deal 1 damage' and then the ion stuff, and Midnight wouldn't block it.

FFG, technical writer, whinge, etc

Is it still considered a dice mod if it happens outside of the modify dice step?

EDIT - answered my own question (it does!)

I went over the RR... and as written, Midnight cannot take damage from an ION cannon/turret. It would just be heavily ionned.

Under DEFENDER:

"That ship remains the defender until after all “after attacking” and “after defending” abilities have resolved during the Aftermath step."

16 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It's an artefact of the way that Ion cannons are written, not a necessity of it. They could have said 'if this attack hits, cancel 1 [hit or crit] result and deal 1 damage' and then the ion stuff, and Midnight wouldn't block it.

FFG, technical writer, whinge, etc

I figured that is the case but I wonder if they specifically chose to require the "spending" of a result rather than "cancelling" a result for some other reason.

16 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It's an artefact of the way that Ion cannons are written, not a necessity of it. They could have said 'if this attack hits, cancel 1 [hit or crit] result and deal 1 damage' and then the ion stuff, and Midnight wouldn't block it.

FFG, technical writer, whinge, etc

Another possible wording would be "The first hit/crit result suffered by the defender deals damage normally, all other hit/crit results inflict Ion tokens instead of damage."

That does open the possibility of an Ion weapon dealing a Crit, but only if all results are crits (and that doesn't seem unfair).

Like, if it were me I'd just keyword it, something like 'Hit: [hit], ion token, ion token, ion token' etc - then you can expand that in the rules to say 'whent his attack hits, the defender takes the listed results in order, for each remaining hit' or whatever.

Sounds like they'll just need to re-word the Ion Cannon if this isn't the effect they were going for.

Lol so he takes an extra ion? Get rekt!

1 hour ago, Vectivus333 said:

Sounds like they'll just need to re-word the Ion Cannon if this isn't the effect they were going for.

Personally I don't think this was the effect that they were going for but I don't think they'll errata ion cannon. It seems like they've been extremely hesitant to errata anything so my guess is that they'll just bump up Midnight's cost if they feel like this is a significant enough interaction.

Honestly, it's probably a wash points-wise given that Midnight is in a 3-agility small-base ship.

Yeah, Midnight is if anything MORE vulnerable to ion cannons because of this. Most high agility ships are defended from them by mostly only ever taking a single hit from a 3 die attack. Midnight gets ioned by that single hit.

This would also affect anything using an ion attack with Blinded Pilot so it isn't just isolated to Midnight.

Oh lol yes it would.

I'm surprised it's taken this long to notice, but then, I'd just kind fo assumed that ion cannons work as intended, not as written, until now.

FFG, technical writer, whinge etc.

I don't even have the energy to care any more. They're not going to stop screwing up unless we stop buying product.

Has anyone considered that it might just deal all normal damage to midnight? If you can’t spend a result, none of the effect goes off?

1 hour ago, Rettere said:

Has anyone considered that it might just deal all normal damage to midnight? If you can’t spend a result, none of the effect goes off?

it seems difficult to argue that "all remaining (hit)/(crit) results inflict ion tokens instead of damage" can be considered a dice modification. spending results is clearly a dice modification, though.

Mind if i throw another monkey wrench into the mix?

Its also *possible* that the intent of ion cannon's "all remaining results" are to be 'spent' and not simply replacement effect, if the spend is carried over (in much the same way that some are saying BB-8's "Red" difficulty carries over to both the Barrel Roll and boost.

Unlikely? Sure. But wanted to toss in that possibility.

10 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Mind if i throw another monkey wrench into the mix?

Its also *possible* that the intent of ion cannon's "all remaining results" are to be 'spent' and not simply replacement effect, if the spend is carried over (in much the same way that some are saying BB-8's "Red" difficulty carries over to both the Barrel Roll and boost.

Unlikely? Sure. But wanted to toss in that possibility.

I think it's inherently different from the BB-8 controversy because of the separate sentences. The first sentence in ion cannon tells you to spend the first result. I find it difficult to rationally carry over "spend" from one sentence to another.

I’m not suggesting that the second sentence requires spending results. I’m asking if we even should execute the second sentence if the first sentence fails.

A ship firing an ICT while having the "Blinded Pilot" crit - does this hits the same rules edge case too?

1 hour ago, Rettere said:

I’m not suggesting that the second sentence requires spending results. I’m asking if we even should execute the second sentence if the first sentence fails.

This is a valid question given the general uncertainty that X-wing's inconsistent technical writing fosters, but I do not believe this is the case because there is no dependency clause. If we ignore the full first sentence based on the inability to spend a result it still leaves the second sentence useable:

̶I̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶h̶i̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶1̶ ̶[̶h̶i̶t̶]̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶[̶c̶r̶i̶t̶]̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶u̶l̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶ ̶1̶ ̶[̶h̶i̶t̶]̶ ̶d̶a̶m̶a̶g̶e̶.̶ All remaining [hit] / [crit] results inflict ion tokens instead of damage.

Even in the absence of a specific trigger this clause only has one available point to apply it's effect, that being during the Deal Damage step.

If the second sentence started with "Then..." or "If you do..." I would 100% say that the second sentence cannot apply ion tokens without spending that first result.