Played my first 2 games last night and we had a question that I'm surprised hasn't been brought up already here or in the FAQ. Unless I just missed it. The attack table die results are all number ranges not a 'greater than a certain number'. So if I attack a heavy raider it only hits on a 7-8. If taken literally, if I play strategic planning (tactics skill card) and then roll an 8, my die result is a 10 which would be a miss since it isn't in the hit range of 7-8. That seems wrong, but I couldn't find anything saying that isn't how it should work. Makes Strategic Planning a pretty bad card if it indeed works that way.

Same concept also would apply to the rules about Structural Damage to a basestart which says "

When drawn, this token is placed on the basestar. While it remains, all attacks against the basestar gain +2 to their die rolls."

Anyone see anything in the rules or FAQ besides common sense which makes this stuff work differently?

Thanks in advance.

I haven't seen anything offical , but my vote is tha *** is just " poorly worded".

My group never even questioned this. Add plus two and the max result you can have is 8 for a die roll.

My group had the same question, and we just agreed that 8 is the max you can have for a dice roll. So, say if you rolled a 7 with the +2 to dice roll card out, the number would technically be 9, but you still just add up the number to 8.

But you're right...if the card really does add +2 to the dice roll (even if it equals a number over 8), that makes it a card entirely controlled by luck.

Well, considering the highest result available is an eight, the +2 should not change that, and so just add the result to a maximum of eight and I think you are following the spirit of the text.

If you add up to 9 or 10, then the card is basically worthless, as all it does is mean you hit on 5 and 6 instead of 7 and 8. Which is the same odds. So you basically don't change anything with the card. Anything that does nothing is a mistake in the game.

So I think that common sense is more than sufficient in this case.

Before today, I have never ever considered this interpretation of the rules. I believe common sense can extend the rulebook here.