Trench Run

By Tenrousei, in Star Wars: The Card Game - Rules Questions

Posted at

DailyRich said:

Because the card tells you it can be engaged like an objective. What's the point of engaging an objective if not to do blast damage to it?

That's not really a rules point. However, if we are willing to accept that blast damage icons (which by rules only damage the engaged objective) work with Trench Run, then what is our grounds for saying that other ways that damage the engaged objective do not? We're arbitrarily deciding that one thing that works with engaged objectives works with Trench Run but other things don't. Why not pick only Target of Opportunity to work? Just as arbitrary.

Posted at

My take would be that the target icons are tactical for the purpose of the battle or "engagement". The fate cards are opperational used for strategic advantage or "enhancement". Or, a total twist of thinking…perhaps the text on the card "it is not an objective" is mearly informational reminding the players that the Death Star dial is not normally an objective, however with the enhancement it now becomes one. Using that logic, ALL forms of damage would be valid as the Death Star is now an engaged objective. Imagine all the discussion on this card/rule would disapper if the word "normally" had been included onthe card.

Posted at

just discard the **** card and get over it. It does have 2 edge icons!!! xP

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

Because the card tells you it can be engaged like an objective. What's the point of engaging an objective if not to do blast damage to it?

That's not really a rules point. However, if we are willing to accept that blast damage icons (which by rules only damage the engaged objective) work with Trench Run, then what is our grounds for saying that other ways that damage the engaged objective do not? We're arbitrarily deciding that one thing that works with engaged objectives works with Trench Run but other things don't. Why not pick only Target of Opportunity to work? Just as arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. The card is creating an exception to the rules. It tells you that you can go through the engagement process on the dial like it's an objective, but for all other purposes, it is not an objective. Just because you're allowed to do blast damage to it doesn't mean it has to be allowed to be damaged in all the other ways an objective can be damaged.

People seem so obsessed with "by the rules" when those very rules state that there are cards that will change these rules, and in those cases, the cards take precedence.

Posted at
DailyRich said:

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

Because the card tells you it can be engaged like an objective. What's the point of engaging an objective if not to do blast damage to it?

That's not really a rules point. However, if we are willing to accept that blast damage icons (which by rules only damage the engaged objective) work with Trench Run, then what is our grounds for saying that other ways that damage the engaged objective do not? We're arbitrarily deciding that one thing that works with engaged objectives works with Trench Run but other things don't. Why not pick only Target of Opportunity to work? Just as arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. The card is creating an exception to the rules. It tells you that you can go through the engagement process on the dial like it's an objective, but for all other purposes, it is not an objective. Just because you're allowed to do blast damage to it doesn't mean it has to be allowed to be damaged in all the other ways an objective can be damaged.

People seem so obsessed with "by the rules" when those very rules state that there are cards that will change these rules, and in those cases, the cards take precedence.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

Because the card tells you it can be engaged like an objective. What's the point of engaging an objective if not to do blast damage to it?

That's not really a rules point. However, if we are willing to accept that blast damage icons (which by rules only damage the engaged objective) work with Trench Run, then what is our grounds for saying that other ways that damage the engaged objective do not? We're arbitrarily deciding that one thing that works with engaged objectives works with Trench Run but other things don't. Why not pick only Target of Opportunity to work? Just as arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. The card is creating an exception to the rules. It tells you that you can go through the engagement process on the dial like it's an objective, but for all other purposes, it is not an objective. Just because you're allowed to do blast damage to it doesn't mean it has to be allowed to be damaged in all the other ways an objective can be damaged.

People seem so obsessed with "by the rules" when those very rules state that there are cards that will change these rules, and in those cases, the cards take precedence.

It is arbitrary because the card doesn't make any distinction in how damage can be dealt to the dial. The card only tells us that it can be engaged like an objective. Now, we have 3 different things, all of which (by rule or card text) say that they damage the engaged objective. To pick one of those to work and exclude the others is completely arbitrary unless you can find some difference between them in the rules or on the card itself.

I agree with you, dbmeboy, but just to play devil's advocate, technically unopposed damage doesn't work on a strict rules-as-written analysis because unlike Target of Opportunity and blast damage, unopposed says "engaged objective card ." Since the dial is not a card, and Trench Run does not turn it into a card, we're left with Target of Opportunity and blast damage dealing damage to the Death Star dial. Do I think that's a ludicrous point? Yes, and I doubt that was intended by the developers, but as such is it written.

As for Target of Opportunity not working, this one really throws me. People keep saying that blast damage should work because it's inherently tied to engaging an objective, but I say so is Target of Opportunity. Fate cards cannot be used outside of an engagement, so Target of Opportunity is just as tied to engagements as blast damage is.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

dbmeboy said:

DailyRich said:

Because the card tells you it can be engaged like an objective. What's the point of engaging an objective if not to do blast damage to it?

That's not really a rules point. However, if we are willing to accept that blast damage icons (which by rules only damage the engaged objective) work with Trench Run, then what is our grounds for saying that other ways that damage the engaged objective do not? We're arbitrarily deciding that one thing that works with engaged objectives works with Trench Run but other things don't. Why not pick only Target of Opportunity to work? Just as arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. The card is creating an exception to the rules. It tells you that you can go through the engagement process on the dial like it's an objective, but for all other purposes, it is not an objective. Just because you're allowed to do blast damage to it doesn't mean it has to be allowed to be damaged in all the other ways an objective can be damaged.

People seem so obsessed with "by the rules" when those very rules state that there are cards that will change these rules, and in those cases, the cards take precedence.

It is arbitrary because the card doesn't make any distinction in how damage can be dealt to the dial. The card only tells us that it can be engaged like an objective. Now, we have 3 different things, all of which (by rule or card text) say that they damage the engaged objective. To pick one of those to work and exclude the others is completely arbitrary unless you can find some difference between them in the rules or on the card itself.

I don't think it's an arbitrary distinction between "engage like an objective" and "an engaged objective." It's the difference between "I am dressed like a bird" and "I am a bird". I might have feathers all over me, but I ain't flying.

And it's not a matter of picking one way to damage it and ignoring the rest. "Engage like an objective" is clearly saying you resolve an engagement against it. Then it clarifies that with "it is not an objective." So you can damage it via an engagement, but not as an engaged objective. It's not an all or nothing proposiiton.

Posted at

You say you can damage it via engagement, but all 3 methods are ways to damage during engagements. You say you cannot damage it as the engaged objective, but that's exactly what blast damage icons do so if you can't damage it as the engaged objective then they don't work either.

Posted at

Budgernaut said:

I agree with you, dbmeboy, but just to play devil's advocate, technically unopposed damage doesn't work on a strict rules-as-written analysis because unlike Target of Opportunity and blast damage, unopposed says "engaged objective card ." Since the dial is not a card, and Trench Run does not turn it into a card, we're left with Target of Opportunity and blast damage dealing damage to the Death Star dial. Do I think that's a ludicrous point? Yes, and I doubt that was intended by the developers, but as such is it written.

As for Target of Opportunity not working, this one really throws me. People keep saying that blast damage should work because it's inherently tied to engaging an objective, but I say so is Target of Opportunity. Fate cards cannot be used outside of an engagement, so Target of Opportunity is just as tied to engagements as blast damage is.

I saw the unopposed "engaged objective card" thing (and it was really the only difference I could find behind the 3 methods as well), but I decided to ignore it not due to my assumption of the design intent, but because the "card" vs "not-a-card" issue comes up with all 3 methods. Specifically, when dealing damage. The rules specify that cards that are dealt damage receive damage tokens. So we're already having to treat the DS Dial as a card if we're putting damage tokens on it at all. Once again a silly point, but both silly points probably due to poor wording in the rules and on the card…

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

Budgernaut said:

I agree with you, dbmeboy, but just to play devil's advocate, technically unopposed damage doesn't work on a strict rules-as-written analysis because unlike Target of Opportunity and blast damage, unopposed says "engaged objective card ." Since the dial is not a card, and Trench Run does not turn it into a card, we're left with Target of Opportunity and blast damage dealing damage to the Death Star dial. Do I think that's a ludicrous point? Yes, and I doubt that was intended by the developers, but as such is it written.

As for Target of Opportunity not working, this one really throws me. People keep saying that blast damage should work because it's inherently tied to engaging an objective, but I say so is Target of Opportunity. Fate cards cannot be used outside of an engagement, so Target of Opportunity is just as tied to engagements as blast damage is.

I saw the unopposed "engaged objective card" thing (and it was really the only difference I could find behind the 3 methods as well), but I decided to ignore it not due to my assumption of the design intent, but because the "card" vs "not-a-card" issue comes up with all 3 methods. Specifically, when dealing damage. The rules specify that cards that are dealt damage receive damage tokens. So we're already having to treat the DS Dial as a card if we're putting damage tokens on it at all. Once again a silly point, but both silly points probably due to poor wording in the rules and on the card…

Ah, well, I feel better about ignoringit then.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

You say you can damage it via engagement, but all 3 methods are ways to damage during engagements. You say you cannot damage it as the engaged objective, but that's exactly what blast damage icons do so if you can't damage it as the engaged objective then they don't work either.

You seem unwilling or unable to separate dealing damage with blast icons from any other kind of damage. They're separate things. Just because the card allows one thing to happen doesn't mean it allows ALL things to happen. Trench Run clearly states you can engage the dial like an objective, then goes out of its way to emphasize this does not make the dial an objective. If you're engaging an ordinary objective, and you do nothing else but follow the engagement rules -- engaging it like an objective -- what happens? Blast icons do damage. Same with the dial. But the extra stipulation makes it plain that it is not an objective for any other purpose. You can attack it, but you can't play cards on it. Those two ideas are not inextricably linked; the card makes that very point.

And now we're back to the same old round and round that I got tired of weeks ago, so I'll leave off.

Posted at
DailyRich said:

dbmeboy said:

You say you can damage it via engagement, but all 3 methods are ways to damage during engagements. You say you cannot damage it as the engaged objective, but that's exactly what blast damage icons do so if you can't damage it as the engaged objective then they don't work either.

You seem unwilling or unable to separate dealing damage with blast icons from any other kind of damage. They're separate things. Just because the card allows one thing to happen doesn't mean it allows ALL things to happen. Trench Run clearly states you can engage the dial like an objective, then goes out of its way to emphasize this does not make the dial an objective. If you're engaging an ordinary objective, and you do nothing else but follow the engagement rules -- engaging it like an objective -- what happens? Blast icons do damage. Same with the dial. But the extra stipulation makes it plain that it is not an objective for any other purpose. You can attack it, but you can't play cards on it. Those two ideas are not inextricably linked; the card makes that very point.

And now we're back to the same old round and round that I got tired of weeks ago, so I'll leave off.

Posted at
Budgernaut said:

dbmeboy said:

Budgernaut said:

I agree with you, dbmeboy, but just to play devil's advocate, technically unopposed damage doesn't work on a strict rules-as-written analysis because unlike Target of Opportunity and blast damage, unopposed says "engaged objective card ." Since the dial is not a card, and Trench Run does not turn it into a card, we're left with Target of Opportunity and blast damage dealing damage to the Death Star dial. Do I think that's a ludicrous point? Yes, and I doubt that was intended by the developers, but as such is it written.

As for Target of Opportunity not working, this one really throws me. People keep saying that blast damage should work because it's inherently tied to engaging an objective, but I say so is Target of Opportunity. Fate cards cannot be used outside of an engagement, so Target of Opportunity is just as tied to engagements as blast damage is.

I saw the unopposed "engaged objective card" thing (and it was really the only difference I could find behind the 3 methods as well), but I decided to ignore it not due to my assumption of the design intent, but because the "card" vs "not-a-card" issue comes up with all 3 methods. Specifically, when dealing damage. The rules specify that cards that are dealt damage receive damage tokens. So we're already having to treat the DS Dial as a card if we're putting damage tokens on it at all. Once again a silly point, but both silly points probably due to poor wording in the rules and on the card…

Ah, well, I feel better about ignoringit then.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility of a difference between the different ways of dealing damage, but I've yet to see anyone actually point out a difference between blast damage icons, the unopposed bonus, and Target of Opportunity. Trench Run itself does not specify any of them, it just tells us that we can engage like an objective. If you follow the normal engagement rules, as you use as an example, you would still resolve Fate cards and deal the unopposed bonus. All 3 of those methods of dealing damage are linked to engaging an objective. Basically, your "What happens? Blast icons do damage," example is flawed because what happens is that Target of Opportunity does damage to the engaged objective, blast damage icons do damage to the engaged objective, and the unopposed bonus does damage to the engaged objective. All of those things are part of the normal engagement process and use the same wording.

I don't think the argument can be presented any more clearly than that. The rules simply don't support the notion that damage from unopposed bonus and Target of Opportunity are somehow distinctly separate from blast icon damage in relation to an engagement. They fundamentally do the same thing as part of the same process; damage the engaged objective as a component of engagement resolution, each without necessarily targeting an objective.

If FFG rules othewise, I will eat my entire collection of SW:TCG cards, two core sets, and post a video on Youtube.

Posted at

Surge1000 said:

If FFG rules othewise, I will eat my entire collection of SW:TCG cards, two core sets, and post a video on Youtube.

Sleeves and all???

Posted at

Since the designers are not willing to answer this question before they release a FAQ it is obvious that the card right now without some change to the card text or some additions to the rules is not working as it was intended. From a strict rules lawyering standpoint it is not working at all. You can now fight over how it was intended to be (which is pretty much guessing and nothing much else) or you pick one of the interpretations given in this thread that suits both players of a match before you start playing until the FAQ makes one of all those interpretations the official one.

Posted at

mischraum.de said:

Since the designers are not willing to answer this question before they release a FAQ it is obvious that the card right now without some change to the card text or some additions to the rules is not working as it was intended. From a strict rules lawyering standpoint it is not working at all. You can now fight over how it was intended to be (which is pretty much guessing and nothing much else) or you pick one of the interpretations given in this thread that suits both players of a match before you start playing until the FAQ makes one of all those interpretations the official one.

Based on what the designers reportedly advised playtesters, they have a solid idea about how they intend Trench Run to work. I suspect their reluctance to give individual responses is based upon wanting to ensure that whatever ruling they make is consistent with the rest of the rules for engagements, targeting, etc. Even what may seemingly be the most subtle wording in a response could yield unintended consequences in other aspects of the game. As far as I know, Nate French has given but one response to any issue, and that was via Facebook. Nonetheless, I do wish they'd issue a response to these more pressing issues sooner rather than later.

And no, I won't eat the sleeves. Well, the Slave Leia sleeves are somewhat enticing, but I didn't buy those. My original wager was to eat my collection of cards [only] if I'm wrong about the ruling, and I'm sticking to it.

Posted at

Surge1000 said:

If FFG rules othewise, I will eat my entire collection of SW:TCG cards, two core sets, and post a video on Youtube.

While I shall drink the blood of the fallen like the finest wine!*

*Translation: Play the card however FFG says to because, eh, it's a game.

Posted at

Surge1000 said:

dbmeboy said:

I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility of a difference between the different ways of dealing damage, but I've yet to see anyone actually point out a difference between blast damage icons, the unopposed bonus, and Target of Opportunity. Trench Run itself does not specify any of them, it just tells us that we can engage like an objective. If you follow the normal engagement rules, as you use as an example, you would still resolve Fate cards and deal the unopposed bonus. All 3 of those methods of dealing damage are linked to engaging an objective. Basically, your "What happens? Blast icons do damage," example is flawed because what happens is that Target of Opportunity does damage to the engaged objective, blast damage icons do damage to the engaged objective, and the unopposed bonus does damage to the engaged objective. All of those things are part of the normal engagement process and use the same wording.

I don't think the argument can be presented any more clearly than that. The rules simply don't support the notion that damage from unopposed bonus and Target of Opportunity are somehow distinctly separate from blast icon damage in relation to an engagement. They fundamentally do the same thing as part of the same process; damage the engaged objective as a component of engagement resolution, each without necessarily targeting an objective.

If FFG rules othewise, I will eat my entire collection of SW:TCG cards, two core sets, and post a video on Youtube.

Surge1000 said:

dbmeboy said:

I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility of a difference between the different ways of dealing damage, but I've yet to see anyone actually point out a difference between blast damage icons, the unopposed bonus, and Target of Opportunity. Trench Run itself does not specify any of them, it just tells us that we can engage like an objective. If you follow the normal engagement rules, as you use as an example, you would still resolve Fate cards and deal the unopposed bonus. All 3 of those methods of dealing damage are linked to engaging an objective. Basically, your "What happens? Blast icons do damage," example is flawed because what happens is that Target of Opportunity does damage to the engaged objective, blast damage icons do damage to the engaged objective, and the unopposed bonus does damage to the engaged objective. All of those things are part of the normal engagement process and use the same wording.

I don't think the argument can be presented any more clearly than that. The rules simply don't support the notion that damage from unopposed bonus and Target of Opportunity are somehow distinctly separate from blast icon damage in relation to an engagement. They fundamentally do the same thing as part of the same process; damage the engaged objective as a component of engagement resolution, each without necessarily targeting an objective.

If FFG rules othewise, I will eat my entire collection of SW:TCG cards, two core sets, and post a video on Youtube.

Can we get a video of the collection being eaten?

Posted at

TGO said:

Can we get a video of the collection being eaten?

Yes sir. Said I'd post it on Youtube. I value integrity over just about anything else, so you can take me at my word. I don't think it will come to that, but if it does, I'm thinking I'll have to make some sort of SW: TCG smoothie.

You hear me Nate French? ***dangles SW: TCG collection over blender***

:)

Posted at

Surge1000 said:

TGO said:

Can we get a video of the collection being eaten?

Yes sir. Said I'd post it on Youtube. I value integrity over just about anything else, so you can take me at my word. I don't think it will come to that, but if it does, I'm thinking I'll have to make some sort of SW: TCG smoothie.

You hear me Nate French? ***dangles SW: TCG collection over blender***

:)

Just so I understand your position.

You think the unopposed damage bonus and target of opportunity will affect the DS dial in addition to unit damage?

Posted at

TGO said:

Just so I understand your position.

You think the unopposed damage bonus and target of opportunity will affect the DS dial in addition to unit damage?

That is my interpretation, yes. I believe they are all components of an engagement that deal damage to the engaged objective without any way to discern that one should affect the DS dial while the others should not. Blast icons simply represent a rule (If the striking player is attacking, he deals an amount of damage to the engaged enemy objective…p21). Essentially, I don't think the rules support the notion that resolving an engagement consists of resolving blast icons only. If unopposed bonus damage and target of opportunity do not affect the DS dial, neither should blast icons.

Posted at

Keep in mind that there is the entirely separate issue of the unopposed bonus doing damage to the engaged objective card instead of the engaged objective. Granted the general damage rules also talk about cards so it probably won't be an issue, but there's a chance that the unopposed bonus "card" actually meant something.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

Keep in mind that there is the entirely separate issue of the unopposed bonus doing damage to the engaged objective card instead of the engaged objective. Granted the general damage rules also talk about cards so it probably won't be an issue, but there's a chance that the unopposed bonus "card" actually meant something.

Possibly to my own detriment, I simply can't see the "card" issue coming into play at all. I think that argument is a red herring. As you point out, objective and objective card are used interchangeably throughout various parts of the rules.

Case in point: page 18, Resolving an engagement step 1, Declare objective -- "The active player declares which one of his enemy's current objective cards he will engage." The text of Trench Run says: "You may engage the Death Star dial as though it were a dark side objective (it is not an objective)." Notice it doesn't say: as though it were a dark side objective card . So the same argument could be made that Trench Run only allows for engaging the DS dial as though it were a dark side objective, but not as though it were a dark side objective card. Therefore, it wouldn't qualify for step 1 of resolving an engagement. If the word "card" is intended to be restrictive in step 6 of resolving an engagement, would it not also be restrictive in step 1 of the engagement? The Golden Rule (the text on Trench Run) doesn't offer any means of distinction. You must accept that with Trench Run you can engage the DS dial as though it were an enemy objective card (without it being an objective), otherwise you can not even get past step 1 of engagement resolution. It follows then that you would also damage the DS dial as though it were an enemy objective card (without it being an objective) unless you contend that Trench Run allows you only to engage the DS dial but NOT complete any steps of engagement other than declaring the engagement.

Granted, stranger things have happened, but I won't be dusting off the ol' blender just yet.

sonreir

Posted at

Once again, I completely agree with you. I would be somewhat surprised if the FAQ came out and disallowed the unopposed bonus. I don't see it as completely out of the question, but I do see it as unlikely.