I am betting on unit damage and unopposed bonus damage hitting the dial and target of oportunity not being playable against the dial.

TGO said:

Mind explaining your reasoning? I'm genuinely curious. Maybe something I haven't yet considered.

Becuase Trench Run says that you may engage it as though it were an objective but its not an objective.

When you engage an objective you declare your attackers and they declare their defenders and then you do your edge battle. Just because you can engage it doesnt mean that during your engagement the target of opportunity fate card will damage it. The fate card is looking to deal damage to an engaged objective and Trench Run clearly states that the dial is not an objective. That is enough to eliminate target of opportunity from working, in my opinion.

My reasoning for the unopposed bonus is far less rational. I only think the unopposed bonus will trigger because that is part of an engagement.

TGO said:

yes, but also consider that blast damage and unopposed also specify that they are damage dealt to the "engaged objective," as per the core rules text.

That is a terrible arguement though because if you cant deal damage to the dial through an attack then what is the point of the card.

TGO said:

Okay. Surge has stated that he will eat his cards (albeit dissapointingly without sleeves) if he is ultimately proved wrong. What is your wager, if the ruling goes his way?

Re: your reasoning for unopposed bonus: You state that Target of Opportunity cannot work, because it's "looking to deal damage to an engaged objective and Trench Run clearly states that the dial is not an objective." I will point out that the rules on page 23 state, "If at least one attacking unit has survived, and there are no surviving defenders, this is an unopposed engagement and the attacking player deals one bonus damage to the engaged objective card." So, by your own reasoning, unopposed will not work, because "Trench Run clearly states that the dial is not an objective." Not only that, but Blast Damage won't work either, because the rules on page 21 say "Blast Damage: If the striking player is attacking, he deals an amount of damage to the engaged enemy objective … "

This is the whole crux of this lengthy thread - whether Trench Run allows anything but Blast Damage to the Death Star Dial.

My feeling is that if you choose to engage the Dial as an objective via Trench Run, that anything that happens during that engagement is legal, including Blast Damage, unopposed, and Fate cards (Target of Opportunity) played during the Edge battle. Anything "outside" the engagement cannot target the Dial, as it is not an objective. To paraphrase a popular saying, "What happens in the engagement, stays in the engagement".

TGO said:

Got it in one.

What does Target of Opportunity do?

"deal 1 damage to the engaged objective" (card text)

What does a blast icon do?

"…damage to the engaged enemy objective" (p. 21)

What does unopposed bonus do?

"damage to the engaged objective card" (p. 23)

RAW includes all of those processes I outlined as inherent steps in resolving an engagement. (pp 18-23)

Fight Edge Battle

Resolve Strikes

Reward Unopposed

It makes no distinction, in any way, which would indicate that only resolving strikes, only rewarding unopposed or only fighting the edge battle is what constitutes resolving an engagement. It's an all or nothing affair. The only exception would be that if some aspect of one of those processes specified the need to target an objective. Fortunately, there is no controversy there.

TGO said:

Winner!

I hope SWLCG cards dont taste that bad.

TGO said:

I bet they taste like chicken.

But I still don't expect to find out.

Or are you implying that you're willing to take the same wager?

Be nice if I weren't the only one with skin in the game.

TGO said:

Yes that is exactly why your argument is terrible, because based on what you put forth the card does not work. Because after all the word "objective" appears in the rules for everything we currently have that could even put damage on anything other then units. Striking, unopposed, etc The Trench Run requires a certain stipulation and inference.

The card Trench Run is meant to function. To fuction you must be able to damage it as part of the engagment. So units must be able to strike and deal damage to it, but they only deal damage to the "engaged objective". So for the card to function it has to be treated as the "engaged objective" in one case. Now is there any reason to not think that applies for other engagement effects that state the "engaged objective"? Other then the still not an objective text on the Trench Run, there is no distinction made. If we apply that text to other "engaged objective" effects because they do say "objective" then we are back to the card not working, because resolving strikes also says "objective".

If A=B, and A=C, then B=C as well. All the effects that we are talking about all deal damage to the "engaged objective" as part of the engagement. The Trench Run gives us no indication that A is allowed specifically but B and C aren't. If you apply the still not an objective text to B and C, then you must also apply it to A, as A is not specifcally called out in anyway.

For the Trench Run to work you must treat it, for the duration of the engagement as the "engaged objective". The first part of the Trench Run text supports that, though with unclear turn of phrase. This furthermore does not conflict with the "not an objective" clause as there are a number of effects that specifically call out an "objective" only that still would not apply. Such as Rebel Assault, Home One, enchancements, etc.

Guys seriously let's just let this one rest. It's starting to spin in circles and people are getting personal.

Toqtamish said:

I hope you don't think I'm being "personal." I know I've been a bit hyperbolic at times, like threatening to eat my collection if the rules team goes against RAW in a fundamentally unsound manner. I mean, it's possible at this point that FFG could come up with answers for the FAQ that aren't supported by logic or their own ruleset, or they could change the rules for certain functions altogether, which could render a completely different outcome for any number of circumstances. Given how long it has taken them to release the FAQ, I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be some drastic changes to certain aspects of the rules.

Nonetheless, my opinions, just like everyone else's, when posted to a public forum are subject to scrutiny. If I post something that hasn't any solid evidentiary basis, by all means, deconstruct it, criticize it and send it on its way.

In fairness, we did on the page just before this one entertain a new idea about the word "card" and how it relates to Trench Run via unopposed bonus damage…you know, right before we started regurgitating old arguments.

OK, some things have come to mind as of late, and I'd like a chance to add some, um, stipulations to my little wager since no one else entered an agreement with me, not that I expected anyone else to . Remember when I said if the rules team didn't rule that unopposed bonus damage and target of opportunity deal damage to a DS dial enchanced by Trench Run, I would eat my SW:TCG collection? I'm sure you do.

Well, I'd like to add that my wager depends on rulings based on the rules as written, and not the rules team making up fundamentally different rules or definitions. If the rules team decides to completely change what it means to target something or decide that they want to restructure a process significantly by saying something like declaring attackers or the edge battle are no longer considered part of an engagement, or if they make something like a simple proclamation without any evidentiary or logical basis, I need a chance at a do-over.

I'm not saying anything like that is going to happen, but the more I go over the rules in general, the less confident I am that the rules team had a solid grasp of them at all upon game release. Seems like they may have just laid out some general guidelines with the expectation of significantly altering and further clarifying the process as they went along. RAW seems to not work well or make much sense for quite a few circumstances, particularly when it comes to timing and the playing of cards.

So what do you think? Should my fate hinge on potentially arbitrary or illogical circumstances? I'll let you all be the judge, jury and… *gulp*… executioner.

Surge1000 said:

That is so weak. lol.

I really wanted to hear how your cards tasted.

TGO said:

I get what you're saying, and I'm totally prepared to follow through if necessary. That's why I asked for input.

I just think it would kind of suck to do so based on a fundamental rule change or addition of a ruleset. It's like if I said I'd eat a football if the 49ers won the game with a field goal with the score at 34 - 31 in the Ravens' favor, but then the refs came out and said, "We change our minds. This time, field goals are worth 4 points."

Having just picked up this game, I was honestly shocked to see this thread in the rules questions, as it seemed inherently obvious that anything that could damage an objective (during the process of engagement) would damage the Death Star dial while you had it engage with Trench Run. (After all, a bunch of Y-Wings and X-Wings lobbing bombs seems pretty accurate to what we saw in the movie).

Having read the arguments, my position stands. I played the game already with the belief that while you could not treat the Death Star as an objective, there was nothing preventing you from using damaging abilities against it while in the process of engaging it, because if you couldn't, then what's the point? There's no distinction between any of the methods of damaging the Death Star once you've engaged it, and all of these cards are used within the confines of an engagement (especially the edge battle).

Whatever the intent may have been for the card, I fail to see any rule or restriction or wording on the card itself that prevents it from taking damage from Fate Cards or Unopposed Damage during the engagement. Those are inherent qualities to any engagement.

17th Knight said:

Or so logic would dictate. Those of us who are prone to using only RAW and the card text from Trench Run seem to agree. RAI is difficult to predict, however, but opinions abound. Nonetheless, unless the rules team fundamentally alters or redefines the structure of certain phases or card types, or until FFG declares otherwise by some edict without any logical or evidentiary basis, I really can't bring myself to play Trench Run any other way, edge battle and recycling during the draw phase notwithstanding.

@Surge1000:
I would never expect you to actually eat your collection and would not anyone else to expect the same unless they were willing to join you.

[Aside: In scrolling through these pages, it's very funny to see DailyRich and dbmeboy going at it because it looks like Gandalf having a conversation with himself. If you look at the avatars, I mean.]

Budgernaut said:

Only because they don't have a good Smeagol/Gollum avatar available for us ;-)

From the official FAQ: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Star-Wars-LCG/support/FAQ/SWC_FAQ_ENG_v1.0_HighRes.pdf

" When Trench Run (Core 0150) is in play, which effects can and cannot interact with the Death Star dial as an objective?

Surge, how is the cards shake ?

It's called a joke dmeboy. I never actually expected him to eat his cards. Maybe a few spare ones.

All the FAQ did was support exactly what the rules say and the card state. I don't feel they changed anything. Glad to see I was right on the various issues. Guess playing multiple card games and LCGs helps in that regard.

Glad this dead horse can finally be put to rest.

dbmeboy said:

Actually, he made his bet BEFORE he made the other post AND he only made the other post because of some outside information that was given to him.

So, I am eagerly awaiting the youtube video. lol.