Maybe is a sily one, but…

With Sub-zero Defenses in play which unit attacking your Hoth objective is the first to be destroyed? The first that is focused to strike in general terms or the one that strikes with a blast icon that damages the objective?

Thanks in advance.

The first one focused to strike, period, no conditions. So in your wordings, it is the first one focused to strike in general terms.

Agree with Angus Lee. "Strike against" just means striking as an attacker when that objective is engaged. I've had some fun with that and the Human Replica Droid (make my opponent think that I made a mistake by attacking with only Vader and then dropping the droid to strike first… only works when you're very sure that you'll win the edge).

Side question: does this work for each objective (potentially three units destroyed) or only the first objective engaged in a turn?

doctormungmung said:

There's actually some wiggle room on the card's wording on this one, partially as a result of it being written as a constant ability instead of a Forced Reaction. I'm inclined to say it only works on the first engagement (because the first striker on the 2nd engagement is not the first enemy unit striking against a friendly hoth objective), but I the wording could be interpreted as meaning "each" still. Has anyone submitted this one for rules clarification yet?

"Destroy the first enemy unit to strike against a friendly Hoth objective each turn, after its strike resolves."

I don't believe there's any wiggle room. In each turn, there's only one unit that can be "the first enemy unit to strike against a friendly Hoth objective", regardless of whether it's the first, second or third engagement, or if there are multiple Hoth objectives engaged in a turn. There can still only be one "first unit", and that unit is destroyed. And if there are multiple subzero defenses in play, they both pick on that same unit - ie they don't stack - so you only need one out.

Wording it as a constant makes it easier for people to understand that this only happens once each turn. Wording it as a forced reaction becomes more problematic because it can react multiple times in a turn and the reaction needs to specify that it only reacts the first time each turn. Also, if two subzero defenses were in play, the forced reactions would need to be cancel one of themselves. Problematic. Which is why they went with a constant.

I agree with PBrennan, I didn't see wiggle room on this one either. It's limited to once a turn, and it's hard to argue that a second engagement implies another "first" striker.

Well there's certainly a first unit to strike each engagement so there is affirst unit to strike against each Hoth objective during the turn. The first unit to strike against the 2nd Hoth objective is indeed the first unit to strike against a (certain) Hoth objective that turn. That's why I wish that they had made it a forced reaction with a once per turn limit. To be clear though, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree that it only works in that first engagement.

It would have said "each friendly Hoth objective" if that was the intent. In this template, "a" doesn't mean "each".

I think we're all on the same page though.

We are on the same page, I'm just trying to show why I understand confusion over the wording.

For instance, in the case where you engage a 2nd Hoth objective and the first unit strikes in that engagement:

1) The unit was the first to strike against that objective this turn

2) It was a Hoth objective

I don't think it quite holds water, but it's certainly an understandable misunderstanding.

PBrennan said:

It's not as unambigous as you make it out to be.

In the English language, "a" is an indefinte article. If they wanted "a" to mean that "the first, and only the first, friendly Hoth objective" attacked triggers the ability, which seems to be what you're suggesting, then they should have used the definite article "the" to describe the objective. Likewise, they should have used the adjective "first" to signify which objective it refers to, similar to how I phrase it above. But they don't do that do they?

The limiting adjective "first" is only designating which character gets destroyed, not on which objective the ability triggers. And that is the problem with the current wording.

The fact that they use a definite article and adjective to describe which unit is destroyed (notice how they used the definite article "the" and the adjective "first" to signify which character is destroyed: " the first enemy unit"), implies that by design, they purposely did not want to specify and also did not limit which objective triggers the ability, other than it having to be a Hoth objective.

The way it is written, "a" signifies any Hoth objective. So as Dbmeboy cleverly points out, If Vader attacks your "Echo Base Defense" objective and is the first character attacking that particular Hoth objective this turn, Vader get destroyed. I think we can all agree on that. But, if later in the turn, Emperor Palpatine then attacks your "Hoth Operations" objective, and is the first enemy character attacking that friendly Hoth Objective, why wouldn't he be destroyed too? He meets all the conditions of the enhancement as written. He's the first enemy unit attacking a particular friendly Hoth objective on that turn. I agree with you that had they used the phrase "each friendly Hoth objective" it would be clear and unambigous too. But they didn't specify one way or the other, and that is the problem that is creating confusion for some.

I understand why it could be interpreted that way in the English language. But in this LCG template, as explained to me by the FFG guys (and for this specific card), this is the way to interpret it (and that in this LCG template, there's no wiggle room).

PBrennan said:

Oh it makes sense that it would work that way, because that's much more balanced. I do believe most people are playing it as a once per turn cap regardless of how many Hoth objectives the LS player has out. I was just pointing out that the wording is a little more vague than it appears at first glance.

Tusken Raider can be returnet at hand before subzero destroy it?

Subzero defenses is not an iterrupt and the ataker is active player have the initiative

No. The Subzero constant effect occurs immediately (because it's a constant) and kills the Tusken Raider before its reaction occurs.

So if the two units attacking it have no blast damage icons, they're just looking to beat the lone defender and use the unopposed damage to finish off the objective, the first DS unit that focuses to strike is destroyed, even though the objective itself isn't damaged?

So if the two units attacking it have no blast damage icons, they're just looking to beat the lone defender and use the unopposed damage to finish off the objective, the first DS unit that focuses to strike is destroyed, even though the objective itself isn't damaged?

Correct.