I'm starting to think the reason you're so adamant about the game being simple is that you simply can't keep up with the discussion.

So I guess I'm off the Christmas card list now? My prior analysis of you was spot on. Bye, Eugene.

I'm starting to think the reason you're so adamant about the game being simple is that you simply can't keep up with the discussion.

So I guess I'm off the Christmas card list now? My prior analysis of you was spot on. Bye, Eugene.

I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure you're not the only one.

Once again another case of a great FFG game that will require an errata/FAQ about the size of the games rulebook.

Only because we have people attempting rules lawyering on a Warhammer 40k scale.

Someone on BGG was kind enough to share a recent clarification from James Kniffen in response to a request for a clarification regarding the Heavy Laser Cannon. It's still a bit unclear, but seems to be pointing strongly towards being able to keep critical hits from rerolls.

In other words, it looks like a reroll is not actually rolling dice - it's a modification, but not a roll. Let that sink in a bit, and then ask yourself if the strict wording being considered here is any stranger than that.

So yeah, call it rules lawyering if you want. Honestly, if Hothie thinks pursuing this 1 in 32 chance to deny movement (which would actually often be good) and deny an action (which can be done far easier and without requiring his own action) is an effective exploit, he's a pretty sucky rules lawyer.

Someone on BGG was kind enough to share a recent clarification from James Kniffen in response to a request for a clarification regarding the Heavy Laser Cannon. It's still a bit unclear, but seems to be pointing strongly towards being able to keep critical hits from rerolls.

In other words, it looks like a reroll is not actually rolling dice - it's a modification, but not a roll. Let that sink in a bit, and then ask yourself if the strict wording being considered here is any stranger than that.

So yeah, call it rules lawyering if you want. Honestly, if Hothie thinks pursuing this 1 in 32 chance to deny movement (which would actually often be good) and deny an action (which can be done far easier and without requiring his own action) is an effective exploit, he's a pretty sucky rules lawyer.

Ummm, I wasn't talking about Hothie when I referenced rules lawyering. I was talking about you and your demanding of people backing up their statements about this situation with the rule book when you refuse to do the same on this thread defending your position.

I sorry but I think I

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this and wait for the FAQ. My opinion is that you and Hothie are over thinking this situation and making the card resolution through Saboteur overly complex. I believe in the KISS principal and am applying it to the way I believe Saboteur interacts with the damage cards. I'd like to see the opinions of other players on this subject.

I'm sorry but to me it sounds like you both (Zathras and Buhallin) agree on how it should be ruled; just not on the explanation.

Which, btw, seems to make the most sense. The card is flipped, and for whatever reason you guys agree to it is considered activated this turn. So if it's effects are immediate then they happen now; but as in the case of "Damaged Cockpit" they will take place next turn.

Buhallin is right that there is no mechanism to track which turn which damage was dealt especially when the card says choose a random face down card. zathras is correct is pointing out applying this effect as if the card was just dealt simplifies everything.

So shouldn't you agree to agree even if it is for different reasons?

Where the disagreement is at is Buhallin thinks that the Damaged Cockpit critical should be activated immediately if it's on a face down card that was assigned to the target on a previous turn. I, and the majority of the other posters in this thread judging by the responses, think that the critical hit should be treated as if the target ship receives the crit the moment the card is turned over and will become active on the next turn as stated on the Damaged Cockpit card.

Where the disagreement is at is Buhallin thinks that the Damaged Cockpit critical should be activated immediately if it's on a face down card that was assigned to the target on a previous turn. I, and the majority of the other posters in this thread judging by the responses, think that the critical hit should be treated as if the target ship receives the crit the moment the card is turned over and will become active on the next turn as stated on the Damaged Cockpit card.

My bad...

Where the disagreement is at is Buhallin thinks that the Damaged Cockpit critical should be activated immediately if it's on a face down card that was assigned to the target on a previous turn. I, and the majority of the other posters in this thread judging by the responses, think that the critical hit should be treated as if the target ship receives the crit the moment the card is turned over and will become active on the next turn as stated on the Damaged Cockpit card.

My bad...

Don't worry about it.

Ummm, I wasn't talking about Hothie when I referenced rules lawyering. I was talking about you and your demanding of people backing up their statements about this situation with the rule book when you refuse to do the same on this thread defending your position.

I'm also not entirely sure how "This may be the strict wording but I believe we should play it differently" makes me a rules lawyer. Perhaps we simply have different definitions for the term.

Actually, I have pointed out several rules points. I brought up that the rules make no distinction concerning "critical" damage cards.

Bzzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. Page 13, Left Column under 7. Dealing Damage and Page 16 under Suffering Damage make the distinction between normal and critical hits and the dealing of damage cards from the deck for both.

I agreed with hothie that the damage effect references when the card was received, not when the damage effect comes into play. Those are the two major rules elements going into this, I'm not sure which other rules you feel I'm ignoring.

You're ignoring the fact that the "rule" you're referencing regarding retroactively activating critical hits does not exist at all in the X-Wing rule book. Of course you could prove me wrong by pointing out the page in the rule book where it talks about that like you've demanded from others in this thread.

Another thing that blows a hole in your defense is you can't randomly pick a face down damage card, as required by the Saboteur card, if you mark it to keep track of which turn you receive it in. For example you have 3 points of damage on a ship that was received on 3 different turns. If you mark those cards with the turn they were received there is no way, with the components in the X-Wing game, to pick one of them randomly. The only way to do it is to mix those cards up, without marking them in any way, and pick one.

The rules are clearly written (both pg13. and also pg.16 Suffering Damage) that the damage suffered is either normal or critical and the damage card is dealt face down or face up, respectively. The hit only becomes critical when the damage card is placed face up. Upon laying the damage card face up, the custom text is then applied.

There is no provision for going back to prior turn regarding card dealing. You are in-effect re-dealing the damage card by flipping it over by the use of Saboteur.

It certainly appears simple and Beer & Pretzels enough for most reasonable players out there.

There is certainly a difference in how the damage is dealt. Once the cards have been dealt though, there is no distinction in the cards themselves.

Consider the R5 Astromech. Does it say you can flip a critical? No... No reference to critical at all. Only face up or down. Same for Proton Bomb. Damage cards are damage cards, they may be face up or down, but that's the only distinction in them.

And you certainly are not redealing it. Considering it such creates a member of side effects, such as triggering Chewie's text.

There is certainly a difference in how the damage is dealt. Once the cards have been dealt though, there is no distinction in the cards themselves.

Ok, since you think there's no distinction between normal and critical damage, if I ever play you any damage cards you receive are face up and any damage cards I receive are face down.

Consider the R5 Astromech. Does it say you can flip a critical? No... No reference to critical at all. Only face up or down. Same for Proton Bomb. Damage cards are damage cards, they may be face up or down, but that's the only distinction in them.

And you say you're not a rules lawyer eh? Per Pages 13 and 16 of the X-Wing rule book, a face up card = a critical hit. There is no reference to a critical on the cards to save space and because FFG thinks some of us are smart enough to read Pages 13 & 16 in the rule book and use common sense.

And you certainly are not redealing it. Considering it such creates a number of side effects, such as triggering Chewie's text.

Only in your rules lawyering mind. Everyone else is using common sense and playing the game correctly

Once, not too long ago, I thought this game was fun and something worth playing casually with people I thought were or might be friends.

P.S. I hope no offense if taken, none was intended; this is my version of a humorous retort. The game is still and can be fun but often it depends upon with whom we choose to play. Which is, of course, one of the reasons I seldom play in competitions.

Once, not too long ago, I thought this game was fun and something worth playing casually with people I thought were or might be friends. P.S. I hope no offense if taken, none was intended; this is my version of a humorous retort. The game is still and can be fun but often it depends upon with whom we choose to play. Which is, of course, one of the reasons I seldom play in competitions.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. 99% of the player base for this game are great people and play the game for fun. It's the remaining 1% that try to make it miserable for everyone else. Avoid that 1% and have fun. Oh and no offence taken to your post.

We can have this discussion without personal attacks.

Apparently we can't. What a pity.

Buhallin is a great guy...it just doesn't come across so well in these kinds of discussions when things get repeated again and again.

Now, to my interpretation. Ready? I have Saboteur. I reach over and randomly select a card that is face down. It is now in MY possession. You follow? So then I flip it face up and give it BACK to my opponent. This is now the round in which he received the card, so Damaged Cockpit would apply the following round!

Eh? What do you think? Any takers? ...Yeah, okay, I was being a little flippant, but I couldn't resist

I talked to James today, and he said it would take effect the next round.

I talked to James today, and he said it would take effect the next round.

Did he state that a Critical Card counts as being played when it's revealed, even if it's already on the model as a Damage card. Can we take this as a general rule?

He didn't give me an "official" clarification for why he went this way, like he would in an email. He just said we should play it that way. And saboteur does say to resolve it, so any "immediate" effects on cards would be resolved immediately. The same for other future effects, and in his ruling on how to play it, this one falls under the future effects category.

I talked to James today, and he said it would take effect the next round.

Yeah!

Buhallin is a great guy...it just doesn't come across so well in these kinds of discussions when things get repeated again and again.

Like when he insults other people's intelligence for not agreeing with him? Great Guys like that is why I steer clear of some other game companies current lines and especially tournaments. I have not seen that type of behavior at any x-wing related event yet. I hope it remains that way.

Geez, luks lik i can haz red teh rulz two and understodz them. Maybe this beer & pretzels game is not over my head after all.

Hmm, that make my calls 2-0 and some rule interpreter 0-2.

For some reason some on this (FFG's) forum seem to make more personal attacks.

I talked to James today, and he said it would take effect the next round.

And there we go....common sense 1, wacky rules interpretation 0.

I agree that this has been settled with James' answer (thank you Hothie), and that it is certainly the common sense/most practical solution which is probably why it was ruled this way. I certainly cannot fault anyone for wanting to do it in the most obvious and straightforward manner.

However, to be fair, the rules as written were actually pretty clearly in favor of Buhallin and Hothie's interpretation. The card gave a specific time for its effect to begin, and that time was the turn after that card was received. It could have said "the turn after this critical takes effect" but unfortunately I don't believe they wrote it with foreknowledge of Saboteur. Unlike other situations where there either is no timing stated, or if there is timing stated it is simultaneous (when A also B for example), in this case the card was very specific. It didn't make "common sense" but it was pretty clearly written (just written incorrectly/incompletely as it turns out).

This is very similar to Proximity Mines and their interaction with Boost/Barrel Roll. The rules were very clear that boosting or barrel rolling onto a Prox Mine did not set it off because neither Boost nor Barrel Roll were maneuvers, but the new FAQ is a "common sense" ruling based on the idea that the mine would go off as you passed regardless of whether you were using your afterburners or not.

As far as frustration, it is easy to get frustrated with faceless people on the internet. It is difficult to gauge intent, so comments that might have just been enthusiasm can come across as attacks. I know I have gotten a bit testy from time to time, and hope people are willing to cut me a little slack as well.