44 replies to this topic

[rune42]

My play group is still struggling over how to interpret "is dealt damage" on the new objective. As we previously found out, is dealt damage is very different than would be dealt damage, especially since you can only be dealt damage equal to your unit or objectives damage capacity. This is why light saber deflect was erratad.

If we use this new objective, must damage actually be applied to the unit or the objective first, (damage must actually be dealt), before you prevent that damage?

Or is it to be played like light saber deflect and the preventing actually happens in the "would be dealt damage" phase. In that case, I think the card would need an errata.

The whole damage dealt is still very confusing to me and I'm sorry if I am missing something simple!

[Queklaine]

Hopefully this will be clarified in the next FAQ.  The way I've been playing it is that the excess damage that is dealt and then reduced to the maximum capacity of the unit or objective being attack is the final step in the process.  So you can do stuff like deflect and so on to reduce damage but thats all done to the initial amount.  Its not until all of those action windows, interrupts and reactions are done that you finally reduce the total damage dealt.  I think this basically what the errata to deflect did.  I agree that its confusing but this is how we have been playing it.  Hopefully they can put out something a little more clear.

[chiller087]

*EDIT* Heavily editied after dbmeboy's response down below, so that my post won't cause any further confusion.

 

Endor Entrapment is an Interrupt, not a Reaction.  An Interrupt will trigger *before* the triggering condition actually takes place.  So:

 

1. Assign damage to the objective, such as from an enemy unit's strike.  (Lightsaber Deflection happens here.)

2. Any amount of that damage can be reassigned using Protect, using normal protect rules. (You would need a card that can protect objectives in this case.)

3. Any damage that is not reassigned using protect is assigned to the original objective.

4. Use shields to prevent damage.

5. Leftover damage in excess of objective's max health is now discarded.

6. Endor Trap kicks in, preventing damage.

7. Remaining damage is placed on objective.

 

This effectively means that, as long as you can discard at least 1 Force icon, you'll be able to prevent an objective's destruction, no matter how much was originally being dealt.

[dbmeboy]

There is a timing difference between "would be dealt" and "is dealt." I'll get back to you guys on this one.

[rune42]

I tend to agree with chiller, however, if so, endor entrapment would still need an errata.

Lightsaber deflect is an interrupt as well and it had to be erratad from "is dealt" to "would be dealt" because as worded pre-errata lightsaber deflect would always deflect the final damage.

I just have a regionals coming up tomorrow, and if we follow the logic of lightsaber deflect (pre-errata cause that's how the card is worded), then endor entrapment could always protect the final X amount of damage, where X is the number of pips.

[dbmeboy]

Short answer (because I'm on my phone and the battery is dying, longer explanation to follow): Endor Entrapment happens after the excess damage has been ignored (for the same reason that Confronting the Terror response to Dark Genocide doesn't instantly win the game for the LS).

[chiller087]

Short answer (because I'm on my phone and the battery is dying, longer explanation to follow): Endor Entrapment happens after the excess damage has been ignored (for the same reason that Confronting the Terror response to Dark Genocide doesn't instantly win the game for the LS).

Wow.  I'd edit my original post to avoid confusion.

[dbmeboy]

Wow.  I'd edit my original post to avoid confusion.

For what it's worth, you still have Deflection happening too early.  It should happen between steps 4 and 5.

 

Full explanation being typed now.

[dbmeboy]

Endor Entrapment's Interrupt happens after excess damage has been ignored.

 

Explanation:

 

There is a very slight timing difference between Interrupts to "when X would happen" and "when X happens."  In my memory, this first came up with BtS Obi-Wan and Old Ben's Spirit.  The confusion often comes from the simplification of Interrupt timing to "it happens before the triggering condition."  While this is true, in a general sense, it's not the whole story.  Interrupts resolve before the triggering condition resolves but after it initiates.  The phrasing "when X would happen" is used to move the Interrupt timing to before the triggering condition initiates.  Basically, the timing of "X would happen" is immediately before X starts happening and thus Interrupts to "when X would happen" trigger and resolve before X initiates.

 

The 2nd fine detail in this question involves the distinction between dealing damage and damage being dealt.  Damage is considered dealt at the point where damage tokens actually end up on a card.  Excess damage is ignored as the start of this process.  Thus Interrupts to "when damage would be dealt" happen immediately before moving on to ignoring excess damage and placing tokens.  Interrupts to "when damage is dealt" happen after ignoring excess damage, but before the damage is actually placed.

[kiramode]

 

Just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. These two objectives are worded exactly the same. So if I'm hearing this ruling correctly, the same rules would apply to the Survivors. In other words:

 

Leia is at 2 health and Chimaera strikes for 3 unit damage. 

3 is assigned to Leia but 1 is ignored due to her damage capacity only being 2.

Survivors then triggers to prevent 1 damage and keep Leia alive.

 

Am I missing something? Is this how Survivors should have been getting played all along?

[MaxRebo]

 

Just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. These two objectives are worded exactly the same. So if I'm hearing this ruling correctly, the same rules would apply to the Survivors. In other words:

 

Leia is at 2 health and Chimaera strikes for 3 unit damage. 

3 is assigned to Leia but 1 is ignored due to her damage capacity only being 2.

Survivors then triggers to prevent 1 damage and keep Leia alive.

 

Am I missing something? Is this how Survivors should have been getting played all along?

That is NOT how I've been playing the survivors.

[rune42]

Survivors was erratad in the last FAQ to "would be dealt damage" after a long discussion about damage a few months ago.

[Jarratt]

So Survivors has an errata in the FAQ along with Lightsaber deflection.

Given the text is exactly the same and this card was actually printed ages ago it makes sense that it will get an errata too.

It's super dumb that you can save any vehicle from dying in a strike by just throwing out a 1 pip card, in exactly the same way that it is super stupid that the Survivors would have saved a unique Jedi character for certain death.

I would definitely ask Erik about the timing of this and if it is really meant to be this way. It doesn't feel right. I have t played with it though so it's hates to say the impact, while its very easy to see the impact with Survivors.

[yodaman]

I agree with those of you saying it seems like it should work like Survivors and hope they end up making the change even though I haven't tried the card yet.   It wouldn't surprise me to learn this card was worded and printed before FFG made the errata to Survivors and Lightsaber Deflection and it just fell through the cracks.

[chiller087]

Ugh...it's getting really difficult to keep up with the rules in this game, when they're still ironing out the kinks in their own design philosophy.

[dbmeboy]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn this card was worded and printed before FFG made the errata to Survivors and Lightsaber Deflection and it just fell through the cracks.

That's my guess too. Whether FFG will feel like it's worth errata to the card to match original intent or not, I'm not sure.

[Toggle]

[mikado]

Ugh...it's getting really difficult to keep up with the rules in this game, when they're still ironing out the kinks in their own design philosophy.

It's bad game design and sloppy work. Like the Crusier name. Maybe design team just don't bother.

[dbmeboy]

I'm pretty sure a typo in a card title is a different issue.

This whole mess comes from an early FAQ entry specifying that "deal" and "dealt" had different meanings in game. This worked ok as long as "dealt" was being used as past tense (eg Reactions) but has continued to cause headaches any time "dealt" appears as a past participle but in present tense (eg Interrupts to "when damage is dealt").

I personally have always hoped they'd revisit that original definition of deal vs dealt and clear up this whole mess once and for all (and possibly make it easier for them to word cards in ways that are both technically correct and real English).

[Badmojojojo]

 
Just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. These two objectives are worded exactly the same. So if I'm hearing this ruling correctly, the same rules would apply to the Survivors. In other words:
 
Leia is at 2 health and Chimaera strikes for 3 unit damage. 
3 is assigned to Leia but 1 is ignored due to her damage capacity only being 2.
Survivors then triggers to prevent 1 damage and keep Leia alive.
 
Am I missing something? Is this how Survivors should have been getting played all along?

WTF?! Is that seriously how Survivors is supposed to work? That is retarded. If Leia is trampled by a giant vehicle how the hell is a band aid supposed to save her?