Jump to content



Photo

Striking with no icons?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 brimmstorm

brimmstorm

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:15 AM

This came up last night and the person I was playing against couldn't believe it.

My opponent has no defending characters. I have a Repair Droid out that is not focused. I delcare him as a attack. Focus to strike, deal no damage but then do my one unopposed damage. That is doable correct? I checked the rulebook and it says nothing about not being able to attack if you don't have any damage icons, that you just need to attack with a ready unit.

It makes no sense in real life but then again card games are not real life :)



#2 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,355 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:21 AM

brimmstorm said:

This came up last night and the person I was playing against couldn't believe it.

My opponent has no defending characters. I have a Repair Droid out that is not focused. I delcare him as a attack. Focus to strike, deal no damage but then do my one unopposed damage. That is doable correct? I checked the rulebook and it says nothing about not being able to attack if you don't have any damage icons, that you just need to attack with a ready unit.

It makes no sense in real life but then again card games are not real life :)

You played correctly.  Additionally, a unit with no icons could be used to defend and prevent unopposed damage.  In such an instance, it still must focus to strike even though that has no effect.



#3 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:21 AM

Absolutely valid use. 



#4 brimmstorm

brimmstorm

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:23 AM

Yeah I knew I was right. I more posted this so I can tell him I was right.

I think he only fought it because it won me the game :)



#5 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:42 AM

Won me a game in a tourney last night. "Hey 3PO, go blow up that objective would you?" "Right away sir."


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#6 Sass

Sass

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:28 AM

So what you all are saying DS can with 2 Duty Officers & a Orbital Bombardment card  take one unopposed objective in 2 turns or 2 unopposed objectives in 3 turns ?



#7 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:40 AM

Sass said:

So what you all are saying DS can with 2 Duty Officers & a Orbital Bombardment card  take one unopposed objective in 2 turns or 2 unopposed objectives in 3 turns ?

 

In a vacuum sure but that would require the LS to do nothing. 



#8 djuanbond

djuanbond

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:53 AM

 

I don't think you are allowed to reward unopposed damage if there were never any declared defenders (participating units).
 
From the rulebook:
 
Any participating unit (attacking or defending) that has not been destroyed by the end of the resolve strikes step is considered to have survived the engagement.
 
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. This is known as an unopposed bonus.
 
The important part here is "no surviving defenders". Since your opponent never declared any defenders to begin with, there were never any participating units to target and/or survive.

 



#9 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:05 AM

djuanbond said:

 

I don't think you are allowed to reward unopposed damage if there were never any declared defenders (participating units).
 
From the rulebook:
 
Any participating unit (attacking or defending) that has not been destroyed by the end of the resolve strikes step is considered to have survived the engagement.
 
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. This is known as an unopposed bonus.
 
The important part here is "no surviving defenders". Since your opponent never declared any defenders to begin with, there were never any participating units to target and/or survive.

 

 

Nope, it is rewarded even if there was no defenders at all. Even if there was no defenders at the start at the end of the engagment there is still no surviving defenders. Just because there was no defenders at all doesn't mean the unopposed bonus does not apply.



#10 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,355 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:11 AM

djuanbond said:

 

I don't think you are allowed to reward unopposed damage if there were never any declared defenders (participating units).
 
From the rulebook:
 
Any participating unit (attacking or defending) that has not been destroyed by the end of the resolve strikes step is considered to have survived the engagement.
 
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. This is known as an unopposed bonus.
 
The important part here is "no surviving defenders". Since your opponent never declared any defenders to begin with, there were never any participating units to target and/or survive.

 

True, there were no participating defenders to have survived, but the question on the unopposed bonus isn't "were participating units all destroyed?" which could indeed be interpreted as requiring units to destroy. The question is "are there any surviving defenders?"  If there were never any defenders, then there are also no surviving defenders.



#11 djuanbond

djuanbond

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:44 AM

Not that I didn't believe you guys, but I wanted to get an official response from FFG on this. Here it is:

-----------------

Unopposed is rewarded if there are no surviving defenders. This can happen in one of two ways:

 
1) No defenders are declared; therefore no defenders survive. Unopposed is rewarded.
 
2) Defenders are declared, but they are all destroyed. Therefore no defenders survive. Unopposed is rewarded.


#12 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:06 PM

djuanbond said:

Not that I didn't believe you guys, but I wanted to get an official response from FFG on this. Here it is:

-----------------

Unopposed is rewarded if there are no surviving defenders. This can happen in one of two ways:

 
1) No defenders are declared; therefore no defenders survive. Unopposed is rewarded.
 
2) Defenders are declared, but they are all destroyed. Therefore no defenders survive. Unopposed is rewarded.

both 1) and 2) are the same when unopposed is checked. If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.

No defenders, whether there were none to begin with, or none survived, doesn't matter. All the unnopposed checks for is:

After all strikes are resolved, are there any defenders alive in the engagement? If no, unopposed awarded. If yes, no unopposed is rewarded.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#13 ziggy2000

ziggy2000

    Member

  • Members
  • 737 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:02 PM

stormwolf27 said:

 If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.

The rules question link was used, and what was posted was the response that was received.

 



#14 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:16 PM

ziggy2000 said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

 If you want an actual official answer, you need to use the rules question link at the bottom of the page, but you'll get the same response.

 

 

The rules question link was used, and what was posted was the response that was received.

 

Ah. That's what I get for responding while tired. I thought he was still asking which is true.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#15 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:53 PM

That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#16 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,355 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:45 AM

stormwolf27 said:

That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.

Except that reading the rules literally and using RAW gets you the correct answer.



#17 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:37 AM

Have to agree with dbmeboy here for a change, the rules as written say no surviving defenders and if there was never any defenders there is still no surviving defenders.



#18 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,355 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:45 AM

Toqtamish said:

Have to agree with dbmeboy here for a change, the rules as written say no surviving defenders and if there was never any defenders there is still no surviving defenders.

Oh come now, we agree more often than not.  And I'm pretty sure even the rulings we disagreed on we agreed weren't clear in the rules and would need FAQ clarification.



#19 TonganJedi

TonganJedi

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:31 AM

One thing players should keep in mind is that Star Wars the Card Game is an abstraction of the events and actions of the Star Wars universe.  Sure, it doesn't make sense on the surface for a repair droid to "destroy" anything directly, but what's to say some seemingly mundane action performed by the droid couldn't be the catalyst for something larger?

Perhaps the little droid repaired a faulty power coupling connected to a shield generator--a generator used to deflect a laser bombardment that would have destroyed members of a diplomatic delegation who's mission was to secure supplies and weapons for the Alliance--weapons that granted the Alliance the capability of mounting the attack on the second Death Star.

Hooray for the repair droid!



#20 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:32 PM

dbmeboy said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

That said, the argument about unopposed is a prime example of why you should be careful when using RAW. There is such a thing as reading the rules too literally when you take them at ver batim face value.

 

 

Except that reading the rules literally and using RAW gets you the correct answer.

not always, as the person asking the question about unopposed damage would suggest. In this case (and a few others that I can't think of the exact specific circumstance) the rules were read too literally, and it was interpreted, incorrectly, that for unopposed to be awarded, there had to be defenders declared and then all killed off.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS