Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Surge1000

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dallas, Texas, United States
  1. ziggy2000 said: Unfortunately, I'm almost seeing where this is coming from. It could be said that a "framework game effect" is an outcome that results from the game itself - i.e. the "rules of the game". Placing blast damage and rewarding unopposed happen because they are part of the "framework" of the game. Something like Target of Opportunity, on the other hand, could be seen as more of a "card effect", something that happens because a particular card says it can. I know it's a weak argument, because, hey, that Blast Damage icon is part of the card! But it's the best I can come up with at the moment. I think it could have been handled better. The wording is clumsy, the term is not defined, and placing it at the very end like they did feels like they tossed it out there and ducked out of the room. As dbmeboy said, a definition of the term and a little more detailed info about how it fits into the advanced timing rules would have been very helpful. OK, I kinda see what you're saying, with the same sort of flimsy grasp of blast icons as a framework effect only because they're clearly defined. And basically, trying to use the term they did refine, "framework event" to help define "framework game effect" is a misapplication altogether. So they didn't attempt to define the term at all, really, they just said, "this and this are framework game effects, nothing else that could damage an objective is, now, guess the definition," assuming your definition is in line with designer's intent.
  2. Bomb said: Consider this food for thought. Fate cards have their own unique text where each fate card can do something different. Blast icons appear on multiple cards and therefore all perform a common function that is defined in the rule book. Card effect = printed text on a card and framework effect = game rule defined effect that is defined as part of the game rules? Hmm, certainly worth contemplating. So protect, shielding, targeted strike, unopposed damage and combat icons would all be framework game effects by that definition. Any other non-standardized effects would not be. I suppose that could work. We can only speculate though. It seems like if one were to make a ruling based on a specific term like "framework game effect," perhaps defining the term would help. Good thought though.
  3. dbmeboy said: Yeah, I've already submitted a series of questions to try to figure out the seemingly self-contradictory answer. Also one for a clarification on the timing of Secret of Yavin 4 as the FAQ about it seems to contradict the rules about interrupt timing. I noticed the same. When considering the timing of interrupts, the usage of the word "when" as defined by the rulebook and by the text on The Secret of Yavin 4, it should seemingly be concluded that TSoY4 would be engaged "instead" of whatever objective was originally intended to be engaged. "When" is a specific term, and a lot of the mechanics associated with interrupts rely heavily upon appropriate interpretation of that definition. Yet in this instance, they seemed to ignore their own definition. Or they just overlooked it. I guess it's another ruling that should just be memorized and not understood.
  4. dbmeboy said: I just wish I could understand there reasoning. I'd rather they change the card and/or the rules to fit their explanation, but instead we get: "Because the Death Star dial is explicitly not an objective, card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Death Star dial. When engaged as an objective, the Death Star dial may be damaged by framework game effects only. This is limited to [blast] damage and unopposed damage." I see 2 main problems with the ruling: 1) It says that card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Deat Star dial. However, both blast damage icons (which explicity do work per this answer) and the Fate card Target of Opportunity are card effects. One works and the other doesn't? 2) The Death Star dial may be damage by framework game effects only. Nifty sounding, but never defined anywhere. Not in the original rulebook. Not in the FAQ. The only mention of framework game effect(s) in either document is part of this answer. #1) I discussed the same in my framework events thread. #2) Framework game effects is not defined, yet I would assume its definition would be effects generated by framework events. However, if that were the defintion, effects of fate cards would qualify as framework game effects based on the definition of framework events on page 30, the diagram on page 31 and the discussion in the FAQ on page 4.
  5. TGO said: dbmeboy said: Toqtamish said: Surge, how is the cards shake ? Be fair to Surge, he had a disclaimer for answers not supported by pre-faq rules. As a different thread he started pointed out, the concept of "framework effects" doesn't exist in the original rules (and I'm still not sure they exist in the faq). 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. Unfortunately, it's a trash ruling without any logical basis when you parse the explanation and compare it to the rules and the FAQ, newly concocted yet still undefined terms and all (looking at you, "framework game effects.") It reeks of a half-hearted job by the rules team, and the two playtesters I had discussions with before the FAQ went live felt the same. Nonetheless, I suppose I should just go ahead and honor my wager, eh?
  6. So, now that we're post FAQ, can anyone venture to explain why resolving a blast icon is a framework game effect, rewarding unopposed bonus is a framework game effect but resolving a fate card is NOT a framework game effect? When I look at the chart structure on page 31 (resolve a strike, reward unopposed bonus and resolve fate cards are all in framework event text boxes), and according to the definitions on page 30 and in the FAQ regarding framework events, the reasoning behind the ruling is not any clearer, at least not insofar as it relates to what is considered a framework game effect. Or should I focus on the part of the FAQ that states: "card effects that interact with objectives do not interact with the Death Star dial," meaning units are not considered cards, since their effects DO interact with the DS dial when resolving a strike? Well, that can't be right..units are referred to as cards mutiple times in the rules. So maybe combat icons are not effects then, except where the text on page 21 says combat icons represent the effects of a striking card on its enemy. Or should I just quit trying to rationalize the ruling and accept it at face value, blast icons and unopposed damage affect the DS dial, nothing else? I prefer to comprehend rulings rather than just memorize them. I'm not sure in this case that's truly possible.
  7. I think logical deduction and RAW support what you're saying right now. If I were running a tournament today, I would let everyone know the ruling before we started, and it would essentially be consistent with what you're saying. However, I expect the FAQ to make a distinction on what types of effects affect the DS dial in a way that further defines or clarifies the engagement phase and limits the types of cards that can damage or affect the DS dial to effects that are inherent components of said phase. I would also offer this warning: Don't be surprised if the ruling on what can damage the DS dial is a seemingly arbitrary edict; that is, a ruling that could not possibly be gleaned from RAW alone. If you care to read further EXHAUSTIVE, regurgitated and highly contentious discussion related to the same issue, check out this thread: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=340&efcid=4&efidt=768888
  8. I would say three things obviously affect the DS dial. Blast icons from resolving strikes, fate cards such as Target of Opportunity (which deal damage to the engaged objective -- the same thing that blast icons do) and unopposed bonus damage (same concept -- all three of these things are framework events or substeps thereof that deal damage to the engaged objective. If one doesn't work, none work. If one works, all work. Those three should be without controversy. Hit and Run seems that it should work on the DS dial as well since it has essentially the same text, "deal 1 damage to the engaged objective." However, I think one could make an argument though that it's not an inherent component of the engagement, so it could be excluded from the sources that may deal damage to the DS dial (enhanced by Trench Run). Wookiee Navigator falls in line with Hit and Run, I think, for the reasons you explained. But how goes the fate of Hit and Run, so goes the fate of Wookiee Navigator, for the reasons I explained. FAQ will clarify which effects work though, but for now, it's just not clear. Whatever the case, I just hope that the FAQ clarifies what sources of damage work against the TR enhanced DS dial via clarification or modification of game phase structure rather than simply by edict. If they just go and make some arbitrary ruling like blast icons and unopposed bonus work against the DS dial but Target of Opportunity doesn't, I would be highly disappointed.
  9. Contentious debate on the subject here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=340&efcid=4&efidt=772084 And over at BGG if you so dare to venture. It will be addressed in the FAQ.
  10. If the DS player does not reveal any fate cards with a fate number equal to 5 if attacking or lower than 5 if defending, the LS player's Heat of Battle would resolve before any of the DS player's fate cards. On page 20, the rules state "the effect of each fate card must be fully resolved before the resolution of the next fate card begins." Secret Informant modifies the resolution of fate cards in such a way that it allows each of its controller's fate cards to be resolved a second time (assuming SI is participating). The rules do not allow for any method of "banking" a fate card's effect for later usage. So, although it doesn't specifically state how to duplicate a fate card's effect in the rules, it should be fully resolved before moving on to the next fate card, and that means using its effect twice if the card's controller chooses to opt for the modification provided by Secret Informant.
  11. Bomb said: I'd really like to know officially which objective the Secret of Yavin 4's interrupt counts toward when it comes to the limit on which objectives targets the opponent can engage. Played for my first time last night, and that interrupt raised questions and it didn't seem like everyone could agree on these forums which way to rule it. I don't care much for argumentum ad populum, but the consensus supports that if someone tries to engage objective A, if you use TSoY4's interrupt, objective A is not considered to have been engaged, but TSoY4 is. More importantly, the rules and the text from TSoY4 strongly support that argument. The only real controversy is whether TSoY4 can redirect an engagement to itself after it has already been engaged. I would argue that "the Golden Rule" overrides game rules, and therefore TSoY4 can actually redirect an engagement to itself after it has already been engaged. Admittedly, the second argument is not as strongly supported for a few reasons I will not rehash, so a ruling would be preferable. There may not be a ruling on the first part though. It's pretty straightforward.
  12. goofy101 said: If u play.him as a defense does he do the 1 point to yours You can if you would like. In most cases, it would seem like a bad idea. But notice Backstabber has a reaction and not a forced reaction. That means it's optional.
  13. As others have pointed out, yes, each objective card triggers independently. DailyRich said: There also card effects that explicity state you can only use them once per turn, making it reasonable to assume that duplicate cards have all their effects go off. Otherwise there'd be no need for a "once per turn" stipulation. I may be misunderstanding you, but I think the reason ("once per turn") is listed on most persistent cards is for balance purposes when the triggering condition might occur more than once per turn or when it might be possible to use the ability more than once per turn as opposed to limiting that effect from occurring more than once per turn if multiple copies of the same card effect are in play. That's a confusing statement, so here's a brief example to clarify what I mean: The Secret of Yavin 4 Interrupt: When 1 of your other objectives is engaged, your opponent engages this objective instead. (Limit once per turn.) I can't use ONE The Secret of Yavin 4's ability twice in a turn. That's pretty obvious. But… If I have two copies of The Secret of Yavin 4, I can use the interrupt ability of each once per turn. Similar situation with Repair Droid: Action: Remove 1 damage from a target Vehicle unit. (Limit once per turn.) If I have two Repair Droids in play, I could use the action on each of them once per turn. Note that restricted effects that are not persistent, like event cards, say "limit 1 per turn" as opposed to "limit once per turn" as persistent cards are labeled; a subtle but significant difference.
  14. OK, I see what you're saying now, and I think we basically all agree. Resolving damage from a blast icon would be a substep of a framework event (resolve a strike). Resolving a fate card would be a substep of a framework event(resolve fate cards). Yes, neither instance is a framework event in and of itself. How is any of this pertinent? I'm getting there. The next step in the process is this: Does RAW (rules as written) support the following? Blast damage (resolving a blast icon as a result of a strike) is a framework game effect. Unopposed damage being applied to an objective is a framework game effect. Resolving Target of Opportunity is NOT a framework game effect.
  15. dbmeboy said: Can't quite find that in RAW. Resolving one strike is a framework event that involves multiple substeps, one of which also has substeps which (in the case of Nightsister) would include a (now) subsubstep of resolving one unit damage and a subsubstep of resolving one blast damage. Likewise, "Reveal edge stacks, resolve fate cards, and resolve edge battle," is a framework event which has multiple substeps, one of which is "Resolve fate cards." Resolving fate cards itself could potentially have multiple substeps if there are multiple fate cards to resolve. By strictest reading of the rules at least, though nothing in the rules gives framework events any significance beyond can't skip and can't initiate actions so by strictest reading of the rules the distinction doesn't matter… You've just accurately described my opinion on the matter as well. Without fundamentally restructuring certain phases or without adding new definitions to the rules, I don't think one can logically discern otherwise. Nonetheless, I was hoping someone with a dissenting opinion could convince me otherwise. I'm hoping Stormwolf27 will share his reasoning.
  • Create New...