Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InquisitorM

  1. [Emphasis added] FTFY. Please take your concern trolling elsewhere.
  2. This is not specific to the planning phase. You may check your own dials at any time.
  3. It's not a matter of logic. It turns out that British English and American English have different definitions – even if I could only find a single source that even mentions it (both Oxford and Mirram-Webster have only 1 definition) To a British speaker, collusion requires secrecy for the purpose of deception or fraud. For the apparent American-English-use-I-can-only-find-in-one-place, it can technically extend to absolutely any agreement, just especially to agreements made in secret to deceive or defraud. So the way I see it, you have two choices: either every agreement made by any two players anywhere is technically collusion, even if it's just deciding who wants which board edge, or it isn't collusion unless it's in secret and for the purpose of deception (which your example isn't). Feel free to pick one, but I think the vast majority of people everywhere use that standard English definition.
  4. Is Countdown's ability a defence die? Nope, so it can cancel it just fine. Though I should point out that Countdown doesn't cancel hits: he cancels all dice results.
  5. Reeeeeeeally. Fine. You want to play? Let's play. If/then statement. IF X is true then Y is true. Not stated as an opinion. This is a statement of fact. If X, then opinion. If Y, then suggested [snarky] course of action. Yeah, you could read it that way because that's how it's written. Funny what happens when people react to what you actually write.
  6. Bull. That's just an opinion. Many people disagree. I happen to think all the sane people agree, but that's just me. In essence, please don't state that as if it is factual.
  7. And this is basically what is being discussed here. Those saying the game ought to be stripped from the players are like playground bullies trying to shame people just for holding different (and perfectly legitimate) thoughts, perceptions, and ideals. I do not and will not tolerate this in any game.
  8. Shifting the burden of proof. Yours is the claim they are the same. I'm not at liberty to explain your point for you. The validity of the statements is totally irrelevant to whether they are related in any way. They could both be totally valid (or just equally valid) and still not be in any way related.
  9. Clearly, you don't actually understand the concept of devil's advocate. Of course you can be wrong if your argument is invalid. But it's not a possible mechanic. It's something you invented whole cloth that has no supporting evidence. No, there doesn't. It looks like you've conflated 'devil's advocate' for 'suggesting alternatives'. This is not playing devil's advocate. The thing you're talking about does not exist in the rules and therefore asserting it as an argument makes you expressly wrong. Suggesting it as an alternative is irrelevant as this is a rules forum about discussing how thing are. No. 1. This is the rules forum. Feel free to discuss that stuff elsewhere, but this isn't the place. 2. At no point have you actually said that that's what you're doing until now. You have provided misinformation to confuse other players and all posts regarding this insanity should be deleted. No, it isn't, because you're mishandled it horribly, used the wrong words, and utterly failed to explain yourself at every turn. You said that people were ignoring what you were trying to do but that's because you never told anyone what you were trying to do. I'm not sure what result you expected, but this is clearly a giant failure to communicate, the fault of which I am unequivocally laying at your feet. To be clear, playing Devil's Advocate involves arguing a point that is not one that you personally hold. It does not remove the need for an argument to be valid. If you make an argument and it is shown to be incorrect, then it is justifiably dismissed.
  10. As long as they earned those places fair and square, I'd let them have it and level an unsportsmanlike conduct charge at anyone who complained. If you want to be in the final, stop losing.
  11. You mean the thing where you couldn't understand the difference between what a card says and how the card is ruled? Yes, I remember that.
  12. Incorrect. This may be your issue. Those results are not created by ABC. Those results are created by rolling attack dice as per the core rules. ABC adds a rule to the attack, not to the dice. As such... Nope.
  13. You choose when it goes off. Before your resolve any ONE of the dice, you may use DTF. 3 crits. You may use DTF before resolving the first crit, or you may deal a faceup damage to the target ship. You may then use DTF before resolving the second crit, or you can deal the second faceup damage to the target ship. You may then use DTF before the 3rd crit, or you can deal the third faceup damage to the target ship. In each case, choose to use or not use DTF before resoling the individual die result, so you can't know what the crit will be before you choose.
  14. There is no snark. Stop inventing things.
  15. My whole point was that that's exactly what the card states. Given that I think your reading of the card is simply illegitimate, yes.
  16. Sorry, but that claim is empty unless you explain why that would be the case – it makes no sense at all. The ability only has one instance of 'X ships gain 1 ion token'. There is literally no way to make it give 2 ion tokens to any ship. Listed twice =/= affected twice. Do what the card says, don't do what the card doesn't say. It does not say give out tokens twice. It does not say give out 2 tokens. It does tell you which ships to give exactly 1 token to.
  17. It lists the defender twice as in the defender is listed twice in the text. It is not 'listed twice' if you were to make a list of ships affected. All three variations fo the text are mechanically identical. All three create the same list of targets. Mentioning the target once, twice, or four-hundred and fourty-two times does not mean it appears more than one in the list of targets. Example: Person A says that Dave was present at the event. Person B says that Dave, Regina, and Billy were present at the event. Is the list of people at the event A) Dave, Dave, Regina, and Billy, or B) Dave, Regina, and Billy. The answer is B. The defender is in the list of targets: he is mentioned twice but affected once.
  18. Umm... the quote you just used doesn't show me saying that it isn't called out twice. I mean, you literally highlighted me not saying the thing you say I said. I said it isn't on the list twice. Those are two different things. So no, you just proved that I didn't. ADDENDUM: "Essentially, 'the defender and every ship at range 1 of the defender' and 'every ship at range 1 of the defender' are mechanically identical: 'the defender and' is redundant." The whole point of saying that these two variants are mechanically the same is to highlight how it does call the defender out twice, but that doing so has no effect. Please stop lying about what I've said.
  19. Again, no-one has said that it isn't called out twice. Where is the disagreement?
  • Create New...