Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About whokickmydog

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

142 profile views
  1. I would rule that nothing happens. It does not lose its contain token because there is no rule preventing a ship from having a specific defense token. There is also no rule stopping the Endeavor from having 2 extra scatter tokens as well. The reason we don't see this is because there is also no legal path allowing it to get these tokens. Under the Set Up section the second bluet point it state "Assign the appropriate defense tokens to each ship." Now we have to find out what the appropriate defense tokens are. Under the Defense Token section it states " Ships and unique squadrons gain the defense tokens indicated on their ship and squadron cards." It has now been assigned the appropriate defense tokens. So in setup before the first round even starts the Endeavor is given 2 braces and a redirect token. I doesn't gain the contain token yet. At the beginning of the first round is when the Ship gains the extra token. No time before that and no time after that. The same "At the start of the first round" wording is found on the Needa card as well. If for some reason there was a way to discard this title before the first round, you would not gain the new token. I have not found any other rules taking about how ships should be equipped with defense tokens. And very importantly to my whole argument there no rules staying that a ship cannot have a specific defense token. So there is nothing to check against during the game. So when Vader removes this card there is no rule stating that the (Ex) Endeavor cannot continue to have said token. I would even agree that Walex Blissex can bring it back if you discarded it because you discarded it and he brings back discarded things, and bringing back that token even if it is not on the ship card is not disallowed in the rules. The ship is still abiding by all the game rules. I hope that that answers your question. Now for Aspiration which is this topic is about. There is a rule stating "A hull zone cannot have more shields than its maximum shield value" So when the title is discarded and the ship still has a hull zone with shields above it's max it is no longer abiding by all the game rules. This situation needs to be rectified. And the way I think (because we don't have an official ruling yet) to do this would be to drop the shields on that hull zone to its maximum so it is now abiding by the game rules. That is not my logic. Yes once Rieeken is killed, he is no longer in play. But his effect still is. If his effect wasn't then the Fleet Commands would not work when they are discarded as they use the same wording in that they both say "until the end [a specific phase be it end of round or end of status phase]" I'll be clear here. Rieeken's ability still functions after his removal. The Fleet Command effects still function after being discarded or even if the ship is destroy. My logic is that all of these effects continue to work even after the card has been removed from play because it states so on the card itself. The effect is until the end of the round/status phase. The effect is no longer linked to the card. The effect now has its own timing widow that it follows. FFG backs this up in the FAQ where they state in regards to the fleet upgrades "If the ship with this upgrade equipped is destroyed after resolving this effect, friendly ships are still affected until the end of the round." I think that this is what the whole discussion is about. Yes, nowhere on the card does it say "and reduce shields to max levels", but nowhere on the card does it say "until the (sometime frame) you can have shields on a hull zone above it's max" While i know that nowhere on the card does it explicitly say that the ship can have shields on a hull zone above its max. I think that we can agree that the card effect is what allows the ship to break the no shields above max rule. Since this effect has no time frame attached to it like my previous examples (FC, Rieeken, D-Caps), it goes away when the card (Aspiration) it is attached to goes away. So now we have a ship with shields above its max (which is against the core rules) without an active card effect saying that it can. Again this is how I interpret this. The entire game Aspiration can have shields above it's max on that hull zone because those extra shields are checked against the title card which allows them to be there. When the title card is gone, the extra shields are now checked against the Core Rules which don't allow them to be there. So for me, the extra shields would just be removed to the amount the core rules allows.
  2. I bolded the important part of your quote. Now watch this. I am going to quote the Rieekan card here and bold an import part of it: "Once per round, when a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase." FFG didn't rule or state anything that wasn't on the card. The bit about staying till the end of the status phase has always been there. A discarded card, in this case the Fleet Commands are treated as being inactive the same way Rieekan would be after being destroyed. Rieekan, being an upgrade card allows it to overrule the rules reference saying that a destroyed squad is already removed. Ten Numb is able to remain because the Rieekan card says it does until the end of the Status Phase the same way you get the fleet command buffs until the end of the round. Even if the card was made inactive it already stated while it was active that these effect persist to a specific time. So you've added another case agreeing with my precedent, which is, that if FFG wanted an effect to last even after the the card is discarded/become inactive it would print on the card the time frame it lasts too. No where on the Aspiration card does it say that its effect continues to persist. If FFG intended it to they would have printed that this effect lasts until the end of the game on the card itself.
  3. I did not know this. So I'll have to agree with you here. I think what the overall argument boils down to is if the "Shield" entry in the rules reference is checked consistently during the game or only the moment the ship is deployed. If it only checked only the moment the ship is deployed, then Aspiration would deploy, set shields to its normal, use its title to move them around, lose the title due to Vader and then nothing because the shield rule is not checked again for the game. However if the shield rule is checked consistently throughout play then after Aspiration is discarded we would come into the problem of the ship breaking the shield maximum rule because it has no "hall pass" saying that it can. I am obviously of the camp that the rule is checked consistently during the game. Yes they can. And I explain it in the two sentences following that one. To quote myself: In essence what this is saying here is that if the rules reference says you cannot do something, but an upgrade card says that you can, then you can, as the upgrade card overrules the rules reference. Cannot is absolutely absolute in the core rules. Unless you have an active upgrade card saying otherwise (This is the second golden rule) The third golden rule that you quote is: "If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute." No where does it reference the core rules. The point of this rule is not for when cards conflict with the core rules (as we know the card always wins from the second golden rule) but for when two cards conflict with each other. For example with Advanced Gunnery and Gunnery Teams. Advanced Gunnery says that a ship can attack the same ship twice from the same hull zone. But Gunnery Teams states that you cannot attack the same ship twice. This is where the third golden rule comes into effect. We all know that in this case the ship will not be able to attack the same ship twice as per Gunnery Teams.
  4. I agree that it is always better to not have to write new rules all the time. And in this case no new rules need to be written to fix the problem. It it seems that in your response you are still regarding the extra shields as “special” in some way that they would need a new rule to be dealt with and that is not the case. All you would need to do is lower them to the correct number. There is no longer a card In play making them “special” Look at these situations with a third person interrupting a game: #1 Player A is in a game. Player A drops The 75 and puts a side hull zone to 6 shields. A passerby sees this and ask why you were able to do that shouldn’t it be 3. You point to the Profundity card and show them it. Look these extra 3 shields are special. I can do this because of this upgrade card. Situation resolved #2 Player A and B are in a game. During set up player B accidentally places the front shields on his ISD to 5. Neither player realizes this. We are on the bottom of turn 2. Conflict is about to start next round. A passerby sees the extra shield. He tells them. All that happens here is that the shield dial is lowered to its max. There was no special rule or keyword that needed to be made to do this. That extra shield is not special in a way and in clear violations of the rules. Player B can’t fight this as he had no active card allowing him too. Situation resolved. #3 A and B. A drops the 75 and uses profundity (we are in situation #1). B uses Vader and discards the title. At that moment a passerby passes and asks why the 75’s shields are above their max. Looking back at my previous post about the definition of “discarded” we can see the title is no longer in play. Play A is now in situation #2. He does not have an effect to point to as to why the shields are above their max value. The 3 extra shields are no longer special and are dropped (begrudgingly) by Player A in the same manner player as Player B in situation #2. Situation rectified. If you can see where I’m coming from with situation #3, nothing special had to be done. Sorry for all the long replies, but I’ve had to make this point countless of times. What it boils down to is the extra shields are special because of an upgrade card. When that upgrade card is removed, the ship is no longer special and must return to following the rules all other ships have to and thus must return its shields to its max or it would be breaking the rules
  5. As was stated in the first reply, there has not been an official ruling from FFG However, I would have to disagree with Drasnighta and Green Knight. My reasoning: Vader states that the card is discarded. The rules reference guide states under the “Effects and Timing” entry on the last bullet point “ When a card is discarded or flipped facedown, its effect is no longer active (aka inactive) in the game.” We do know that inactive cards no longer contribute to the game. Ex: your flag ship dies and your commander card becomes inactive so you no longer get the benefit. Under the “Shields” entry it states that “A hull zone cannot have more shields than its maximum shield value” We know that the keyword “cannot” is absolute and takes precedent over everything. However, and this is the reason upgrade cards work in armada, “The Golden Rules” entry at the beginning of the rules reference states “Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s (ex: upgrade card) effect takes precedence.” Also note that this is above the ruling for the word “cannot” in the same entry. This allows upgrade cards to overrule the rules in the reference doc and the cannot keyword in it. This is why the “Aspiration” upgrade card is able to overrule the “Shields” entry. Now for the in-game example: 1. A MC-75 equipped with the Aspiration upgrade card drops out of hyperspace with its left side in front of a Raider with the Darth Vader boarding card. 2. The Aspiration upgrade card allows the MC-75 to ignore the rule stating that it cannot have more than its max on that hull zone. It moves its shields so that it has 6 facing the Raider/Vader. 3. Vader having initiative boards the MC-75 and discards the Aspiration upgrade card/component. 4. This component now becomes inactive. It can no longer contribute its effect to the game as there is no text on the component (card) saying that there is a an effect that lasts after bring discarded. (This is important, I will comeback to this point in a bit.) 5. Now with no component overruling the rules reference, the rules reference comes back in to effect the MC-75 needs to obey by it. 6. The MC-75 is now in violation of the “Shields” entry as it has more shields on its left side than its max and without an active component to thwart this, it must reduce its shields to the max allowed for that hull zone or be violating the rules of the game. 7. And so the MC-75 reduces the left hull zone’s shield count from 6 to 3 so it is no longer violating the rules reference guide. Drasnighta gives the example of Fleet Commands as precedence of why a card’s effect can persist even after the card has been discarded. I don’t agree with this as of you read the cards they state “At the start of the Ship Phase, you may discard this card…If you do, until the end of the round” It states on the card that its effect continues to persist even after being discarded. Another example of this would be D-Caps. It states on the card that you may discard it and its effect will last to the end of the round. So looking back at the fourth point in the in-game example, no where on the Aspiration card does it state that its effect continues to last after being discarded. FFG seems to have made it a point to state on the card if an effect continues to last after being discarded. Drasnighta is right that there is precedence with these cards but that precedent being, that the effect of a card would only last after being discarded if it is stated on the card. And so I think that the shield values would be forced to drop to the ship’s maximum and you will straight up lose the over charged shields if Vader were to board you. Also I believe that this logic also works on other upgrade cards discarded by Vader, such as Tua. If Vader were to take her off of a Cymoon ISD that was using her to equip ECM the ISD would have to then discard ECM as it would no longer be able to legally equip it as it lacks a defensive retrofit lot.
  6. NYC will be having there's on 7/28 at The Complete Strategist https://www.facebook.com/events/231304137477075/
  7. It's meant to be played very defensively. Interdictor C Author: whokickmydog Faction: Galactic Empire Points: 397/400 Commander: Grand Moff Tarkin Assault Objective: Station Assault Defense Objective: Contested Outpost Navigation Objective: Salvage Run [ flagship ] Interdictor-class Suppression Refit (90 points) - Grand Moff Tarkin ( 38 points) - Interdictor ( 3 points) - Minister Tua ( 2 points) - Projection Experts ( 6 points) - Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points) - Grav Shift Reroute ( 2 points) - Targeting Scrambler ( 5 points) = 153 total ship cost Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (56 points) - Demolisher ( 10 points) - Ordnance Experts ( 4 points) - Engine Techs ( 8 points) - Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points) = 83 total ship cost Arquitens-class Light Cruiser (54 points) - Captain Needa ( 2 points) - Turbolaser Reroute Circuits ( 7 points) = 63 total ship cost Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points) - Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points) = 28 total ship cost 1 Bossk ( 23 points) 1 Zertik Strom ( 15 points) 2 TIE Defender Squadrons ( 32 points) Card view link Fleet created with Armada Warlords Notes - Tarkin is there to spam repair tokens. This allows the GSD ad Arquitens to each repair a shield each turn and gives the Interdictor essentially 8 engineering as it will be just spamming repair. It can then then repair itself and give shields to who needs it. The Interdictor also has Targeting Scrambler to help deal with other GSD or MC30's around. Hopefully it will make the fleet very tanky. - The bid is only 3 points and I have Demolisher in the fleet. I'm OK with going second as I can affect all the objectives with Grav Shift and bring them even closer to me. - The fighters aren't meant to win the fighter war (though they can hold their own) but to delay as long as they can (they are all tanky) amd dish out a moderate amount of fire. Again it's meant to be played slow and cautiously. What do you guys think?
  • Create New...