Rexler & Minor Explosion/Thrust-Control Fire/Munitions Failure

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

[...] Based on his rulings against Chewie, it seems like the effect would go off after the original crits are reconciled.

 

Came someone point me to the thread/post that seems to have resolved this?

[PhantomFO 9,101]

[...] Based on his rulings against Chewie, it seems like the effect would go off after the original crits are reconciled.

 

Came someone point me to the thread/post that seems to have resolved this?

That one's covered here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/106582-rexler-brath-vs-chewbacca/

Rexler's ability functions just like Saboteur. It flips the cards up after they've been dealt. Since Chewie only ignores face-up cards when they're dealt to them, Rexler can still tear him up.

[UnfairBanana 2,251]

 

 

One more interesting question here: If Minor Explosion goes off and deals another damage card, does Rexlar turn that one up as well?

I don't think it would. You would have to trigger brath's ability again to flip the new damage card up and that would be a second activation in the same opportunity.

 

* made quote used for response clearer.

 

Agreed, it would not, because Brath says "after you perform an attack that deals at least one damage card to the defender, you may spend a focus to turn those cards face up"

Since the Minor explosion was a result of the crit resolution as opposed to the attack, I'd say it doesn't count.

[VanorDM 11,599]

Here's the answer from Frank

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

Question about Face up Cards and Rexler Brath.

Here's the situation that came up on the boards, and it seems like a good one for the FAQ.

Rexlar Brath deals 2 damage to a defender. 1 Face up, 1 Face down card.

The face up card is a minor explosion, the defender rolls a diee and it is a meaning the defender draws another face down damage card.

Can Rexlar turn up the face down card that the defender drew due to the minor explosion? Does the face down card count as damage dealt by him, or is the source of that card the minor explosion?

He cannot flip faceup the additional card caused from Minor Explosion, although he can flip Minor Explosion again to possibly cause a second damage card.

Thanks for asking,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

Ok, frank has been sending out a load of answers today it seems. How come he hasn't answered mine FFG doesn't love me I guess

[Buhallin 4,563]

Here's the answer from Frank

 

Pretty much as expected.

[Ken at Sunrise 2,065]

Here's the answer from Frank

 

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

Question about Face up Cards and Rexler Brath.

He cannot flip faceup the additional card caused from Minor Explosion, although he can flip Minor Explosion again to possibly cause a second damage card.

 

Wow this is interesting that he could turn up that card after it was turned down.

[Bilisknir 443]

Seems slightly broken to me. Though I guess it fits with Chewie ruling.

[VanorDM 11,599]

Wow this is interesting that he could turn up that card after it was turned down.

That was actually how it started, but we all agreed that given the wording of the card he'd be able to flip over any of the crits that get turned over as part of their resolution.

But it was nice he covered that part as well so we have an official word.

It's nice to have this as a precedence, not that there's many effects in the game that where the damage comes from, I'd be surprised if we don't see more.

Edited July 2, 2014 by VanorDM

[Smuggler 556]

Seems slightly broken to me. Though I guess it fits with Chewie ruling.

As mentioned earlyer in this thread, there are but a few damage cards that has the potential to be dubbeled up by Rexler. Further more, he has to actualy land a crit AND have a focus token to spare to trigger his ability. I'd say this "broken" combo will happen seldom enough to not be broken at all.

[PhantomFO 9,101]

Here's the answer from Frank

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

Question about Face up Cards and Rexler Brath.

Here's the situation that came up on the boards, and it seems like a good one for the FAQ.

Rexlar Brath deals 2 damage to a defender. 1 Face up, 1 Face down card.

The face up card is a minor explosion, the defender rolls a diee and it is a meaning the defender draws another face down damage card.

Can Rexlar turn up the face down card that the defender drew due to the minor explosion? Does the face down card count as damage dealt by him, or is the source of that card the minor explosion?

He cannot flip faceup the additional card caused from Minor Explosion, although he can flip Minor Explosion again to possibly cause a second damage card.

Thanks for asking,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

 

Bumping due to an FAQ update. FFG ruled in the FAQ that came out today that the extra damage card dealt by Minor Explosion would also be flipped up by Brath's ability, so this email no longer applies.

[VanorDM 11,599]

so this email no longer applies.

Which quite frankly sucks... That means any email we get from Frank may very well not be accurate or at least it might get changed when they publish the next FAQ.

Makes emailing them questions less valuable now, if they can change their answer like that.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

so this email no longer applies.

Which quite frankly sucks... That means any email we get from Frank may very well not be accurate or at least it might get changed when they publish the next FAQ.

Makes emailing them questions less valuable now, if they can change their answer like that.

 

I don't really like that they changed it either, but I disagree that it makes them useless.

 

However temporary, it clarifies how something should be played.  Let's face it - nothing's permanent, everything can be changed in a future FAQ.  That doesn't make our current knowledge any less valuable, useful, or even necessary.

 

I'd rather have an official word for how to play it now than not, even if those answers can change.

 

That said, this just points even more to the reality that not even FFG has a strong underlying rules structure for this game.  If these decisions are based on a rules framework that they stick to, you don't get these sorts of changes.

[Rinehart 684]

Worst case Rexler scenario.  Rexler attacks Han Solo with 0 shields and 8 hull left.  Rexler rolls Crit Hit Hit, and Han rolls blank.  Han takes 2 facedown damage cards and one face up Minor Explosion card.  Han Rolls for the Minor Explosion and flips the card facedown and then rolls a Hit, which now adds a fourth facedown damage card to the "Rexler" pile of damage cards.  Rexler has his focus token and flips up all 4 facedown cards.  And gets Minor Explosion (Which we've seen), a new Minor Explosion (that was the new 4th facedown card), a and two other random faceup cards (lets say blinded pilot and injured pilot),  Now Han must roll for both of the faceup Minor Explosion cards, on each roll his rolls a Crit, and for each Crit he takes a Direct Hit faceup damage.  So, that single Minor Explosion faceup damage has become 6 total damage from that single card.  Those 6 damage plus the other 2 damage equal 8 total damage, and would kill Han.

 

Terribleness.

[VanorDM 11,599]

I don't really like that they changed it either, but I disagree that it makes them useless.

I made a point of avoiding the word useless, because it's not. But it's less useful if we can't really count on the email from Frank being the final word.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

I don't really like that they changed it either, but I disagree that it makes them useless.

I made a point of avoiding the word useless, because it's not. But it's less useful if we can't really count on the email from Frank being the final word.

 

I guess I just don't see how it's any less useful.

 

If we have a period of time between an email (A) and an FAQ (B), then during A-->B we'll play it based on the email.  It's useful during that time.  After B it may or may not be the same ruling, but that doesn't make the knowledge any less useful during A-->B.

 

The only reasons I can see for it being less useful are that it's hard to change to a new ruling, and that it opens the door to more "Emails aren't official so I'm going to ignore it".  The first is the same when they change something, regardless of the original source.  The second...  <shrug>  I tend to think people who are going to pull that won't really be affected by this.  They'd do it anyway.  This maybe gives them a bit more ammunition, but that's all.

 

Again, everything can change, even once it's an FAQ entry.  I'm not sure why there's any difference in a lack of permanence in a ruling email vs. a lack of permanence in an FAQ entry.

[DailyRich 3,346]

You had nearly a month between the email response and the release of the FAQ.  What Frank said could have been the accepted rule when he sent the email, but things changed and we got the FAQ answer.  The two calls aren't so wildly divergent as to call the whole process into question.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

so this email no longer applies.

Which quite frankly sucks... That means any email we get from Frank may very well not be accurate or at least it might get changed when they publish the next FAQ.Makes emailing them questions less valuable now, if they can change their answer like that.

But this has already happened. The discussion over the mandatory-ness of swarm tactics had Frank's email saying that it was mandatory (and, I think, that you couldn't target yourself) and then maybe 2 weeks later they errata-ed the card to make it optional.

So there is nothing new about that.

[Bilisknir 443]

Can I just say outside of any rules lawyering, this decision is crazy. One of the few times in game where the player has forward information on whether to activate the skill.

 

I would allow him to flip all face down damage cards face up before crits are resolved. So Rexler player doesn't get to know the outcome of the shown crits and can't effect additional damage cards.

 

On an unrelated note, when shooting Chewbacca, he flips all crits face down upon drawing, do you have to reveal those crits to your opponent? Would make a significant difference to someone with Rexler!

[Buhallin 4,563]

Can I just say outside of any rules lawyering, this decision is crazy. One of the few times in game where the player has forward information on whether to activate the skill.

 

I would allow him to flip all face down damage cards face up before crits are resolved. So Rexler player doesn't get to know the outcome of the shown crits and can't effect additional damage cards.

 

On an unrelated note, when shooting Chewbacca, he flips all crits face down upon drawing, do you have to reveal those crits to your opponent? Would make a significant difference to someone with Rexler!

Really?  I think most times in the game, you have "forward information" on whether to activate.  Rerolls, token spending, 3PO, Tarn, R7...  the list goes on.

 

Yes, crits dealt to Chewbacca are dealt face up (and hence seen) before being turned face down.  Hard to turn them face down if they were never face up in the first place, eh?

[Bilisknir 443]

But we have an "immediately" on Chewbacca. I could make an argument that I can draw and flip before my opponent sees what the crit is. I did it "immediately"!

Edited July 29, 2014 by Bilisknir

[VanorDM 11,599]

So there is nothing new about that.

Guess I forgot about that. So if it's happened before, I'll just keep it in mind that it may happen again.

[Sideslip 457]

Worst case Rexler scenario.  Rexler attacks Han Solo with 0 shields and 8 hull left.  Rexler rolls Crit Hit Hit, and Han rolls blank.  Han takes 2 facedown damage cards and one face up Minor Explosion card.  Han Rolls for the Minor Explosion and flips the card facedown and then rolls a Hit, which now adds a fourth facedown damage card to the "Rexler" pile of damage cards.  Rexler has his focus token and flips up all 4 facedown cards.  And gets Minor Explosion (Which we've seen), a new Minor Explosion (that was the new 4th facedown card), a and two other random faceup cards (lets say blinded pilot and injured pilot),  Now Han must roll for both of the faceup Minor Explosion cards, on each roll his rolls a Crit, and for each Crit he takes a Direct Hit faceup damage.  So, that single Minor Explosion faceup damage has become 6 total damage from that single card.  Those 6 damage plus the other 2 damage equal 8 total damage, and would kill Han.

 

Terribleness.

Minor Explosion never deals faceup cards. It only deals a damage on a [hit] result.

 

But we have an "immediately" on Chewbacca. In could make an argument that I can draw and flip before my opponent sees what the crit is. I did it "immediately"!

The cards still have to be dealt faceup before Chewbacca can immediately trigger.

[Buhallin 4,563]

But we have an "immediately" on Chewbacca. I could make an argument that I can draw and flip before my opponent sees what the crit is. I did it "immediately"!

Not sure if serious...

 

Yes, you could make an argument for that.  No, it would not be correct.

[Grapthar91 16]

I don't see what the big deal is with Rexler's ability.  His text just says to flip the cards faceup, it says nothing about resolving the effects of the cards you just flipped up.  FFG needed to word his text like Sabotour with the added text, "and resolve them."  Just my two cents.  Didn't see anything mentioned in the FAQ about that.  It's just implied that you resolve their effects, but it is not specifically stated in the rules.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here.