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

[Parravon 5,217]

What a ludicrous statement. Of course you resolve them. What would be the point of it otherwise?

[ziggy2000 169]

What a ludicrous statement. Of course you resolve them. What would be the point of it otherwise?

Not ludicrous at all.  From a strictly RTFC point of view, Grapthar91 is absolutely right.

 

The implication that they should be resolved is there, but if the words were included on Saboteur, why not here? Not enough room on the card?

 

Just another example of sloppy templating.

[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"!

Not sure if serious...

 

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

 

 

This site needs a <sarcasm> tag. I was being a rules lawyer and overloading the "immediately" in Chewie.

 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bilisknir

[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.

 

 

This site needs a <sarcasm> tag. I was being a rules lawyer and overloading the "immediately" in Chewie.

 

 

Was hoping so.  But I've seen stranger arguments this week...

[Bilisknir 443]

True that!

[Grapthar91 16]

That is why I stated I was being the devil's advocate.  The reason I bring that point up is because I was using Rexler in a game and my opponent brought that fact up.  He stated that he didn't have to resolve the faceup cards because the text didn't say so.  I agree that it makes Rexler useless if you don't resolve them, but my opponent had a point, which I conceded to him since there was no FAQ on Rexler.  I absolutely agree the cards should be resolved, I'm just thinking in a tournament setting, a "rules lawyer" might try to take advantage of the text.  Saboteur sets a precedent that Rexler does not follow, which I think gives the "rules lawyer" a case.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Grapthar91

[Parravon 5,217]

That is why I stated I was being the devil's advocate.  The reason I bring that point up is because I was using Rexler in a game and my opponent brought that fact up.  He stated that he didn't have to resolve the faceup cards because the text didn't say so.  I agree that it makes Rexler useless if you don't resolve them, but my opponent had a point, which I conceded to him since there was no FAQ on Rexler.  I absolutely agree the cards should be resolved, I'm just thinking in a tournament setting, a "rules lawyer" might try to take advantage of the text.  Saboteur sets a precedent that Rexler does not follow, which I think gives the "rules lawyer" a case.

As you said, by not resolving them, it makes his ability fairly useless. If you took the case up with a TO, I think they'd follow the logical side. If the TO ruled that they aren't resolved once they're flipped, they will still have an ongoing effect during following activation phases.