Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hida77

Dauntless Title - Always triggers?

28 posts in this topic

Not-so-quick question that came up tonight:

A Decimator with the Dauntless title overlaps a ship. Can my opponent choose not to trigger the title? Or does the title always trigger? Follow up question assuming that it always triggers (regardless of if you want it to)- if you choose not to take the action, do you get the stress?

Pertinent text:

"After you execute a maneuver that causes you to overlap another ship, you may perform 1 free action. Then receive 1 stress token."

My reading is it always triggers if you overlap a ship and whether or not you take the action, you are stressed. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trigger is there on the overlap, but the inclusion of the word "may" makes it a choice to use it. If the player with the Dauntless chooses to perform the free action, then he'll get the stress. Otherwise it would be treated as a regular overlap, so no stress. It's the free action that's inducing the stress.

Check the rulebook, Blue box, top of p19 - Card Abilities, last paragraph.

Edited by Parravon
Flamestalker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The Dauntless title triggers when you choose to take a free action after an overlap. If you do not choose to take the action, then the title doesn't trigger and you have a just normal collision between ships.

In other words, the trigger is not the overlap, the trigger is taking the action. The overlap is only the prerequisite to be able to trigger the title's ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, the trigger is not the overlap, the trigger is taking the action. The overlap is only the prerequisite to be able to trigger the title's ability.

You've just contradicted yourself there. The trigger is not the taking of the the action. You can't trigger it by taking a free action UNLESS you've just overlapped another ship. As far as I can see it's a case of "6 of one, half a dozen of the other". It really makes no difference how the semantics work on this one, as you clearly can't use it without the overlap happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agrea that the format "you may do A. Then B" is not crystal clear as to whether B only happens if you choose to do "something". Mabye it's just because english is not my first language, but to me it looks like B will allways happen, regardles of if you choose to do A or not. But it has become clear to me that is not how it works, atleast not in X-Wing. If it was, Corran Horn would be the sillyest pilot ever :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The Dauntless title triggers when you choose to take a free action after an overlap. If you do not choose to take the action, then the title doesn't trigger and you have a just normal collision between ships.

In other words, the trigger is not the overlap, the trigger is taking the action. The overlap is only the prerequisite to be able to trigger the title's ability.

Nope.  As said above, the trigger is on the overlap.  "You may..." precedes the choice for what you can do, it's not the trigger.

 

Back to the OP: The ruing on R7-T1 muddies the water a bit (and is dumb, IMHO) but "Then..." can generally be read as "If you do, then..." in X-wing.  There are a few examples for this - Push the Limit (where if the "Then" is disconnected, you take a stress for every action) and the new Accuracy Corrector, where a disconnected "Then" could potentially mean that you could add 2 hit results without canceling the roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanic is

1. IF <collision>, THEN <take free action> OR <not take free action>.

2. IF 1 IS <take free action>, THEN <recieve 1 stress token>.

 

The wording on PTL is similar (though differnetly formated), leading to a similar mechanic:

 

1. IF <preform an action>, THEN <take free action> OR <not take free action>

2. IF 1 IS <take free action>, THEN <recieve 1 stress token>.

Edited by 0rph3u5
FTS Gecko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. The Dauntless title triggers when you choose to take a free action after an overlap. If you do not choose to take the action, then the title doesn't trigger and you have a just normal collision between ships.

In other words, the trigger is not the overlap, the trigger is taking the action. The overlap is only the prerequisite to be able to trigger the title's ability.

Nope.  As said above, the trigger is on the overlap.  "You may..." precedes the choice for what you can do, it's not the trigger.

 

I was seeing the overlapping more as the prerequisite, chance, or opportunity (or whatever you want to call it) to trigger the ability. "Abilities can trigger once per opportunity"

 

If you don't overlap there's no opportunity to trigger the ability of taking an action just after the maneuver instead of on your take action step. However, we could tangle in semantics and muddied terrain for days, and in this case our destination would be the same: If you choose not to take the action, there's is no stress and the situation is treated as a normal overlap.

 

So the trigger is the overlap, instead of the act of taking the action itself? Fine by me. I won't argue.

 

 

@Parravon. Believe it or not, my original answer was intended for the OP, however my post was ninjaed by yours at the last moment, and by pure chance, from the wording in both posts, it seems that my answer was fitted for you instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dauntless Title should work that if you don't take the action you don't take the stress, but it may not.  As mentioned above the FAQ entry on R7-T1 poses an interesting problem.

 

The Card text for Dauntless:

 

After you execute a maneuver that causes you to overlap another ship, you may perform one free action. Then receive 1 stress token.

 

The Card text for R7-T1

 

Action: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

 

Both of them have an If...Then statement.  A lot of us thought that in order to get R7-T1s free boost action, you would need to have aquired the TL.  But the FAQ entry says you don't.  If says the Free boost action is independent of the TL.

 

FAQ Entry for R7-T1:

 

If a ship equipped with R7-T1 is at Range 1–2 and inside 
the firing arc of an enemy ship, the following sequence 
occurs: the ship equipped with R7-T1 may acquire a 
target lock on the enemy ship. Then, the ship equipped 
with R7-T1 may perform a free boost action, even if it 
did not acquire a target lock on the enemy ship.
 
So, the "then" sentence is decoupled from the TL "if" sentence.  It's entirely possible that the developers decided that the cost of having the ability to do actions when crashing with the VT is that when you overlap, you will always take stress.  Getting an action when you crash is a big deal.  I can't think of another mechanic that allows the crashing ship to get an action, without help from a friend.  Always taking a stress when you crash is an equalizer.  Being able to elect to take the action and then in effect elect to take the stress is a really flexible option.
 
I think that you shouldn't take the stress if you crash without taking the action, but I was also in the camp that thought you needed to take the TL to get the free boost from R7-T1.  When the VT is officially released, I hope that FFG FAQs and clarifies this.  I'm not so sure it's a closed case that the action and stress are coupled together.  I can absolutely see it being that you take the stress whenever you crash, whether you take the action or not.  I hope that's not how it works, but it's possible it does.
Edited by Rinehart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Dauntless Title should work that if you don't take the action you don't take the stress, but it may not.  As mentioned above the FAQ entry on R7-T1 poses an interesting problem.

 

The Card text for Dauntless:

 

After you execute a maneuver that causes you to overlap another ship, you may perform one free action. Then receive 1 stress token.

 

 

While the R7-T1 ruling is certainly a mess, I'm not going to take it as precedent for this because we have an even closer precedent in Push the Limit.

 

If we take the R7-T1 approach then (pun intended) Push the Limit causes you to gain a stress after every action, regardless of whether you take the second action or not.  There might be a possible explanation for Dauntless taking stress on every collision (if not a strong one, IMHO ;) ) but I don't think anyone believes Push the Limit should be giving you stress for every action whether you take the second one or not.

 

FFG screwed up with R7-T1, the wording is a mess that fell victim to their so-bad-it's-starting-to-feel-intentional bad templating and inconsistent wording, so it got a ruling based on the intent.  Trying to use it as a precedent for what "...Then" wording means has a number of pretty serious other impacts, including both Dauntless and Accuracy Corrector.  That's the thing that gets me...  Push the Limit pretty clearly establishes "...Then," as meaning "If you do,".  They wanted something different with R7-T1 - fine, I can understand the limitations of dealing with previous cards...  but to keep turning out NEW cards with the same "Then" meaning, other than the single one...  <sigh>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Dauntless Title should work that if you don't take the action you don't take the stress, but it may not.  As mentioned above the FAQ entry on R7-T1 poses an interesting problem.

 

The Card text for Dauntless:

 

After you execute a maneuver that causes you to overlap another ship, you may perform one free action. Then receive 1 stress token.

 

 

While the R7-T1 ruling is certainly a mess, I'm not going to take it as precedent for this because we have an even closer precedent in Push the Limit.

 

If we take the R7-T1 approach then (pun intended) Push the Limit causes you to gain a stress after every action, regardless of whether you take the second action or not.  There might be a possible explanation for Dauntless taking stress on every collision (if not a strong one, IMHO ;) ) but I don't think anyone believes Push the Limit should be giving you stress for every action whether you take the second one or not.

 

FFG screwed up with R7-T1, the wording is a mess that fell victim to their so-bad-it's-starting-to-feel-intentional bad templating and inconsistent wording, so it got a ruling based on the intent.  Trying to use it as a precedent for what "...Then" wording means has a number of pretty serious other impacts, including both Dauntless and Accuracy Corrector.  That's the thing that gets me...  Push the Limit pretty clearly establishes "...Then," as meaning "If you do,".  They wanted something different with R7-T1 - fine, I can understand the limitations of dealing with previous cards...  but to keep turning out NEW cards with the same "Then" meaning, other than the single one...  <sigh>

 

 

It's a mess, and I agree with you.  I don't think that they will make us always take a stress on a collision.  It doesn't feel like that's the intent.  But, R7-T1 surprised the hell out of me.  So, I'm not going to be certain that the stress isn't required yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of them have an If...Then statement.  A lot of us thought that in order to get R7-T1s free boost action, you would need to have aquired the TL.  But the FAQ entry says you don't.  If says the Free boost action is independent of the TL.

You're incorrect regarding the cards Dauntless and R7-T1 both having an "If...Then statement".

 

The word "If" is printed on the R7-T1 card.

 

The word "If" is not printed on the Dauntless card.  You're reading something that isn't there.

 

Dauntless is worded similarly to Push the Limit.  Push the Limit does not have the word "If" printed on it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... except the argument doesn't really stem from being an "If... Then" statement.  It's the fact that they're both "may... Then" statements.  Granted so is Push the Limit.  Which of course means that we don't have any good precedent to really go by (though I anticipate this being ruled such that you only get the stress if you take the action).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dauntless is templated similarly to Push the Limit.  I don't see why Dauntless would function differently to Push the Limit.

 

R7-T1 has nothing to do with this thread.  The whole card is templated differently.  R7-T1 has the "Action" header and it also uses the word "If".  It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

DR4CO likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R7-T1 has the "Action" header and it also uses the word "If".  It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

And is comparing apples and oranges realy that bad? They are both round, the are both fruits... They have a lot in common. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R7-T1 has the "Action" header and it also uses the word "If".  It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

Would you care to elaborate on why having the Action header means the card should be read differently?  Does "Then..." mean something different in an action compared to a non-action?

 

Because by far the standard is that you perform things the same, regardless of whether they're actions or not.  There is no difference in how you acquire a target lock from an ability (e.g. Dutch) or from an action.  I can't think of a single example where you read an ability differently if it's started via action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common for all cards with a Then is it is preceeded by some kind of condition that must have been fulfilled. In the case of R7-T1, the confusion was that the second Then had 2 conditions you preceeding it, and some people thought it was related to the second condition (chose to target lock), but FFG intended it to be the same condition as for optionally acquiring a target lock (if you are inside the firing arc of the chosen ship).

 

So I think it is safe to assume that you only get the stress if you chose to take the free action, which is the same condition we all know from Push the Limit and Experimental Interface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because by far the standard is that you perform things the same, regardless of whether they're actions or not. 

That should be an obvious goal for card templating.

 

In this thread, it is clear that Dauntless is templated very similarly to Push the Limit.  Therefore, Dauntless should act very similarly to Push the Limit.

 

Both of those cards are templated differently to R7-T1 because they are triggered, not activated.

Edited by TezzasGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of them have an If...Then statement.

R7-T1 has a conditional sentence but the word "then" is not part of it. The conditional sentence terminates at the period immediately before the word "then".

 

conditional sentence: If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship.

conditional clause: If you are inside that ship's firing arc ...

consequence clause: ... you may acquire a target lock on that ship.

 

Proper English omits the word "then" at the beginning of a consequence clause.

 

The sentence starting with "then" is not part of that if ... then statement. That leaves only one possible meaning for the word "then": After that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not true. Then does indeed point to the preceeding condition.

Othetwise a ship with Push the Limit should get stressed every turn regardless of wethwr it took the oprional free action drom its action bar.

And I am pretty sure everybody, including you, plays hhat card so you only get stress when you opt to take the free action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not true. Then does indeed point to the preceeding condition.

Othetwise a ship with Push the Limit ...

I was talking about R7-T1. Not PTL. On the R7-T1 card "then" is not conditional. It is temporal. On PTL it may or may not have a different meaning. That is not relevant to what I said.

In addition to that, my above statement is about grammar. Not about logic or about consequences for the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Both of those cards are templated differently to R7-T1 because they are triggered, not activated.

 

Again, can you point to any actual cases (beyond R7-T1 as the exception) where your triggered vs. activated distinction actually makes a difference?  You're not comparing apples to oranges - you're comparing an apple on the counter to an apple in the bag, and saying "Well that one's in a bag so it's obviously different!"

 

And they really aren't templated any differently, at least not as far as the effects go.  I'm really not on board with the idea that "then" means something different in an action than it does in a trigger, especially without other examples to support what looks to be an outlier ruling.  Going hunting for what should be meaningless differences to justify that is a bad road.  Yes, R7-T1 is handled differently, but you could just as easily say "Well, R7-T1's text has more vowels than Push the Limit, so obviously "then" means something different there."

StephenEsven likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, can you point to any actual cases (beyond R7-T1 as the exception) where your triggered vs. activated distinction actually makes a difference?

Once more:  The thread's title is about Dauntless.  Dauntless has been templated almost exactly the same as Push the Limit.  Therefore, it should be expected that Dauntless operates very similarly to Push the Limit.

 

R7-T1 is a distraction to this thread that you keep perpetuating.

StephenEsven likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, can you point to any actual cases (beyond R7-T1 as the exception) where your triggered vs. activated distinction actually makes a difference?

Once more:  The thread's title is about Dauntless.  Dauntless has been templated almost exactly the same as Push the Limit.  Therefore, it should be expected that Dauntless operates very similarly to Push the Limit.

 

R7-T1 is a distraction to this thread that you keep perpetuating.

 

The point that several people have been trying to make is that the things you're claiming as distinctions aren't actually distinctions in X-wing.  Yes, there's a different structure, but that doesn't actually impact anything here, and you've provided exactly nothing to support that it does.

 

Edit: Or, to put it another way, the point was raised that there are templating similarities to both Push the Limit and R7-T1.  The similarities to R7-T1 don't go away just because you say so.

Edited by Buhallin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there's a different structure, but that doesn't actually impact anything here, and you've provided exactly nothing to support that it does.

I think you've misunderstood my posts from the onset, which is fine.  It's the internet, it happens.

 

The best card, templating wise, to compare Dauntless to is Push the Limit.  That's it.  Nothing more.  Question answered.  Thread over.

 

I'm not making any claims about R7-T1 because it's not relevant in this thread.  Comparing Dauntless to R7-T1 looks more difficult than comparing Dauntless to Push the Limit because one is a trigger and the other is an action.  It's easier to see that Dauntless and Push the Limit are both triggers and are templated similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0