Multiple of Identical Crit Cards

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Command dails that have been assigned are facedown until a rule has them revealed (such as activation of a ship). 

 

Damage cards that have been assigned are facedown* until a rule has them revealed.

 

There is a rule specifically stating a player may look at his own facedown command dials.

 

There is no such rule for facedown damage cards.

 

 

The lack of such rule for damage cards but the existing of such a rule for command dials lets me suggest you cannot look at facedown damage cards.

 

*except those that are dealt face-up due to critical or other effects

Ahhhh the one time I can throw the SKBC argument at you. . . Nah, I won't stoop that low. Let's ask FFG.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Ahhhh the one time I can throw the SKBC argument at you. . . Nah, I won't stoop that low. Let's ask FFG.

South Korean Businessmen's Council?

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Got a reply from FFG. Once again I am wrong but meh.

Hello, Lyraeus,

In response to your question:

Rules Question:

My question today has to deal with facedown damage cards. If my ship has a facedown damage card, can I look at the card to see which damage card it is?

Players cannot look at their facedown damage cards. This is true even if the player has already seen some of them on account of being dealt faceup and flipped facedown. We’ll add this question to the next version of the FAQ.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

jkniffen@fantasyflightgames.com

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Seriously? Lyraeus is doing this again? "The rules don't say I can't overlap during deployment."

The rules tell you what you can do. They are not a comprehensive list of every possible thing you cannot do. Some people really have trouble with that, don't they?

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Shocker.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Seriously? Lyraeus is doing this again? "The rules don't say I can't overlap during deployment."

The rules tell you what you can do. They are not a comprehensive list of every possible thing you cannot do. Some people really have trouble with that, don't they?

Why don't you reread that thread over again BEFORE you comment, because right now you just look like a fool

[DerErlkoenig 975]

I can't reread before I post. I already posted. You see, time is, so far as humans can experience it, linear.

I saw that you sent them the goofily unnecessary question, and got a response. I'm glad you got what you needed.

Edited November 25, 2015 by DerErlkoenig

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I can't reread before I post. I already posted. You see, time is, so far as humans can experience it, linear.

I saw that you sent them the goofily unnecessary question, and got a response. I'm glad you got what you needed.

Thank goodness that logical thought is not dictated by you. We may just still believe the world is flat because of "goofily unnecessary questions"

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Right on time with the non sequitur. People have known the world is round for millennia.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Right on time with the non sequitur. People have known the world is round for millennia.

a bit over 2 millennia actually. It took someone asking a question that was considered "goofy" by those around in that time and yet it led to many discoveries.

"When you stop learning, stop listening, stop looking and asking questions, always new questions, then it is time to die."

~Lillian Smith

[mikemcmann 359]

Have to agree with lyraeus here. Nothing wrong with asking. No question is dumb.

And the ad hominem attacks are pretty ungentalmenly....

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Have to agree with lyraeus here. Nothing wrong with asking. No question is dumb.

And the ad hominem attacks are pretty ungentalmenly....

It takes a brave person to ask a question about something that everyone else takes for granted

On a side note. It never seems to matter that I was actually on that side of the argument. I was just willing to post the question and see it through

Edited November 25, 2015 by Lyraeus

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Have to agree with lyraeus here. Nothing wrong with asking. No question is dumb.

And the ad hominem attacks are pretty ungentalmenly....

It's not the idle asking that's the issue, it's the fact that he defends his ridiculousness so much. He digs in to defend the question's legitimacy.

I do agree that his ad hominems are pretty uncalled for, this definitely isn't his first time being aggressive, and rude.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Have to agree with lyraeus here. Nothing wrong with asking. No question is dumb.

And the ad hominem attacks are pretty ungentalmenly....

It's not the idle asking that's the issue, it's the fact that he defends his ridiculousness so much. He digs in to defend the question's legitimacy.

I do agree that his ad hominems are pretty uncalled for, this definitely isn't his first time being aggressive, and rude.

*shrugs* if you say so.

[err404 132]

I thought it was a good question. It is a two step action; draw a card, then place face down to indicate the effect. It seams reasonable to be allowed to look a card that was drawn, if even if you later place it face down. In fact I feel "draw" implies looking unless otherwise stated. If my opponent looked, I wouldn't have challenged it. I am glad this is being added to the FAQ. Thanks Lyraeus.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I thought it was a good question. It is a two step action; draw a card, then place face down to indicate the effect. It seams reasonable to be allowed to look a card that was drawn, if even if you later place it face down. In fact I feel "draw" implies looking unless otherwise stated. If my opponent looked, I wouldn't have challenged it. I am glad this is being added to the FAQ. Thanks Lyraeus.

Your welcome

[Smuggler 556]

Have to agree with lyraeus here. Nothing wrong with asking. No question is dumb.

And the ad hominem attacks are pretty ungentalmenly....

Oh, you know things are about to get good when people start throwing latin around *goes to get popcorn*

[DerErlkoenig 975]

I thought it was a good question. It is a two step action; draw a card, then place face down to indicate the effect. It seams reasonable to be allowed to look a card that was drawn, if even if you later place it face down. In fact I feel "draw" implies looking unless otherwise stated. If my opponent looked, I wouldn't have challenged it. I am glad this is being added to the FAQ. Thanks Lyraeus.

Do any cards, abilities, or effects use the word "draw"? Damage cards are usually "dealt".

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Yeah, twice: in the Learn To Play passage I quoted above (If he does not have any shields remaining, he instead draws one card from the damage deck and places it facedown near his ship card.) and once in passing in the RRG (If there are no cards remaining in the damage card deck when a damage card must be drawn or looked at, shuffle the discard pile to form a new damage deck.), the former one being of course much more relevant.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Though, then again, the latter passage distinguishes between "drawing" and "looking at", implying that you normally can't look at them. So maybe it's the relevant one after all

 

Anyway now that FFG cleared it up, this is all academic.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

I did see that, but I think that was written more for readability than strict verbage accuracy because it wasn't actually a section of rules, but walkthrough text.

The relevant parts were the parts where it didn't say it was allowed.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

The guys at FFG must wonder how thier games get played at all sometimes.