Obstruction vs. Most wanted, Timing

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

I believe Dras has already quoted all the relevant passages, and I fully agree with him.

 

The term "increase" is never defined in the rulebook, or explicitly differentiated from the term "add". "Battery" and "Attack Pool", on the other hand, are.

 

Having said that, since "adding to the attack pool" is well defined and gets its own timing step, using a different term for the battery is good design practice as it avoids confusion:

 

"Increase your battery armament by 1 red die" is clear and unambiguous.

"Add 1 red die to your battery armament" is also, in my opinion, clear and unambiguous and means the exact same thing, BUT it could easily result in some people (incorrectly) arguing that the timing for adding of dice to the pool should apply here as well.

 

Does that mean that "increase" and "add" are operative keywords? Not really. But it's just better to avoid confusion.

Edited January 3, 2016 by DiabloAzul

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Told you guys it would happen.. >.>

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

The question is, would it have happened if you hadn't called it?

[Lyraeus 4,759]

The question is, would it have happened if you hadn't called it?

Nothing. I am resigned to the point that I am always wrong.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

You're not always wrong - you just go out of your way to prove everyone else wrong, which is always going to be an uphill battle. Every once in a while you will succeed, though!

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Well thinking of it, since Increase does not get a timing step and the rules do specify that Add does, this means Increase will more than likely never be added to the modify rules (why would they when they already have Add) which means it is a valid choice when using 2 descriptor words such as Add vs Increase for the purposes of telling the difference between one working in the Gather Attack Pool step and one working in the Modify step.

[Blail Blerg 7,585]

Sorry to pull off topic again, for the useful purposes of summation, is my summary correct?  (on page1)

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Well thinking of it, since Increase does not get a timing step and the rules do specify that Add does, this means Increase will more than likely never be added to the modify rules (why would they when they already have Add) which means it is a valid choice when using 2 descriptor words such as Add vs Increase for the purposes of telling the difference between one working in the Gather Attack Pool step and one working in the Modify step.

 

"Add" doesn't get a timing step.

 

"Add to the Attack Pool" does, together with subtracting, rerolling, changing, spending or otherwise modifying dice in the Attack Pool.

 

If you're adding dice to anything other than the attack pool, you need timing instructions because the "Modify Attack Pool" step timing no longer applies.

 

If Enhanced Armaments were worded "Add 1 red die to your left and right batteries" it would work exactly the same as it does now - but you'd probably have made FFG write another unnecessary FAQ entry

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Sorry to pull off topic again, for the useful purposes of summation, is my summary correct?  (on page1)

 

Looks good to me, but I'm too focused on proving Lyr wrong to pay close attention

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Page 7 RRG Modifying Dice

MODIFYING DICE

Dice can be modifed in the following ways by game effects:

• Reroll: When a die is rerolled, the attacker picks it up and rolls it again. A die can be rerolled multiple times.

• Add: When a die is added, roll an unused die of the appropriate color into the attack pool.

• Change: When a die is changed, rotate it to display the indicated face.

• Spend: When a die or die icon is spent, remove that die from the attack pool.

• Cancel: When a die or die icon is canceled, remove it from the attack pool.

Look a timing step broken out that states "Add" not "Add to the attack pool"

So if Enhanced Armaments had "Add" instead of Increase it would be apart of the modify dice step.

Hey I get one right eventually you know.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Lyraeus

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Yeah, and it might even be this one

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Yeah, and it might even be this one

It is this one. At least partially. Your Enhanced Armaments comment however is dead wrong ^_~

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

I was just going to tell you that you're probably right in everything except the Enhanced Armaments part

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I was just going to tell you that you're probably right in everything except the Enhanced Armaments part

Which you. Are doing to troll me. It's fine. You just can't accept that Add is a soft keyword

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

No, no, I concede that point. And the trolling one

 

Nevertheless, I do insist that "battery" and "attack pool" are different animals, and their presence on a card effect cannot simply be ignored.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

No, no, I concede that point. And the trolling one

 

Nevertheless, I do insist that "battery" and "attack pool" are different animals, and their presence on a card effect cannot simply be ignored.

Sure, when some card modifies an attack pool and states attack pool. Which. . . Nope even Admonition does not do that.

To me Battery is the Capital to Capital guns. What happens when we get something that Increases the Anti-squadron? Then Battery becomes meaningless because it is only one aspect of your guns.