Dangerous Territory and Strategic

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Did FFG forget about Dangerous Territory when writing ANOTHER objective token-focused ability?

What do you think, can I move all the tokens over to one obstacle and scoop them all up at once? Or just make them outright unobtainable by moving them off of an obstacle?

Edited December 16, 2016 by Ardaedhel

[Nostromoid 879]

I'm sure RAI is that you can't do either, and these objective tokens are treated like a simple notation of claimed/unclaimed for each obstacle. I'm sure the RAI is that the obstacle counts fur everything, and the token counts for nothing.

[Warlord Zepnick 324]

I thought about this as well.

 

I do not believe you can move the objective tokens, as they are just there to keep track of which obstacles have been overlapped.

[SkyCake 1,183]

Did FFG forget about Dangerous Territory when writing ANOTHER objective token-focused ability?

 

I wanna know which company is FFH, and how FFG has been counterfeiting and selling their goods for massive profits all this time!

[Green Knight 9,746]

Strategic says you can move the token...I see no caveats.

 

Weird though, but that's what it says.

[Mad Cat 2,250]

Isn't this similar to when people tried to use the G7 Gravity Well to move the rocks from under the objective tokens. I believe the FAQ says the tokens stay on the rocks as you cannot claim an objective token unless you overlap an obstacle.

[Megatronrex 2,867]

So if the tokens can't be moved off of the obstacles but strategic allows me to move those tokens can I move the obstacles? I know this won't work this way I just love the idea of it. It also gives me the image in my mind of a shuttle pushing an asteroid around.

[DonKarnage 189]

Strategic says you can move the token...I see no caveats.

 

Weird though, but that's what it says.

But this is likely overruled by the faq for the interaction with the G7 gravity well.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

RAW, there's nothing to prevent you from moving the tokens away (and potentially onto another obstacle). If an objective token is not on an obstacle, there is no way to collect it. OK, fair enough.

 

But it does create some problems if multiple objective tokens end up being on the same obstacle, because the following sentence in the objective card becomes unclear:

 

"When a ship overlaps an obstacle, the ship's owner may remove the objective token on that obstacle to gain 1 victory token."

 

Does this now mean one of the tokens? Or all of them? If all of them, do you gain 1 victory token for each token removed this way? Or just 1 victory token, full stop?

 

Whether FFG will clarify what happens in this case, or simply rule that DT tokens must stay with the obstacles, I cannot say.

[nermal 12]

So, if a token is not on an obstacle it cannot be picked up until a token is back on the obstacle.  The Strategic wording is pretty clear that the squadron can move a token.

Edited December 16, 2016 by nermal

[Triangular 1,135]

Isn't this similar to when people tried to use the G7 Gravity Well to move the rocks from under the objective tokens. I believe the FAQ says the tokens stay on the rocks as you cannot claim an objective token unless you overlap an obstacle.

That's for sure! You have to distinguish when the token is the aim itself (like Intel Sweep) and when the token is just a mark. Otherwise you could remove the objective token from a ship in "Opening Salvo" and claim it couldn't throw additional dice any more...

Edited December 16, 2016 by Triangular

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

That's for sure! You have to distinguish when the token is the aim itself (like Intel Sweep) and when the token is just a mark. Otherwise you could remove the objective token from a ship in "Opening Salvo" and claim it couldn't throw additional dice any more...

Common sense being used to interpret the rules? What is this madness?

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Isn't this similar to when people tried to use the G7 Gravity Well to move the rocks from under the objective tokens. I believe the FAQ says the tokens stay on the rocks as you cannot claim an objective token unless you overlap an obstacle.

That's for sure! You have to distinguish when the token is the aim itself (like Intel Sweep) and when the token is just a mark.

Okay.

How?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

That's for sure! You have to distinguish when the token is the aim itself (like Intel Sweep) and when the token is just a mark. Otherwise you could remove the objective token from a ship in "Opening Salvo" and claim it couldn't throw additional dice any more...

 

 

Non Issue:

 

The Objective Token is next to the ship card.  

 

If you can Get a Strategic Squadron out of the Play Area, and over to where the Ship Card is, so you can be within distance 1 of it...  Awesome.

 

 

RRG, PAGE 8, "Objectives"

• When a ship is chosen as an objective ship, indicate this by placing an objective token next to its ship card.

 

 

 

Common sense being used to interpret the rules? What is this madness? 

 

 

 

Don't have to go that far...  The rules have already accounted for it.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Drasnighta

[Norell 1,198]

I think it's pretty clear that there are two use of objective tokens. One when they are markers like in Dangerous Territory or Opening Salvo. These can't be moved as they are only to mark things (ships that didn't shoot yet and obstacles that weren't overlapped yet). Other objectives however are used to define a point or area on the playing filed like in Hyperspace Assault or Fire Lanes. These objective tokens are there not to flag things but areas. Therefor these tokens can clearly moved.

 

It's just common sense.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Once again.

 

Dangerous Territory is the only exceptionable status here.  And it is a conundrum because Common Sense is lacking in Rules-Defined State.  We cannot, and struggle to assign "Common Sense" when we are specifically told we can't apply common sense, because certain words mean certain things, not their common sense or popular meanings.

 

But to finish my nitpick

 

Most Wanted, Opening Salvo, those are non-sequitur for the rules.

 

 

 

 

As when you assign an objective token to a ship, it goes to its Ship-Card.  

 

Which is not in the Play area, which is not effected by strategic.

[Madaghmire 7,276]

Rough. Easily fixed if RAI is what we believe by changing the word "on" to "from".

But then maybe its a feature.

[Green Knight 9,746]

Why can't strategic move the token off the obstacle, thereby preventing anyone from picking it up?

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Why can't strategic move the token off the obstacle, thereby preventing anyone from picking it up?

A priori, there is nothing in the rules preventing it. But, as I explained earlier, allowing it lands us in trouble as it can in turn result in an undefined condition.

Thus, in the absence of a clarification from FFG, I am inclined to treat the tokens as being effectively glued to the obstacle.

[Green Knight 9,746]

I'm still not sure if I understand the problem, except maybe if 2 tokens end up on the same obstacle. That could use some clarification.

Thanks for explaining.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

I'm still not sure if I understand the problem, except maybe if 2 tokens end up on the same obstacle. That could use some clarification.

Thanks for explaining.

 

There's one of the follow up questions - if you allow the first, the second can happen...  Can we allow the first when the second is unresolved, or is that poor rules design (and clarification) on our part?

[Norell 1,198]

I would say poor rule design. Objective tokens are just too many ways to use such a general phrasing for this ability.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

I would say poor rule design. Objective tokens are just too many ways to use such a general phrasing for this ability.

Only dangerous territory is questionable application.

The one that surprises me about lack of questions is jamming barrier.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

I would say poor rule design. Objective tokens are just too many ways to use such a general phrasing for this ability.

Only dangerous territory is questionable application.

The one that surprises me about lack of questions is jamming barrier.

 

 

I only got 1 question asked to me about Jamming Barrier, and it seemed applicable...

 

 

 

But I've figured there's no reason why you can't Strategic the Jamming Barrier to most of the Board Width if you want...  

[Ginkapo 9,321]

Oh I agree, just expected outrage about that.