Jump to content
Darth Sanguis

Thrawn I guess I'll start

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Darth Lupine said:

It says the ship gets assigned a command dial of the same type Thrawn had...so I don't see why it couldn't be converted to a token

No, it GAINS a dial. The mechanism for converting to token specifically calls out "When a ship’s command dial is revealed, that dial can be spent to assign the corresponding command token to that ship." As written, that means that the dial "gained" from Thrawn can't become a token.

That said, I'm gonna make the same argument from above: the rules describe the only possible way to get a command dial, at the time they were written. I have no issue extrapolating them to read "any command dial on the ship."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

So, we figured some clarification would be needed, but there wasn't space for the condition (cannot resolve the same dial twice) on the card. As Dras has pointed out, currently the rules do NOT support dial+dial, and we figured people would figure that out without the conditional. It also plays into the theme of Thrawn. You have to set these commands at the beginning of the game, and so when setting commands for your ships during the game you need to be thinking what Thrawn command you want to use on what turns to maximize his effect!

Hey i figured it out correctly first, but you're going to fanboi Dras on me?  Way to go, @JJs Jugger-piece-of-crap-garbage-Mafia-GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JgzMan said:

No, it GAINS a dial. The mechanism for converting to token specifically calls out "When a ship’s command dial is revealed, that dial can be spent to assign the corresponding command token to that ship." As written, that means that the dial "gained" from Thrawn can't become a token.

That said, I'm gonna make the same argument from above: the rules describe the only possible way to get a command dial, at the time they were written. I have no issue extrapolating them to read "any command dial on the ship."

Already clarified by JJ, only the ship command counts as revealed, which means it only can get tokened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JgzMan said:

No, it GAINS a dial. The mechanism for converting to token specifically calls out "When a ship’s command dial is revealed, that dial can be spent to assign the corresponding command token to that ship." As written, that means that the dial "gained" from Thrawn can't become a token.

That said, I'm gonna make the same argument from above: the rules describe the only possible way to get a command dial, at the time they were written. I have no issue extrapolating them to read "any command dial on the ship."

You can just do the reverse for the same effect anyway, so its hardly a problem. Keep the Thwarn dial what it was, make your original command the token, stack them togheter, still kind of a waste to turn your Thwarn into a Tarkin, i mean hes less expansive, but you only have 3 rounds of his power, you need to make it count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darth Lupine said:

Already clarified by JJ, only the ship command counts as revealed, which means it only can get tokened

Yea, but now he's stepping outside the card he designed, into general rules interpretation. I no longer recognize his authority, for whatever that's worth.

I do, however, recognize that the rules as written forbid the use of Thrawn's dial as a token-generator, much more clearly than they forbid using two identical dials. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

In general I won't accept, "the rules don't say we can" without some kind of support.

Umm... what?

But... that's like... how ALL of the game rules work. The rules tell us what we CAN do. If the rules had to list everything that you CAN'T do, they would be larger than the collected Encyclopedia Brittanica. Multiple people have listed the exact section of the rulebook that details Command Dial and Token usage, that's the support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewTroski said:

Umm... what?

But... that's like... how ALL of the game rules work. The rules tell us what we CAN do. If the rules had to list everything that you CAN'T do, they would be larger than the collected Encyclopedia Brittanica. Multiple people have listed the exact section of the rulebook that details Command Dial and Token usage, that's the support.

The rulebook doesent say i cant throw rocks at my enemy ships during the match. So im gona go ahead and try it next time i play someone damnit.

Edited by mintek917

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mintek917 said:

The rulebook doesent say i cant throw rocks at my enemy ships during the match. So im gona go ahead and try it next time i play someone damnit.

True Story: I won my last tournament by Cleveland-Steamering my opponent's pre-nerf Demolisher.  Rules don't say I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mintek917 said:

The rulebook doesent say i cant throw rocks at my enemy ships during the match. So im gona go ahead and try it next time i play someone damnit.

 

5 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

True Story: I won my last tournament by Cleveland-Steamering my opponent's pre-nerf Demolisher.  Rules don't say I can't.

 

See my point three: Bloody Stupid.

The cards expand the rules all the time, creating new situations that we have to hash out here on the forums. There's plenty of things that the cards say you can do, but the rules say you can't, and they create some odd situations. FFG is better about this then the last Mini game I played, but there are always edge cases.

So, unless the rules specifically call out a forbiddance, I need a little more than just "lack of permission," to resolve a case where the cards offer new options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

 

 

See my point three: Bloody Stupid.

The cards expand the rules all the time, creating new situations that we have to hash out here on the forums. There's plenty of things that the cards say you can do, but the rules say you can't, and they create some odd situations. FFG is better about this then the last Mini game I played, but there are always edge cases.

So, unless the rules specifically call out a forbiddance, I need a little more than just "lack of permission," to resolve a case where the cards offer new options.

It is up to the card to provide the entire set of permission, then.

 

That is why Sato was rewritten after reveal, for example.

 

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

It is up to the card to provide the entire set of permission, then.

 

Ideally, yes. I would, however, point you at the recent debate over Rapid launch Bays. All the permissions were provided, but we still couldn't get the card right. In this case, it's because they were trying to squeeze a lot of stuff onto a tiny card, but they still thought that they had provided all the necessary data for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JgzMan said:

Ideally, yes. I would, however, point you at the recent debate over Rapid launch Bays. All the permissions were provided, but we still couldn't get the card right. In this case, it's because they were trying to squeeze a lot of stuff onto a tiny card, but they still thought that they had provided all the necessary data for us.

In which case, you should err on forbiddance for yourself, and not allowance.

If nothing else, its the better Sportsmanship case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Drasnighta said:

In which case, you should err on forbiddance for yourself, and not allowance.

If nothing else, its the better Sportsmanship case.

For myself? Yes. I try not to spring nasty things on other people. But I'm also (for whatever stupid reason) the "respected elder" of my group, and I have to make rulings for everyone. "I can't find any reason you can't do that" tends to go down much better then "I can't find any reason you can do that," for everyone in my group, even me. Of course, that's why I have the "Bloody Stupid" clause, because sometimes we need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

 

 

See my point three: Bloody Stupid.

The cards expand the rules all the time, creating new situations that we have to hash out here on the forums. There's plenty of things that the cards say you can do, but the rules say you can't, and they create some odd situations. FFG is better about this then the last Mini game I played, but there are always edge cases.

So, unless the rules specifically call out a forbiddance, I need a little more than just "lack of permission," to resolve a case where the cards offer new options.

I'm being absurd, of course, with the Cleveland Steamer thing (I hope that was obvious).

I agree with you, Jgz, I just don't think there was really anything confusing about Thrawn's text.  The only thing that even slightly caught me off guard was JJ's remark that Thrawn's dial cannot be converted (but the ships native dial still can) in the case of duplicate dials.  I think I would have gotten to that conclusion anyway, in time, after a careful read-through of the RRG.   I certainly at least didn't think this was even close to Rapid Launch Bays in terms of the possible conclusions/ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rocmistro said:

I'm being absurd, of course, with the Cleveland Steamer thing (I hope that was obvious).

 

Of course. I don't use the Bloody Stupid clause for anything that's not obviously foolish.

 

1 minute ago, Rocmistro said:

I just don't think there was really anything confusing about Thrawn's text.

I don't either. The only real question was if the list of ways to execute a command was deliberately exclusive, or if it was only listing all the combinations currently available. I prefer to see it one way, others prefer another way. Both interpretations are, IMO, perfectly reasonable on the face of them, but there are other considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

Of course. I don't use the Bloody Stupid clause for anything that's not obviously foolish.

 

I don't either. The only real question was if the list of ways to execute a command was deliberately exclusive, or if it was only listing all the combinations currently available. I prefer to see it one way, others prefer another way. Both interpretations are, IMO, perfectly reasonable on the face of them, but there are other considerations.

Which is where we disagree.

You can only debate the Rule as Written.  Otherwise, you're making assumptions.  And if you're willing to make those assumptions, then you're not debating the Rules as Written - you're solidly in Rules as Intended territory, which cannot be debated unless you know the intention - which, we, as people who inhabit the Rules Forums, inherently do NOT, as the Designers have the intention, and THEY don't get to hang out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JgzMan said:

At the time of writing

Why does this terrible argument rear its head every single wave?

Please, please, stop with this.

It's always wrong.

It doesn't matter what was possible at the time the RRG was written, because the cards were written within the context of the RRG as it stands now.  You think the designer JJ didn't know the freaking rules when he wrote the card?

..

Furthermore, the rules define what you can do within the context of the game, not what you can't do.  Otherwise every rule book would be laundry list of stupid things you can't do like smash your opponent's destroyed ships in the parking lot or move all your squadrons across the board during the Ship Phase.

The rules tell you what you can do.  (When a ship is activated, its owner proceeds through the following steps... 2. Attack: Perform up to two attacks with the ship from different hull zones.)

Sometimes they also modify those things with conditions defining what you can't do within those boudaries.  ( ◊ If the attacker cannot gather any dice appropriate for the range of the attack, the attack is canceled.)

Upgrade cards modify the things that you can do--that's the point of them. 

Swm26-disposable-capacitors.png

Situations that are not addressed specifically by upgrade card or FAQ/Errata are governed by the rules as written in the RRG. (Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.)

You and your opponents can always agree to do things outside of what the rules (including those written on your upgrade card) say you can do, but then you're not playing Armada anymore, you're playing your own thing that kind of looks like Armada but isn't.

(Sorry Jgz, my ire is less directed at you and more at the recurring phenomenon in general.  You just get the brunt of it cause you're here.)

/soapbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents: The ship don't get the dial revealed, but you can temporarily add it to its stack in whatever place you want.  can be the first or the last. And once you reveal it, you don't have to reset it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...