Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Drasnighta

The Raddus Bomb

122 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, PT106 said:

I don't believe this is correct as far as RAW are concerned. As I mentioned before, in a strict interpretation condition is satisfied if no ships were being put in play - as there are no ships in the play area that are not destroyed. (For example: The ship somehow discarded all defense tokens. The statement "During status phase all exhausted defense tokens on the ship were readied" is true).

While I understand where you are coming from, I can't agree that this is a (let alone the) "strict" interpretation. The result of a strict check would be either "no" or, at best, "undefined".

I also don't agree that your comparative statement is necessarily true: yes, you have executed the instruction "ready all exhaust tokens", but you have not readied any tokens. It all depends on what the test is (well-written rules would add e.g. "Then, if you readied at least one token, do X").  Otherwise, you could extend your logic to say, for example, that Vader lets you keep spending tokens you no longer have. Anyway, it's not a great comparison, because there is an instruction "ready all tokens", which you do perform every round, so as I said you could argue that yes, you have performed this step... but there is no such instruction for destroying ships! You can't say "yes, I've destroyed all ships in play: there weren't any, but I have carried out the task of destroying "all ships in play"", because you haven't executed such a step.

I find that the endgame condition check is much more akin to "Are flying pigs extinct?". A positive answer requires that:

  1. at least one flying pig has ever lived; and
  2. every flying pig that ever lived is now dead.

It's simply not enough to answer "Well, there are no flying pigs alive today, so yes."

In any case, I really must refer back to the green bit in my previous post. I think this gives an extremely clear indication of how the sentence must be interpreted. The possibility of no ships being deployed is explicitly acknowledged, and the consequence indicated.

Also, bear in mind what our woolly friend pointed out: in the original core set, the Hyperspace Assault objective would simply not be playable by Imperials if deploying zero ships were an auto-loss (you could choose the card, but never use it). That would be extremely odd - especially since no warning is given in any of the rules, including the Learn to Play booklet. Not proof of anything, of course, but it does add to the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I find that the endgame condition check is much more akin to "Are flying pigs extinct?". A positive answer requires that:

  1. at least one flying pig has ever lived; and
  2. every flying pig that ever lived is now dead.

It's simply not enough to answer "Well, there are no flying pigs alive today, so yes."

And this is the moment of disagreement, as I don't believe this comparison to be correct, however I do understand your reasoning as well. For me personally the case is as clear cut as possible as far as RAW is concerned, however it is now up to individial TOs to rule on this Dodo bird if it ever hits a table.

DiabloAzul likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy how people just ignore precedence.

Then expect TOs to rule their own way.

 

I mean, why bother with Logic, then precedence anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Deploying 0 ships was covered since the Core set.

HA's FAQ

During setup, if the second player must deploy a squadron but cannot because he or she has no ships in the play area, his or her squadrons that are not set aside are destroyed. [It doesn't say the game ends here]

Learn to Play

Then players secretly and simultaneously build 180 point fleets before setting up the game. [Perfectly possible with just 1 Victory]

RRG 

Each player builds a fleet by choosing ships, squadrons, and upgrade cards whose total fleet point cost does not exceed the total agreed upon by the players. [The less points the less ships]

A fleet must have one flagship and cannot have more than one flagship. [It is not required to have more than one ship]

2. Having 0 ships during rounds 1 is covered too (actually it is forced if all your ships are set aside)

HA's text

At the start of any round after the first round, the second player can deploy the ship and squadrons that he set aside at distance 1 of 1 objective token.

3. We can assume that the others rounds are not different but yes, it is an assumption. 

4. The game ends whenever one of these conditions is met.

- After six rounds. 

RRG 

The game ends after six rounds. The players determine their scores and the player with the highest score wins.

If all ships of a fleet or of both fleets are destroyed. 

RRG

If all ships in a fleet are destroyed, ignoring squadrons, the game immediately ends. The player with one or more ships remaining in the play area is the winner.

If the last remaining ships in both fleets are destroyed at the same time, the player with the highest score wins. If both players have the same score, the second player wins.

5. Being set aside doesn't mean being destroyed. 

RRG 

A ship is destroyed when it has damage cards equaling or exceeding its hull value.

Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area. [Being set aside cannot achieve this condition or HA has no sense at all]

6. All this means that this condition will never be met until at least one ship was deployed.

HA's FAQ

If all of a player’s ships in the play 
area are destroyed, his ships and 
squadrons that are set aside are also 
destroyed.

7. Also, the other situation won't be covered until the end of the game.

If the game goes to time, or the end of the sixth round, his ships and squadrons that are set aside are destroyed.

8. At the end, set aside stuff is not destroyed until one of the "default" end-game condition is met. See point 4. We can also add running out of time in tournament environment as another end-game condition and is covered by HA's FAQ actually. However, set aside stuff cannot help, per se, to achieve any of those conditions.

 

I won't argue how much sense it has or if it is good or bad for the game. The fact is that not deploying ships is covered. And not having ships at the end of a round is also covered. If any of those things would mean you would lose the game it would be written that way in the HA's FAQ. I think. That's RAW as far as I can understand how it works.

Edited by ovinomanc3r
DiabloAzul likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that that FAQ entry is just not very rigorously written and leads to a nonsensical test.

If all of a player’s ships in the play area are destroyed

When a ship is destroyed, it is removed from the play area. So you will NEVER have a destroyed ship in the play area (Rieekan aside).

That said, as someone pointed out way back in the thread: from a strict logical standpoint, if there are no ships in the play area, then it is true that every ship in the play area is destroyed, fulfilling the condition for ending the game.

It is irrelevant that the inverse, "none of the player's ships in the play area have been destroyed," is also, simultaneously true, because not fulfilling the inverse statement is not required for ending the game--only fulfilling the affirmative requirement.

So, by the strictest reading of RAW, the zero-ship Raddus Bomb ends the game immediately.

Whether it should or not is another question. I think it's an entirely legitimate and thematic approach to the game, though it does admittedly break down if somebody uses it to castle up for points-denial.

PT106 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't somebody please think of the children green point?

The rules tell you exactly what to do if you deploy 0 ships: you cannot deploy squadrons, and any squadrons not set aside are immediately destroyed:

On 31/08/2017 at 9:23 AM, DiabloAzul said:

During setup, if the second player must deploy a squadron but cannot because he or she has no ships in the play area, his or her squadrons that are not set aside are destroyed. [...]

How can one possibly read that as meaning "your entire fleet is immediately destroyed and the game ends"?

 

(Please note that I am most definitely not conceding the point about how to interpret the endgame condition - I just wish to emphasise that this other point, which I find the most crucial of all, has not been addressed by anyone on the "no bomb" camp.)

Edited by DiabloAzul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The problem is that that FAQ entry is just not very rigorously written and leads to a nonsensical test.

If all of a player’s ships in the play area are destroyed

When a ship is destroyed, it is removed from the play area. So you will NEVER have a destroyed ship in the play area (Rieekan aside).

That destroyed is not an adjective. It is part of a passive voice.

The condition is not looking for destroyed ships rather than for the destruction of the ships. It doesn't add by whoever (which is not required by he construction) cause there are several things that can destroy the ship or through which the ships are destroyed. That's the purpose of the passive voice:

Passive voice is used when the focus is on the action. It is not important or not known, however, who or what is performing the action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

That destroyed is not an adjective. It is part of a passive voice.

The condition is not looking for destroyed ships rather than for the destruction of the ships. It doesn't add by whoever (which is not required by he construction) cause there are several things that can destroy the ship or through which the ships are destroyed. That's the purpose of the passive voice:

Passive voice is used when the focus is on the action. It is not important or not known, however, who or what is performing the action.

 

It could just as easily be being used as a past participial adjective or as a stative passive here, but that's irrelevant to interpreting the meaning.

Let's assume it is passive.  The question "have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism)?" is equivalent to "do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality?".  The answer to both is that, because there are no ships in the play area, the result is both True and False.  And it only needs to be True to end the game.  Which it is.

 

1 hour ago, DiabloAzul said:

The rules tell you exactly what to do if you deploy 0 ships: you cannot deploy squadrons, and any squadrons not set aside are immediately destroyed:

How can one possibly read that as meaning "your entire fleet is immediately destroyed and the game ends"?

I agree that this is a strong counter-argument from an intent interpretation perspective, which is why I wouldn't call anyone unreasonable for going with that interpretation.  The tipping point for me personally is this:

The rules can remain internally consistent with the No-Bomb interpretation I've laid out, because your quote does not explicitly specify that the game does not end.*

They cannot do so with the Pro-Bomb interpretation, because it would directly contravene the condition above.

 

*Yes, the context implies it, but it is not explicit.  And I will take explicit over implicit every time.

PT106 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

It could just as easily be being used as a past participial adjective or as a stative passive here, but that's irrelevant to interpreting the meaning.

Let's assume it is passive.  The question "have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism)?" is equivalent to "do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality?".  The answer to both is that, because there are no ships in the play area, the result is both True and False.  And it only needs to be True to end the game.  Which it is.

As long as being destroyed MEANS being removed from the play area the answer is simply yes

When asking about if something changed his state it cannot be otherwise. 

If not we couldn't ask any question about if something that accomplish one condition changed its condition to another one?

Are all the trees burnt to ashes? 

I would say that it could be answered with a clear "yes they are".

It could be asked as "were all the trees burnt to ashes?" And someone fussy would say this way is quite clear and coherent . But the differences are, in fact, emphatic. The last question focuses on what happened (the trees burnt and turned to ashes). The first one focuses on the result (the trees are not trees anymore).

Have the people in the parliament been taken home? yes of course!

Have the ships in the play area been removed from the play area?

See that what you say that are equivalent they are not.

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The question "have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism)?" is equivalent to "do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality?". 

A ship in play can be destroyed and due to that leave the play area. However a ship cannot be in the play area and, at the same time, qualify as destroyed.

In fact they way you intend are destroyed is the key to interpreting the meaning of the sentence. If you take destroyed as an adjective there, then you are asking about a quality that is not compatible with being in the play area. If you read it as a passive voice you are asking about an action that could be performed on ships in the play area cause what it does is to remove them from there. It doesn't mean that destroyed couldn't be a quality in the game at the same time, it just means it is not in that sentence. In Spanish this is easier cause "to be" means "ser" y "estar" and both have different uses.

TL;DR 

If all the ships in the play area are destroyed can be read in two ways:

1) if all the ships in the play area are no longer in play.

2) if you remove all the ships in the play area from the play area.

Which one can be openly answered in order to check if the game ended?

 

ALSO if we don't want to mess with language:

A ship is destroyed when it has damage cards equaling or exceeding its hull value. [...] Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area.

So

"If all of a player's ships in the play area have damage card equaling or exceeding its hull value OR if a portion of its base is outside the play area, his ships and squadrons that are set aside are also destroyed."

Have all the ships in play damage card equaling or exceding its hull value? Yes? Whatever is set aside is also destroyed then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Have all the ships in play damage card equaling or exceding its hull value? Yes? Whatever is set aside is also destroyed then.

Bingo! If all ships are set aside,  then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value. 

DacoTrilar and Ardaedhel like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside,  then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value. 

Still divide by 0 logic

 

If you push that through to conclusions:

All ships in Hyperspace assault even if there are other ships in play are destroyed because a portion of their base (100%) is outside the play area.

All Squadrons in Rapid Launch Bays are destroyed because a portion of their base (100%) is outside of the play area.

 

 

It doesn't respect things to treat the TRUE/FALSE -> TRUE UNLESS FALSE .  The rules aren't going to give us a specific "aha!" either way on the matter.  Intent will have to be taken into it (if you wish to ignore precedence, or state precedence as a form of intent)

 

 

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

And as much as I'd love to be able to do that, we can't accept formal logic, because formal logic, as demonstrated in this instance, opens other game statements to breaking.

I'm all for defined and formal logic, but it doesn't resolve all of the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I mean, you'll notice I've not once used the term "common sense". 

 

Because there's nothing common about making any sense out of this stuff...

 

...  I really do feel the only way we'll get a resolution that even comes close to satisfying is regrettably having to look at precedence.

 

 

I want my Rapid Launch Bays to work, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And as much as I'd love to be able to do that, we can't accept formal logic, because formal logic, as demonstrated in this instance, opens other game statements to breaking.

I'm all for defined and formal logic, but it doesn't resolve all of the issues.

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out to DA, though, neither interpretation does. No-Bomb just introduces fewer goes than Pro-Bomb.

I think this is just one of those ones that will require a ruling from The Man one way or the other. In the meantime, 1) talk to your TO if you plan to shenaniganize this intensely at a tournament, and 2) I wouldn't fault a TO for ruling either way on it.

PT106 likes this

Share this post


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

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out to DA, though, neither interpretation does. No-Bomb just introduces fewer goes than Pro-Bomb.

I think this is just one of those ones that will require a ruling from The Man one way or the other. In the meantime, 1) talk to your TO if you plan to shenaniganize this intensely at a tournament, and 2) I wouldn't fault a TO for ruling either way on it.

 

For Pro-Bomb,  Is it just rectifying that destroyed line, or is it something else as well?

 

I mean, No-Bomb (at least in regards to everything in hiding) attempts to rectify the destroyed (tabling) statement as true, but breaks Hyperspace Assault, Rapid Launch, and in fact, any "off the board" or "set aside" state.

But I mean, I honestly thought there was fewer with the pro bomb, in regards to can I even do it in the first place...  But I have a history of getting fixated, so this is a legitimate "help me out for seeing the forest" moment, if you don't mind :)

 

Is it then that it creates the secondary question of can you deploy everything at once, or is it one thing deployed at the start of each start of round at a time?

Or again, something else on that?

What am I missing?

 

DiabloAzul likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I want my Rapid Launch Bays to work, after all.

I don't see how you're tying RLB to the Pro-Bomb interpretation. "A ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area" is obviously Golden Ruled by HA/RLB, and I don't see how it's related to this other than somebody brought it up here...

Share this post


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

I don't see how you're tying RLB to the Pro-Bomb interpretation. "A ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area" is obviously Golden Ruled by HA/RLB, and I don't see how it's related to this other than somebody brought it up here...

Its in regard to taking the 'strict interpretation' point.

I will admit, I was not aware that in divide by 0 contentions, proper logic dictates a true.  New learning for me.

 

But even given that, if those are essentially golden ruled by HA/RLB - wouldn't Raddus also Golden Rule override the effect too - because it provides a contradiction by not stating the missing parameter that we need FFG to give us ("is never deployed a state of destroyed?")

 

Edited by Drasnighta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside,  then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value. 

What is the logic behind that.

I saw explaining rules with mathematical concepts before and I think that it is fine if it clarifies the issue but rules are not maths. Rules are laws and laws are language. They are more tight than common speaking but it refers to the reality. Maths works with abstraction as soon as you remove apples behind 2. Maths has its own rules and too many times has nothing to do with real stuff.

"If there is not ships in he play area" is not the same that "all the ships in the play area are full of damage card." As "if there is not people in the room" doesn't mean that "all the people is dead" or "all the people leave the room" if it never was anyone inside.

If you didn't know your answer must be "maybe" or "I don't know" but never "sure!". But in this case you do know. It is not just common sense. It is something that can be proved. Does any ship deploy into he play area? No. So it was never a ship in the play area right? Right. Can a ship that is not in the play area suffer damage card? No. How many damage card are in the damage deck? 52. Are damage cards in the discard pile? No. So never ever a ship in the play area had damage card equaling or exceding damage card right? Right. Thanks.

You could ask about moving out of the play area. Does any ship deploy into the play area? No. Does any ship deploy partially outside of the play area? That's not legal. Answer the question please! No. Can a ship that is not in the play area move from the play area to outside? Obviously no. So never ever a ship in the play area moved outside right? Right.

 

It is as easy as this: in order to be full of damage card or move outside the play area a ship in the play area is needed. As DA said before if something never existed it cannot die and you cannot say about it that is dead. At the same time it is not alive and it is not inmortal. In order to get those qualifiers you need the first of all: exist. 

TL;DR 

8 hours ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside,  then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value. 

That's a fallacy. 0 ships is not a number of ships so as long as 0 ships "are" full of damage cards all do. It is the absence of ships so as long as there is no ships they cannot be full of damage cards.

That's one of many differences between maths and reality. We cannot add nothing to something. Or in this case Nothingness cannot have qualifiers.

NOTE: language is another abstraction like maths and is able to do similar things (like politicians and lobbies do) but it has not, definitely, the same power. And this kind of incoherences are easier to identify as lies. That happens cause language is at the end linked with the reality while Maths are not. When you translate maths to reality you will find that 4÷2 is not the same that 8÷4.

Edited by ovinomanc3r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the steps carefully and it should make sense. Explicitly:

Raddus:

At the start of any round, you may deploy that ship at distance 1 of a friendly ship.

RRG pg 9 ROUND:

A single game round consists of four phases resolved in the  following order: Command Phase, Ship Phase, Squadron Phase, and Status Phase.

RRG pg 3 COMMAND PHASE:

During this phase, players secretly and simultaneously choose commands on their command dials and assign them facedown to their ships.
•     A ship must be assigned command dials until it has a number of command dials equal to its command value. This may require that more than one dial be assigned to a ship, such as during the first round of the game.

 

So, you deploy the ship before anything else in the round happens. Then you do the command phase, in which you assign dials to each of your ships until they reach their command values. Usually that's only one dial; on the Raddus ship, it's <command value>.

Edited by Ardaedhel

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