Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Star Wars: Rebellion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Hunt Them Down rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Greg W
msg tools
mbmbmb
Played a game last night. Rebels used the Hunt them Down mission card unopposed. That destroyed 2 of my Storm Troopers on Geonosis. This allowed the planet to go back Neutral. As a result he then played the Liberation Objective card. As I am new to the game I didn't object however, I don't think the Hunt them Down mission card counts as combat. Who is correct here?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Hunt them Down is an Imperial mission card in the first place, Rebels cannot use it...

You probably meant Hit and Run, though, which has the same effect, but is a Rebel card. You are correct, there's no combat, so no Liberation.

It can be used to weaken Imperial ground forces in the system before the main attack, of course, but the last ground unit has to be destroyed in combat for the Liberation objective card.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg W
msg tools
mbmbmb
Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Eltronin wrote:
Played a game last night. Rebels used the Hunt them Down mission card unopposed. That destroyed 2 of my Storm Troopers on Geonosis. This allowed the planet to go back Neutral.


Just a point about your choice of wording. "Neutral" is a loyalty state (Rebel / Neutral / Imperial). The system was neutral and subjugated before the mission, and neutral and unsubjugated afterwards. I know this is what you meant, it's just very important to keep in mind that subjugated or unsubjugated has nothing to do with loyalty. A system can be neutral or loyal to rebels while also being subjugated.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, the original wording was more correct if you replace 'planet' with 'system'.

Systems are only neutral if they neither have a loyalty marker nor a subjugation marker. While it is true that a system with a subjugation marker and no Rebel loyalty marker is considered to have neutral loyalty, it is considered to be an Imperial system while it is subjugated and goes back to being a neutral system when the occupying ground forces are eliminated.

So it is more correct to say the system went back to being neutral in this case. It retained its neutral loyalty the whole time, but it did go from being an Imperial system to a neutral system.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
(Emphasis mine in all the quotes below.)


Unfortunately, the rulebook is very inconsistent here.

Definition of a neutral system in the section dedicated to them seems to be quite unambiguous...

Rules Reference p. 10, "Neutral Systems" section:
"Any system that does not have a Rebel loyalty marker, Imperial
loyalty marker, or subjugation marker is a neutral system."


...but there's also another definition...

Rules Reference p. 08, "Loyalty" section:
"If there is no loyalty marker in
a system, then that system is a neutral system."


What's funny, the rulebook in general seems to follow the second definition...

Rules Reference p. 13, "Subjugation" section:
"If a neutral subjugated system gains Imperial loyalty, the
system’s subjugation marker is flipped to its loyalty side."


or

Rules Reference p. 13, "Subjugation" section:
"If the Rebel player loses loyalty in a subjugated system, his
loyalty marker is removed from beneath the subjugation
marker. The system is now neutral."


etc.


However, what's even worse, is the fact that this inconsistency extends to cards. There are only two in the game that refer to "neutral system".

Temporary Alliance - "Place this leader in any neutral system. Then place units on the build queue using this system's resource icons and number."

Imperial Propaganda - "Attempt in any Imperial system. If successful, each system in this region that has Rebel loyalty becomes neutral."

Temporary Alliance might be debatable, but I believe it follows the first definition (no Imperial ground units in the system). Otherwise, that's some impressive diplomatic skills!

Imperial Propaganda, however, undoubtedly follows the second definition.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I did notice that discrepancy and I wondered whether someone would bring it up. I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Krause
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
Just wanted to point out an important point germane to the discussion:

Systems that have Rebel loyalty but are also subjugated still count for the objective cards Regional Support and Popular Support.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jooice ZP
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:


Temporary Alliance might be debatable, but I believe it follows the first definition (no Imperial ground units in the system). Otherwise, that's some impressive diplomatic skills!

Imperial Propaganda, however, undoubtedly follows the second definition.



I have been playing this way:

Temp Alliance: system cannot be subjugated.
Imp Prop: systems can be subjugated

Do you agree?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
jooice wrote:
Perf wrote:


Temporary Alliance might be debatable, but I believe it follows the first definition (no Imperial ground units in the system). Otherwise, that's some impressive diplomatic skills!

Imperial Propaganda, however, undoubtedly follows the second definition.



I have been playing this way:

Temp Alliance: system cannot be subjugated.
Imp Prop: systems can be subjugated

Do you agree?


Correct...

A subjugated system is not a neutral system, it is an Imperial system; so Temp Alliance can't be attempted in one. and Imperial Propaganda can.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Umstattd
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
All Hail Lelouch
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
I did notice that discrepancy and I wondered whether someone would bring it up. I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.



Someone should e-mail Corey if this hasn't been resolved already. This is actually a somewhat large discrepancy which is difficult to figure out via the rules as written.

My guess would be that a neutral system has do not have imperial ground forces in it. But again it's unclear.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
David Umstattd wrote:
Clipper wrote:
I did notice that discrepancy and I wondered whether someone would bring it up. I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.



Someone should e-mail Corey if this hasn't been resolved already. This is actually a somewhat large discrepancy which is difficult to figure out via the rules as written.

My guess would be that a neutral system has do not have imperial ground forces in it. But again it's unclear.


Everything works and makes perfect sense when you use the definition of Neutral System in the RR. A Neutral system is a system with no loyalty or subjugation. When the rules are in conflict, the RR wins.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
David Umstattd wrote:
Clipper wrote:
I did notice that discrepancy and I wondered whether someone would bring it up. I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.



Someone should e-mail Corey if this hasn't been resolved already. This is actually a somewhat large discrepancy which is difficult to figure out via the rules as written.

My guess would be that a neutral system has do not have imperial ground forces in it. But again it's unclear.


Everything works and makes perfect sense when you use the definition of Neutral System in the RR. A Neutral system is a system with no loyalty or subjugation. When the rules are in conflict, the RR wins.

The problem is, the RRG itself has some slight contradictions. For instance, in one of the above rules quotes: "If a neutral subjugated system gains Imperial loyalty..." If going by the definition of "neutral system" alone, this phrase is meaningless, since there cannot be a "neutral subjugated system". (In this context, of course, "neutral" really is referring to a system with no loyalty, but strictly by definition, a system with subjugation is not "neutral").
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
David Umstattd wrote:
Clipper wrote:
I did notice that discrepancy and I wondered whether someone would bring it up. I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.



Someone should e-mail Corey if this hasn't been resolved already. This is actually a somewhat large discrepancy which is difficult to figure out via the rules as written.

My guess would be that a neutral system has do not have imperial ground forces in it. But again it's unclear.


Everything works and makes perfect sense when you use the definition of Neutral System in the RR. A Neutral system is a system with no loyalty or subjugation. When the rules are in conflict, the RR wins.

The problem is, the RRG itself has some slight contradictions. For instance, in one of the above rules quotes: "If a neutral subjugated system gains Imperial loyalty..." If going by the definition of "neutral system" alone, this phrase is meaningless, since there cannot be a "neutral subjugated system". (In this context, of course, "neutral" really is referring to a system with no loyalty, but strictly by definition, a system with subjugation is not "neutral").


Right, but that passage is not found under the "Neutral System" heading in the RR, which is what should be considered the deciding factor. The actual entry is very clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
Clipper wrote:
I believe the definition under Loyalty and usages under Subjugation are incorrectly worded.

The entries for Rebel Systems, Neutral Systems and Imperial Systems are very clearly defined and match each other. The alternatives are simply cases where they should have used the word loyalty and didn't for whatever reason.

I agree with this assessment of designer's intent.

(Maybe there should be two different terms, like "neutral" and "unaligned"? Or something like that. But that would probably be too much.)

However...

Clipper wrote:
As for Imperial Propaganda, it does have a way to read it in which the wording is correct. It directly refers to Rebel loyalty, and it can thus be considered that the Rebel loyalty is becoming neutral, not the system itself. This reasoning removes the issue.

While I'm obviously not a native English speaker, if we look at the syntax, "neutral" refers to "system", it doesn't refer to "loyalty" (even though that word exists in the same sequence), so that would be reaching for intent, not the actual wording.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Witold G
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Avatar
csouth154 wrote:
jooice wrote:
Perf wrote:


Temporary Alliance might be debatable, but I believe it follows the first definition (no Imperial ground units in the system). Otherwise, that's some impressive diplomatic skills!

Imperial Propaganda, however, undoubtedly follows the second definition.



I have been playing this way:

Temp Alliance: system cannot be subjugated.
Imp Prop: systems can be subjugated

Do you agree?


Correct...

A subjugated system is not a neutral system, it is an Imperial system; so Temp Alliance can't be attempted in one. and Imperial Propaganda can.


Agreed on Temporary Alliance.

However, what I wrote about Imperial Propaganda wasn't related to systems in which this mission can be attempted (there's no controversy what "Imperial system" means.

Instead, I was referring to "each system [...] becomes neutral" part of ability. If we follow the primary definition from "Neutral Systems" section, for any system with subjugation marker to become neutral, we would need to somehow remove Imperial ground units from it - which was definitely not the intention.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Perf wrote:

Agreed on Temporary Alliance.

However, what I wrote about Imperial Propaganda wasn't related to systems in which this mission can be attempted (there's no controversy what "Imperial system" means.

Instead, I was referring to "each system [...] becomes neutral" part of ability. If we follow the primary definition from "Neutral Systems" section, for any system with subjugation marker to become neutral, we would need to somehow remove Imperial ground units from it - which was definitely not the intention.


I see what you mean. I think perhaps they draw a(n unfortunate) distinction between the word "neutral" by itself and the phrase "neutral system". If you interpret "neutral" by itself to refer only to loyalty, it makes sense.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
English is a tricky language when it comes to associations. The one under discussion here is:

"Systems with Rebel loyalty become neutral."

Now yes, very strict parsing of this sentence means the neutral adjective is applied to the 'systems'. However, relaxing your strictness (which I admit typically shouldn't be done with rules writing) allows you to apply the adjective to the 'Rebel loyalty'.

The Rebel loyalty becoming neutral is exactly what is happening here. Most of the time, these two readings of the sentence are not going to be at fault with each other as the sentence will mean the same thing regardless of which noun you apply the new adjective to. In this case, it could mean either, although we know what they really mean.

What really happened when they wrote the rules seems clear, though. They created two different classifications that both happened to use the same adjectives. With loyalty, the Rebel, Imperial and neutral adjectives refer simply to the loyalty token. With systems, the Rebel, Imperial and neutral adjectives rely both on the loyalty and the presence of a subjugation marker.

Now, when writing the RRG and a few cards, they forgot that these two definitions collided. When discussing loyalty as the topic, they refer to systems as if they used the loyalty definitions. When loyalty was not the main topic, they rely on the definition for systems.

This is why the loyalty section has a contradictory definition and why Imperial Propaganda is ambiguously worded. As those cards deal with loyalty, they used the adjectives for loyalty instead of the adjectives for systems.

In conclusion, yes, the rulebook and some cards should be given errata, as they are either misleading or contradictory. It is pretty clear which ones use which definition, though, so we know how to treat it in the meantime.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.