Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Fourth Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Space Cannon and Sustain Damage question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Martin R. Krause
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is a question about contradicting rules whether or not sustain damage is applicable against space cannon hits:

Under Space Cannon Offense it reads:

Quote:
66.5: The active player must choose and destroy one his ships in the active system for each hit result produced against his unit


Under Sustain Damage it reads:

Quote:
76.5 The "Sustain Damage" ability cannot be used to cancel an effect that directly destroys a unit.


So far, so clear

But further up in the same section it reads

Quote:
76.4 A unit can use its "Sustain Damage" ability any time a hit is porduced against it. This includes hits produced during combat and from unit abilities such as the "Space Cannon" ability.


It's a mess.

I like the idea that you have to escort your dreadnoughts, otherwise they will be easy prey of the PDS. But which reading is correct? Is 76.4 just an ill chosen example?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Probst
Germany
Kiel
Schleswig Holstein
flag msg tools
Hits destroy ships.
Sustain Damage cancels hits.
Space Cannons inflict hits.
Space Cannons are a hit effect, not a hitless direct destroy effect (like for example Exotrireme).
Problem?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Carpenito
msg tools
It's probably just poor wording while writing 66.5. In no former TI edition PDS were able to ignore sustain damage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Williams
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
BITS FOR THE BITS GOD!
badge
Staring in dumbfounded terror at Frans Raynor's neckbeard.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This has already been answered in individual emails, and will likely appear in the FAQ. PDS actually inflict hits, whereas Sardak N'orr Exotrireme II destroys ships regardless of any fancy defenses they have.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
66.5 isn't poorly written, it's just being quoted without any context. 66.3 makes it very clear that rolling the dice for SPACE CANNON shots is producing hits. 66.5 is just stating that the result of assigning a hit is to destroy a ship, exactly the same as assigning hits during space combat.

This, and the fact that space combat and ground combat are separate sections of the tactical action, are getting misinterpreted so often that I'm beginning to wonder if it's a deliberate attempt to misread the rules.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin R. Krause
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
66.5 says „destroy“, a defined term. How is reading it this way „a deliberate attempt to misread the rules“.

On top the rule of Space Cannon actually destroying ships is interesting gameplay wise.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Torquato wrote:
66.5 says „destroy“, a defined term. How is reading it this way „a deliberate attempt to misread the rules“.

66.5 says an assigned hit destroys a ship, not the SPACE CANNON ability that produced the hit. Using the rule to justify skipping the "produce hits" and "assign hits" details is a deliberate misreading.

Quote:
On top the rule of Space Cannon actually destroying ships is interesting gameplay wise.

Subjective, and not really relevant to a rules discussion. If you want to talk about interesting play, PDS (and the Xxcha flagship) are plenty powerful wen used properly, without needing the additional buff of ignoring SUSTAIN DAMAGE and other effects that can cancel hits.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin R. Krause
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
66.5 say to destroy a ship for each hit produced. So no contradiction to 66.3. On top 66.5 is explicitly only about Space Cannon hits.

I agree that it is confusing, thus this threat, but it is not dilebetately misreading, as the wording without a doubt tells you to „destroy“ for each „hit produced“.

I guess you play either way and FFG will mention a soltution in the FAQ to come.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All hits destroy ships, which is why SUSTAIN DAMAGE cancels hits. If you want to change the rules so that SPACE CANNON shots ignore SUSTAIN DAMAGE, that's a house rule that you can discuss with your group.

I don't think FFG will include this in the FAQ, because there's no actual confusion. You shouldn't count on FFG rulings to teach you how to read the rules properly.

There have been plenty of disputes where I am happy to let the official word decide on different interpretations of a rule, due to vague wording or odd edge cases that aren't covered. But this is not one of those cases - the rules are actually very clear here, and you can only reach the opposite conclusion by ignoring nearly all of the context.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick G.
United States
Glenshaw
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Does your religion have lightsabers? Nope? Didn't think so.
badge
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals." Agent K. Oh my what he would think of people had he known about what the internet would become.....
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
66.5 isn't poorly written, it's just being quoted without any context. 66.3 makes it very clear that rolling the dice for SPACE CANNON shots is producing hits. 66.5 is just stating that the result of assigning a hit is to destroy a ship, exactly the same as assigning hits during space combat.

This, and the fact that space combat and ground combat are separate sections of the tactical action, are getting misinterpreted so often that I'm beginning to wonder if it's a deliberate attempt to misread the rules.

Do you read many FFG FAQ's? I always feel that about 50% of the questions are people intentionally doing just that. Taking things out of context.

Back to the point...

People do this all the time and it's so irritating.. on a numbered list like this each subpoint is in reference and in order under the main point. 66.5 taken out of contect makes PDF so much stronger... which is why it's 66.5 not 66

You can't pick and choose which ones to apply or interpret unless they say optional.

In martin's defense I don't know if he is an native english speaker (his location says germany) so this sort of implication of the numbering system may not be a common thing in the german language.
 
 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.