Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Star Wars: The Card Game – Assault on Echo Base» Forums » Rules

Subject: Last Defense of Hoth dependency? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jason Blakeney
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had the Last Defense of Hoth objective out the other day and my buddy and I were talking about whether you could use the ability if you had no cards left in your hand.

We both think it makes thematic sense to do it that way, since it would literally be your last defence (having nothing left in your hand to play into the edge stack). But it would also make sense since the wording is "When you would place a card into an edge stack, you may instead..." seeming to indicate that you have to be able to be about to place a card into the stack. If you have no cards in hand, you certainly are not about to place a card into the stack.

Whaddya think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Grutz
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a good question. I believe that your first interpretation is the correct one. When it's your turn in the edge battle, you can play a card from your hand, pass, or execute the objective's ability. I don't believe having a card in hand is necessary to execute the Last Defense.

But I'm willing to be corrected.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Vecstric
Sweden
Malmö
Skåne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This reminds me of the old reply to the anti-piracy ads:

So if I Would (if I could but I can't since I don't have any cards in my hand) place a card in the edge battle. . . Can I use the objectives ability?

I'm not trolling, I'm just not sure enough about the English language to rule out the possibility before an official ruling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Di Toro
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PBrennan wrote:
The confusing part is the "would", which might indicate that you're interrupting the rules framework event of the option of placing a card into the edge stack, rather than the actual placing of the card. But the "would" is simply a template device to aid understanding for the following "instead". In every place "would" is used", it's always followed by an "instead" or a "cancel" (the latter is really just another form of "instead"). Whenever you see "would", just read the effect again without the "would" in it - the timing clause should become clearer - then re-read it with the "would" in it again and the intent of the whole effect should hopefully be clearer.
I think in this case we are interrupting the framework event. I understand what you're saying about would ergo instead/cancel, but the corollary is not true. "Instead" appears in Interrupts without being preceded by "would" (The Secret of Yavin 4, Lightsaber Deflection). So if the actual act of playing a card was required I think it would be worded:

When you place a card into an edge stack, you may instead...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Blakeney
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I submitted a rules clarification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've always hated the use of "would" in the template for just this reason :-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Blakeney
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Response from Nate:

"When you would place a card into an edge stack..." is a triggering condition, and refers to a timing point in the game, and not to a player's capability to place a card. You may use the effect if you have no cards remaining in hand.

Can someone get this into the rules clarification on Cardgamedb? Not sure if I have clearance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Di Toro
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hundreds wrote:
Response from Nate:

"When you would place a card into an edge stack..." is a triggering condition, and refers to a timing point in the game, and not to a player's capability to place a card. You may use the effect if you have no cards remaining in hand.
whistle Glad to see my capability for parsing the english language is still intact.

hundreds wrote:

Can someone get this into the rules clarification on Cardgamedb? Not sure if I have clearance.
Unless DB has changed it recently everyone can post to it, hence the occasional flood of just questions and not answers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Good call, and apologies for the accidental mislead. I'll delete my responses above so as to not mislead future readers.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Blakeney
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No worries, just glad to have a definitive answer on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't like the answer to tell the truth, because if it was meant to reference a framework event, it should have said something like "When it's your turn to place a card in an edge stack, ... " then it's clear that the framework event is being interrupted. But there you go, just when you think you've nailed the template down, it rears up and smacks you :-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Blakeney
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From the standpoint of wording, I see your view, but from a thematic standpoint, I rather like having the "last defense" literally be the "last" defense in an edge battle. You have nothing left up your sleeves and as a last defense, you risk pulling a card off your deck to place into the edge battle. Was it a good choice? Did you just win the edge as a result, and at what cost? Did you just burn a Yoda?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Di Toro
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PBrennan wrote:
I don't like the answer to tell the truth, because if it was meant to reference a framework event, it should have said something like "When it's your turn to place a card in an edge stack, ... " then it's clear that the framework event is being interrupted. But there you go, just when you think you've nailed the template down, it rears up and smacks you :-)
I'm not sure you're not splitting hairs with that one. I see "you would" vs. "it's your turn to" as equally clear. The former having the virtue of being slightly less wordy and fewer places to hook into and misunderstand.

Though the fact that we're having this discussion at all is probably counter to my argument
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm looking at all the effects with "would" in them, and none of these use "would" in the way it's been ruled here, which is why I take "you would" and "it's your turn" as different - ie more a template thing than an English thing. Anyway, I'm seeking clarification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls