Posted: 13 November 2007 at 2:05pm | IP Logged

the alliance treaty stops someone from firing on you, or take five cards.  but yeah, couldnt you just miscom the ship and say nope i dont wanna fire anyway. or is it just lost fire.

Posted: 13 November 2007 at 2:59pm | IP Logged

"At this rate, someone is bound to post the actual text for miscom and alliance treaty.  wait for it..."

-Thanks for the links, but the R/L4 Miscommunication link is to the old version of the card. The new version mentions "unused weapons fire" as being able to be redirected. Because of that language, i would argue you cannot immediately take control of all the weapons on a ship when played. The plain reading of the card shows that the owning player of the ship gets to fire something before the Miscommunicaiton takes effect.

The owning player declares a volley, and if any ship is only using part of their weapons, only then would the Miscommunication have a legal target to be played to (the unused weapons in that volley).

What this means above is that if B fires all of their weapons in one volley, the Miscommunicaiton has nowhere to be played to, so you'd have to use a Targeting Error to pull off the redirected fire.....Lobo

Posted: 13 November 2007 at 3:19pm | IP Logged

"Hmmm... Nope. When you play it, you get to control whatever weapons fire has not been fired yet."

-Another case of bad language on a card, then, as the word "unused" shouldn't be anywhere on the card. That term clearly indicates a differential between effect-eligible weapons int he meanign of the card rule. You basically have a strength 4 targetting error now, which is fine, but the wording sucks if that was the intent. At least now i know how it's supposed to be played!

Thanks for the response, have a good one.....Lobo

Posted: 14 November 2007 at 7:46am | IP Logged

-Y'all do realize you are not quoting the actual text of miscommunication? i know my clarification was received, but if you are going to talk about the card, talk about the right text so there won't be confusion for others that visit this site and wonder "what the heck are they playing with the old language for?"

Oh, and who the heck nominated wolf for a judgeship? Where do we vote?!

Lobo, errata police for the next twelve minutes

Posted: 14 November 2007 at 3:38pm | IP Logged

werewolflht65 wrote: The person who plays either the Miscomm or Targeting Error. They are the ones who draw the cards.

I disagree. If i play a miscom on you to stop you from fireing at me and it goes to your sec, no one gets the card because it's your fire from your ship not mine and you would'nt get a card for fireing at your own sec. same as targ error, i'm just redirecting the fire from me to you.

That is how are group plays and inturp the action

Posted: 15 November 2007 at 2:54am | IP Logged

For my thoughts, if they matter , I would say played B could fire at player A.  Yes the alliance treaty prevnts player B from firing but player C just had a coup aboard the ship. or the ship fired East instead of west or the sensors went bonkers or the firing officer was a traitor/spy or a mind mold symbito just tooh control of the captain etc. I mean really just because you say the alliance treaty was in effect doesnt mean some jerk doesnt break it.  Well then I would argue that it could'nt fire on my own ships because I would'nt do that either.