| Author |
|
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 16 June 2007 at 11:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
If someone plays something like a fighter with a heavy weapon, or perhaps
an R/B8 Citidel in reaction, do you get to fire the heavy weapons without
paying for them?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 17 June 2007 at 1:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's how my group group made me play the citadel:
They said it didn't come into play engaged, and therefore couldn't fire it's heavy weapons. They said it didn't come into play engaged because it has a point-cost to activate.
A fighter would come into play engaged, and it would be able to fire it's weapons during your opponents weaponfire phase, if that was when you played it, because it has no point-cost to engage it.
I don't know if this was the right way to play, but that's what we did.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 17 June 2007 at 12:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
No. Heavy Weapons must be activated during the Allocation phase to be fired unless some card allows them to be fired without being allocated to (if there is a card which either supplies Ammo in reaction or Fully Engages in reaction, or if the ship itself comes into play fully engaged - I'm not sure if there are any cards like that or not).
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 17 June 2007 at 1:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
All reactionary cards come into play fully engaged, I believe. That's just how they had me play it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 17 June 2007 at 1:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
No, they don't. Reactionary cards come into play engaged unless they say they come into play fully engaged or another card makes them fully engaged. Since heavy weapons need to be armed they cannot fire unless allocated to or the ship is fully engaged. The section on Playing Reaction Cards specifically states that heavy weapons may only be fired if those weapons do not need resource points to function.
Edited by ericbsmith on 17 June 2007 at 1:10pm
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RobPro
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 835
|
| Posted: 17 June 2007 at 4:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
That makes sense. However, my group still made me play the card disengaged, so it was thus unable to fire its phasers.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 18 June 2007 at 6:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Engaged and fully engaged are two different things. Fully Engaged means that all of the weapons are loaded.
So, no card is allowed to fire its heavy weapons in reaction, unless it has been allocated to or played fully engaged, etc. As Eric notes above.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 18 June 2007 at 2:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks guys.
I wasn't sure where to look in the rules. I tried to find it but the rulebook
is so damn small it's hard for me to read.
The group I play with recently had a situation where one of our players
insisted on firing the heavy weapon on a fighter, insisting it came into play
fully engaged even though nothing on the card says that's the case. He
also insists that something like a Citadel can fire its special weapons
mounts when played in reaction as well, even though there is nothing on
the Citadel that says they can be fired when the base is played in reaction.
Typically, the way we play is that the engagement cost at the top of the
card is treated separately from the cost of the heavy weapons, so I frankly
was at a loss to see why he would insist that he gets to fire his heavy
weapon on the fighter...
Edited by MogwaiSC on 18 June 2007 at 2:43pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 18 June 2007 at 8:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The Citadel should come in engaged because all reaction cards should enter
play engaged (when played as a reaction). If a reaction card had to be
played disengaged it would be unable to use a function, which is in violation
of the rule that states that reaction cards can only be played in reaction
when they use a function. (BTW, weapons fire is not a function)
here's a related question: would a disengaged planetary shield intercept
terrain damage?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 18 June 2007 at 11:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"The Citadel should come in engaged because all reaction cards should
enter play engaged (when played as a reaction)."
Yes, but this doesn't mean you get the heavy weapons for free (not having
to pay their ammunition cost).
"here's a related question: would a disengaged planetary shield intercept
terrain damage?"
Most planetary shields don't have an engagement cost, the B3 certainly
doesn't... the only one that does that I can think of is the B9 Custom
Base/Planetary Shield.
Since ships that aren't engaged still protect the sector HQ, and still get
their shields, I'd say a disengaged planetary shield would still protect the
terrain, but not be able to fire its weapons.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 19 June 2007 at 7:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
would a disengaged planetary shield intercept
terrain damage?
Yes, shield are passive, therefore still function when disengaged.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 19 June 2007 at 12:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree, systems that require resource allocation are not active on a unit played in reaction.
my question should have been, "do the special planetary shield rules have any effect when the planetary shield is disengaged?" (disregarding how it was disengaged). In such a state, how is it different from any other disengaged base?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 20 June 2007 at 7:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
special planetary shield rules?
Can you quote the rule in question? I'm a little rusty on the exact wordings of cards anymore.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 20 June 2007 at 7:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
There is no standard wording for the planetary shield rules, but they're all similar to this (from the B9):
"The shields absorb card damage being applied to the terrain."
the citadel has similar:
"damage allocated to a terrain card is applied to this base 1st."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 20 June 2007 at 9:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The line on the planetary shield is a card rule, not a card function, and is still in effect even if disengaged. While there is no really good distinction (within the rules) between what is a card rule and what is a card function, a good rule of thumb is that a card rule is something that would be in effect continuously while a card function describes a specific action of the card.
See Effects of Being Disengaged in the rulebook.
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 21 June 2007 at 6:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, even for planetary shields, shields are passive, therefore still function when disengaged.
Edited by Gekonauak on 21 June 2007 at 6:30am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 21 June 2007 at 9:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree that the shields work on a disengaged card, but do they receive the abilities conferred by the card's rules?
I don't know if this was ever written, but the ruling at one time was given to me that self-affecting rules still work on disengaged cards.
(example: certain terrain take half damage even when disengaged)
If I somehow disengage an opponent's luck demon, can I play my discard equivalency and not have it 'stolen'?
Does a disengaged exogeologist prevent terrain destruction?
(scans of cards are available online and the rule text of most is in the DB on this site)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 21 June 2007 at 11:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, the shields retain their ability to block card damage even if the card is disengaged.
Well, its not that self-affecting rules still work on disengaged cards (that was never written), but rather non-passive cards do not function on disengaged cards.
Luck Demons still function, but Crew do not.
(scans of cards are available online and the rule text of most is in the DB on this site)
Yes, i realize that, but most of the time i do not have the time to look it up. I am more than willing to give all of you my "expert" opinion, but i will need a little help on your guys end.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ericbsmith
IRC
Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: 21 June 2007 at 3:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Tarquon wrote:
| (scans of cards are available online and the rule text of most is in the DB on this site) |
|
|
If you're asking a specific question about a specific card or passage from the rule book it would be only courteous for you to look up and quote the rule from the database or rulebook, as the other people are already contributing their time to answering your question.
__________________
Eric B. Smith
GE Card Museum
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 21 June 2007 at 11:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
hmmmm....
Consider the previous rulebook reference for disengaged cards, in
particular this exerpt:
"Rules on a disengaged card may still affect the disengaged card."
implying (to me) that rules on a disenaged card don't affect anything
other than that card. I don't recall any specific mention of 'self-affecting'
rules either, but this seems pretty close.
With this in mind, I would rule that a disengaged luck demon can't do
anything other than prevent luck cards from being played against it, a
disengaged plantetary shield can't 'intercept' terrain damage, a
disengaged occumbus does nothing, and a disengaged helix crystal also
does nothing but you can only destroy it by destroying its location. This
seems in line with the game's spirit and intent and I don't see any adverse
side effects from this ruling.
The rulebook also seems to imply that other (non-ship and non-base)
card types have operable shields or can be repaired only when engaged.
The rulebook should probably should be revised to remove that rule and
add something about shields always functioning in the section on shields,
repair always possible, and passive equipment/abilities always
operational.
agreed, rule quotes are courteous.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 22 June 2007 at 6:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
"Rules on a disengaged card may still affect the disengaged card."
Where in the rulebook is this located? Under what section?
The rulebook also seems to imply that other (non-ship and non-base)card types have operable shields or can be repaired only when engaged.
This also?
Thanks Eric.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 22 June 2007 at 7:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
See the rulebook reference previously posted by ericbsmith.
Tarquon
Edited by Tarquon on 22 June 2007 at 7:10pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 25 June 2007 at 6:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
The rulebook also seems to imply that other (non-ship and non-base)card types have operable shields or can be repaired only when engaged.
Other cards such as the Ship Collector do have shields.
A disengaged card may not take any action.
A Luck Demon does not require an action by you on your turn, therefore still functions even though it is disengaged. Boarding Parties, Mines, etc. require a card action on your part to use them. You can debate on whether or not Hazards such as Pulsars require an action, I think they do.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 25 June 2007 at 9:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Other cards such as the Ship Collector do have shields.
Yes, my point also - other cards do have shields, can be repaired, can
have equipment. I suggest that if the second bullet in that section is to
be kept that it be reworded "A disengaged card can only operate its
Shields, conduct repairs by use of repair points and operate passive
equipment."
But first we would have to resolve the different rulebook interpretations.
It doesn't help that 3 distinct terms are used in the referenced section
relating to the use of card rules: action, function, and affect. Taken as a
whole, as it is currently worded, the section is somewhat incoherent. My
view is that rules on a disengaged card can only affect that card and
nothing else. Take that as you will, I think it makes for a cleaner ruleset.
(Is some aspect of the game distorted by this interpretation? Does play
become less interesting in some way?)
(I don't mean to distract from the above discussion, but consider a
disengaged B10 Science Academy which has the rule "Monsters may not
affect the fleet.")
(Not to further distract, but would you allow a player to allocate ammo to
arm the HW of a Zedan unit - possibly threatening a reactionary
engagement and reactionary weapon fire?)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 26 June 2007 at 10:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
"A disengaged card can only operate its
Shields, conduct repairs by use of repair points and operate passive equipment."
But that's not true. If you and your group want to play it that way, that is fine. But, that is not how the company intended it to work.
But first we would have to resolve the different rulebook interpretations. It doesn't help that 3 distinct terms are used in the referenced section
relating to the use of card rules: action, function, and affect. Taken as a whole, as it is currently worded, the section is somewhat incoherent.
That I *would* agree with.
In your examples, the B10 would have to be engaged to protect the fleet. In regards to the Zedan unit, i believe we allowed the allocation of the ammo. Specifically so an emergency energy card could be played.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 27 June 2007 at 2:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The terms action, function, and affect [sic] (should be effect) to my mind all connote the same kind of thing. To argue they are all different and that each should be treated differently is unnecessary rules-lawyering. We have a player in our group who tries to take advantage of this kind of thing all the time.
While technically, yes, they are different terms, if you just use a little common sense, you'll see they all have pretty much the same meaning.
That said, one thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is the fact that some cards don't need to be engaged; I'm thinking of the mention of the Luck Demon. Luck Demons don't have any engagement cost, therefore they cannot be disengaged. Therefore, they would always work, except of course in the case where some other card prevents their function from being used or taking place. However, this itself is not the same as "disengaging" the luck demon.
This brings me back to the point of why I started this whole thread; whether or not arming heavy weapons is considered part of the engagement cost of a unit. We have consistently played that arming heavy weapons is not part of engaging the unit; you can engage a unit without also arming its heavy weapons, and vice-versa, you should be able to arm a units heavy weapons without engaging it (I know that doesn't make sense, but it does follow logically from the premises, and I have encountered a situation in the game where it is useful) even though our rules-lawyer always double-standards and bends the rules to his advantage even when it means he contradicts what he argued for in previous games.
In short, my question is, again, should arming heavy weapons be considered part of engagement or not?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 27 June 2007 at 11:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I dunno, if heavy weapons are being considered in the engagement I would
break it off and try to get the ring back.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 28 June 2007 at 6:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Luck Demons don't have any engagement cost,
TRUE.
therefore they cannot be disengaged.
FALSE.
The fact that a card doesn't have an engagement cost does not mean that it cannot be disengaged. However, disengaging the Luck Demon would have no effect. It would still function.
And, no, heavy weapons is not part of the engagement cost.
Although we do refer to a unit with all of their weapons loaded as "fully engaged". Meaning "fully loaded".
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 28 June 2007 at 12:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
According to the rules, "All cards with point requirements ... are played in
the disengaged position." So, unless there's some rule about reaction
cards always being played engaged, I would have to rule that the base is
actually played disengaged.
An engaged unit with armed weapons is 'fully engaged'. In our group we
say 'I'm fully engaging this unit...' during the engagement phase to
identify such units. Cards that can 'fully engage' or generate points 'for
possible engagement' are the only means I can recall for a unit to engage
and arm weapons outside the allocation phase.
Seems rather arbitrary to say the disengaged luck demon still works but
the disengaged science academy doesn't. Both cards have only 'may'
rules which requires some player involvement (e.g. "no, my luck demon
doesn't want your stinkin' discard equivalency.")
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 28 June 2007 at 6:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"Luck Demons don't have any engagement cost,
TRUE.
therefore they cannot be disengaged.
FALSE.
The fact that a card doesn't have an engagement cost does not mean that
it cannot be disengaged. However, disengaging the Luck Demon would
have no effect. It would still function."
Then the engaged/disengaged distinction is meaningless. If the Luck
Demon still functions if "disengaged", then it's not disengaged, is it? I
would argue that if it could be "disengaged" then it shouldn't function,
and if it can still function without being "engaged", then it can't be
disengaged. It's simple logic...
In the case of the Science Academy though, it's a different story because it
does have an engagement cost and therefore can be disengaged. If
something doesn't have an engagement cost then how can it be
disengaged?
Again, this distinction when applied to the Luck Demon is meaningless, so
why bother to say it can be "disengaged"?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: Heavy Weapons in Reaction
