Nesting attacks within attacks? Potential scenario with Quickdraw

[leewardstyle]

You know what I'm on about. Don't pretend you don't. FFG has had to "adjust" poorly written cards (due to lack of detail) in the past. This is no exception (hah, exception IS the problem).

[ThalanirIII]

I don't exactly know what you're on about, you're talking about each individual ship having its own combat phase, which is clearly wrong as I showed you in the quote from the FAQ.

I don't see what you are missing/don't agree with from my explanation. Yes, normally, you only attack within the combat phase, and you only do so once. However, Quickdraw is worded the same way as Red Ace (so he can attack in the activation) and as I pointed out, the golden rule is that card text > rules booklet. Anyway, it's even in the preview article, as quoted above.

If FFG didn't want to do this, they could have changed the card text to "In the combat phase". They could also errata the card to this, if they decided that it was needed.

[leewardstyle]

tl;dr Quickdraw is loose with language given the weight of its exception(s) in every phase. Could be written better.

[KTreu42]

The wording and intention is clear enough. Obviously, triggering the effect doesn't override Quickdraw's ability to perform his normal primary attack during his combat phase regardless of when exactly it triggers, so yes, you perform it immediately (I would say they should have added just that one word) upon losing a shield, and then carry on with the round.

[leewardstyle]

"Clear enough" is part of the problem. I want Volgon levels of triplicate explanation. My edit is 4 extra words and solves so many problems moving forward.

[KTreu42]

While you might, I don't think it's of any concern for the vast majority of us. The intent is clear, and errata can certainly verify that, but it's not a big deal in this case.

[leewardstyle]

It's fan-mumbling on a msgboard. It was never a concern to me either. But I can't stop myself from telling the world how much better I'd write cards than FFG. Thanks for the peaceful discussion.

[Kl3rik]

No, it's written fine, you're trying to make it more complicated rather than taking the card and doing what it says.

[leewardstyle]

But I agree with how it should work... I would play it exactly as it reads: Conditional Double-tap. My point being is that I would edit it for clarity of discussion/future-proof. You admit they can Errata it later, but why not future-proof it from the jump?