Single Purpose FAQ Update.

[WWHSD 9,273]

R2-D2 AND C-3PO ALLY PACK

Q: Can “Single Purpose” be used to perform a special action twice if that action includes an attack?

A: No

 

 

Would this FAQ entry keep a figure that was also benefiting from Assault from using the same special action twice that includes an attack? I'm not sure if such a combo is possible currently, but if a Trooper had a special attack action playing this card and being within 3 spaces of Fenn should let them attack twice and use the same special action twice.

 

 

[DerBaer 1,223]

Such a combo is not possible right now.

[Fizz 986]

Assault would take precedence. The crux of the "Single Purpose" issue was that people thought that the ability to use the same special action twice bypassed the single attack rule, which it does not.

[WWHSD 9,273]

Assault would take precedence. The crux of the "Single Purpose" issue was that people thought that the ability to use the same special action twice bypassed the single attack rule, which it does not.

 

It seemed like the FAQ answer should have been longer than just a simple "No.".

[Baer 137]

Such a combo is not possible right now.

It is possible.

Garkhaan can charge 2 times with single purpose and attack both times (if damaged)

[DerBaer 1,223]

You're right ...

[thestag 751]

It's unfortunate that this was added to the FAQ since it blatently goes against the Golden Rule that states: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in the Rules Reference Guide". What's the point of having golden rules if they're just going to be ignored whenever the developer finds it convenient? Since I don't play in tournaments this doesn't really affect me, so I will continue to follow the golden rule rather than the FAQ (which is now broken, in my opinion).

 

EDIT: I sent this same sentiment to FFG Rules questions. I really just want to know what kind of logic they used to destroy RAW with this new "rule". I'll post their response if/when I get one.

Edited October 17, 2015 by thestag

[Fizz 986]

It's unfortunate that this was added to the FAQ since it blatently goes against the Golden Rule that states: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in the Rules Reference Guide". What's the point of having golden rules if they're just going to be ignored whenever the developer finds it convenient? Since I don't play in tournaments this doesn't really affect me, so I will continue to follow the golden rule rather than the FAQ (which is now broken, in my opinion).

 

EDIT: I sent this same sentiment to FFG Rules questions. I really just want to know what kind of logic they used to destroy RAW with this new "rule". I'll post their response if/when I get one.

 

No, it doesnt. RAW states two things (truncated)

 

1) You can only attack once per activation.

2) Each special action may only be used once per activation.

 

The FAQ here merely reinforces the intention of the card, in that single purpose allows you to ignore #2, but not #1.

[thestag 751]

 

It's unfortunate that this was added to the FAQ since it blatently goes against the Golden Rule that states: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in the Rules Reference Guide". What's the point of having golden rules if they're just going to be ignored whenever the developer finds it convenient? Since I don't play in tournaments this doesn't really affect me, so I will continue to follow the golden rule rather than the FAQ (which is now broken, in my opinion).

 

EDIT: I sent this same sentiment to FFG Rules questions. I really just want to know what kind of logic they used to destroy RAW with this new "rule". I'll post their response if/when I get one.

 

No, it doesnt. RAW states two things (truncated)

 

1) You can only attack once per activation.

2) Each special action may only be used once per activation.

 

The FAQ here merely reinforces the intention of the card, in that single purpose allows you to ignore #2, but not #1.

I'm not here to get into an arugement. RAW does state what you said. However RAW also says that card abilites override the RRG. The statement in the FAQ reverses this. I understand the intention of the card may have been different, but they should have stated it on the card rather than make a one-off that contradicts the Golden Rule. There's enough minutia in this game that we don't need more contradictions/FAQ's/errata. It's hard enough to get new people interested in this game as is. Now I have to explain that the golden rules are merely gold plated rules.

[Baer 137]

I don't think the card needs any explaination at all. It never says you can ignore the attack once rule.

Imagine the following :

You have an E-web with some special action which includes an attack.

You make that attack.

Now lets assume that the opponent has some nasty defens stuff which would allow him to push your e-web back.

If you would now play single purpose you wouldn't think that you could do your special action attack again because tripod says "you move, your done".

Its basically the same. If the card should do what you assume it does then the wording would be a different like :

You can do the same special action again and you can ignore the attack limit with that action.

[WWHSD 9,273]

It's unfortunate that this was added to the FAQ since it blatently goes against the Golden Rule that states: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in the Rules Reference Guide". What's the point of having golden rules if they're just going to be ignored whenever the developer finds it convenient? Since I don't play in tournaments this doesn't really affect me, so I will continue to follow the golden rule rather than the FAQ (which is now broken, in my opinion).

 

EDIT: I sent this same sentiment to FFG Rules questions. I really just want to know what kind of logic they used to destroy RAW with this new "rule". I'll post their response if/when I get one.

 

No, it doesnt. RAW states two things (truncated)

 

1) You can only attack once per activation.

2) Each special action may only be used once per activation.

 

The FAQ here merely reinforces the intention of the card, in that single purpose allows you to ignore #2, but not #1.

Except that the wording of the FAQ forbids using Single Purpose to perform a special action that includes an attack even if your figure is permitted to perform multiple actions that include an attack.

[Baer 137]

Uh. I submitted a ticket with that error to ffg.

[Baer 137]

And here comes the official ruling

 

My mail 

 

Hello, I doubt this was the intention but there is a problem with the new FAQ regarding Single Purpose. You should still be allowed to do a Special Action which includes an attack if you are allowed to do multiple Attacks. For example Garkhaan : He should be able to use Charge twice with Single Purpose if he has a damage token on him. The way you worded the FAQ Entry this is forbidden. Will you change that with a hotfix or do we need to wait till the next season? Best regards, 

and the answer of Paul

 

 

That was indeed not the intention. We attempt to write the FAQ in straightforward language and, it seems this time it was too straightforward. This is meant to address that Single Purpose does not allow you to perform a second attack with the doubled up special action when you otherwise could not. It does not deny double attacks that would already be legal, such as Gaarkhan’s “Charge” once he is enraged.

 

Hope this helps. Thanks!

 

Paul Winchester

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

pwinchester@fantasyflightgames.com

Edited October 19, 2015 by Baer

[CT_Rob 9]

It's unfortunate that this was added to the FAQ since it blatently goes against the Golden Rule that states: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in the Rules Reference Guide". What's the point of having golden rules if they're just going to be ignored whenever the developer finds it convenient? Since I don't play in tournaments this doesn't really affect me, so I will continue to follow the golden rule rather than the FAQ (which is now broken, in my opinion).

 

EDIT: I sent this same sentiment to FFG Rules questions. I really just want to know what kind of logic they used to destroy RAW with this new "rule". I'll post their response if/when I get one.

It is not broken. The card overides the rule from the RRG that prevents you from using the same special action twice. That's it.

Let's take your reasoning in a different direction. Let's say it is Gideon's activation and he plays the "Single Purpose" command card. He then uses his first action to gain 4 movement points. Then for his second action he uses the "On My Mark" special action to focus somebody. Can he then take a 3rd action to do the "On My Mark" special action again to focus somebody else? No he can't because even though "Single Purpose" overrides the rule that prevents him from using the same special action twice, it does not override the rule that says you only get 2 actions per turn. Just like it does not override the rule preventing more then one actions containing an attack.

Edited October 20, 2015 by CT_Rob

[WWHSD 9,273]

 No he can't because even though "Single Purpose" overrides the rule that prevents him from using the same special action twice, it does not override the rule that says you only get 2 actions per turn. Just like it does not override the rule preventing more then one actions containing an attack.

 

But the FAQ entry as written does override an ability like Assault or Gaarkhan's Engraged from permitting multiple attack actions when comboed with Single Purpose. The response from Paul Winchester confirms that the FAQ answer was too concise and that Single Purpose does permit a special action that contains an attack to be used twice, as long as the figure is able to attack multiple times an activation.

[thestag 751]

I got the same response from Paul that Baer received. I think that rather than answering the question the way they did in the FAQ, it should have been written as such:

The "Single Purpose" card should include the following sentence: You may not perform a special action that would allow your character to attack more than the rules allow.

 

Simple, easy, and it doesn't force anyone into thinking all of these convoluted rules violations. Maybe we can see something like this in FAQ 1.3.

[tomkat364 528]

I agree with CT_rob. The card was never ambivalent, but I also agree the FAQ makes things more problematic. They need to correct the FAQ, not the card. The card negates a single rule, not two. No one would interpret the card to allow two executions of "flurry of blades", right? It doesn't make the second special action free to execute. It's no different than the saboteurs ability to use the same surge twice. You still need two surges in order to buy the second ability, right? It only negates the ONE rule. The same here. It removes the once per round restriction, not the two attack restriction.

[thestag 751]

...It removes the once per round restriction, not the two attack restriction.

Why couldn't it read as both? When I first read it I saw it as doing the 2 of the same special action, and if that action included an attack, more power to you.

[Reiryc 619]

...It removes the once per round restriction, not the two attack restriction.

Why couldn't it read as both? When I first read it I saw it as doing the 2 of the same special action, and if that action included an attack, more power to you.

I agree.

The card itself doesn't specify that it only overrides a single rule. The card can reasonably be read as allowing a special action that allows a unit to perform it even if it allowed a second attack.

As anecdotal evidence for this being a reasonable interpretation I asked 5 other assault players if they thought the card allowed a second special action that included an attack. 4 felt that it did, 1 did not. These are all non skirmish players however and so their bias may have been, among other things, how significant such an allowance could be with some special action attacks.

The point I'm making however, is that when interpreted by some, it's not as clear or unreasonable to believe that as written, with the golden rule, that it did override the attack restriction as well.

[Baer 137]

Just imagine it as the card having the same special ability printed twice on the card. That's basically everything this card does.

And if you would have it printed twice on the card you wouldn't be allowed to ignore the one attack action rule.