R3-A2 works no more

[librarian101 277]

Just a little common sense s what we need.

[tk426 160]

I think it's safe to say the timing chart wasn't created to blank out the text of a 2pt astromech. But if this isn't cleared up before world's I think any rebel player who chooses to play R3-A2 at worlds is taking a big risk. You can't go into an event such as world's thinking that it should work when the last two FAQ's said it doesn't.

[InstantAequitas 678]

This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.

R3-A2 literally all happens The Declare Target Step after all the conditions are met and you have a defender. As per R3-A2's own FAQ entry that says, "If a ship equipped with R3-A2 performs a secondary weapon attack that says “perform this attack twice,” this ability can only be used on the first attack because the target is not declared again during the second attack." As R3-A2 needs the defender, he triggers after sub-task v.

Step 1: Declare Target Step (R3-A2 exists here. He cannot be used in Step 2: Roll Attack Dice, Step 3: Modify Attack Dice or any other step all the way through Step 10: Remove destroyed ship.

part i: (check arc) - part one carries over the entire time of declare target step this is known because if it didn't, you would not be able to move on to Step 2: Roll Attack Dice or basically do anything in this game.

ii: choose weapon

iii: declare target

iv: pay cost

v: target becomes defender > R3-A2 triggers here, follow instructions on the card

It has been the same way R3-A2 has supposed to have been played since it's release. Here is a scripted example:

*player 1 uses range ruler to check for enemies in arc of Wes Janson. He sees Soontir Fel at range 3.

Player 1: "Wes Janson range 3 primary at Soontir Fel."

Player 2: "Okay"

P1 "Wes takes a Stress using R3-A2 to give Fel a Stress"

P2: "Fel takes a stress. He gains a focus thanks to his ability"

P1: *mutters unintelligibly something that rhymes with duck. Then rolls three blank red dice, totally forgetting Wes's ability as they move onto the next shots.

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

[WWHSD 9,273]

This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.

R3-A2 literally all happens The Declare Target Step after all the conditions are met and you have a defender. As per R3-A2's own FAQ entry that says, "If a ship equipped with R3-A2 performs a secondary weapon attack that says “perform this attack twice,” this ability can only be used on the first attack because the target is not declared again during the second attack." As R3-A2 needs the defender, he triggers after sub-task v.

Step 1: Declare Target Step (R3-A2 exists here. He cannot be used in Step 2: Roll Attack Dice, Step 3: Modify Attack Dice or any other step all the way through Step 10: Remove destroyed ship.

part i: (check arc) - part one carries over the entire time of declare target step this is known because if it didn't, you would not be able to move on to Step 2: Roll Attack Dice or basically do anything in this game.

ii: choose weapon

iii: declare target

iv: pay cost

v: target becomes defender > R3-A2 triggers here, follow instructions on the card

It has been the same way R3-A2 has supposed to have been played since it's release. Here is a scripted example:

*player 1 uses range ruler to check for enemies in arc of Wes Janson. He sees Soontir Fel at range 3.

Player 1: "Wes Janson range 3 primary at Soontir Fel."

Player 2: "Okay"

P1 "Wes takes a Stress using R3-A2 to give Fel a Stress"

P2: "Fel takes a stress. He gains a focus thanks to his ability"

P1: *mutters unintelligibly something that rhymes with duck. Then rolls three blank red dice, totally forgetting Wes's ability as they move onto the next shots.

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

It needs to happen after v. but the wording on the card indicates that it happens at iii.

[Parravon 5,217]

The whole step needs to be overhauled. It's just messy.

[DR4CO 6,234]

This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.

R3-A2 literally all happens The Declare Target Step after all the conditions are met and you have a defender. As per R3-A2's own FAQ entry that says, "If a ship equipped with R3-A2 performs a secondary weapon attack that says “perform this attack twice,” this ability can only be used on the first attack because the target is not declared again during the second attack." As R3-A2 needs the defender, he triggers after sub-task v.

Step 1: Declare Target Step (R3-A2 exists here. He cannot be used in Step 2: Roll Attack Dice, Step 3: Modify Attack Dice or any other step all the way through Step 10: Remove destroyed ship.

part i: (check arc) - part one carries over the entire time of declare target step this is known because if it didn't, you would not be able to move on to Step 2: Roll Attack Dice or basically do anything in this game.

ii: choose weapon

iii: declare target

iv: pay cost

v: target becomes defender > R3-A2 triggers here, follow instructions on the card

It has been the same way R3-A2 has supposed to have been played since it's release. Here is a scripted example:

*player 1 uses range ruler to check for enemies in arc of Wes Janson. He sees Soontir Fel at range 3.

Player 1: "Wes Janson range 3 primary at Soontir Fel."

Player 2: "Okay"

P1 "Wes takes a Stress using R3-A2 to give Fel a Stress"

P2: "Fel takes a stress. He gains a focus thanks to his ability"

P1: *mutters unintelligibly something that rhymes with duck. Then rolls three blank red dice, totally forgetting Wes's ability as they move onto the next shots.

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

 

This is the only way a lot of the glitched cards in the game have been found & fixed. I refer you to the old Daredevil errata, for example.

 

And really, has anyone in this thread argued that R3-A2 shouldn't work? The discussion has basically been:

 

OP: "I think R3-A2 is broken."

Everyone Else: "I think you're right. Let me just crack a joke at his expense; now, how do we fix him?"

 

Your rudeness is both unwarranted and exceedingly unhelpful.

Edited October 24, 2016 by DR4CO

[Amraam01 154]

 

This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.

R3-A2 literally all happens The Declare Target Step after all the conditions are met and you have a defender. As per R3-A2's own FAQ entry that says, "If a ship equipped with R3-A2 performs a secondary weapon attack that says “perform this attack twice,” this ability can only be used on the first attack because the target is not declared again during the second attack." As R3-A2 needs the defender, he triggers after sub-task v.

Step 1: Declare Target Step (R3-A2 exists here. He cannot be used in Step 2: Roll Attack Dice, Step 3: Modify Attack Dice or any other step all the way through Step 10: Remove destroyed ship.

part i: (check arc) - part one carries over the entire time of declare target step this is known because if it didn't, you would not be able to move on to Step 2: Roll Attack Dice or basically do anything in this game.

ii: choose weapon

iii: declare target

iv: pay cost

v: target becomes defender > R3-A2 triggers here, follow instructions on the card

It has been the same way R3-A2 has supposed to have been played since it's release. Here is a scripted example:

*player 1 uses range ruler to check for enemies in arc of Wes Janson. He sees Soontir Fel at range 3.

Player 1: "Wes Janson range 3 primary at Soontir Fel."

Player 2: "Okay"

P1 "Wes takes a Stress using R3-A2 to give Fel a Stress"

P2: "Fel takes a stress. He gains a focus thanks to his ability"

P1: *mutters unintelligibly something that rhymes with duck. Then rolls three blank red dice, totally forgetting Wes's ability as they move onto the next shots.

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

 

This is the only way a lot of the glitched cards in the game have been found & fixed. I refer you to the old Daredevil errata, for example.

 

And really, has anyone in this thread argued that R3-A2 shouldn't work? The discussion has basically been:

 

OP: "I think R3-A2 is broken."

Everyone Else: "I think you're right. Let me just crack a joke at his expense; now, how do we fix him?"

 

Your rudeness is both unwarranted and exceedingly unhelpful.

 

Technically, the post title "R3-A2 works no more" as a statement of fact so the OP was kinda asking for it.  I thought that was the most helpful post as he spelled out the steps (i, ii etc which is nice to see spelled out here) and gave an example.  How exactly is that unhelpful?  I wouldn't get all bent out of shape on that post.   

[WWHSD 9,273]

This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.

R3-A2 literally all happens The Declare Target Step after all the conditions are met and you have a defender. As per R3-A2's own FAQ entry that says, "If a ship equipped with R3-A2 performs a secondary weapon attack that says “perform this attack twice,” this ability can only be used on the first attack because the target is not declared again during the second attack." As R3-A2 needs the defender, he triggers after sub-task v.

Step 1: Declare Target Step (R3-A2 exists here. He cannot be used in Step 2: Roll Attack Dice, Step 3: Modify Attack Dice or any other step all the way through Step 10: Remove destroyed ship.

part i: (check arc) - part one carries over the entire time of declare target step this is known because if it didn't, you would not be able to move on to Step 2: Roll Attack Dice or basically do anything in this game.

ii: choose weapon

iii: declare target

iv: pay cost

v: target becomes defender > R3-A2 triggers here, follow instructions on the card

It has been the same way R3-A2 has supposed to have been played since it's release. Here is a scripted example:

*player 1 uses range ruler to check for enemies in arc of Wes Janson. He sees Soontir Fel at range 3.

Player 1: "Wes Janson range 3 primary at Soontir Fel."

Player 2: "Okay"

P1 "Wes takes a Stress using R3-A2 to give Fel a Stress"

P2: "Fel takes a stress. He gains a focus thanks to his ability"

P1: *mutters unintelligibly something that rhymes with duck. Then rolls three blank red dice, totally forgetting Wes's ability as they move onto the next shots.

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

This is the only way a lot of the glitched cards in the game have been found & fixed. I refer you to the old Daredevil errata, for example.

And really, has anyone in this thread argued that R3-A2 shouldn't work? The discussion has basically been:

OP: "I think R3-A2 is broken."

Everyone Else: "I think you're right. Let me just crack a joke at his expense; now, how do we fix him?"

Your rudeness is both unwarranted and exceedingly unhelpful.

Technically, the post title "R3-A2 works no more" as a statement of fact so the OP was kinda asking for it. I thought that was the most helpful post as he spelled out the steps (i, ii etc which is nice to see spelled out here) and gave an example. How exactly is that unhelpful? I wouldn't get all bent out of shape on that post.

Calling it "the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks" wasn't a great start. The OP pointed out something he believed was an issue with the way a card interacts with the rules, cited the rules in question, and referenced a recent FAQ update that ties something with a similar timing to step iii. I'm not sure what your standards for a "pathetic post" are, but that definitely isn't close to mine.

Referring to people posting in this thread as "terrible people" for discussing this potentential problem is kind of rude and in no way helpful.

Edited October 24, 2016 by WWHSD

[VanorDM 11,599]

Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.

 

you're way out of line here.  Rules Lawyers are quite often the only reason rules get fixed, and no one is actually saying it should work this way, only pointing out that RAW it doesn't work like it clearly is intended.

 

If this kind of thing offends you I suggest you stay away from this subform.  Because this isn't the first time and I hope it's not the last time someone points out something doesn't work correctly based on current RAW.

Edited October 24, 2016 by VanorDM

[BlodVargarna 4,041]

Rules, like laws, are interpreted to give them effect. Interpreting a rule so as to make it a nullity is to be avoided. 

 

R3-A2 

 

-The Rule to Avoid Surplusage- "This rule is based on the principle that each word or phrase in the statute is meaningful and useful, and thus, an interpretation that would render a word or phrase redundant or meaningless should be rejected."

 

Furthermore, re-reading the card, and the FAQ, there is no reason at all to read a result to mean anything other than the defender (part v of the DECLARE TARGET step) gets a stress from the astromech.

 

This contorted reasoning that because the card does not mention the FAQ sup parts is poppycock and nonsense. 

DO WHAT THE CARD SAYS, NOT WHAT IT DOESN't SAY.

[Klutz 1,590]

Absolutely no one has even come close to remotely suggesting that R3-A2 should be considered useless.

 

Rules should be written to be as clear as possible, without needing to "fudge" them to make cards actually work.

Recent FAQ updates have been moving in the right direction, with, among other things, the timing chart.

However, these improvements have also introduced obviously unintended consequences.

 

Sure, you can get on a high horse and say stuff like:

• This is the most pathetic post that has been on the forums in a few weeks.
• Rules lawyers are terrible people when they try to argue about problems that don't exist.
• This contorted reasoning that because the card does not mention the FAQ sup parts is poppycock and nonsense.

 

But we're all just trying to make the rules better, and I'm sure everyone agrees that the timing chart would be a lot clearer if the "Declare Target" step didn't have a sub-step called "Declare target of the attack".

 

 

If this confusion around "declare target" timings isn't cleared up, what happens when we have a "When you declare the target of your attack" ability that doesn't require a defender?

• Is R3-A2 used as a precedent, and the effect triggers after the full step 1 of the timing chart?
• Or, since this hypothetical new card doesn't require a defender, it triggers after step 1.iii?

Edited October 24, 2016 by Klutz

[WWHSD 9,273]

Rules, like laws, are interpreted to give them effect. Interpreting a rule so as to make it a nullity is to be avoided. 

 

R3-A2 

 

-The Rule to Avoid Surplusage- "This rule is based on the principle that each word or phrase in the statute is meaningful and useful, and thus, an interpretation that would render a word or phrase redundant or meaningless should be rejected."

 

Furthermore, re-reading the card, and the FAQ, there is no reason at all to read a result to mean anything other than the defender (part v of the DECLARE TARGET step) gets a stress from the astromech.

 

This contorted reasoning that because the card does not mention the FAQ sup parts is poppycock and nonsense. 

DO WHAT THE CARD SAYS, NOT WHAT IT DOESN't SAY.

 

 

The card says it triggers when you declare the target of your attack. You declare the target of the attack at iii. The card then tells you to apply an effect to something that doesn't exist. Without doing something that the card doesn't explicitly instruct you to do, it won't work. 

Why is "1.v. Target of the attack becomes the defender" the more obviously correct spot than "1.iii. Declare target of the attack" for something that triggers when you declare a target of the attack? 

For a post that ends in the mantra "do what the cards says, not what it doesn't say" it sure contains a bunch of ideas for how to interpret a card that have nothing to do with the words on the card.

Edited October 24, 2016 by WWHSD

[Klutz 1,590]

For a post that ends in the mantra "do what the cards says, not what it doesn't say" it sure contains a bunch of ideas for how to interpret a card that have nothing to do with the words on the card.

 

Yes, but notice how he quoted an actual law book from Georgetown University Law Center^[1]? He must be right.

 

^[1] Katharine Clark and Matthew Connolly, A Guide to Reading Interpreting and Applying Statutes § 1.C (2006)

[nigeltastic 3,808]

For a post that ends in the mantra "do what the cards says, not what it doesn't say" it sure contains a bunch of ideas for how to interpret a card that have nothing to do with the words on the card.

 

Yes, but notice how he quoted an actual law book from Georgetown University Law Center^[1]? He must be right.

 

^[1] Katharine Clark and Matthew Connolly, A Guide to Reading Interpreting and Applying Statutes § 1.C (2006)

If you quote actual law books are you being a literal rules lawyer?

[BlodVargarna 4,041]

 

Rules, like laws, are interpreted to give them effect. Interpreting a rule so as to make it a nullity is to be avoided. 

 

R3-A2 

 

-The Rule to Avoid Surplusage- "This rule is based on the principle that each word or phrase in the statute is meaningful and useful, and thus, an interpretation that would render a word or phrase redundant or meaningless should be rejected."

 

Furthermore, re-reading the card, and the FAQ, there is no reason at all to read a result to mean anything other than the defender (part v of the DECLARE TARGET step) gets a stress from the astromech.

 

This contorted reasoning that because the card does not mention the FAQ sup parts is poppycock and nonsense. 

DO WHAT THE CARD SAYS, NOT WHAT IT DOESN't SAY.

 

 

The card says it triggers when you declare the target of your attack. You declare the target of the attack at iii. The card then tells you to apply an effect to something that doesn't exist. Without doing something that the card doesn't explicitly instruct you to do, it won't work. 

Why is "1.v. Target of the attack becomes the defender" the more obviously correct spot than "1.iii. Declare target of the attack" for something that triggers when you declare a target of the attack? 

For a post that ends in the mantra "do what the cards says, not what it doesn't say" it sure contains a bunch of ideas for how to interpret a card that have nothing to do with the words on the card.

 

 

The card (written before any timing chart) says "When you declare the target of your attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive 1 stress token to cause the defender to receive 1 stress token."

 

The FAQ says:

1. “Declare Target” step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check

attacker's firing arc

ii. Attacker chooses weapon

iii. Declare target of the attack

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable)

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender

 

So the argument that R3-A2 is a nullity is because the card does not explicitly reference substep v of the Declare Target step? 

 

This is really stupid rules lawyering, and is the kind of ca ca that ruined 40k. 

 

Its obvious that the card happens during the declare target step, and that the effect happens when there is a defender. These sub steps are read into the card. This is how you read rules, to give them their intended effects, not to have an absurd result.

 

Sure, hopefully for the sakes of people like you, the next FAQ will state something like "R3-A2 gives stress to the defender at substep v of Declare Target step in the timing chart." so bored nerds can start looking for the next "problem" that doesn't need to be found.

 

In the mean time, I will play the card as it is written and with the full expectation that my opponent won't be a total d-bag and say "well actually.."

[librarian101 277]

Geez like I said before use some common sense.  Do you really think it was FFGs intent to nerf R3A2.  First you declare the target of the attack(1.iii), then in the card sequence you have to determine if the defender(which you have to determine who the defender is, so you look at step v, to see if the target is really the defender and if it is in arc(determined in step 1.i).  If the target meets the criteria of being the defender then it receives a stress)  The firing ship in that case has already received its stress.  The specific wording on the card requires you to determine if the target meets the requirements to be the defender.  Yes it appears to be out of sequence.  Please note 1 rule that seems to be forgotten.  Page 2 of the Rules reference, Golden Rules: Card abilities can override the rules listed in this guide.  The FAQs is an extension of the Rules Reference.   This may be one of those cases.   It is right and responsible for each player to point out possible rules problems.  However it is also the responsibility of the player to look at the rule in context with what it was meant to accomplish.

 

remember there are exceptions to the general rules in many cases.  Like laws not all rules are perfect.  Again common sense!!

[nigeltastic 3,808]

 

The card (written before any timing chart) says "When you declare the target of your attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive 1 stress token to cause the defender to receive 1 stress token."

 

The FAQ says:

1. “Declare Target” step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check

attacker's firing arc

ii. Attacker chooses weapon

iii. Declare target of the attack

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable)

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender

 

So the argument that R3-A2 is a nullity is because the card does not explicitly reference substep v of the Declare Target step? 

 

No the 'argument' is that the effect of r3a2 applies immediately at the time it says it does. If soontir receives a stress token I don't wait an arbitrary amount of time to give him a focus, I immediately resolve his ability and give him a focus. Likewise immediately upon declaring the target of the attack (so immediately after step 1iii) you attempt to give the defender a stress. At that time there is no defender so nothing happens. Saying 'oh the card clearly references the whole step' is ignoring that there is further clarification if the minutiae of timing within the step. R3a2 would work fine if there was no further clarification of when exactly you declare your target and when exactly someone becomes the defender but both of those clarifications exist.

As for how you play it at home really really doesn't matter. I can play that red maneuvers clear stress at home and that isn't really a good argument for it being correct.

[BlodVargarna 4,041]

 

 

The card (written before any timing chart) says "When you declare the target of your attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive 1 stress token to cause the defender to receive 1 stress token."

 

The FAQ says:

1. “Declare Target” step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check

attacker's firing arc

ii. Attacker chooses weapon

iii. Declare target of the attack

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable)

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender

 

So the argument that R3-A2 is a nullity is because the card does not explicitly reference substep v of the Declare Target step? 

 

No the 'argument' is that the effect of r3a2 applies immediately at the time it says it does. If soontir receives a stress token I don't wait an arbitrary amount of time to give him a focus, I immediately resolve his ability and give him a focus. Likewise immediately upon declaring the target of the attack (so immediately after step 1iii) you attempt to give the defender a stress. At that time there is no defender so nothing happens. Saying 'oh the card clearly references the whole step' is ignoring that there is further clarification if the minutiae of timing within the step. R3a2 would work fine if there was no further clarification of when exactly you declare your target and when exactly someone becomes the defender but both of those clarifications exist.

As for how you play it at home really really doesn't matter. I can play that red maneuvers clear stress at home and that isn't really a good argument for it being correct.

 

 

A-ha what an astoundingly keen x-wing rules interpretation! If there is no defender IMMEDIATELY at step 1 iii, then the stress goes to nobody.

 

Hogwash.

 

If I'm playing my 10 year old at home, my buddy at his house, the local nerds at the game store, or Paul Heaver at Worlds, R3-A2 gives stress to the opponent's ship at step 1 (v). 

[Klutz 1,590]

The card (written before any timing chart) says "When you declare the target of your attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc, you may receive 1 stress token to cause the defender to receive 1 stress token."

 

So the argument that R3-A2 is a nullity is because the card does not explicitly reference substep v of the Declare Target step? 

 

This is really stupid rules lawyering, and is the kind of ca ca that ruined 40k.

 

Sure, hopefully for the sakes of people like you, the next FAQ will state something like "R3-A2 gives stress to the defender at substep v of Declare Target step in the timing chart." so bored nerds can start looking for the next "problem" that doesn't need to be found.

 

In the mean time, I will play the card as it is written and with the full expectation that my opponent won't be a total d-bag and say "well actually.."

> (written before any timing chart)

 

The fact that the card was written before a timing chart is meaningless. R4 Agromech was written before the timing chart, yet everybody agrees that the timing chart stopped R4 Agromech from working with Deadeye.

 

> So the argument that R3-A2 is a nullity is because the card does not explicitly reference substep v of the Declare Target step?

 

No one is saying that anyone will ever argue that "R3-A2 is a nullity". We're just saying that R3-A2's RAW timing does not work. Absolutely 100% of the people in this thread agree on the RAI for R3-A2 and how R3-A2 will should be played. Just because RAI are clear, doesn't mean that RAW shouldn't be fixed.

> "really stupid rules lawyering", "people like you", "bored nerds", "total d-bag"

 

I too enjoy civil discussion.

 

 

Geez like I said before use some common sense.  Do you really think it was FFGs intent to nerf R3A2.  First you declare the target of the attack(1.iii), then in the card sequence you have to determine if the defender(which you have to determine who the defender is, so you look at step v, to see if the target is really the defender and if it is in arc(determined in step 1.i).  If the target meets the criteria of being the defender then it receives a stress)  The firing ship in that case has already received its stress.  The specific wording on the card requires you to determine if the target meets the requirements to be the defender.  Yes it appears to be out of sequence.  Please note 1 rule that seems to be forgotten.  Page 2 of the Rules reference, Golden Rules: Card abilities can override the rules listed in this guide.  The FAQs is an extension of the Rules Reference.   This may be one of those cases.   It is right and responsible for each player to point out possible rules problems.  However it is also the responsibility of the player to look at the rule in context with what it was meant to accomplish.

 

remember there are exceptions to the general rules in many cases.  Like laws not all rules are perfect.  Again common sense!!

 

> Do you really think it was FFGs intent to nerf R3A2.

Absolutely no one ever said that FFG wanted to nerf R3-A2.

 

 

I reworded your argument for use with R4 Agromech:

 

First you declare the target of the attack(1.iii) you pay cost to perform the attack(1.iv), then in the card sequence you have to determine if the defender (which you have to determine who the defender is, so you look at step v, to see if the target is really the defender and if it is in arc(determined in step 1.i).  If the target meets the criteria of being the defender then it receives a stress the attacker gains a TL on the Defender) The specific wording on the card requires you to determine if the target meets the requirements to be the defender.  Yes it appears to be out of sequence.

 

I guess I'm bringing Kavil + Deadeye + R4 Agromech + Plasma Torps + EM to the next tourney!

 

 

> It is right and responsible for each player to point out possible rules problems.  However it is also the responsibility of the player to look at the rule in context with what it was meant to accomplish.

That's all we're doing... We're pointing out rules problems. Please quote 1 person in this thread who mentioned actually attempting to have R3-A2's effect nullified in a tournament.

 

 

 

 

A-ha what an astoundingly keen x-wing rules interpretation! If there is no defender IMMEDIATELY at step 1 iii, then the stress goes to nobody.

 

Hogwash.

 

If I'm playing my 10 year old at home, my buddy at his house, the local nerds at the game store, or Paul Heaver at Worlds, R3-A2 gives stress to the opponent's ship at step 1 (v).

Do you apply the same logic to R4 Agromech?

 

 If there is no defender IMMEDIATELY at step 1 iii 1 iv then the stress goes to nobody there isn't a defender to acquire Target Lock on.

[WWHSD 9,273]

 

Sure, hopefully for the sakes of people like you, the next FAQ will state something like "R3-A2 gives stress to the defender at substep v of Declare Target step in the timing chart." so bored nerds can start looking for the next "problem" that doesn't need to be found.

 

 

Stuff like this doesn't need to be found until someone brings it up at a tournament and has a TO side with them. The TO and the opposing player are hearing about this for the first time, the logic of the complaint is sound, and the TO needs to make a snap decision. If the player bringing the complaint to the TO is the only one that is really familiar with the complaint he's making it is more likely to be successful in swaying the TO.

If the TO is aware of the issue he's more likely to be able to quickly say something like "You know what, as far as I'm concerned treat this card as if it reads 'After the declare target step'" and let play continue.

 

If it wasn't for players catching crap like this, discussing it, and reporting it to FFG, how would anything ever receive errata or FAQ entries?  

 

It was obvious that 'Lone Wolf' was intended to work but with its initial text it did nothing. The card received errata as soon as it hit the shelves.

Edited October 24, 2016 by WWHSD

[Ubul 887]

Geez like I said before use some common sense.  Do you really think it was FFGs intent to nerf R3A2.

 

Believe me, nobody thinks that. The problem here is way beyond R3-A2: the "when declare target" timing window is ambiguous with the current wording of the attack chart, since it has two possible interpretations. In case of R3-A2 the solution is easy: one interpretation renders the card useless, so we should use the other one.

 

But what happens if a new upgrade card with the same timing window appears, and both interpretations are valid and different?

 

Bottom line: Timing windows should be well defined and clear cut.

[DR4CO 6,234]

Okay, I am out of patience here. Everyone ranting about “rules lawyers”, either calm down or get the hell out of the thread. You are worse than useless while you're carrying on.

Go take a look at the FAQ, specifically the Errata section. Most of those cards on that list are there because of a discussion just like this one, where someone pointed out that, rules as written, the card either had unintended consequences or straight-up did not work. The original Accuracy Corrector had two potential timing windows with vastly different consequences. Daredevil didn’t give stress in its original form. Expert Handling let you break the “once per round” rule on actions. Gunner, Luke and Swarm Tactics were all originally mandatory effects. Genius didn’t work at all. Same with Lone Wolf. Like it or not, this game has a history of poor rules writing, and most of the time it falls to the members of this forum to find them, discuss them, and bring them to FFG’s attention before they get fixed.

And, as has been said several times in this thread, no one is arguing that R3-A2 shouldn't work. But unfortunately, based on both the timing chart and established precedents with Rebel Captive and R4 Agromech, he currently doesn't. The discussion hasn't been about how we're all looking forward to springing this on someone to neuter their stress control list; it's been about confirming that yes, there is a problem, then bringing the problem to FFG's attention, then toying with possible ways to reword the droid to solve the problem.

Now either contribute something useful to the discussion or kindly show yourselves out.

Edited February 15, 2017 by DR4CO

[Vineheart01 6,403]

Hah, yea thats impossible now.

 

Nobody in their right mind would disallow that though. If a card becomes literally impossible to use under ANY circumstance, nobody is going to wait for a faq to keep using it theyre just going to ignore the mixup.

And the moment i face someone that does try that on me, im packing my things and leaving. Not playing with a WAAC-type person.

[Stoneface 3,750]

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Again. Obviously FFG didn't have four years of upgrades and expansions tested, canned and ready to go. The wording on some cards has caused problems. Some just because of the wording, some because of new game effects and some problems were caused when trying to explain or correct other cards. Dark Curse for example. I think we can all agree on this. Hopefully.

My take on R3-A2, and only for R3-A2,is this. When I declare the target of an attack, the "target" becomes the "defender". For R3-A2 only. That's when/where the card supersedes the rules. An exception if you will. If I happen to be attacking Dark Curse with a Blaster Turret, he doesn't become the defender until step v after I've paid the cost to use the BT per the FAQ, errata and timing chart.

As this game grows and expands there's going to be more of these problems. And more of these posts. The mantra of "Do what the card says to do and don't do what the card doesn't say" is going to be less and less useful. A little common sense will go a long way. If it doesn't, go to the forums but remain civil to to one another. Don't become "one of those guys" that hides behind an anonymous screen name.

[DR4CO 6,234]

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Again. Obviously FFG didn't have four years of upgrades and expansions tested, canned and ready to go. The wording on some cards has caused problems. Some just because of the wording, some because of new game effects and some problems were caused when trying to explain or correct other cards. Dark Curse for example. I think we can all agree on this. Hopefully.

My take on R3-A2, and only for R3-A2,is this. When I declare the target of an attack, the "target" becomes the "defender". For R3-A2 only. That's when/where the card supersedes the rules. An exception if you will. If I happen to be attacking Dark Curse with a Blaster Turret, he doesn't become the defender until step v after I've paid the cost to use the BT per the FAQ, errata and timing chart.

As this game grows and expands there's going to be more of these problems. And more of these posts. The mantra of "Do what the card says to do and don't do what the card doesn't say" is going to be less and less useful. A little common sense will go a long way. If it doesn't, go to the forums but remain civil to to one another. Don't become "one of those guys" that hides behind an anonymous screen name.

 

In an ideal world, sure. But the problem with common sense is it isn't really all that common. And even if it was, none of this is an excuse not to point out these problems FFG, or for them to not issue errata solving any problem that is found.