Jump to content
mischraum.de

Are Elite Jawa Scavenger and Temporary Alliance cumulative?

Recommended Posts

If I choose the Mercenary affiliation and include Temporary Alliance and the Elite Jawa Scavenger in my list can I now include 3 rebel droids in my list e.g. MHD-19, Chopper and R2-D2 AND C3-PO and Gideon?

Can I include 6 droids from other affiliations if I have 2 Elite Jawa Scavengers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mischraum.de said:

If I choose the Mercenary affiliation and include Temporary Alliance and the Elite Jawa Scavenger in my list can I now include 3 rebel droids in my list e.g. MHD-19, Chopper and R2-D2 AND C3-PO and Gideon?

Can I include 6 droids from other affiliations if I have 2 Elite Jawa Scavengers?

Yes and yes. I think the latter was specifically mentioned in one of the Team Covenant interviews about the wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was done a few times in an effort to have R2-D2, C-3PO and BT-1 brought in by a Jawa, then have Gideon and Hera brought in through Temporary Alliance.

You are allowed up to 3 droids from any faction, so you can take anything from 0 to 3 droids with the Jawa,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 7:09 AM, a1bert said:

Yes and yes. I think the latter was specifically mentioned in one of the Team Covenant interviews about the wave.

By a strict reading of the words on the card I would argue it isn't clear that this is the case...

I fully understand that its the intention of the card, but the wordings do not preclude the cards also counting for the other.

I.e. If you have C-3PO and R2-D2 brought in with the Jawa, they could also conceivably be counted as two Rebel cards for Temporary Alliance.

Its clear the abilities should be cumulative, but I'm not sure how else they could be worded to make it unequivocally clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree. But you could read it literally as; your cap for non scum droids is now 3. Nothing clarifies it’s cumulative.

we all know it is though.

just pointing out there is an absence in the wordage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a1bert said:

Like in these situations in general, people can fall back to the "litmus test" of how would it be worded if it were not cumulative? Would it still be worded the same way?

 

Sadly it could be worded the same way. I asked this question because having played other games from FFG there were situations when one card said reduce by x to a minimum of 1 and another card said reduce by y without a restriction. The minimum of 1 was regarded as absolute.  And so „you may include up to 2 rebel Deployment cards“ could also impose an absolute maximum. Good to know how it works in this game but it always depends on the wording the designers have established for „their“ game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, a1bert said:

Like in these situations in general, people can fall back to the "litmus test" of how would it be worded if it were not cumulative? Would it still be worded the same way?

it's certainly a difficult wording to put into practise without creating this grey area.

I think it's important to note also that players should not have to think about all the other ways the cards could be written. It should really be clear from just reading the cards...

(I know how the card is supposed to work, but someone with a poorer understanding of English, or even a poor translation into another language, could easily make this a hotly debated topic during a game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 2:17 PM, mischraum.de said:

Sadly it could be worded the same way. I asked this question because having played other games from FFG there were situations when one card said reduce by x to a minimum of 1 and another card said reduce by y without a restriction. The minimum of 1 was regarded as absolute.  And so „you may include up to 2 rebel Deployment cards“ could also impose an absolute maximum. Good to know how it works in this game but it always depends on the wording the designers have established for „their“ game.

This was actually also a key factor with the Jawa's Take Cover ability.  It has the wording that says you may apply +1 block and -1 surge cancel to the defense results.  For a while there was an argument that said that you could only apply the +1 block if you had a surge cancel to remove (in other words, if you couldn't pay for it, you couldn't take it).

However this was clarified to say that you can apply the +1block regardless, and would only remove a surge cancel if you had 1 to cancel.

The reasoning was that it did not say you can convert 1 to the other, so you only do as much as you can.  A similar rule was brought into X-Wing, and people argued for months on it, before it was confirmed to use the same methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Take Cover was meant to convert evade into a block, it would have been written so. (See Combat Coat.)

You literally add a block and a negative version of an evade to the results. Negative symbols have been in the game since the core, although very discreetly (in a few mission rules) - the rules do not mention them, but they don't have any effect other than annihilate their positive version if there is one. The resolution order and steps of an attack depends on this. You can add negative symbols when there are not positive versions at the time. We have gotten an abundance of negative symbols later, starting with Weakened.

I wrote an entry to the Consolidate Imperial Assault Rules:

Negative Symbols

Attribute tests and attacks can gain negative versions of symbols for example from mission rules, weapons and
modifications, or conditions such as Weakened (-1evade while defending and -1surge while attacking). If a positive
and negative version of the same symbol exist in the attribute test results or in the attack/defense results, they
eliminate each other immediately. A negative version of a symbol doesn't have any other effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...