HI Everybody - first post.

Apologies if this has ben asked already.

When using cluster missiles, with opportunist, does the one stress cover both attacks, or do you need to aquire 2 stress to get 2x 4 dice attacks.

Cluster Missiles: Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack twice. (3 attack dice, range 1+2)

Opportunist: When attacking, if the defender does not have any focus or evade tokens, you may receive 1 stress token to roll one additional attack dice. You cannot use this ability if you have any stress tokens.

Looking at it, there should be no way you can aquire two stress tokens as the Opportunist card states that if you have stress you cannot use it....

However, the cluster missile states that you perform "this attack twice" so i am assuning that any effects applying to the first attack will also apply to the second....

Thankfully it hasn't come up in a game yet..... but i'm sure it will eventually. I enjoy opportunist on Vader/Greens and use clusters with both occasionally.

The confusion in this case stems from the wording on Opportunist. "When attacking," is a little ambiguous. Attacking is all 7 steps of the Combat Phase ( where one ship is declared the attacker while the other ship is the defender). When you use Cluster missiles, you essentially repeat steps 2 to 7. The bonus die added by Opportunist seems to apply to the whole Combat phase (as it doesn't state a specific step of the phase to make it more restrictive). It would, therefore, apply to both attacks (as Opportunist is applied in step 1 and only step 2-7 gets repeated) which would also apply to other attack altering card effects, like gunner.

However, the rulings have always been that Cluster missiles is two attacks so I can see it being FAQ restricted to only one attack. But that is not what the trigger clause is stating. So here we go again with another cluster buster...

Now, if the Opportunist card started with "During an attack,..." I don't think this thread would have even been started.

Do you really see a difference between "When attacking" and "During an Attack"? Because I will guarantee you that the designers don't. The two phrases are for all intents and purposes synonymous.

Opportunist quite obviously kicks in when you figure out how many dice you get to roll (which happens to be step 2), and will only apply to a single attack (of the 2 from cluster missiles).

Opportunist only works on one attack at a time.
Opportunist requires you taking the stress to activate
Opportunist cannot be used when you're already stressed.
Therefore, the only pilot that can use Opportunist across two attacks is Keyan Farlander, with a Gunner.

Do you really see a difference between "When attacking" and "During an Attack"? Because I will guarantee you that the designers don't. The two phrases are for all intents and purposes synonymous.

Opportunist quite obviously kicks in when you figure out how many dice you get to roll (which happens to be step 2), and will only apply to a single attack (of the 2 from cluster missiles).

Actually I do. "Attacking" implies more than one attack, "During an attack" is singular. Fortunately, the new FAQ addresses what a single attack is now:

(Page 1 of the new FAQ)

New Page 10, “During this phase, each ship may perform one attack against one enemy ship. Starting with the ship with the highest pilot skill, to perform one attack, players resolve the following steps in order:”

It also helps to limit Opportunist with this clause.

Abilities Resolve Once Per Opportunity (page 4 of the new FAQ)

A game effect can only resolve once per opportunity. For example, Luke Skywalker’s pilot ability applies “when defending,” so he can only use his ability once against each enemy attack.

What I was trying to do with my earlier post was just use the card and rulebook, as most players will be doing, and trying to understand the OP's point of confusion. I worked through it to see if I could resolve the confusion with a different outcome but I could not. I do know that Opportunist should only work on one attack, I just could not resolve it with just the rulebook and a logical argument.

The FAQ was needed to clear up the confusion.

Just to add to my above post. The issues about Clusters is a known issue, and Opportunist is a newer card. What I've said in previous posts is that the terminology in X-wing, the language and set terms that they use, aren't clear enough in all cases and it makes for some tricky understanding of the rules system. The use of actual step by step function of the card, instead of general text in card instructions, would be much clearer to use from a rules stand point.

They could also have included a limiter in the text (like they did with gunner) and make it only one attack at a time, to help avoid the confusion.

Just to add to my above post. The issues about Clusters is a known issue

So why would you bother to go down this road? Seriously.

Cluster Missiles are a mess. You know it. I know it. They're two separate attacks that somehow manage to only repeat Steps 2-7. There is no consistent rules structure that covers them.

But we have so many rulings for them, there is absolutely ZERO doubt how they're supposed to be played. Even trying to argue otherwise is basically just trolling.

To the OP: I'll repeat it again, Cluster Missiles are a mess which simply don't fit the rules framework. But we know how they're supposed to be played - two completely separate attacks against the same target. That means that any abilities you might use will only affect one attack. If you can re-use the ability (such as Outmaneuver) then it will apply to both attacks. If there's something that limits you to using it once (such as Opportunist) you'll only be able to use it for a single attack.

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here : ) I'll state the card text to help me make my point.

Cluster Missiles:

Attack (Target Lock) Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack twice.

The card text for Cluster Missiles (according to the FAQ) is as follows:

The attacker only needs to spend one target lock to use Cluster Missiles.

Cluster Missiles is treated as two separate attacks against the same target.

If a ship is equipped with Cluster Missiles and Munitions Failsafe, both attacks must miss for Munitions Failsafe to activate.

First, I agree that the text is vague, but I think it is open to interpretation, and until there is something official in a future update of the FAQ, we can only guess at the original intent of the designers and the spirit of the rules.

The language in the FAQ for Cluster Missiles says "is treated as two separate attacks" not "is two separate attacks". Opportunist is a single attack, but because it is a cluster missile, it is treated as two attacks (for the purpose of determining damage). This is why it only needs ONE target lock to execute, and why the results of both "attacks" must miss for Munitions Failsafe to activate. For those of you that don't know, cluster missiles (in the real world) is a single missile that splits into multiple warheads or bomblets. You only fire it once, and you hit the target multiple times. So, one target lock, multiple hits.

Let's look at Munitions Failsafe for a minute:

When attacking with a secondary weapon that instructs you to discard it to perform the attack, do not discard it unless the attack hits.

The attack (singular) is firing cluster missiles. There are multiple hits, each doing the same damage (three red dice), so instead of rolling six dice against the defender's agility dice, you roll the "attack" twice (simulating multiple hits) and they get to defend against each (keeping things fair and balanced).

So I would contend that launching the single attack requires a single target lock, but any modifiers to the attack dice (including +1 dice for Opportunist) should trigger once (adding one stress to launch the attack, not adding one stress for each "hit" on the defender).

Also, let's look at the definition of opportunist..it is a person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage...so imagine a pilot (currently having a target lock) seeing a weakness or a momentary opportunity to attack for extra damage, he pulls a hard or tricky move (taking stress), and launches a cluster missile attack. Multiple warheads hit the target (likely in a weak spot), doing extra damage.

So, I think that the spirit of both what cluster missiles are and what the benefit of opportunist is supposed to be, that each of the hits should benefit from the extra damage granted by Opportunist, but only giving one stress from the initiation of the attack (not the receipt of the damage).

Side note:

If you think that stress should be applied for each "attack", then Keyan Farlander should be able to spend the stress twice on each as well.

His ability (according to FAQ):

When attacking, if keyan farlander has a stress token, he can use his ability even if he hasn't rolled any (eye) results; in this case, no dice are modified, but 1 stress token is removed.

Keyan Farlander can use his ability only once per attack.

So, to me, this means that there is only one attack, and Keyan can only use his ability once, even though attack dice are rolled twice. He should choose which time to use his ability. At the same time, Opportunist should only be triggered once for the attack (giving one stress), but should be applied to each time the attack (+1 twice). If Keyan must get stress for each of the hits, he should be able to use his ability once for each hit as well.

Just my two cents.

What do you guys think?

What do you guys think?

That you are massively overthinking this.

The missiles create two independent attacks against the one target. Buhallin is correct above. End of discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote, but I don't think its polite to shut down discussion by arbitrarily stating that someone else is correct and then ending it.

I read Bulallin's comments and if I didn't have a different opinion, I wouldn't have written anything here. Again, it is a single attack "that is treated" like two separate attacks (cluster missiles, duh).

/Shrug/

Like I said, just my two cents.

When attacking, if keyan farlander has a stress token, he can use his ability even if he hasn't rolled any (eye) results; in this case, no dice are modified, but 1 stress token is removed.

Keyan Farlander can use his ability only once per attack.

So, to me, this means that there is only one attack ...

If you consider Farlander with cluster missiles (1) a single attack, you are ignoring a part of the FAQ. One you quoted:

Cluster Missiles is treated as two separate attacks against the same target.

That sentence means that for all intends and purposes there are two attacks. Except when declaring a target.

If you "treat" it like two attacks you have to apply the rules for one attack twice. You can resolve Farlander twice.

(1) Ignore legality of upgrade option.

That is kind of what I was getting at...

If it is two attacks, then opportunist should be usable for both, as well as Keyan's ability

no stress, +1 dice (opportunist), take stress, roll dice, keyan ability modify dice, remove stress, then repeat.

That is kind of what I was getting at...

If it is two attacks, then opportunist should be usable for both, as well as Keyan's ability

no stress, +1 dice (opportunist), take stress, roll dice, keyan ability modify dice, remove stress, then repeat.

That's correct. In the theoretical world where Farlander could get his hands on Clusters (as the poor chap lacks a missile slot), then he could do as you describe. But a "regular" pilot using Clusters and Opportunist will have the stress from the first attack stop him from using Opportunist on the second attack.

I made a newbie error, for some reason I was thinking Keyan could use missiles, instead of just torpedoes.

Still though, interesting topic. Thank you guys for responding : )

First, you can use opportunist multiple times in a round (Gunner) if you had a way to get rid of the stress from the first attack. There is some merit to applying it twice with cluster missiles, lets say you called opportunist on the cluster missiles as now a 4 red die, no longer a 3 attack (Think of it as a proton torpedo 5 attack). Now, you just happen to apply the 4 attack twice per the card (Repeat what you attacked with) because you already upped the attack on the card before you use it. Something to think about I suppose and I can go either way.

I'd think Opportunist on the Cluster isn't all bad. Ideally the first attack will finish stripping the target of any tokens it may have clearing the way to use Opportunist on the second missile attack.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote, but I don't think its polite to shut down discussion by arbitrarily stating that someone else is correct and then ending it.

...

There is no need for multiple people to elaborate on something someone else has said when one fully agrees with it. If someone writes a huge post on how Cluster Missiles work, and don't work, I'd say they are correct to my understanding and leave it at that. It shows support for their statement, save me the time writing all the same stuff over again, and saves you the clutter on the board and the time reading the same stuff all over again.

In a way not saying anything would be the less polite thing to do. If someone asks a question with what 95% or more of us believe has a clear answer would it be better if we just remain silent after someone posts the correct answer?

If you are running Imperials with a Capt Yorr Lambda Shuttle - he can remove up to 2 stress tokens.

So you could have a Firespray, Tie Advanced, Tie Bomber, or Tie Defender with Opportunist and Cluster Missles and be able to trigger it both times.

You could run this on 2 ships - assuming the points work out and the result could be a round where you have 4-4dice attacks in the same round.

Imagine Yorr at Range 1 of a Decimator firing with 4-dice and then Tie Bombers Jonus and Rhymer in range with cluster missles.

You could be pouring 20 attack dice into a Decimator in one round.

I think you have enough points to put 2 cluster missles or have Extra Munitions on these to be able to perform this twice in the game.

Need to evaluate this build...

Cluster Missiles are a mess. You know it. I know it. They're two separate attacks that somehow manage to only repeat Steps 2-7. There is no consistent rules structure that covers them.

But we have so many rulings for them, there is absolutely ZERO doubt how they're supposed to be played.

Cluster Missiles are a consistent thorn in everyone's side, because we "know" how they're supposed to work, but their rules text isn't very well written. To be safe, treat them as a special case: they're two attacks, with the second attack skipping the "declare target" step.

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here : ) I'll state the card text to help me make my point.

As noted, that doesn't particularly help for Cluster Missiles.

The language in the FAQ for Cluster Missiles says "is treated as two separate attacks" not "is two separate attacks".

You just ran off the rails. If X "is treated as" Y, that means X functions as a Y as far as the rules are concerned.

Now Cluster Missiles do this badly, because there's at least one important respect in which you can't treat it as two separate attacks (there's only one target lock to spend, and only one legal target for the second attack). But this principle--that treating X as Y leaves differences between X and Y--is a disastrous one that should not be applied anywhere in the game.

I am hesitant to sneak my nose I to this, but....

Cluster missiles (and soon, Twin Laser Turrets) are a mess rules wise, but I don't see the target lock thing as really an issue. Spending the TL isn't actually a part of the attack, it is a cost you spend to make the attack. On most secondary weapons with that have that cost, paying it lets you make a single attack, but with CM, paying that cost enables you to make 2 attacks. The problem isnt with the spending of the TL to make 2 attacks, it's that the 2 attacks have to share 1 declare target step.

Spending the TL isn't actually a part of the attack, it is a cost you spend to make the attack.

The timing is all messed up for this too, though, because you're already making the attack before you spend the lock.

The common text of "Spend your target lock to make this attack" just doesn't make sense with the definition of "Attack" which was FAQ'ed in for Gunner.

Spending the TL isn't actually a part of the attack, it is a cost you spend to make the attack.

The timing is all messed up for this too, though, because you're already making the attack before you spend the lock.

The common text of "Spend your target lock to make this attack" just doesn't make sense with the definition of "Attack" which was FAQ'ed in for Gunner.

True.

I have been wondering. Would a complete (and more detailed) rewrite of the attack sequence solve most of the issues with combat in the game while still allowing most of the cards to continue to work "properly"? It has seemed to me for a while now that simply rearranging a few things so that costs and weapon selection happen before target selection would fix an awful lot of nonsense.

You should not pay the cost before measuring if your target is within arc and range.

You might do

- select weapon

- declare target

- spend TL

True.

I have been wondering. Would a complete (and more detailed) rewrite of the attack sequence solve most of the issues with combat in the game while still allowing most of the cards to continue to work "properly"? It has seemed to me for a while now that simply rearranging a few things so that costs and weapon selection happen before target selection would fix an awful lot of nonsense.

I think they easily could. Remove secondary weapons from step 2, make them a "Declare a secondary weapon OR an attack" so that using a secondary triggers an attack (like it says it does), add a rule that you retain any spent resource if you're out of range/arc, and bam - done. A few things don't work quite the same - Cluster Missiles would allow a second target, or need errata to say they couldn't (not that they're OP at the moment, so a minor boost like that wouldn't break anything). R3-A2 might need a "Once per round" tweak, and a few others... but no, it's not hard.

That's what I find so baffling about all this. It really wouldn't be all that hard to fix, and create a truly tight rule set. But for whatever reason - maybe their board game mindset, maybe licensing issues with LFL, who knows - they're absolutely pathological about refusing to errata just about anything. So here we are.

FFG company policy. The errata anathema comes from the top.

The origin of the policy does not many it any more forgivable.