Even that wouldn't be solid proof as the trigger could be per attack dice theoretically.

No, it would be per attack, that's already pretty well established. You get an evade token that you can spend as part of the attack process, there's nothing that even hints at it being per attack die.

But it doesn't change the fact we have little(really no) actual precedent to work off of with this beyond the reaction to ionization.

I disagree, the FAQ entry covers this pretty nicely.It says abilities which would cover anything in the game, actions, tokens, ect... You only get one opportunity to decloak. The fact that it involves a token doesn't really change anything.

It does. But we also know that having two of specific cards(weapons engineer for instance, the one that turns hits to crits.) allows them to trigger twice. Having two of specific tokes could incredibly easily fall under that same distinction. There is no way we can know or correctly rule on this, or even determine which logic will dictate the response.

It does. But we also know that having two of specific cards(weapons engineer for instance, the one that turns hits to crits.) allows them to trigger twice. Having two of specific tokes could incredibly easily fall under that same distinction. There is no way we can know or correctly rule on this, or even determine which logic will dictate the response.

Something like Weapons Engineer is explicitly two different sources. Two different abilities, each triggers independently.

The cloak token has no ability. You don't activate a cloak token. You activate the Decloak ability, which requires you to spend a token. There's only one Decloak ability.

Cue the Highlander references for fun, but it's not the same thing at all.

I'm reserving judgement until I fly against one. I think the 2 speed barrel rolls and boosts could be a curse more than a blessing a lot of the time. While they get to choose which one before they reveal their dial, they're still stuck doing whatever maneuver their dial is set to. If the barrel roll they had in mind gets blocked, the 2 remaining options might take them way out of position for what they had planned.

They will be powerful when flown well, but not forgiving in the least. And with the steep cost involved, minor mistakes will leave you with your most powerful shooter doing nothing, and on their own.

N.B. *I am NOT claiming to be, or even resemble, one*, but it's something to aspire to...

Kinda feels like the old TIE Fighter game...need to 'earn' your spot on an advanced ship...

It does. But we also know that having two of specific cards(weapons engineer for instance, the one that turns hits to crits.) allows them to trigger twice. Having two of specific tokes could incredibly easily fall under that same distinction. There is no way we can know or correctly rule on this, or even determine which logic will dictate the response.

Something like Weapons Engineer is explicitly two different sources. Two different abilities, each triggers independently.

The cloak token has no ability. You don't activate a cloak token. You activate the Decloak ability, which requires you to spend a token. There's only one Decloak ability.

Cue the Highlander references for fun, but it's not the same thing at all.

In the end I don't think Cloak, Decloak with Advanced Sensors, or decloak, Cloak, decloak will be allowed, but I think that spending multiple evades or focuses on a single attack is a valid collection of things to do, meaning the ruling will be on declarations. By making removing a cloak token a once per trigger ability you make it so only one evade can be used per attack(should we find a way to get multiples), and I honestly think that's too counterintuitive to be valid.

This is a lot of debate over something that's just going to be one-shot by an Opportunistic Ibtisan wielding a HLC.

Could be the drink talking, but first read through I saw that as Opportunistic Lesbian...

I'm reserving judgement until I fly against one. I think the 2 speed barrel rolls and boosts could be a curse more than a blessing a lot of the time. While they get to choose which one before they reveal their dial, they're still stuck doing whatever maneuver their dial is set to. If the barrel roll they had in mind gets blocked, the 2 remaining options might take them way out of position for what they had planned.

They will be powerful when flown well, but not forgiving in the least. And with the steep cost involved, minor mistakes will leave you with your most powerful shooter doing nothing, and on their own.

I love this. It fits so thematically. The most advanced ships require the most advanced pilots (and in our case, players).

N.B. *I am NOT claiming to be, or even resemble, one*, but it's something to aspire to...

Kinda feels like the old TIE Fighter game...need to 'earn' your spot on an advanced ship...

Totally agree. I think that's exactly the way the ship should operate. High risk/high reward.

Not a fan of Echo conceptually, because with 6 different placement options, she'll be way more forgiving to fly. Kind of undermines the difficulty of piloting the ship which is sorta lame, IMO. She's powerful yes, but most crutches are.

By making removing a cloak token a once per trigger ability you make it so only one evade can be used per attack(should we find a way to get multiples), and I honestly think that's too counterintuitive to be valid.

No, you don't. Nothing in the rules for spending an evade token link it to any given event of the attack, or even to the attack itself. No "When defending", no "After anything". Just says that if you have one, you can spend it. Nor is there anything in the broader rules covering the step. These timing links are what create the once-per constraint, and they don't exist for any of the baseline combat tokens.

Spending a token is not an ability. There are abilities which require you to spend a token, but the token itself has no text, and no rules. If there were rules on the token, it wouldn't work for multiple uses such as powering a Blaster Turret.

So yes, we actually can and do know.

It almost seems to me you have to say, I'll use advanced sensors and decloak,

And that is using a queue, which, as I said, neatly precludes a double decloak (and is almost certainly how the designers intend it. But if that is NOT how it works and you instead cycle through a loop of trigger-effect, trigger-effect, trigger-effect, then it could allow it.

This whole debate reminds me of the ol' 'Darth double barrel roll' flap of '12. Ah, good times, good times... ;p

By making removing a cloak token a once per trigger ability you make it so only one evade can be used per attack(should we find a way to get multiples), and I honestly think that's too counterintuitive to be valid.

No, you don't. Nothing in the rules for spending an evade token link it to any given event of the attack, or even to the attack itself. No "When defending", no "After anything". Just says that if you have one, you can spend it. Nor is there anything in the broader rules covering the step. These timing links are what create the once-per constraint, and they don't exist for any of the baseline combat tokens.

Spending a token is not an ability. There are abilities which require you to spend a token, but the token itself has no text, and no rules. If there were rules on the token, it wouldn't work for multiple uses such as powering a Blaster Turret.

So yes, we actually can and do know.

Also I know it was discussed in the phantom speculation thread but did we ever figure out if you could use advanced sensors to cloak and then decloak in the same round? I don't mean decloak, cloak, decloak, but just cloak and decloak in the same round.

I do not think we have a definite answer to that.

If decloak-cloak-decloak does not work because you go back in time to use the trigger again, cloak-decloak does not work for the same reason. If decloak-cloak-decloak does not work because you cannot decloak twice, cloak-decloak works. We do not know.

Edit:

Or maybe decloak-cloak-decloak works. Then cloak-decloak works as well.

You guys know that I know that you know that you're making my head hurt...

Think Shakespeare would include rules lawyers in his famous quote nowadays?

Not a fan of Echo conceptually, because with 6 different placement options, she'll be way more forgiving to fly. Kind of undermines the difficulty of piloting the ship which is sorta lame, IMO. She's powerful yes, but most crutches are.

Echo's ability isn't a crutch. She's going to require practice, forethought, and attention to detail to build and fly well--probably more than any ship in the game, and I mean that quite literally.

For instance: the increased number of decloaking options (five, not six) makes her a more complex and more difficult piece to fly, rather than an easier one: a generic Phantom keeps its orientation when it decloaks, but Echo is required to rotate 45 degrees.

For instance: her middling pilot skill either begs for Veteran Instincts, in which case you still risk taking fire from Soontir, Han, and Wedge and lock yourself out of all the other tasty EPTs out there, or requires you to very carefully manage your cloak.

For instance: the choice of system upgrades makes a huge difference in the way she flies. Advanced Sensors gives you an extra set of options, meaning additional complexity. Enhanced Scopes will be an option once Rebel Aces comes out, trading information for certainty. Sensor Jammers are a defensive gambit. Fire Control means you have to consistently fire on the same target round after round, which can be tough with that 45-degree swing.

No. We don't. FFG can go either way on it depending on their logic. It depends what they want cloak to look like. It honestly sets a better precdent to disallow Cloak, followed by an immediate decloak due to a stack declaration than to say that you can't stack multiple uses per declaration. Otherwise it isn't so much a cloaking device as a teleporter.

I will be the first to say that FFG can surprise us at any time.

But that's not the same as not having a clue how it should be played. As it stands, the ability is linked to a trigger, spending a token is irrelevant, your attempts to create side effects aren't valid, and we know what the limitations are for abilities that have a trigger.

We cannot take every possible ruling and refuse to interpret it. There is more than enough in our current understanding of the rules to say, with some certainty, how it would work given the current rules as we know them. FFG may change that in the future, but to claim we don't know what the current rules are is simply wrong.

Yep. I'm definitely much more impressed by the Phantom than the Defender. Both in game terms and as aesthetics. The Defender's design has always looked to me like they run out of ideas and made a new ship out of two disassembled Interceptors. The Phantom on the other hand is likely going to become my favourite Empire ship!!

I didn't expect such a good dial (only reds are the two K's, white 1-turns, etc.) and I didn't expect it to start at just 25pts for PS3. Certainly it's going to be a challenge to fly it well (especially Echo) but it's going to be so much fun!!

In fact I think I'll proxy it for our next game and see how it holds up.

This! Maybe if they cocooned the defender in conCAVE wings...

No. We don't. FFG can go either way on it depending on their logic. It depends what they want cloak to look like. It honestly sets a better precdent to disallow Cloak, followed by an immediate decloak due to a stack declaration than to say that you can't stack multiple uses per declaration. Otherwise it isn't so much a cloaking device as a teleporter.

I will be the first to say that FFG can surprise us at any time.

But that's not the same as not having a clue how it should be played. As it stands, the ability is linked to a trigger, spending a token is irrelevant, your attempts to create side effects aren't valid, and we know what the limitations are for abilities that have a trigger.

We cannot take every possible ruling and refuse to interpret it. There is more than enough in our current understanding of the rules to say, with some certainty, how it would work given the current rules as we know them. FFG may change that in the future, but to claim we don't know what the current rules are is simply wrong.

There's nothing wrong with debating rules. there is something wrong with any of us making a ruling as if it is official when there are multiple competing interpretations. In this case there are, and whether you agree with the precedent behind them, they are valid. That means the best way to handle a situation is to say, Personally ruling A is probably right for reason B, but it could be wrong, leading to this situation. We'lll see what's in the Faq. If it were something easily answerable people wouldn't be debating. beyond that there are two competing reasons why Decloak, Cloak, Decloak migh not work, with different implications. And we can't answer them.

Not a fan of Echo conceptually, because with 6 different placement options, she'll be way more forgiving to fly. Kind of undermines the difficulty of piloting the ship which is sorta lame, IMO. She's powerful yes, but most crutches are.

Echo's ability isn't a crutch. She's going to require practice, forethought, and attention to detail to build and fly well--probably more than any ship in the game, and I mean that quite literally.For instance: the increased number of decloaking options (five, not six) makes her a more complex and more difficult piece to fly, rather than an easier one: a generic Phantom keeps its orientation when it decloaks, but Echo is required to rotate 45 degrees.For instance: her middling pilot skill either begs for Veteran Instincts, in which case you still risk taking fire from Soontir, Han, and Wedge and lock yourself out of all the other tasty EPTs out there, or requires you to very carefully manage your cloak.For instance: the choice of system upgrades makes a huge difference in the way she flies. Advanced Sensors gives you an extra set of options, meaning additional complexity. Enhanced Scopes will be an option once Rebel Aces comes out, trading information for certainty. Sensor Jammers are a defensive gambit. Fire Control means you have to consistently fire on the same target round after round, which can be tough with that 45-degree swing.

Echo is a guy, ladies and gents. Nothing keeping Whisper from being a girl, though (I say she is).

No. We don't. FFG can go either way on it depending on their logic. It depends what they want cloak to look like. It honestly sets a better precdent to disallow Cloak, followed by an immediate decloak due to a stack declaration than to say that you can't stack multiple uses per declaration. Otherwise it isn't so much a cloaking device as a teleporter.

I will be the first to say that FFG can surprise us at any time.

But that's not the same as not having a clue how it should be played. As it stands, the ability is linked to a trigger, spending a token is irrelevant, your attempts to create side effects aren't valid, and we know what the limitations are for abilities that have a trigger.

We cannot take every possible ruling and refuse to interpret it. There is more than enough in our current understanding of the rules to say, with some certainty, how it would work given the current rules as we know them. FFG may change that in the future, but to claim we don't know what the current rules are is simply wrong.

There's nothing wrong with debating rules. there is something wrong with any of us making a ruling as if it is official when there are multiple competing interpretations. In this case there are, and whether you agree with the precedent behind them, they are valid. That means the best way to handle a situation is to say, Personally ruling A is probably right for reason B, but it could be wrong, leading to this situation. We'lll see what's in the Faq. If it were something easily answerable people wouldn't be debating. beyond that there are two competing reasons why Decloak, Cloak, Decloak migh not work, with different implications. And we can't answer them.

(shrug)

For my money, it's very straightforward: decloaking is triggered by revealing your dial. Triggered effects go off at most once per triggering event ("opportunity"), so you can decloak at most once per round.

Echo's ability isn't a crutch. She's going to require practice, forethought, and attention to detail...

Ok, I think I see the real problem here. Note this section from FFGs article: “Echo,” who must use the “2” bank template when he decloaks"

Echo is a guy, ladies and gents. Nothing keeping Whisper from being a girl, though (I say she is).

Echo is quite obviously a lady's name . Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take it up with Artemis, but I hear she's getting trigger-happy with her bow in her old age.

Echo's ability isn't a crutch. She's going to require practice, forethought, and attention to detail...

Ok, I think I see the real problem here. Note this section from FFGs article: “Echo,” who must use the “2” bank template when he decloaks"Echo is a guy, ladies and gents. Nothing keeping Whisper from being a girl, though (I say she is).

Echo is quite obviously a lady's name . Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take it up with Artemis, but I hear she's getting trigger-happy with her bow in her old age.

I don't make the flavor text, FFG does. Besides, it is a callsign and is in no way related to Greek mythos (galaxy far, far away and all that).

Echo's ability isn't a crutch. She's going to require practice, forethought, and attention to detail...

Ok, I think I see the real problem here. Note this section from FFGs article: “Echo,” who must use the “2” bank template when he decloaks"Echo is a guy, ladies and gents. Nothing keeping Whisper from being a girl, though (I say she is).

Echo is quite obviously a lady's name . Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take it up with Artemis, but I hear she's getting trigger-happy with her bow in her old age.

I think I have to go with it as a call sign rather than a name. Quotes and such.

Well the ability isn't automatic because you have to actually hit not just perform the attack, then there is the fact that it only gives you a focus to defend which unless you've bought an Advanced Cloaking Device your defending with 2 dice if i got the cloaking mechanics right, so i don't see the ability being very good, Echo is imo much better.

With four dice you are going to hit most of the time. It will be very easy for Whisper + PtL + ACD (39 points) to decloak, move, focus, fire, get a free focus, cloak, then PtL to Evade/Barrel Roll

thats a lot of points just to turtle, the Phantom is perhaps the most offensive capable ship the Imperials have at the moment and as it stands Whispers ability is purely Defensive in nature. I've been using RG+PTL+Stealth recently and it would give the same defensive chances as Whisper when Turtling for 11 points less.

How is the above sequence (Whisper + PtL + ACD (39 points) to decloak, move, focus, fire, get a free focus, cloak, then PtL to Evade/Barrel Roll) 'turtling'?! It's classic 'stick & move'. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". Classic combat move sequence, and elegant.

I would caution against that as any ship shooting before PS 7 will shred him (if he is in arc) and potentially 1 shot him (if they can put together 4 attack dice)

There's nothing wrong with debating rules. there is something wrong with any of us making a ruling as if it is official when there are multiple competing interpretations. In this case there are, and whether you agree with the precedent behind them, they are valid. That means the best way to handle a situation is to say, Personally ruling A is probably right for reason B, but it could be wrong, leading to this situation. We'lll see what's in the Faq. If it were something easily answerable people wouldn't be debating.

Can a focus token on a Phantom let me pick up the ship and put it wherever I want? What do you mean, no? How do we know until FFG tells us?

We have a solid rule which says you can do it once. You claim it's different because it's a token. Fine. You have made two points to support that. First, that it would have implications for evade tokens. I disproved that by showing the actual rules for evade tokens don't have an opportunity trigger.

Second, that the ability is on the token. There's nothing in the rules which even approaches wording to suggest this. You have yet to offer anything to back this up, and just leave it out there as something we can't possibly know until FFG tells us.

Frankly, this argument is unicorn poop. It's a fantasy made up in support of a fictional invention. You have no rule to support it, and the only example you thought you had has been disproven.

So yes, I will say that this is a perfectly established rule. You claiming without support that it's not doesn't make it any less established.

There's nothing wrong with debating rules. there is something wrong with any of us making a ruling as if it is official when there are multiple competing interpretations. In this case there are, and whether you agree with the precedent behind them, they are valid. That means the best way to handle a situation is to say, Personally ruling A is probably right for reason B, but it could be wrong, leading to this situation. We'lll see what's in the Faq. If it were something easily answerable people wouldn't be debating.

Actually yes, people still debate easy ruling all the time.

Can a focus token on a Phantom let me pick up the ship and put it wherever I want? What do you mean, no? How do we know until FFG tells us?

We have a solid rule which says you can do it once. You claim it's different because it's a token. Fine. You have made two points to support that. First, that it would have implications for evade tokens. I disproved that by showing the actual rules for evade tokens don't have an opportunity trigger.

Second, that the ability is on the token. There's nothing in the rules which even approaches wording to suggest this. You have yet to offer anything to back this up, and just leave it out there as something we can't possibly know until FFG tells us.

Frankly, this argument is unicorn poop. It's a fantasy made up in support of a fictional invention. You have no rule to support it, and the only example you thought you had has been disproven.

So yes, I will say that this is a perfectly established rule. You claiming without support that it's not doesn't make it any less established.

Beyond that, I don't necessarily agree with your ideas on how it affects evade or focus tokens. They are also spent based on an opportinity during parts of the attack sequence. Is that a Trigger? It could certainly be looked at as one in the same way "before the dial is revealed is" There'ls ambiguity here, whether you're willing to see it or not. The fact this debate has happened before and wasn't resolved then is proof enough of that. And we should be responsible enough about respecting the rules not to declare our opinions on those rulings as fact for the community.

As shown in the image above, I also feel a Phantom V38 could be very useful in a straight up joust situation. A 1 forward is the SLOWEST any ship can go and no matter what the Phantom would be able to get behind them, possibly even with focus when using advanced sensors and starting from even a bit outside of range three. With an EU this would even increase the range to which this could be done. Higher pilot skill would of course again be required here.

I know there is the possibility of this not working as well when there are two ships, one right behind each other but it is just another option in the huge amount of maneuverability the Phantom has as well as another thing that can potentially be shaking up the standard Rebel lists.

How is the above sequence (Whisper + PtL + ACD (39 points) to decloak, move, focus, fire, get a free focus, cloak, then PtL to Evade/Barrel Roll) 'turtling'?! It's classic 'stick & move'. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". Classic combat move sequence, and elegant.

I would caution against that as any ship shooting before PS 7 will shred him (if he is in arc) and potentially 1 shot him (if they can put together 4 attack dice)

Oh, I wasn't promoting the tactic, though I'm certainly going to try the hell out of it, but it's not in any way 'turtling'. It's moving into position, attacking, and then being elsewhere, is all...