<shakes head> That thread. That sad, sad, thread...

Whilst I am enjoying the back and forth between WonderWAAAGH and iPeregrine, I have to ask -what thread are you refering to? I'm curious is all.

Focus Action =/= Assigned a Token

You're right, which is why Jan's ability has two triggers. It allows you to replace a focus action or a focus token assigned by an ability like Garven's.

If you take the Focus Action, and something interferes with its effect, you've still taken the focus action. You don't get another action and Farrell triggers.

You're right, if something interferes with the effect then the action still happens. If a hypothetical card said "if a ship takes a focus action it does not get a token" then the ship still took the focus action even though it wasn't very effective. But that's not how Jan's ability works. It doesn't replace the effect of the action, it replaces the action entirely. Instead of performing a focus action you assign an evade token.

People here seem to be reading the card like it says this:

When a ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action you may have that action grant it an evade token instead of a focus token.

In most cases this is a fairly accurate summary of what the card does, but that is NOT what the card says. The actual rule (excluding the other half of the trigger) is:

When a ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action you may assign it an evade token instead.

If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. If you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action then you did not perform a focus action.

It reads a lot like Fel's ability to me. It triggers when you take a Focus action. Thus, if you never take a Focus action, it can't trigger, much like if Yorr would take Fel's stress. It really just changes the effect of the Focus action.

Yep.

Instead! Instead! Oh my god, how could I have missed that?!? Of course, it all becomes so clear to me now!

"Instead" of the Focus Action granting the ship a Focus Token, it recieves an Evade Token "Instead" of the Focus Token.

Focus Action still has been taken, (just with a different result) otherwise Jan's ability would not have even triggered.

How is this even an argument? You preform the action and receive a token. So perform a focus action and instead of receiving a focus token jan would replace it to an evade token. In the case of jake, he performs his focus action, jan kicks in gives him an evade token, then he boost. I guess the order of jan and the free boost could raise issues as jake could boost out of jans range.

If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. If you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action then you did not perform a focus action.

You are so misguided, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Usually it's the former.

X is not the trigger. X is the first effect, 'do' is the trigger. Y is the replacement effect. 'Do' is happening regardless, because if it wasn't, there would be no effect at all, replacement or otherwise. Like I said, a paradox. You cannot replace the trigger, only its effect. You seem genuinely incapable of understanding your own words, I'm not sure why I should expect you to understand mine.

How is this even an argument? You preform the action and receive a token. So perform a focus action and instead of receiving a focus token jan would replace it to an evade token. In the case of jake, he performs his focus action, jan kicks in gives him an evade token, then he boost. I guess the order of jan and the free boost could raise issues as jake could boost out of jans range.

Because it's iPeregrine we're talking to, who appears to just like to troll. Did you see the sportsmanship thread before it got locked? Yeah...

Edit: removed inflammatory language.

<shakes head> That thread. That sad, sad, thread...

Whilst I am enjoying the back and forth between WonderWAAAGH and iPeregrine, I have to ask -what thread are you refering to? I'm curious is all.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/106015-does-avoiding-contact-poor-sportsmanship/

Edit: Sort of ironic title for the thread dont you think?

This thread just makes me sad for some reason.

I think all the excitement of cool stuff had already been spoiled and the two crew and Bwing/E are just depressing.

It doesn't replace the effect of the action, it replaces the action entirely. Instead of performing a focus action you assign an evade token.

A focus action causes you to be assigned a focus token. Jake is assigned a focus token as a result of taking the focus action. Jan inteferes with the assigning of the focus token causing an evade token to be assigned instead. The Focus Action has still been taken, even though Jake has not received a focus token.

If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. If you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action then you did not perform a focus action.

Then which action did you perform?

Neither has the focus action. Note the difference between "when you do X" (Jan's ability) and "after you do X" (Jake's ability, PTL, etc). The former triggers as soon as you attempt to do X and can potentially replace/modify X, the latter triggers after X is entirely finished and can't go back and change what happened.

Just to be clear: you're saying that by activating Jan's ability, you can undo a focus action.

This implies that, according to the Once Per Opportunity clause in the FAQ, you can do the following:

1. Rookie Pilot performs a focus action.

2. The opportunity to use Jan's ability triggers; receive evade token, undo focus action.

3. Rookie Pilot has not yet performed an action (since it was undone in step 2).

4. Go to step 1.

Hooray! Infinite evade tokens. Also, the game never ends (well, it would run to time).

Actually, there's an even worse way to look at the idea that Jan crew actually undoes its own trigger:

1. Ship A performs a focus action.

2. Jan is triggered ("…when a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action") and resolves, replacing the focus action with token assignment.

3. Jan's effect, having traveled back in time and overwritten the focus action, actually wasn't triggered.

4. Jan's effect was never triggered, and therefore never occurred. Ship A is now trying to perform a focus action again, so we go back to Step 2.

When multiple interpretations of a game element conflict with one another, I prefer to go with the version that doesn't require the intervention of Doctor Who in order to prevent the universe from being sucked up into a singularity.

It's not that Howlrunner means imperials shouldn't have variety, it's that Howlrunner makes it very difficult to add variety without breaking the game. FFG can't make new cards that equal Howlrunner's power level (since she's blatantly overpowered), so it's very easy for a new imperial release to end up collecting dust while competitive players keep using their Howlrunner swarms. And FFG have to be very careful about their choice of new cards to ensure that they don't give Holwrunner swarms any additional power. Those are two major design constraints to deal with, and there's no easy solution.

Rebels, on the other hand, don't have a Howlrunner equivalent to deal with. So it's safer for FFG to be ambitious in designing new rebel cards, and it's a lot more likely that new rebel releases get a lot of interest instead of "nah, cool card but I'll keep using my current list".

If that is true, and Howlrunner is having that big of an impact on game design, then she should face an errata, reprint, etc...

It seems more likely that the Empire was never intended to include a lot of mutual support. Even if you look just at Wave 1--where the design team was probably looking at Howlrunner as a balanced release--the Rebels have Biggs, Garven, and Dutch.

That looks to me like deliberate faction identity. That is, the Empire's ships are supposed to work for the most part like a set of interchangeable, seamlessly machined components... like clones, if you want to go there. The Rebels, by contrast, work like puzzle pieces: each pilot has a lot of individual personality and a lot to offer, and you have to match them together carefully to get a set that meshes.

(And the idea that there's nothing good out there for the Empire that isn't a swarm is simply not true. I've done just fine with Imperial lists for literally years now without ever running a TIE swarm competitively.)

So perform a focus action and instead of receiving a focus token jan would replace it to an evade token.

That is not what the card says. If Jan triggers off a focus action you don't replace the token, you replace the action. You only replace the token if Jan triggers off being assigned a focus token (like from Garven's ability).

You cannot replace the trigger, only its effect.

Sure you can. You're inventing this rule, but it's not found in FFG's rules.

Because it's iPeregrine we're talking to, who either has an extra chromosome or just likes to troll. Did you see the sportsmanship thread before it got locked? Yeah...

Ah, resorting to personal attacks when you don't have an argument I see. If only you spent half as much time learning to read as you spend on trying to insult me...

Pretty sure that the text:

'Once per round, when a friendly ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action or would be assigned a focus token, you may assign an evade token instead.'

Should be read with an implicit "...instead of asigning a focus token." Why? Because that's what results in the fewest screwy corner-case rules questions. All of the noise about infinite evade tokens and if you can trigger PTL etc. etc. just goes away if you assume that the designers aren't idiots and intended for the card to change the outcome of the focus action, not the action itself.

"But why didn't they have the card say that!" Well, probably because they assumed we aren't idiots too.

Edit: ugh, WYSIWYG editors and javascript that injects junk into your copy buffer.

This thread just makes me sad for some reason.

I think all the excitement of cool stuff had already been spoiled and the two crew and Bwing/E are just depressing.

Meh, Let em battle it out, they are still awesome and I am totally stoked for RebAces to come out now! (not that I wasn't before that is )

Jan inteferes with the assigning of the focus token causing an evade token to be assigned instead.

That is not what the card says. Jan replaces the ACTION, not the token.

Then which action did you perform?

No action at all. You were assigned at token, and assigning a token (as confirmed by a lot of other card rulings) is not the same as performing an action.

All of the noise about infinite evade tokens and if you can trigger PTL etc. etc. just goes away if you assume that the designers aren't idiots and intended for the card to change the outcome of the focus action, not the action itself.

It also goes away if you remember the rule that you can only take an opportunity once, and you can't go back in time and try again later. And I think that playing by the existing rules is a better solution to the problem than changing the function of a card.

Then which action did you perform?

Clearly he hopped in the DeLorean, found an empty neighborhood street, gassed it to 88 MPH, and just as his past self was about to declare a focus action his future self said "Stop! You aren't actually doing a focus action, you're really doing an evade token (because that clearly makes sense) instead!"

Blail Blerg, we still have 2 unique pilots and the Proton Rockets to be spoiled. Its a safe bet that the Proton Rockets will be cool, to offset the 2 pt opportunity cost they introduce in the same pack.

Do as you like, until a FAQ says otherwise, the ship still performed a focus action.

So your policy is "until a FAQ says otherwise I'm going to invent my own rules and expect you to play with them"? How about until a FAQ says otherwise all of your ships have one hull HP and no shields. After all, FFG hasn't ever explicitly said that I'm wrong.

Just like you're doing. I'm sorry but, you don't hold the absolute truth, you might be wrong and currently inventing your own rules and expect the others to play with them. It goes both way. I'm just saying that for my part, can't pretend to hold the absolute truth and will play it as I read it, until a developper will tell me otherwise, the one who created it and know exactly how it is suppose to work.

As I said, if I didn't came and read this thread, I would never have second guessed the intention of the card, and same goes for my friend circle. So we'll play it as we read it, have fun, just like you will from your side of the river. No need to makes me look like a stubborn moron that only do as he please.

You cannot replace the trigger, only its effect.

Sure you can. You're inventing this rule, but it's not found in FFG's rules.

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh god, it really is the loaded dice all over again. Ladies and gentlemen, we've come full circle. Just a few more threats of physical violence and we can say goodbye to this thread as well...

Re-read what I said, then squint your eyes and think really really hard about it. Then, if you still have trouble comprehending why it isn't physically possible, try googling the word "paradox," since that also appears to be caroming off of the logic centers in your brain.

X-wing does the Grandfather Paradox. Gulp.

From now on, whenever I'm about to declare an action, I'm going to declare a token instead. Since, you know, apparently the two terms are obviously interchangeable.

"Okay, this TIE is going two straight, and then I'll do an evade token."

"I'm sorry, do what?"

"An evade token."

"How do you do a token?"

"You know, it's like an action. I'm doing a token."

"Okay..."

"Would it help if I said 'perform a token' instead?"

"Not really."

"But I said instead."

"Yeah, that still doesn't make sense. I, uh, just remembered that I've got a tooth that needs pulling. Gonna have to take a rain check on the rest of this game, sorry."

FFG hasn't ever explicitly said that I'm wrong.

FFG also hasn't explicitly said that it's a rule violation to modify your GR-75 to incorporate a water pistol. That shoots acetone at enemy ships.

They expect a degree of common sense.

People here seem to be reading the card like it says this:

When a ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action you may have that action grant it an evade token instead of a focus token.

In most cases this is a fairly accurate summary of what the card does, but that is NOT what the card says. The actual rule (excluding the other half of the trigger) is:

When a ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action you may assign it an evade token instead.

If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. If you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action then you did not perform a focus action.

The second bit is indeed the actual game text, but the problem is that reading the card that way results in nonsense. There's no precedent in the rules for un-performing an action, and moreover even if there were it would be a literal paradox to un-perform an action as an effect triggered by that action.

So the first version is the only logical way to interpret the card's meaning: when a friendly ship performs a focus action, you can replace the focus token it would usually be assigned with an evade token.

...Because it's iPeregrine we're talking to, who either has an extra chromosome or just likes to troll. Did you see the sportsmanship thread before it got locked? Yeah...

I agree with you on this point and (obvs.) think iPeregrine is wrong, but the "extra chromosome" bit is out of bounds.

Ooh, how about this:

1. Green Squadron Pilot performs an evade action.
2. Green Squadron Pilot uses Push the Limit to perform a focus action.
3. Trigger iPeregrine's version of Jan's ability. Green Squadron Pilot gets assigned another evade token, and history is rewritten such that the focus action never happened, and thus Push the Limit never happened, and since the stress token is resolved at the end of Push the Limit, that never happens either.

Double evades, no stress!

Sigh. I'm done with this. This is just the cluster missiles issue all over again. People who know how to read recognized that it was two separate attacks, people who don't know how to read stubbornly insisted that it was one attack (complete with rants about how it breaks the game if it's allowed to be two separate attacks) until FFG put out an FAQ saying "yes, you idiots, it's two attacks". And I can see that Jan is going to be the same thing, people who don't know how to read will get it wrong until FFG explicitly says "it replaces the action" and confirms what everyone else already knew. And they'll continue to appeal to the "intent" of the card, or ridiculous arguments about "paradoxes" as they flail desperately for any kind of support for their personal version of the card.

And since WonderWAAAGH seems to be incapable of posting without trolling I don't really see any point to this thread.

Sigh. I'm done with this. This is just the cluster missiles issue all over again. People who know how to read…

And since WonderWAAAGH seems to be incapable of posting without trolling I don't really see any point to this thread.

It's a bit odd to watch someone accuse everyone who disagrees with him of illiteracy, and then three sentences later attempt to claim the moral high ground with respect to personal attacks.