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.

Well don't forget that that only applies to A-wings the every other ship (including Imperials) gets them at the normal price

Granted, I think that's unlikely. But maybe they'll make me want to use Missiles. Currently the only ship I've ever felt I should run Ordnance on is a bomber, and I just pop a Flechette Torp or two on there. They're the only ordnance I've found useful so far, because hey, at least free stress.

Blount will make Assault and Ion Missiles usable, but beyond that. Still not running them.

And you just left out all the rest of the card's text, which completely (and inconveniently) contradicts your point, and even invented some text yourself. Please show me where it says "you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action." I see where it says token, but you keep replacing the word token with action. That's not what the card says. Please, stomp embarrassing yourself before I have to win the internet again.

Sigh. Read the **** card. It has two triggers (both of which have a range 1-3 limit):

1) You perform a focus action.

or

2) You are assigned a focus token (for example, Garven's ability gives you one).

Then it tells you what happens when the ability is triggered: you may assign an evade token INSTEAD of whatever triggered the ability. If it's the first trigger then you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action. If it's the second trigger then you assign an evade token instead of assigning a focus token.

strike through on the part that you inferred. It actually doesn't state instead of what.

The card can either be read as:

#1: 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 [of assigning a focus token].

OR

#2: 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 [of performing a focus action or assigning a focus token].

It doesn't explicitly state which is the case, but I am going to assume #1. Either way this has some interesting interactions with Recon Specialist.

Under #1 interpretation, you can opt not to let the card trigger on the first half (perform a focus action), and instead let it trigger on the second half (assigned a focus token) for one of the two focus tokens that you place next to your ship. This would essentially let you perform the focus action to gain an evade and a focus token. It's essentially a 5 point cost to gain a free evade when you focus. You can also Push the Limit to perform the Evade Action, and then gain a 2nd evade token.

Under #2 interpretation, you replace the entire focus action with assigning an evade token, so you could then Push the Limit to perform the focus action. It would normally be performing the same action twice, but according to this interpretation the action never happened. With Recon Specialist, this would allow you to gain 2 focus tokens and 1 evade. However, if you have evade and focus as available actions, and you have PtL and Recon Spec, you can do this without needing to invoke Jan Ors anyway.

Another issue with #2 is that this interpretation allows you to gain an evade token without ever performing any action, since by definition the action didn't happen. Therefore, if this were the case, the argument could be made that the ship can still perform an action, which would essentially allow it to gain a free evade token every round for 2 points. This gets sticky with the definition of "immediately" in this statement: "During the Activation phase, each ship may perform one action immediately after moving." I don't think you could actually make this argument, since between moving and performing an action you would be receiving an evade token, but you could certainly try to make this argument anyway.

If it's two different triggers, and both trigger at the same time (Recon Spec), couldn't you potentially get two evade tokens instead? That would still qualify as "once per round," because they happened at the same time, on the same ship, off of the same triggers.

The Jan + Recon Spec combo also reaffirms my qualms about Jan affecting her own ship.

And you just left out all the rest of the card's text, which completely (and inconveniently) contradicts your point, and even invented some text yourself. Please show me where it says "you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action." I see where it says token, but you keep replacing the word token with action. That's not what the card says. Please, stomp embarrassing yourself before I have to win the internet again.

Sigh. Read the **** card. It has two triggers (both of which have a range 1-3 limit):

1) You perform a focus action.

or

2) You are assigned a focus token (for example, Garven's ability gives you one).

Then it tells you what happens when the ability is triggered: you may assign an evade token INSTEAD of whatever triggered the ability. If it's the first trigger then you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action. If it's the second trigger then you assign an evade token instead of assigning a focus token.

strike through on the part that you inferred. It actually doesn't state instead of what.

The card can either be read as:

#1: 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 [of assigning a focus token].

OR

#2: 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 [of performing a focus action or assigning a focus token].

It doesn't explicitly state which is the case, but I am going to assume #1. Either way this has some interesting interactions with Recon Specialist.

Under #1 interpretation, you can opt not to let the card trigger on the first half (perform a focus action), and instead let it trigger on the second half (assigned a focus token) for one of the two focus tokens that you place next to your ship. This would essentially let you perform the focus action to gain an evade and a focus token. It's essentially a 5 point cost to gain a free evade when you focus. You can also Push the Limit to perform the Evade Action, and then gain a 2nd evade token.

Under #2 interpretation, you replace the entire focus action with assigning an evade token, so you could then Push the Limit to perform the focus action. It would normally be performing the same action twice, but according to this interpretation the action never happened. With Recon Specialist, this would allow you to gain 2 focus tokens and 1 evade. However, if you have evade and focus as available actions, and you have PtL and Recon Spec, you can do this without needing to invoke Jan Ors anyway.

Seems pretty clear to me that option 1 is correct as it is the most logical. The affect of the action is the receiving of the token. Jan lets you assign a different token as a result of the action. The action still took place. The result is different. I still have the question of how this interacts with Jake. Depending on the timing of Jan triggering or his free boost, he could be out of range for her to trigger.

Have we also put to be that Jan can not trigger on her own ship? The range requirement pretty much excluded her I would think. This too me is more of a question rather than actions disappearing and reappearing in a different form.

I agree.

The affect of the action is the receiving of the token. Jan lets you assign a different token as a result of the action. The action still took place. The result is different. I still have the question of how this interacts with Jake. Depending on the timing of Jan triggering or his free boost, he could be out of range for her to trigger.

Jake's text:

"After you perform focus action or are assigned a focus token, you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action."

Performing the focus action includes assigning a token to your ship. The entire action must complete before Jake's text can trigger (if you are triggering off of the first half). Therefore Jan's ability must trigger before Jake performs a free boost or barrel roll action.

Alternatively, he can simply be assigned a focus token for his text to trigger. However if Jake would be assigned a focus token without performing an action (Garven, for example), and you use Jan to instead assign him an evade token instead, then Jake's text does not trigger.

Personally I'm not certain either way. I imagine they will update the FAQ for this.

Thank you major juggler. Clear as mud on my end.

Yeah, I'm not certain, but I'm reading it that Jan does work on her own ship. I was the 4th on this thread to throw my hat in the ring with that interpretation.

Seems pretty clear to me that option 1 is correct as it is the most logical.

Frankly that seems the only reasonable way to read it. Which makes sense why someone has trouble with it... Preforming an action and the result of that action are not the same thing.

What gets me is how he keeps screaming that people need to read the text of the card, when he so clearly either hasn't read it, doesn't understand it, or just is arguing for the sake of it.

However if Jake would be assigned a focus token without performing an action (Garven, for example), and you use Jan to instead assign him an evade token instead, then Jake's text does not trigger.

Agree, the second trigger for Jake clearly requires that he be given a focus token, and if he doesn't get it, he can't trigger it. Kind of like Soontir and stress tokens.

As far as Jan triggering on her own ship. Clearly friendly is currently defined as any ship in your list, not any other ship. So that part would let her work on her own ship. The range 1-3 thing, that hasn't actually been covered yet officially. But I'm inclined to say a ship is in range 1-3 of itself.

As far as Jan triggering on her own ship. Clearly friendly is currently defined as any ship in your list, not any other ship. So that part would let her work on her own ship. The range 1-3 thing, that hasn't actually been covered yet officially. But I'm inclined to say a ship is in range 1-3 of itself.

This part I don't really agree with. According to the rules, the "range" measurement is the distance between two ships:

Some weapons and abilities provide bonuses or are restricted based on the range (distance) from another ship (see “Upgrade Card Anatomy” on page 19).

It also states that range is measured by placing the range ruler so that it touches the closest point of one base and that it needs to be pointed towards the other base. Can't really do that with one ship.

Regarding the range issue, I'm looking at it as follows:

The distance between a ship and itself is 0mm (or inches, or parsecs, or any other unit of your choice). We have another situation in which the distance between 2 ships is 0mm - when the ships are touching. If 2 ships are tounching, what range are they from one another?

Regarding the range issue, I'm looking at it as follows:

The distance between a ship and itself is 0mm (or inches, or parsecs, or any other unit of your choice). We have another situation in which the distance between 2 ships is 0mm - when the ships are touching. If 2 ships are tounching, what range are they from one another?

According to the FAQ, they would be "within" range 1, but not necessarily "at" range 1. As to this whole 0mm thing, I'm forced to ask, again, does that mean a ship is touching itself whenever it moves?

Regarding the range issue, I'm looking at it as follows:

The distance between a ship and itself is 0mm (or inches, or parsecs, or any other unit of your choice). We have another situation in which the distance between 2 ships is 0mm - when the ships are touching. If 2 ships are tounching, what range are they from one another?

Totally get what you're saying and agree...but "range" in X-Wing has nothing to do with real measured distances, only what is actually measured by the range ruler. So if you're touching your target you are in range 1 not because you are at a distance of 0mm, but because range 1 of the range ruler overlaps your target. Check out the "Range Ruler" box on page 9 of the rulebook and the "Range" section on page 10.

Regarding the range issue, I'm looking at it as follows:

The distance between a ship and itself is 0mm (or inches, or parsecs, or any other unit of your choice). We have another situation in which the distance between 2 ships is 0mm - when the ships are touching. If 2 ships are tounching, what range are they from one another?

According to the FAQ, they would be "within" range 1, but not necessarily "at" range 1.

You have that backward, I think: "within" means the base of the target is contained completely within the indicated range bands. "At" means some part of the ship is touching the indicated range--which has to be the case with Jan.

Regarding the range issue, I'm looking at it as follows:The distance between a ship and itself is 0mm (or inches, or parsecs, or any other unit of your choice). We have another situation in which the distance between 2 ships is 0mm - when the ships are touching. If 2 ships are tounching, what range are they from one another?

According to the FAQ, they would be "within" range 1, but not necessarily "at" range 1.

You have that backward, I think: "within" means the base of the target is contained completely within the indicated range bands. "At" means some part of the ship is touching the indicated range--which has to be the case with Jan.

To be perfectly honest, I still don't think either one makes a bit of sense in this case.

Models being friendly with themselves, and within a range of themselves, is a pretty standard concept in a lot of games. X-wing fails to state it explicitly, but it wouldn't be terribly shocking if that were the case.

My guess is that Jan can affect herself. For all the failings in X-wing templating, they've been very good about using "another" for abilities which the ship can't take advantage of itself (Howlrunner, Jonus). Maybe they left it off in this case for some error, but in the absence of an FAQ I'd say her own ship gets it.

On the "getting an evade replaces the Focus action so you can take Focus actions multiple times" (which I think is that argument, I am admittedly not going through 16 pages of troll to figure out the fine details)... Seriously? The "no duplicate actions" remains the one of the most absolute rules in X-wing. You think they're going to create an ability that back-doors it like that, without explicitly saying so? No. Just... no.

On the "getting an evade replaces the Focus action so you can take Focus actions multiple times" (which I think is that argument

No that's not really the argument.

That's more someone pointing out just how silly IP's argument is, because based on his logic such a thing would in theory be allowed.

What he's saying is that Jan's ability changes the Focus Action into an Evade Action, rather then just changing the token you get.

As to this whole 0mm thing, I'm forced to ask, again, does that mean a ship is touching itself whenever it moves?

That would be one little dirty ship....

does that mean a ship is touching itself whenever it moves?

Does it matter? There are no rules that would cause an issue if it were, since the word another is used, so it doesn't matter if the ship is touching itself or not.

On the "getting an evade replaces the Focus action so you can take Focus actions multiple times" (which I think is that argument

No that's not really the argument.

That's more someone pointing out just how silly IP's argument is, because based on his logic such a thing would in theory be allowed.

What he's saying is that Jan's ability changes the Focus Action into an Evade Action, rather then just changing the token you get.

Well, I at least got the end destination correct.

Replacing the Focus action with getting an evade token could at least be justifiable thanks to some abusive predicate replacement. Replacing the Focus action with an Evade action is so completely unfounded in the text I'm amazed it generated 16 posts, much less 16 pages.

Well, there is a good 2-3 pages of Rebel envy complaints. Then another 2-3 pages over the whether Jan can affect her ship or not. But yes, most of those pages are inane arguments that got way too personal over the action debate.

On the "getting an evade replaces the Focus action so you can take Focus actions multiple times" (which I think is that argument

No that's not really the argument.

That's more someone pointing out just how silly IP's argument is, because based on his logic such a thing would in theory be allowed.

What he's saying is that Jan's ability changes the Focus Action into an Evade Action, rather then just changing the token you get.

Well, I at least got the end destination correct.

Replacing the Focus action with getting an evade token could at least be justifiable thanks to some abusive predicate replacement. Replacing the Focus action with an Evade action is so completely unfounded in the text I'm amazed it generated 16 posts, much less 16 pages.

Hear hear

Well, I at least got the end destination correct.

Replacing the Focus action with getting an evade token could at least be justifiable thanks to some abusive predicate replacement. Replacing the Focus action with an Evade action is so completely unfounded in the text I'm amazed it generated 16 posts, much less 16 pages.

To be fair, the record for an iPeregrine thread is still 30 pages.

EDIT: Wrong Post to reply.

On the "getting an evade replaces the Focus action so you can take Focus actions multiple times" (which I think is that argument

No that's not really the argument.

That's more someone pointing out just how silly IP's argument is, because based on his logic such a thing would in theory be allowed.

What he's saying is that Jan's ability changes the Focus Action into an Evade Action, rather then just changing the token you get.

Well, I at least got the end destination correct.

Replacing the Focus action with getting an evade token could at least be justifiable thanks to some abusive predicate replacement. Replacing the Focus action with an Evade action is so completely unfounded in the text I'm amazed it generated 16 posts, much less 16 pages.

Never underestimate the stubborness of some people, it always amaze me...

Well, there is a good 2-3 pages of Rebel envy complaints. Then another 2-3 pages over the whether Jan can affect her ship or not. But yes, most of those pages are inane arguments that got way too personal over the action debate.

The report button is our friend... use it early, use it often.