Yeah? Show me on Jan's card where it says that. All I see is "... you may assign an evade token instead." Doesn't say anything about replacing an action.

Maybe it's in the same hidden rules that allow you to use altered dice.

'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead.'

Jan triggers when you perform a focus action, and replaces the focus action with assigning an evade token. That's what the word "instead" means, it is very clearly a replacement. The only way it would still be a focus action is if it said this instead:

'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead of assigning a focus token.'

Let's think about this in non-gaming terms. I tell you the following: "if you would have cake for desert you can have pie instead". You take the pie option. Can you then tell me that you had cake for desert? Obviously not.

What the ability actually does is replace the focus action with assigning an evade token, replacing the focus action entirely.

Yeah? Show me on Jan's card where it says that. All I see is "... you may assign an evade token instead." Doesn't say anything about replacing an action.

Maybe it's in the same hidden rules that allow you to use altered dice.

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

Yeah? Show me on Jan's card where it says that. All I see is "... you may assign an evade token instead." Doesn't say anything about replacing an action. Maybe it's in the same hidden rules that allow you to use altered dice.

How about reading the card before you embarrass yourself by resorting to personal attacks?'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead.'Jan triggers when you perform a focus action, and replaces the focus action with assigning an evade token. That's what the word "instead" means, it is very clearly a replacement. The only way it would still be a focus action is if it said this instead:'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead of assigning a focus token.'

It is a replacement. A replacement of the token, not the action. Jan triggers off of focus actions and so does Jake. It's pretty simple.

It is a replacement. A replacement of the token, not the action. Jan triggers off of focus actions and so does Jake. It's pretty simple.

No, go back and read the card. It replaces the entire focus action with assigning an evade token. If you assign an evade token instead of taking a focus action then you did not take a focus action.

And no, Jake's action does NOT have the same trigger. Jan triggers on taking a focus action, Jake's triggers after taking a focus action. To use Jake's ability you have to finish the focus action and move on to the next thing, you don't just put it on the to-do list as soon as you announce "focus".

How about reading the card before you embarrass yourself by resorting to personal attacks?

'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead.'

Jan triggers when you perform a focus action, and replaces the focus action with assigning an evade token. That's what the word "instead" means, it is very clearly a replacement. The only way it would still be a focus action is if it said this instead:

'When a friendly ship at Range 1-3 performs a focus action, you may assign it an evade token instead of assigning a focus token.'

Let's think about this in non-gaming terms. I tell you the following: "if you would have cake for desert you can have pie instead". You take the pie option. Can you then tell me that you had cake for desert? Obviously not.

I think you're very confused about who just embarrassed himself. You just wrote, and even highlighted, the part where it says a focus action is being performed. Perform a focus action, get an evade token. Nowhere between those two words does the card state, explicitly or implicitly, that anything is happening to the action. And, at the point at which Jan's ability triggers, the focus action has already been performed. It's a fait accompli, and the only thing being "replaced" is the token. How is this so hard for you to understand?

I think you're very confused about who just embarrassed himself. You just wrote, and even highlighted, the part where it says a focus action is being performed. Perform a focus action, get an evade token. How is this so hard for you to understand?

And you just left out the key word: INSTEAD. You assign an evade token INSTEAD of performing a focus action. If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. Please stop using your imaginary version of the card that says "if you perform a focus action you may have that action give you an evade token instead of a focus token". Jan clearly and indisputably replaces the entire action, not just the token.

And you just left out the key word: INSTEAD. You assign an evade token INSTEAD of performing a focus action.

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.

I think you're very confused about who just embarrassed himself. You just wrote, and even highlighted, the part where it says a focus action is being performed. Perform a focus action, get an evade token. How is this so hard for you to understand?

And you just left out the key word: INSTEAD. You assign an evade token INSTEAD of performing a focus action. If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y. Please stop using your imaginary version of the card that says "if you perform a focus action you may have that action give you an evade token instead of a focus token". Jan clearly and indisputably replaces the entire action, not just the token.

So you will really play it that Wedge or Luke or whatever ship with PtL will be able to get an evade and focus token in the same turn by performing a focus action twice? Really?

Do as you like, until a FAQ says otherwise, the ship still performed a focus action. As clearly and indisputably as it looks to you, it does the same to me but the other way. If i didn't came and read this thread, there would never have been any confusion. I can't say I'm 100% sure I'm right since I'm not the one who wrote the card, but an official answer will be needed to prove me otherwise.

Why am I wading into this mess?...

Let's think about this in non-gaming terms. I tell you the following: "if you would have cake for desert you can have pie instead". You take the pie option. Can you then tell me that you had cake for desert? Obviously not.

Your analogy doesn't match, because you added the word "would", which implies the event "hav[ing] cake for dessert" has not yet happened.

A more accurate analogy is: "When you have dessert, you may eat cake instead." You are still having dessert -- that hasn't changed.

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.

Wait. How can you retroactively change the triggering action? The triggering event has by definition already occurred.

So you will really play it that Wedge or Luke or whatever ship with PtL will be able to get an evade and focus token in the same turn by performing a focus action twice? Really?

No, because that's not what the card says. If you assign an evade token instead of performing a focus action then you did not perform an action, and can not trigger PTL.

Now, if you manage to get yourself a free action later (for example Cracken gives you one) then you could take a focus action since you have not taken one yet this turn, and then trigger PTL to do something else. And that would give you a focus and evade token in the same turn.

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.

It is a replacement. A replacement of the token, not the action. Jan triggers off of focus actions and so does Jake. It's pretty simple.

No, go back and read the card. It replaces the entire focus action with assigning an evade token. If you assign an evade token instead of taking a focus action then you did not take a focus action.And no, Jake's action does NOT have the same trigger. Jan triggers on taking a focus action, Jake's triggers after taking a focus action. To use Jake's ability you have to finish the focus action and move on to the next thing, you don't just put it on the to-do list as soon as you announce "focus".

I've read the card. Many times.

If you're replacing the entire action with assigning a focus token, then you haven't performed an action. With your interpretation she essentially hands out free PtL. The inescapable conclusion of your stance is this:

1. Perform focus action

2. Delete focus action and instead receive evade token.

3. Perform a new action (including focus since you retroactively didn't perform that action)

4. If you've got PtL, go ahead and trigger that for a total of 2 actions and one token assignment.

That about right?

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.or2) 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.

In what universe does a replacement effect replace the trigger and not the effect? That's a paradox.

You once pretended like you know something about Magic. Please google "replacement effect," it might shed some light on your linguistic deficiency.

Your analogy doesn't match, because you added the word "would", which implies the event "hav[ing] cake for dessert" has not yet happened.

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.

A more accurate analogy is: "When you have dessert, you may eat cake instead." You are still having dessert -- that hasn't changed.

No you are not, because you are eating cake INSTEAD of having desert. This is basic english, if you do X instead of Y then you do not do Y.

Wait. How can you retroactively change the triggering action? The triggering event has by definition already occurred.

You change it because Jan's ability says to. Jan triggers when you declare the focus action, and the "instead" part of her rule tells you to go back and remove the original triggering event. If you place a focus token next to your ship and complete the focus action then it is too late to use Jan's ability.

In what universe does a replacement effect replace the trigger and not the effect? That's a paradox.

In a universe in which the person reading the card knows what the word "instead" means. If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y.

You once pretended like you know something about Magic. Please google "replacement effect," it might shed some light on your linguistic deficiency.

Please don't insist that an effect is only a replacement effect if it uses MTG's wording. MTG uses "if you would do X do Y instead", X-Wing uses "when you do X do Y instead" for similar effects.

The inescapable conclusion of your stance is this:

1. Perform focus action

2. Delete focus action and instead receive evade token.

3. Perform a new action (including focus since you retroactively didn't perform that action)

4. If you've got PtL, go ahead and trigger that for a total of 2 actions and one token assignment.

That about right?

No, because this directly contradicts the rule that you only get one opportunity to do something. At the beginning of your "perform action" step you get the opportunity to perform an action. Regardless of what you do after that point you are no longer at the beginning of your perform action step, and can not go back and use that opportunity again.

Now, the replacement effect does become relevant if you get a free action later. Since you did not perform a focus action earlier you are free to perform one with your free action.

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).

I also don't think that simply saying the Imperials have Howlrunner, so they don't need this kind of variety is correct (even if I agree Howl is too cheap). More variety might actually cause people to move away from her. There's nothing that was game breaking in Imperial Aces and yet it seems to have had exactly that effect -- interceptors are getting used more and there is more variety in the Imperial builds.

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 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.

In what universe does a replacement effect replace the trigger and not the effect? That's a paradox.

In a universe in which the person reading the card knows what the word "instead" means. If you do X instead of Y then you did not do Y.

You once pretended like you know something about Magic. Please google "replacement effect," it might shed some light on your linguistic deficiency.

Please don't insist that an effect is only a replacement effect if it uses MTG's wording. MTG uses "if you would do X do Y instead", X-Wing uses "when you do X do Y instead" for similar effects.

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

You keep pretending like excluding the entire context of the card, and all of it's relevant wording, somehow makes the word "instead" mean something completely different. Instead means that you get an evade token instead of a focus token. That's what happens when you read the entire card, and don't just single out the word "instead."

As far as Magic is concerned, you completely ignored my point. I agree with you, they do have similar effects. In Magic, when an effect is triggered, you can replace that effect with a replacement effect. You do not replace the trigger, because that is physically impossible.

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

You're right, Howlrunner probably should have errata (a point increase would be best). But errata to change the function of a card/rule/etc is a controversial subject, and there are good reasons for avoiding it. You don't want to end up with a situation where some players know about the errata and use one version of a card, while their opponent might be expecting to use the card as-printed.

Instead means that you get an evade token instead of a focus token. That's what happens when you read the entire card, and don't just single out the word "instead."

READ THE **** CARD. It has TWO SEPARATE TRIGGERS.

If it triggers on performing a focus action then you replace the focus action.

If it triggers on assigning a focus token then you replace the focus token.

Nowhere in the card does it say that you get an evade token instead of a focus token granted by a focus action. You're inventing your own special version of the card that has nothing to do with the one FFG is publishing.

As far as Magic is concerned, you completely ignored my point.

You don't have a point. X-Wing is not MTG. How rules work in MTG is not at all relevant.

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

And here is where you're wrong. Rookie pilot has not performed an action, but the "you may perform an action" opportunity has already occurred and you can't go back to try again. This is equivalent to voluntarily declining to perform an action in your perform action step, if you make that choice you don't get to go back later and decide to perform an action after all.

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

You're right, Howlrunner probably should have errata (a point increase would be best). But errata to change the function of a card/rule/etc is a controversial subject, and there are good reasons for avoiding it. You don't want to end up with a situation where some players know about the errata and use one version of a card, while their opponent might be expecting to use the card as-printed.

Instead means that you get an evade token instead of a focus token. That's what happens when you read the entire card, and don't just single out the word "instead."

READ THE **** CARD. It has TWO SEPARATE TRIGGERS.

If it triggers on performing a focus action then you replace the focus action.

If it triggers on assigning a focus token then you replace the focus token.

Nowhere in the card does it say that you get an evade token instead of a focus token granted by a focus action. You're inventing your own special version of the card that has nothing to do with the one FFG is publishing.

As far as Magic is concerned, you completely ignored my point.

You don't have a point. X-Wing is not MTG. How rules work in MTG is not at all relevant.

How rules work in MTG is only tangentially relevant. More importantly, how the rules of English and logic work are perfectly relevant. You don't seem capable of comprehending either.

I've read the card, I just wish you'd stop inventing text that doesn't exist. Having two separate triggers is completely irrelevant, but even if it wasn't, it sure as hell doesn't have two separate effects.

Thanks guys, for making my dreadful Sunday morning a little more enjoyable. This has been incredible...

Focus Action =/= Assigned a Token

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.

Let's think about this in non-gaming terms. I tell you the following: "if you would have cake for desert you can have pie instead". You take the pie option. Can you then tell me that you had cake for desert? Obviously not.

I ordered cake. This weird HWK pilot switched my cake with pie and I ended up with pie. Still ordered cake.

Thanks guys, for making my dreadful Sunday morning a little more enjoyable. This has been incredible...

Can you tell how bored I am~

Actually I'm just killing time before I go jump in a pool because it's a million degrees outside.