But Jake doesn't trigger twice. Jake can't perform a focus action without placing a focus token. So, you can't separate the "performing" part from the "placing" part to create two triggers.

Why not? Apart from it being inconvenient, why wouldn't you consider them separately?

If you had an ability which triggered only from taking a focus action, would that trigger? Sure - you took the action.

If you had an ability which triggered only from being assigned a focus token, would that trigger? Sure - you were assigned a token (as part of the action).

The fact that the token assignment comes as part of the action does not mean it doesn't qualify as its own trigger.

That's the point Smuggler brought up - Jake has two possible triggers, and if you do the first one, it will always result in the second condition. It's a separate opportunity, and should trigger it separately.

Pretty obviously not intended (even by my own RAI standards) but there are two separate triggering events in there.

Nope, beg to disagree there. It becomes double dipping. You can't separate the "assigning" part from the "performing the action" part. They're one and the same. To perform the the action, you assign the token. You can't assign it without performing performing the action.

What you're suggesting is "I'm performing a focus action (trigger one), and that allows me to assign a focus token (trigger two)." There isn't a second condition from performing a focus action, as the action is the assignment of the token. How do you perform a focus action without assigning the token? You can't. So therefore it can't be a separate trigger.

Can you see what I mean?

Jan Ors (crew). It IS possible to perform a focus action without placing a focus token next to the ship that did so.

Jan Ors (crew). It IS possible to perform a focus action without placing a focus token next to the ship that did so.

Now you're just being a slippery beggar.

Still doesn't alter the fact that performing the action is the placement of a token. She just alters the token.

Its just a question of wanting them to pin down the language they use in the rules. I was a little disappointed in Frank's answer up above because it didn't really acknowledge the issue with the phrasing, it just said "no, it works like this", which everyone already knew. The point of bringing up imprecise rule language like this is to get them to be aware of them so that more questionable/egregious issues don't crop up in the future. An acknowledgement from Frank that "Yeah, its a little clumsily worded, here is how it is supposed to work" would have been preferable.

Yeah, true. I'm just surprised by the way some people can read all sorts of alternate meaning into some of the game's mechanics. I guess it's a case of you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Yeah, true. I'm just surprised by the way some people can read all sorts of alternate meaning into some of the game's mechanics. I guess it's a case of you can't please all of the people all of the time.

There's no alternate meaning here. In fact, it's perfectly consistent. We know that performing the core actions lets you perform those operations - barrel roll, target lock, etc - and that those things are independent of each other. You can roll or lock without taking the action. The action simply enables you to start the process.

It's no different for placing a focus token. Let's consider a hypothetical action: "Action: You may perform a free boost action. Then, place one focus token on your ship." Is placing the token there just the same as the action? I think clearly not. So then why is it for Focus? Just because it's short? Because it doesn't do anything else? When do they become the same thing? And more importantly, WHY do they become the same thing?

Placing a focus token on a ship is a game operation, just like any other. The focus action instructs you to do that. That does not make them one and the same.

So explain to me how performing a focus action offers two trigger opportunities.

So explain to me how performing a focus action offers two trigger opportunities.

Simple: Performing a focus action is a trigger. Placing the token is a trigger.

If we look at my hypothetical action above (let's call it Hypothetical), there are actually four main possible triggers:

1. The Hypothetical action itself

2. The Boost action

3. Performing the boost

4. Placing the focus token

We know each of these things is distinct - Push the Limit could trigger from either 1 or 2. A Proximity Mine could trigger from 3. Jan or Jake could trigger from 4.

I think it's pretty easy to see how a multi-operation action breaks down into the individual parts. Would you disagree with any of the above?

So if we make changes to Hypothetical - remove the boost, so 2 and 3 go away... then rename the action to "focus"... why would it stop being separate?

And I asked this above, but what makes it the same? Is it just that the name of the action and the token are the same? Is it that it's only a single, simple operation? If Lando assigns a Focus and Evade tokens, does that make his action a Focus or Evade action? Or both?

Again, simply: We know that complex actions present multiple trigger opportunities based on their component operations. Why would simple operations be any different?

You keep bringing outside sources into the equation and I'm not debating outside sources. I understand how they work. It's this bit from Smuggler's post that I'm talking about:

However I do have a follow up question regarding Jake Farrel. Would it be possible for him to both boost and barrel roll when he takes the focus action? The way I see it there are two opportunities for his ability to trigger in that case. Once for being assigned a focus token (as part of the resolution of the focus action) and once for the focus action itself.

There's only one ship in question here. Garven, Kyle, Jan or Lando (or anyone else for that matter) aren't entering into the equation. This is solely to do with Jake performing a focus action and the assumption that it offers two trigger opportunities. Which I firmly believe it does not. But it appears to me that you seem to think it does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't understand what's being argued here. Place =/= assign, and the second email bears that out.

Well, rather the two mail responces shows that place sometimes equals assign and sometimes not.

Garven "placing" a focus token is equal to assigning a focus token.

The "placing" of a focus token from the focus action is not equal to assigning a focus token,

Frank, in his first email, said that Garven is the only instance of "place" - and that's patently wrong, since we've all read the rules by now. Judging from his response, I gather that this is another "can" vs "may" scenario, whereby FFG is tripping over their own feet with word choice. On the one hand we have the rules, which govern our understanding of how actions and assignment are two totally different things, and on the other we have a poorly worded card. Their connections to each other, and to the topic at hand, are tenuous at best. So, in Garven's case, we now know to read it as "assign" instead. That by no means changes the actual wording in the rule book, which is still a legitimate use of the word "place."

When you perform a focus action, you place a focus token. When you assign a focus token, you place a focus token. Those are two different processes, so you can't try to work backwards and assume that you're doing one or the other, and the word "place" isn't intrinsically tied to one or the other either.

The simplest way to handle this is that assign means the sour e of the focus token is another ship, no matter emwhat word is used for it.

You keep bringing outside sources into the equation and I'm not debating outside sources. I understand how they work. It's this bit from Smuggler's post that I'm talking about:

...

There's only one ship in question here. Garven, Kyle, Jan or Lando (or anyone else for that matter) aren't entering into the equation. This is solely to do with Jake performing a focus action and the assumption that it offers two trigger opportunities. Which I firmly believe it does not. But it appears to me that you seem to think it does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why would the source matter, or whether there's another ship? If the ship is assigned a focus token, it's assigned a focus token. If it took an action, it took that action. There's no distinction for where or how that happened.

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but you've offered absolutely nothing to support your position. The one theory you did put forward got shot down in a single post, then you moved to "but it's still a token so it still counts", which you also offered absolutely no support for. I've pointed out numerous other situations where they're separate, and why they have to be separate. You're trying to munge them together because it's convenient to get the answer you want, but there's zero support for treating this action and its effect as some unary thing when nothing else in the game acts like that.

The simplest way to handle this is that assign means the sour e of the focus token is another ship, no matter emwhat word is used for it.

Simple, but wrong. Assign is used plenty of places for your own ship, off the top of my head including Fel and Recon Specialist.

Okay first off you don't get to double dip on Jake's ability for simply performing a focus action. I would bet money on that and I don't think anyone here would take that bet.

Back to StephenEsven's post, he was close. Assigning is they term they use for getting a token when the source that token isn't the action that would normally give you that token. Garvin, Jan (crew), Fel, Dutch, and Recon Specialist all fit this. Note that I'm not talking about an indirect source that acts as a trigger for that effect, such as Recon Specialist triggering when you take the focus action. I'm talking about the DIRECT source of that token, which would be the upgrade or pilot ability.

Also regarding this wacky semantics debate about how place now equals assign in all cases, place is just the verb they used to describe the act of putting a focus token or whatever else next to the ship in the core rules. Have they said this outright? No. But stringing together these transitive arguments of saying that "since place technically means assign when you perform an action and you place a token you're also assigning it which triggers this card twice" is overreaching a bit and I believe the intent of FFG is clear. Would this have been a non-issue if they had errata'd Garvin to say assign instead of place? Yes. But they didn't, so oh well. If they wanted you to be able to do both a boost and barrel roll for Jake for taking the focus action they would have written it like that. Actually believing otherwise is, to me, a bit silly and feels like people are trying to find loopholes in the rules. Normally I'd support that if the intent is to get FFG to close such loopholes, but trying to exploit them in play is a little unsportsmanlike. And in cases like these where the intent is pretty dang clear, I feel bad for Frank who has to answer all these emails. He's a busy guy.

If they wanted you to be able to do both a boost and barrel roll for Jake for taking the focus action they would have written it like that. Actually believing otherwise is, to me, a bit silly and feels like people are trying to find loopholes in the rules. Normally I'd support that if the intent is to get FFG to close such loopholes, but trying to exploit them in play is a little unsportsmanlike. And in cases like these where the intent is pretty dang clear, I feel bad for Frank who has to answer all these emails. He's a busy guy.

I don't recal any one, including my self, that has stated to belive the intent was for Jake to be able to both boost and BR from his focus action. The intent is indeed to try and get a more tight rules set/ word usage to easier resolv any future cards/interactions that may come up without having to bombard Frank (or who ever is in charge) with questions.

If they wanted you to be able to do both a boost and barrel roll for Jake for taking the focus action they would have written it like that. Actually believing otherwise is, to me, a bit silly and feels like people are trying to find loopholes in the rules. Normally I'd support that if the intent is to get FFG to close such loopholes, but trying to exploit them in play is a little unsportsmanlike. And in cases like these where the intent is pretty dang clear, I feel bad for Frank who has to answer all these emails. He's a busy guy.

I don't recal any one, including my self, that has stated to belive the intent was for Jake to be able to both boost and BR from his focus action. The intent is indeed to try and get a more tight rules set/ word usage to easier resolv any future cards/interactions that may come up without having to bombard Frank (or who ever is in charge) with questions.

Good! I mean I didn't think anyone actually believed it either. Too bad, I would have wanted to win that bet haha.

Good! I mean I didn't think anyone actually believed it either. Too bad, I would have wanted to win that bet haha.

It's really not a matter of winning or losing, in terms of RAW there are clearly 2 trigger points. In terms of RAI everyone here is agreeable that you should only get 1 trigger. This is simply an academic discussion about rule text structure.

As Smuggler pointed out the main reason for this discussion, and in fact the clear polarising effect between player opinions, is that this far into the game (wave 4-5) we would have expected the rules text to have been tightened up to avoid these type of discussions in the first place.

When FAQ’s appear to be only release 2-3 times a year, and answers from rules questions to Frank (with all due respect to the man) are often just as ambiguous as the rules in the first place, it leaves significant chunks of time for independent TO’s to make rulings based on personal opinions when no clear directive or clean rules text is provided.

... in terms of RAW ... In terms of RAI ...

I suspect I will sound very noobish here, but: what exactly do these acronyms stand for?

... in terms of RAW ... In terms of RAI ...

I suspect I will sound very noobish here, but: what exactly do these acronyms stand for?

Rules As Written and Rules As Intended.

It's a distinction used when it looks like a rule is badly written and doesn't actually say what the designer meant it to.

... in terms of RAW ... In terms of RAI ...

I suspect I will sound very noobish here, but: what exactly do these acronyms stand for?

Rules As Written and Rules As Intended.

It's a distinction used when it looks like a rule is badly written and doesn't actually say what the player thinks the designer meant it to.

Fixed that.

Good! I mean I didn't think anyone actually believed it either. Too bad, I would have wanted to win that bet haha.

It's really not a matter of winning or losing, in terms of RAW there are clearly 2 trigger points. In terms of RAI everyone here is agreeable that you should only get 1 trigger. This is simply an academic discussion about rule text structure.

As Smuggler pointed out the main reason for this discussion, and in fact the clear polarising effect between player opinions, is that this far into the game (wave 4-5) we would have expected the rules text to have been tightened up to avoid these type of discussions in the first place.

When FAQ’s appear to be only release 2-3 times a year, and answers from rules questions to Frank (with all due respect to the man) are often just as ambiguous as the rules in the first place, it leaves significant chunks of time for independent TO’s to make rulings based on personal opinions when no clear directive or clean rules text is provided.

I get that and I know, it's important for them to be a little more careful with the terms they use for certain cards. It just seems baffling to me that any TO would end up ruling it in opposition to what the design intent was.

But what's the design intent? Is it intended that Farlander be able to guarantee stress removal with an attack? Or is it intended to be more limited, so that you only clear the stress if you actually roll an eyeball?

This is why "intent" needs to stay as far from rules discussions as possible. Nobody knows what the design intent was - what they see, and what they argue, is what THEY THINK the intent was. Some people think a B-wing being able to clear stress is too powerful, so it couldn't possibly have been intended, and rule that you need eyeballs. Some people think unique pilots are historically underwhelming and need help, and improving their abilities is a way to do it, so they obviously intended for it to be a very good ability.

We rarely have an actual read on intent.