Accuracy Corrector's effect states that "When attacking, you may cancel all of your dice results. Then, you may add 2 [hit] results." Does the fact that all of the dice are canceled count as the attack not hitting for the purposes of effects like Gunner and IG-88B's pilot ability?

I'm inclined to think that it does count, since all of your attack dice are being canceled, as opposed to being turned into hits.

You are still adding 2 boom results to the attack. The attack will not be a miss unless all boom and kaboom results (including the added ones) are cancelled.

But the attack still delt damage, so I don't think you would get the 2 damage and then roll for a gunner attack. Good try though, thats interesting.

But the attack still delt damage, so I don't think you would get the 2 damage and then roll for a gunner attack. Good try though, thats interesting.

Not necessarily. It depends on how your opponent's Evade dice go; if you use the Corrector and your opponent rolls 2 Evades, the attack will miss and you will get to use Gunner.

Accuracy Corrector doesn't deal two damage. It swaps whatever you rolled for two [boom] results. The opponent still get to try to evade those two results.

Or you could just choose not to add the 2 Hit results. They are optional.

Which would work well with a FCS and gunner team up, but your opponent may still be carrying that focus or evade token because he didn't have to try and cancel out the 2 booms from accuracy corrector.

Here is what I once did using IG-88B and accuracy corrector (technically, it was IG-88C, but IG-88B was still in play, so the effect transfered). I was on the tail of a Y-wing at range 1 and it still had 2 shields left.

- Fired primary weapons scoring 2 crits

- Finding the result uninteresting, I used accuracy corrector to cancel the hits, then used the "may add 2 hits" clause to add 0 hits, missing.

- IG-88B's effect triggered (I purposely missed).

- Attacked with ion cannons, rolled 1 hit.

- Used accuracy corrector, cancelled the dice, added 2 hits, assuring that the Y-Wing would be hit by my ion cannons.

Last but not least: spent 2 minutes showing the cards and showing the "may add 2 hits" to justify this screwed up scenario

Gunner + FCS + Accuracy Corrector, which is actually impossible currently as the latter two are both Systems slot upgrades, would be an awful lot of points for (whatever action) + Target Lock shenannigans...

- Finding the result uninteresting, I used accuracy corrector to cancel the hits, then used the "may add 2 hits" clause to add 0 hits, missing.

- Finding the result uninteresting, I used accuracy corrector to cancel the hits, then used the "may add 2 hits" clause to add 0 hits, missing.

You can't do that. It doesn't say "may add 0, 1, or 2 booms", it says "may add two booms". You do what the card says to do, not what it doesn't say. And in my experience, "may" means "has the ability to".

Conversely, it also means "has the ability not to"

The wording happens twice on the card, which implies two different choice-moments, the latter choosing whether to add 2 hits after canceling your dice.

Thus 0 is a possibility, until an FAQ entry comes out.

- Finding the result uninteresting, I used accuracy corrector to cancel the hits, then used the "may add 2 hits" clause to add 0 hits, missing.

You can't do that. It doesn't say "may add 0, 1, or 2 booms", it says "may add two booms". You do what the card says to do, not what it doesn't say. And in my experience, "may" means "has the ability to".

The wording was not done randomly. If adding the 2 hits had been mandatory then the formulation of the card would have been: "When attacking, you may cancel all of your dice results. Then, (*remove this* you may *remove this*) add 2 [hit] results."

The "may" therefore only does one thing: you either add 2 hit results or chose to end the effect of the card right there (in effect, adding nothing).

The wording was not done randomly.

FFG uses May to mean both you're allowed to do something, or that you need to do something. Normally though the word May makes something optional.

The wording was not done randomly.

FFG uses May to mean both you're allowed to do something, or that you need to do something. Normally though the word May makes something optional.

Out of curiosity, (I know FFG's wording is a little all over the place at times) in what cases do they use "may" to indicate something you have to do?

The wording was not done randomly.

FFG uses May to mean both you're allowed to do something, or that you need to do something. Normally though the word May makes something optional.

Is there a specific example? I've stopped using accuracy corrector, but if there is a precedent for another possibility then I would like to know about it.

in what cases do they use "may" to indicate something you have to do?

It's possible that I'm misremembering or remembering old and no longer valid things. It seems to me that Alex or Frank once said something about May being used in two ways, but I can't think of an example now where it was used for something mandatory.

Is there a specific example?

You mean when they use May as something optional? Pretty much any use of the word makes something optional.

For example Swarm Tactics, the card didn't have May on it originally so you had to use it, but they changed it so it now has the word may, which makes it optional.

At the start of the Combat phase, choose 1 friendly ship at Range 1.

At the start of the Combat phase, you may choose 1 friendly ship at Range 1.

- Finding the result uninteresting, I used accuracy corrector to cancel the hits, then used the "may add 2 hits" clause to add 0 hits, missing.

You can't do that. It doesn't say "may add 0, 1, or 2 booms", it says "may add two booms". You do what the card says to do, not what it doesn't say. And in my experience, "may" means "has the ability to".

I agree that adding 1 [hit] result is not an option. That would be adding words to the card. But the fact is that Accuracy Corrector lets you cancel the attack dice completely -- no strings attached. Then you may (but you don't have to) add two [hit] results to your attack. I think cancelling your dice and choosing not to add 2 [hit] results is perfectly legal as written.

in what cases do they use "may" to indicate something you have to do?

It's possible that I'm misremembering or remembering old and no longer valid things. It seems to me that Alex or Frank once said something about May being used in two ways, but I can't think of an example now where it was used for something mandatory.

Is there a specific example?

You mean when they use May as something optional?

I'm certain he means the opposite: An example of "may" as something mandatory.

There probably is no such example.

Rulebook page 19:

Unless a card ability uses the word “may” or has the “Action:” or “Attack:” headers, then the ability is mandatory and must be followed.

I'm certain he means the opposite: An example of "may" as something mandatory.

There probably is no such example.

Apparently I misread what dotswarlock so nevermind.

How ridiculous to think you MAY Cancel all your dice then decline the second MAY to NOT add 2 hits causing you to purposely miss...What a wording mistake...until it is FAQ'ed it would have to be allowed to work that way based on precedent of similarly worded cards.

Obviously the intention of the card is to correct your accuracy by giving you two hits...not destroy your accuracy and make you miss on purpose!! lol FFG really needs some extra eyes on these cards before they release since there are more and more of these types of bad and unclear wordings with each release.

Obviously the intention of the card is to correct your accuracy by giving you two hits...

So you're a play tester and/or developer and helped design that card? Because that's the only way you can know what the intention of the card actually is.

It's possible that they'll FAQ it so the 2 <hit> results, are not optional. But RAW the way the card works is quite clear.

Are we seriously now complaining that an ability to make yourself fail an attack is too useful to be allowed?

Are we seriously now complaining that an ability to make yourself fail an attack is too useful to be allowed?

At this point, does this not surprise you?

Obviously the intention of the card is to correct your accuracy by giving you two hits...

So you're a play tester and/or developer and helped design that card? Because that's the only way you can know what the intention of the card actually is.

Thank you for trolling me again Vandor, I feel like we are back to talking about mixing dials..

The name of the card IS accuracy corrector and thus I was making a commentary using OBVIOUSLY to point out the name of the card and its logical intent, NOT that I am an all knowing FFG employee. Sorry again for ruffling your feathers and triggering your high horsing sensibilities that forced your hand in bashing me. (again...) You also so graciously repeated what I said in my complete message...now that you repeated what has been said it surely will stand as truth. My entire post was of course invalidated when I used the word Obviously and included smiley faces.

You continue to be a gracious host and ambassador to these wonderful forums. At least the question for this forum topic has been answered. I look forward to posting again someday, triple checking it to make sure I pass the Vandor DM quality check. Sorry again, fly casual...

Thank you for trolling me again Vandor

I see so calling you on such a clearly outrageous statement is trolling now. I suppose you think anyone who disagrees with you is also trolling you.

The name of the card

The name of the card is meaningless when it comes to things like rules. It does nothing to determine intent, because the only people who can truly know what the intent is, is the designers themselves or those who talk to them.

So anytime anyone claims to know what the intent is, they are either full of it, or else are a developer or play tester.

Vandor DM quality check.

For starters you could try and take the fairly small effort required in actually getting my name right...

My entire post was of course invalidated when I used the word Obviously and included smiley faces.

No your whole post was invalidated because you claimed something you can't actually know. When discussing rules, no one can ever claim to know what the intention is, and doing so does in fact invalidate your whole point.