I'm curious to know if the effect of Weaken would counteract that of Cunning. I don't think that it would. The way I read Cunning is that as soon when you roll and evade you also add a block result. After those results are added, Weaken cancels an evade. It doesn't seem like the two results should be linked after they have been added.

Am I correct about how the two interact? Or does Weaken keep Cunning from providing a block on the first evade that gets rolled?

I think you're right about Cunning still working. It doesn't say uncancelled [evade] for cunning. If you roll an evade you get an extra block. Weaken prevents you from getting any benefit out of the evade for cancelling surges.

Does anyone else agree? Can anyone cite something in the rules about this? I'm really curious and not quite sure.

I disagree, it says "result". Cunning does not state that if you roll an evade you get +1 block, it merely states that for every evade result, you get +1 block. This all happens at Step 4: Apply Modifiers during the steps of an attack (RRG, Page 5).

Weakened removes 1 evade from the result during this step. This means the figure has no evades in Step 4, then they would not get the extra block.

The inverse is also true. If an effect gave the figure with Cunning an extra evade, (the result was 2 evades, one from the white defense die, the other from a card or effect) then the Cunning figure would also get +2 blocks.

Short answer: Weakened adversely affects Cunning.

I disagree, it says "result". Cunning does not state that if you roll an evade you get +1 block, it merely states that for every evade result, you get +1 block. This all happens at Step 4: Apply Modifiers during the steps of an attack (RRG, Page 5).

Weakened removes 1 evade from the result during this step. This means the figure has no evades in Step 4, then they would not get the extra block.

The inverse is also true. If an effect gave the figure with Cunning an extra evade, (the result was 2 evades, one from the white defense die, the other from a card or effect) then the Cunning figure would also get +2 blocks.

Short answer: Weakened adversely affects Cunning.

You have to have an evade as a result before you can have an evade result to cancel, correct? Whether the block gets added in Step 2 or Step 4 shouldn't make a difference, the existence of the evade result is what adds the block result.

If Weakness wasn't involved, would spending your evade to cancel a surge prevent you from getting the extra block? By your logic it would seem to since the evade result doesn't make it to Step 5 since it is spent.

Let's assume that both Cunning and Weaken take place during Step 4 and Cunning does not automatically add a block result. There is a timing issue here. There are rules that clarify timing when there is a conflict:

Learn to Play Page 9:

Simultaneous Effects

If two effects happen at exactly the same time, the player currently activating a figure chooses the order in which they resolve.

This would allow the attacker to choose the order to apply the effects unless they are using an interrupt attack, then the defender would decide.

I'm not 100% sure about the timing of Cunning. If it does happen during Step 4 then the order is going to change depending on who's activation the attack occurs on. This is something that FFG is going to need to FAQ to get everyone on the same page. Has Twin Shadows actually been released yet? FFG doesn't usually answer questions about unreleased content.

Twin Shadows was being sold at Gen Con, so technically it has been released. According to Organised Play, once an expansion is released, it is legal for gaming use. Following that criteria, they should be allowed to answer your question in regards to Cunning and Weaken.

You have to have an evade as a result before you can have an evade result to cancel, correct?

Incorrect. You're not *cancelling* the evade, you're applying -1 evade to the result.

Whether the block gets added in Step 2 or Step 4 shouldn't make a difference, the existence of the evade result is what adds the block result.

This cannot happen in step 2, since step 3 is rerolls (which could affect the existing/non-existing evades). This all happens in step 4, after rerolls (step 3), when you apply your modifiers after you are certain you know all the surges, evades, blocks, damage, hits, etc. Nothing gets applied in step 2. Nothing actually exists until step 4.

Additionally, under the the subheading "Special Situations Regarding Attacks" (RRG, page 6) it states "An ability that allows a player to modify die results can only be used during step 4 of the attack".

If Weakness wasn't involved, would spending your evade to cancel a surge prevent you from getting the extra block? By your logic it would seem to since the evade result doesn't make it to Step 5 since it is spent.

No, spending the evade does not prevent you from generating the block from cunning. The block is generated once the full tally of attack and defense dice And actually, the evade *DOESNT* make it to step 5, since the entire purpose of an evade is to cancel a surge (step 5 is spend surges).

Let's assume that both Cunning and Weaken take place during Step 4 and Cunning does not automatically add a block result. There is a timing issue here. There are rules that clarify timing when there is a conflict:

Learn to Play Page 9:

Simultaneous Effects

If two effects happen at exactly the same time, the player currently activating a figure chooses the order in which they resolve.

This would allow the attacker to choose the order to apply the effects unless they are using an interrupt attack, then the defender would decide.

There is no timing issue. Weaken merely modifies the entire defense result by -1. No matter where you put that into the step 4 equation, it is still minus one. Example: You roll one evade with weaken. Result (+1 evade) + (-1 evade) = 0 evades. You roll zero evades with weaken. Result = -1 evade (effectively zero).

I'm not 100% sure about the timing of Cunning. If it does happen during Step 4 then the order is going to change depending on who's activation the attack occurs on. This is something that FFG is going to need to FAQ to get everyone on the same page. Has Twin Shadows actually been released yet? FFG doesn't usually answer questions about unreleased content.

This situation assumes that weaken is present on the defender prior to the attack. Remember that conditions such as Weaken are not applied to the defender until the attack has resolved fully. So if you are thinking that the attacker spending a surge to apply Weaken has any effect on the current attack, that would be the point of confusion.

Learn to Play Page 9:

Simultaneous Effects

If two effects happen at exactly the same time, the player currently activating a figure chooses the order in which they resolve.

This would allow the attacker to choose the order to apply the effects unless they are using an interrupt attack, then the defender would decide.

There is no timing issue. Weaken merely modifies the entire defense result by -1. No matter where you put that into the step 4 equation, it is still minus one. Example: You roll one evade with weaken. Result (+1 evade) + (-1 evade) = 0 evades. You roll zero evades with weaken. Result = -1 evade (effectively zero).

I'm not 100% sure about the timing of Cunning. If it does happen during Step 4 then the order is going to change depending on who's activation the attack occurs on. This is something that FFG is going to need to FAQ to get everyone on the same page. Has Twin Shadows actually been released yet? FFG doesn't usually answer questions about unreleased content.

This situation assumes that weaken is present on the defender prior to the attack. Remember that conditions such as Weaken are not applied to the defender until the attack has resolved fully. So if you are thinking that the attacker spending a surge to apply Weaken has any effect on the current attack, that would be the point of confusion.

Ok, so I agree that both Cunning and Weakened get resolved in step 4. I do still disagree with you about the timing issue.

The order that Cunning and Weakened are applied definitely matter. If you roll an evade and resolve Cunning first, you now have an evade and a block. You then resolve Weakened and it cancels the evade leaving you with a block. If you roll that same evade and resolve Weakened first it leaves you with no results for Cunning to modify. Since there are multiple effects that need to be resolved at the same time the player whose activation it is gets to choose the order.

Most of the time this means that Weakened will cancel the evade before Cunning is resolved. If the attack was granted by something like an Imperial Officer or Han Solo's Return Fire ability, the Defender gets to choose the order in which Cunning and Weakened are resolved.

There has been no confusion on my part that the Weakened status has been set by a previous attack and not the one currently being resolved.

My opinion: The block is definitely added in step 4. It does come down to who decides the order of effects. If the effect from weakened is applied first (which it usually will be) then the block isn't added; if cunning is applied first (an interrupt or in the campaign) then weakened will not retroactively remove the block.

In short I think WWHSD is right.

Ok, so I agree that both Cunning and Weakened get resolved in step 4. I do still disagree with you about the timing issue.

The order that Cunning and Weakened are applied definitely matter. If you roll an evade and resolve Cunning first, you now have an evade and a block. You then resolve Weakened and it cancels the evade leaving you with a block. If you roll that same evade and resolve Weakened first it leaves you with no results for Cunning to modify. Since there are multiple effects that need to be resolved at the same time the player whose activation it is gets to choose the order.

You are operating under the assumption that Weakened somehow modifies or affects Cunning directly. This is not the case. Both Weakened and Cunning modify the results of the defense pool . This is why the order of applied effects does not matter, because the end result is exactly the same. The evade generated by the die roll (or other source) is modified and the evade no longer exists to generate the block, no matter which way you resolve it because it modifies the result.

You are also incorrect on the (Elite) Imperial Officer's Executive Order and Han's Return Fire ability. When these abilities resolve, the figure affected by the Executive Order (or Han in the case of Return Fire) is now the attacker.

Ok, so I agree that both Cunning and Weakened get resolved in step 4. I do still disagree with you about the timing issue.

The order that Cunning and Weakened are applied definitely matter. If you roll an evade and resolve Cunning first, you now have an evade and a block. You then resolve Weakened and it cancels the evade leaving you with a block. If you roll that same evade and resolve Weakened first it leaves you with no results for Cunning to modify. Since there are multiple effects that need to be resolved at the same time the player whose activation it is gets to choose the order.

You are operating under the assumption that Weakened somehow modifies or affects Cunning directly. This is not the case. Both Weakened and Cunning modify the results of the defense pool . This is why the order of applied effects does not matter, because the end result is exactly the same. The evade generated by the die roll (or other source) is modified and the evade no longer exists to generate the block, no matter which way you resolve it because it modifies the result.

You are also incorrect on the (Elite) Imperial Officer's Executive Order and Han's Return Fire ability. When these abilities resolve, the figure affected by the Executive Order (or Han in the case of Return Fire) is now the attacker.

I disagree completely with the first paragraph (both are effects that apply in step four, one removes an evade, the other adds a block for each evade) but you're right in the second which makes it moot as the attacking player will always choose to apply weakened first.

I think I may understand where Fizz is coming from. I like it that way better for making Weakened effective. You need an evade result to get the block from Cunning but Weakened removes the evade from the results so there is no evade in existence to allow the added block.

You are operating under the assumption that Weakened somehow modifies or affects Cunning directly.

No I am not. Both effects modify defense results, we seem to agree on that point.

This is why the order of applied effects does not matter, because the end result is exactly the same. The evade generated by the die roll (or other source) is modified and the evade no longer exists to generate the block, no matter which way you resolve it because it modifies the result..

This is where you lose me. You have two effects that need to be applied during the same step. Something has to choose the order to apply them in. You get a different result if you change the order.

If Cunning is resolved first, 1 block result is added for every evade result. You then resolve Weakened and subtract an evade result but you do not also remove a block.

If Weakened is resolved first, you remove one evade result. You then resolve Cunning and receive a block result for every remaining evade.

I don't think I ever implied that they weren't the attacker. The Officer was a bad example as the player controlling the Officer is interrupting his own activation. Jyn's Hair Trigger is the ability that I was thinking of.

When either Jyn or Han interrupt to attack, they are the attacker but it is still another figure's activation.

I disagree completely with the first paragraph (both are effects that apply in step four, one removes an evade, the other adds a block for each evade) but you're right in the second which makes it moot as the attacking player will always choose to apply weakened first.

The attacking player only decides the order if it is their activation. If the attack comes during the defender's activation then the defender would get to choose the order.

You are also incorrect on the (Elite) Imperial Officer's Executive Order and Han's Return Fire ability. When these abilities resolve, the figure affected by the Executive Order (or Han in the case of Return Fire) is now the attacker.

I don't think I ever implied that they weren't the attacker. The Officer was a bad example as the player controlling the Officer is interrupting his own activation. Jyn's Hair Trigger is the ability that I was thinking of.

When either Jyn or Han interrupt to attack, they are the attacker but it is still another figure's activation.

The conflict section is a bit weird, attacker has first priority. I'd suggest reading it again and asking back if it doesn't make sense.

You are also incorrect on the (Elite) Imperial Officer's Executive Order and Han's Return Fire ability. When these abilities resolve, the figure affected by the Executive Order (or Han in the case of Return Fire) is now the attacker.

I don't think I ever implied that they weren't the attacker. The Officer was a bad example as the player controlling the Officer is interrupting his own activation. Jyn's Hair Trigger is the ability that I was thinking of.

When either Jyn or Han interrupt to attack, they are the attacker but it is still another figure's activation.

The conflict section is a bit weird, attacker has first priority. I'd suggest reading it again and asking back if it doesn't make sense.

Nothing in the Conflicts section seems to apply so I was using the rule from the Learn to Play booklet.

"While attacking, mission rules are resolved first, followed by effects from the attacker (including figures friendly to him), then effects from the defender (including figures friendly to him)."

This doesn't really apply because both the effects in this case are the Defender's.

"During a skirmish, mission rules are resolved first, followed by effects from the player with initiative, then effects from his opponent."

Again, this doesn't apply since both Weakened and Cunning are the Defender's effects.

"Effects from multiple figures under the control of a single player are resolved in the order of that player’s choice."

This one doesn't apply because it is a single figure with two effects. This rule is what allows Distracting and Cunning to work together. I had assumed that there would also be a rule somewhere that was similar to this that basically said that "Multiple effects under the control of a single player are resolved in the order of that player’s choice" but I haven't been able to find that.

This was the only thing that I could find that seems to apply:

"Simultaneous Effects

If two effects happen at exactly the same time, the player currently activating a figure chooses the order in which they resolve. If no figure is currently being activated, the Imperial player decides (during a campaign) or the player with initiative decides (during a skirmish)."

That's a good point actually. We'll probably need to get a ruling to make sure who owns the weakened effect.

I agree with wwhsd cunning and weakend trigger at the same time thus the players who's activation it is decides the order they are applied. Meaning that 95% of the time weakend will cancel out cunning.

There is any official ruling on this point?
I tend to agree with WWHSD on this, but I'd like to see something official to avoid much discussion at the table.

Lets try it with an differente route :

What do you guys think about someone playing Lock on to remove an evade from a cunning defender.

In my understanding that would also get neglect the defense bonus as well as a Command card which would give you an evade.

I don't think Cunning is a one time checked effect, but more like an constant ability.

Lets try it with an differente route :

What do you guys think about someone playing Lock on to remove an evade from a cunning defender.

In my understanding that would also get neglect the defense bonus as well as a Command card which would give you an evade.

I don't think Cunning is a one time checked effect, but more like an constant ability.

Correct. Lock On would remove one Evade from the defense result and Cunning would not add a block for that lost Evade.

I don't see why Lock on would differ form Weaken in this case.
For me, both cases are defined in the same fashion, since both are resolve in step 4 of an attack.

Since the order of the effects matter, the player controlling the active figure would be the one deciding the order they are resolved.
If Lock on (or Weaken ) are resolved first, Cunning has no effect since there are no evades to turn into block.
If Cunning is resolved first, an additional block is generated first and only after the evade is canceled by Lock on (or Weaken ).
What am I missing here?

Lock on is clearly an effect belonging to the attacking figure, weaken is not (in fact I'd say (without a ruling) that it belongs to the defending figure).

My camp is "weakened first, then cunning". I put out the math situation previously, but I will posit a new argument:

"Conflicts", RRG Page 9:

While attacking, mission rules are resolved first, followed by effects from the attacker (including figures friendly to him), then effects from the defender (including figures friendly to him).

Weakened would never be applied by a friendly figure, and while it may affect the defender, is a harmful effect, and thus would be considered as an attacker effect. Thus, Weakened would resolve first, cancelling Cunning.

My camp is "weakened first, then cunning". I put out the math situation previously, but I will posit a new argument:

"Conflicts", RRG Page 9:

While attacking, mission rules are resolved first, followed by effects from the attacker (including figures friendly to him), then effects from the defender (including figures friendly to him).

Weakened would never be applied by a friendly figure, and while it may affect the defender, is a harmful effect, and thus would be considered as an attacker effect. Thus, Weakened would resolve first, cancelling Cunning.

Biv can stun himself, I don't see how it's out of the question that a figure could weaken itself.

Anyway I'm sending the following query (since no-one else seems inclined to):

If a target with cunning has weakened on it then, if it rolls an evade, does it get the bonus block? This question boils down whose effect the weakened is said to be. I would assume that conditions are considered to belong to the figure they are on rather than the figure that applied them.