The Heavy Laser Cannon:

Can it critical or not?

It seems to indicate, by wording, that no, it cannot achieve critical hits.

But I read here recently (which doesn't make it official) that upon spending a Target Lock, any critical hit results from re-rolled dice are retained.

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.

If it IS true, then the game is starting to eat itself with contradictory practices and unclear wording which cannot be definitively interpreted by even the best grammarians in the English language (and for your amusement, I posit myself as one of those).

What is the difference between a re-roll and a modification?

Well, to me, the word "re-roll" indicates it is a roll.

Maybe a re-roll is both a roll and a modification. If this is the case, then the HLC is a card where rules eat themselves. By definition, anytime an HLC rolls attack dice, it must immediately change critical hits. Given the English, a re-roll is still a roll. Under this (which is my) interpretation, a Target Lock does not invalidate the wording on the card in any way. A re-roll is a roll, therefore the wording on the card applies as normal.

Maybe Calculation or Marksmanship enable a hit to be turned back into a critical hit (I don't have any opinion at this time). But a re-roll should not enable critical hits.

Now on to Juke:

By rule now, any evade token or focus token is converted into a Die result during the "Modify Defense Dice" step.

During the Modify Defense Dice step, a Defender who has an Evade Token can (during this step) place it in the spent tokens area and add one Evade result die to the common area.

So by my rule reading and understanding of English, Juke does not allow an attacker to convert an Evade result from an evade token, and only because the attacker is required to modify defense dice before defender does. And the defender does not convert his token into an Evade die result until after the attacker has modified the dice. So Juke happens too early to affect tokens.

These are a little vague, as is the notion of converting evade and focus tokens to their respective die. I'm happy that Juke is answered by the basic information in the rulebook. But my opinion regarding the current state of X-Wing rules is that they are rapidly becoming vague and weak because of the frequency of new releases, mistakes in those releases, and the way new releases are changing the nature of the game itself (i.e., TLT and Y-Wing title makes stressbot possible).

I draw my line here: I'm not interested in organized play anymore nor in tournament rules. I am now a house rule person. There are too many ambiguities and exploits cited by "experienced" players that sound and play like cheating.

HLC's de-crittening happens before the modify dice step, and is then finished.

It can crit through re-rolls, mercenary co-pilot, et c.

Re-rolls are a form of modification, and not a roll themselves; a die can be modified any number of times in a single roll, but only one of those may be a re-roll.

Juke, as you correctly surmise, effects the defender's rolled dice, but not their modified dice or token-generated results, as the attacker modifies the defense dice before the defender does.

The HLC cannot crit *on its initial die roll*; the timing is immediately after rolling the attack dice. HOwever, any crits added during the attacker modifies dice step remain - so, any rerolls, any ways of changing focus into crits, Palpatine, all of these can make an HLC crit. Whether you think it should not, it does work this way officially per FAQ - the initial roll of the dice and rerolls are distinct and separate things.

Juke: the defender modifies dice after the attacker when defending, so whilst you're right that spending an evade token adds a die with an evade result, it can't be changed with Juke because the attacker has already had the chance to do that and that evade wasn't present when he did.

There has certainly been a tendency among recent releases for rulings that aren't clear on intial release (Integrated Astromech and the droid that gives and EPT slot, for instance, or whether Youngster affects TIE f/os) but cases like this are usually clarified later.

I disagree with you.

And you cannot convince me.

And I am going to hammer this point home to prove that the rules are unclear.

When I modify dice by re-rolling them, I am rolling dice. Therefore I must cancel critical hits.

There is no FAQ nor any information on the card or in the rules that indicates a re-roll does not trigger the same immediate effects as a roll.

The card has the wording "immediately after you roll dice." Is a re-roll not rolling dice?

The card does not say "Once per turn after you roll dice" nor does it say anything about when you roll dice in a particular phase. It just says "immediately after you roll dice."

You are all doing what the card does not say.

A re-roll is a roll. Nothing in the rulebook indicates otherwise. Yes, it is also a modification that happens in the modification step.

But the HLC cannon does not indicate in any way that when re-rolling, you do not immediately do the same thing you did on the initial roll.

I'm not trying to be difficult (though I admit that I am.)

I am standing on the wording in the rulebook, on the card, and the commonly accepted meaning of words in English.

heliodorus04, if you choose to play under house rules in which HLC can never crit by it's initial roll OR THE RE-ROLL from target lock, no one is stopping you. But the accepted and (more importantly) OFFICIAL interpretation of the HLC is that quite definitely, on re-rolls of dice after the initial attack, crits stay on any HLC fired dice. If you play in a tournament that is following the FAQ & official tournament rules, that will be how things work with HLC. But you can make your house rules however you want.

I don't think this kind of instance is an indication of this game "eating itself." I don't think it's contradictory in anyway, because every attack has a specific order of operation, and the step that allows re-rolls is part of the modification step. EVEN THOUGH you are rolling some of the dice again, that is not-so-much considered a roll but a modification of the roll. And explaining that facet of how HLC works has never led to an argument or disagreement with anyone I've ever shown. They've either accepted it out right and said something to the effect of, "Oh that's cool. Now I know." OR they've simply asked for where that is official and I show them the FAQ and we move on. It's been on the official FAQ for some time now.

I think this game is better for the official FAQ, certainly not eating itself in contradiction. Anytime that an official clarification comes out, that makes this game better. AND quite frankly, this game has improved by leaps and bound in the last 12 months overall with both the quickness in how fast things are FAQed after they come out... AS WELL as how the meta has evolved. But I realize that we all have a right to opinion.

I disagree with you.

There is no FAQ nor any information on the card or in the rules that indicates a re-roll does not trigger the same immediate effects as a roll.

Except there is. Page 12 of the latest FAQ

"After and attack is perfromed using Heavy Laser Cannon and all the 'crit' results are changed to 'hit' results, the attack dice can be modified as normal. Any attack dice rerolled are not changed from 'crit' results to 'hit' results"

And I am going to hammer this point home to prove that the rules are unclear.

You can prove that you don't understand them. You can prove that they could be better written, and most of us would agree.

When I modify dice by re-rolling them, I am rolling dice.

You are confusing game terms for more common definitions. Per the game terms a roll is a specific thing, and the fact that you physically roll the dice again does not make that a roll per the rules.

There is no FAQ nor any information on the card or in the rules that indicates a re-roll does not trigger the same immediate effects as a roll.

Yes there is, it's been in the FAQ for some time now. Because again, a Roll per the rules has a meaning other than simply picking up the dice and rolling them.

I draw my line here: I'm not interested in organized play anymore nor in tournament rules. I am now a house rule person. There are too many ambiguities and exploits cited by "experienced" players that sound and play like cheating.

If that's what you want to do there's nothing wrong with that. I sincerely hope that you continue to have fun with your X-Wing stuff for years to come.

(Reading and posting in this subforum might not be the best way for you to achieve that....)

The fact that in this game "rerolls" are not a subset of "rolls" is an example of a tendency for specialized knowledge sets to generate technical uses of words that aren't in line with the way a general speaker of the language understand them (see "theory"). Short of writing the rules of games in a synthetic language of some kind, I don't think that's something you can avoid, above a certain threshold of complexity.

I totally understand where you're coming from, by the way. At least one of the several times I quit playing Magic I cited "The cards are no longer written in English" as a reason. Looking back, I see now that what it really was is that I was friends with people who were playing at a high level, keeping track of the specialized knowledge required of competitive Magic players, and that level of detail was more than I was willing to track for the amount of enjoyment I got from Magic. I feel differently about X-Wing, obviously, but I get the complaint.

Okay the FA I did not find and don't know why. That obviously makes it clear but again, it required FAQ. So my point on clarity stands.

Now imagine Jonny 12-year old coming in for a game in a public spac3zwith his mom watching the game, and you pull this. It looks like cheating. Because only the FAQ deals with this confusion.

The FAQ, as with the FAQ for Keyan Farlander, eats the rule on the card as written. FAQ in other words prov3s my point about vague and contradictory wording on cards. This should be seen as a big problem.

Now I reject FAQ. Because they are just making stuff up to suit them.

How is it that the RULES in the brand new FA set are incomplete? Tell that to Jonny 12-year old and his mom.

I've had tournament players tell me Wampa's pilot ability does not bypass shields. I've seen players use a Juke illegally and I see a game that's expanding too fast and making too many unclear upgrade cards.

For the record I teach English grammar. I know what words mean better than the FFG rules team. That doesn't make me correct but it does make them poor writers.

I'm done letting competitive players run the game as they see fit and therefore I am done with public play.

You mean, you are done with FFG's official rules as they state them?

No one has said that you can't play how you like in a casual game with friends or family.

But if you DO choose to play the game in a competitive way (at events and what not), you have to follow the rules as set down by the company who makes them. Just like every other game that has official events with official rules.

It isn't the players forcing this on the game. 99% of the time it's players asking FFG "Oh hey, can we get an official ruling on this situation/query that came up?" and FFG says 'Yeah sure, here's an updated FAQ". All games like this do it.

it required FAQ. So my point on clarity stands.

The first part of that is debatable. It didn't actually require a FAQ. The rules as written were clear enough for someone/many/most of us. However that doesn't mean it was clear for everyone hence the FAQ.

However one thing you won't get a debate about is that in general FFG rules are not as clear as they could be.

It looks like cheating.

No it doesn't, because as we've said, the rules for rolling are fairly clear. It's mostly when people add stuff that aren't actually in the rules that there's an issue.

I'm done letting competitive players run the game as they see fit

If you think that competitive players run anything, you're sorely mistaken. We have no more say over the rules or the FAQ then any other player does. Which is namely nothing. The best that can be said is people who post here have some influence over what questions show up in the FAQ, because they show up frequently here...

Okay the FA I did not find and don't know why. That obviously makes it clear but again, it required FAQ. So my point on clarity stands.

Now imagine Jonny 12-year old coming in for a game in a public spac3zwith his mom watching the game, and you pull this. It looks like cheating. Because only the FAQ deals with this confusion.

The FAQ, as with the FAQ for Keyan Farlander, eats the rule on the card as written. FAQ in other words prov3s my point about vague and contradictory wording on cards. This should be seen as a big problem.

Now I reject FAQ. Because they are just making stuff up to suit them.

How is it that the RULES in the brand new FA set are incomplete? Tell that to Jonny 12-year old and his mom.

I've had tournament players tell me Wampa's pilot ability does not bypass shields. I've seen players use a Juke illegally and I see a game that's expanding too fast and making too many unclear upgrade cards.

For the record I teach English grammar. I know what words mean better than the FFG rules team. That doesn't make me correct but it does make them poor writers.

I'm done letting competitive players run the game as they see fit and therefore I am done with public play.

Now I reject FAQ. Because they are just making stuff up to suit them.

AKA... writing the rules of the game. Which is their game, they're entitled to.

YOU are the one making rules up to suit yourself, which you are also entitled to do. Just don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

So new guy comes along says he disagrees with the rules of the game, he's right because he's a Grammer nut and all else opinions is wrong? Including the people who actually made the game?

Really...some people

Edit

Also I don't think your Grammer or understanding of English is all that it's cracked up to be.

With hlc you roll the dice.

Then change crits to hit

The attack is done.

Now modify.

You have a target lock.

Spend it to reroll two dice

Yes it's a reroll, but it's not a separate attack.

The attack in a sense is finishes. You just get a do over by rerolling x amount of dice.

You already fulfilled the hlc requirements.

I think what your doing is trying to confuse people, that in a way is more beneficial for you

Just because you teach English does not mean your opinion on specific cards is correct.

By even pointing that out I question your ability to understand simple instructions.

But rather trying to use that to make yourself sound as if you know what your talking about

But hey that's my opinion. You probably like it about as much as I like yours

Oh and I teach at Princeton. So does that make me right?

For the record I don't teach at Princeton, but had I not said so, would that make my opinion correct?

No sir

Good day

For the record I teach English grammar. I know what words mean better than the FFG rules team.

I don't think that either of those are true statements.

I don't think that either of those are true statements.

My issue with the OP's logic or lack there of, is he's guilty of breaking my golden rule. He's also guilty of applying rules from one system to another and saying those rules supercede the other.

In general we have to apply the normal rules of english grammar to the rules for X-Wing, but the rules for X-Wing trump normal grammar, not the other way around.

So while one could argue that a re-roll is in fact rolling the dice and be correct in most cases, in X-Wing that is not true. It's not true because the term Roll has a specific definition, and one that doesn't match up with the standard definition of the word.

The OP is wrong, not because he doesn't know what 'roll' means, he's wrong because he's applying the wrong definition of the word, and assuming the one he's using trumps the rule version.

I don't think that either of those are true statements.

My issue with the OP's logic or lack there of, is he's guilty of breaking my golden rule. He's also guilty of applying rules from one system to another and saying those rules supercede the other.In general we have to apply the normal rules of english grammar to the rules for X-Wing, but the rules for X-Wing trump normal grammar, not the other way around.So while one could argue that a re-roll is in fact rolling the dice and be correct in most cases, in X-Wing that is not true. It's not true because the term Roll has a specific definition, and one that doesn't match up with the standard definition of the word.The OP is wrong, not because he doesn't know what 'roll' means, he's wrong because he's applying the wrong definition of the word, and assuming the one he's using trumps the rule version.

Well said

And I am going to hammer this point home to prove that the rules are unclear.

Okay, and then what? If you're out to prove that the rules are not 100% clear in every instance, you're done. I'm just not sure who you think is arguing that the rules are great and perfect and always make sense.

When I modify dice by re-rolling them, I am rolling dice. Therefore I must cancel critical hits.

Rolling the dice has a particular meaning in the game. Re-rolling the dice is a kind of modification, and it's separate from your initial roll.

I don't think this kind of instance is an indication of this game "eating itself."

I agree, but even if it were, it would be evidence that the game started eating itself almost immediately after release. HLC is not a new card, and this ruling is also not new.

Okay the FA I did not find and don't know why. That obviously makes it clear but again, it required FAQ. So my point on clarity stands.

That poor, poor straw man. Scraps of fabric and hay are lying everywhere, and you're standing proudly over it holding a stick...

Now imagine Jonny 12-year old coming in for a game in a public spac3zwith his mom watching the game, and you pull this. It looks like cheating. Because only the FAQ deals with this confusion.

Jonny gets to learn something new: that initial rolls and dice modifications are treated differently by the rules. I'm not sure what his mom has to do with any of this, but maybe she's a fan too?

FAQ in other words prov3s my point about vague and contradictory wording on cards. This should be seen as a big problem.

The FAQ is 15 pages long, with errata for 11 cards (not including the change to decloaking), and clarifications for 37 pilot cards and 55 upgrade cards. Again, I don't think anyone is saying the rest of the industry should take X-wing as a model of clarity in the rules.

Now I reject FAQ. Because they are just making stuff up to suit them.

How is it that the RULES in the brand new FA set are incomplete? Tell that to Jonny 12-year old and his mom.

Presumably Jonny, being a 12-year-old in 2016, knows how to use the Internet.

I've had tournament players tell me Wampa's pilot ability does not bypass shields. I've seen players use a Juke illegally and I see a game that's expanding too fast and making too many unclear upgrade cards.

For which one of your type examples is HLC, a card that's been around since Wave 2. The other examples are Wampa, whose language is completely unambiguous and shared with multiple other cards, and Juke, which is a perfectly straightforward dice modification.

I'm done letting competitive players run the game as they see fit and therefore I am done with public play.

Okay? But I'm not sure what that has to do with FFG's rules team either writing unclear rules or clarifying them in ways you don't like.

I can see how it can be argued, because when you 're-roll' something, you're still technically 'rolling attack dice'. But in any regards, FFG did not make it 100% clear, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. It was so unclear infact that FFG issued a new ruling via the FAQ (which is official and not run by 'experienced players'.

Another thought strikes me: for a while, the FAQ had an entry "clarifying" that when you suffer damage from an Ion Cannon Turret, it doesn't bypass shields. That wasn't an issue that confused me, and it wasn't an issue that confused anyone I know. It seems pretty clear: "suffer damage" is a thing that happens a lot, it's pretty well defined in both the original rules and the new Rules Reference, and there's no reason to believe it works differently for an ICT than for any other source of damage.

I genuinely don't know what process FFG uses to determine which questions make it into the FAQ. It seems to me as if they generally try to err on the inclusive side: anything that some people might reasonably see as unclear gets an entry even if it's not genuinely an ambiguous point in the rules.

OP, you've heard the expression, "familiarity breeds contempt"? Your familiarity with English grammar is the cause of some of your problem with the game. What is considered proper in everyday intercourse has to be modified for specific situations. When I wrote proposals for fire protection systems I used common words. In the context of the business they had a different meaning. Even organizations like NFPA has a glossary of terms and even gives a specific definition to the words "should" and "shall".

When you play X-Wing you're working within a defined world that shares a common word list with the real world. This forces you to accept the subtle changes in word usage. If you don't accept these changes then you're not getting the full flavour of the game. I've had my own run ins with FFGs phrasing. Actions or abilities or game mechanics whose phrasing left me with no doubt that I knew what they meant. But I was wrong. I was interpreting these game mechanics, not by the rules or FAQ but from my past experience and how I use the language. My big question mark was with the Outrider losing an equipped secondary weapon. I figured it would weaponless. Not so.

Relax, ease off the caffeine and ask for clarifications of rules or abilities you question. If playing publicly have the rule book and latest FAQ handy. If someone does something that you don't agree with, ask them where in the rules or FAQ it allows that action or effect. This game is great. Not perfect, mind you, but great.

It was so unclear infact that FFG issued a new ruling via the FAQ (which is official and not run by 'experienced players'.

I don't know if that's true. I mean it was something I saw here asked a couple times, because it is not completely intuitive. But I think FFG does as Vopral said, issue FAQ's regardless of how clear or unclear the rules actually are.

Sometimes I think that document would be better titled Rules as Intended... because that's much closer to what it is.

The rules forum is, for the most part, a way to get an answer quickly by very knowledgeable players (some will even post FAQ or rules reference, which is super helpful). Sometimes the answer is not satisfactory or some doubts linger, which is perfectly ok! That's why we have the option to submit rule clarifications directly to FFG. It just has a longer waiting time until you get the answer (or sometimes, the clarification will be posted in the FAQ).

If the grievance is with how the rules themselves are made or game balance, then that's when this sub forum has limited benefits. We can each have our own preference on how the game should be, but in the end, players need to conform to the best of their abilities to what the game actually is.

There are a great many rules questions that come up in the sub-forum, and in the main forum, where the end result is "let's just send it to FFG for a ruling". I'm sure when they get enough of these questions, some of which are perfectly clear to some and entirely obscure to others, it ends up in the FAQ. There's more than one time I can think of when my thought on seeing the cry to send it to FFG is "Really? They're going to think we're entirely stupid for asking this, but okay!"

It's hardly some elite cadre of forum users secretly dictating which was this game is going, and what things get FAQ'd or not.