So...

TLT has been confirmed to be two, separate attacks, correct?

And Valen Rudor's card reads: After defending, you may perform a free action

The scenario in mind is Valen, at range 2, defends against a TLT. Let's say he evades the first TLT shot (because he has the title and target locked to get a free evade token). He then performs his free action, he chooses boost. This boost puts him in range 1 of the TLT attacker.

I just want to confirm that the second TLT shot cannot be made against Valen at this point..

As we currently understand things, no. The range restriction of TLT only applies during the target declaration, which only happens once. So the second attack is definitely happening, regardless of where Baron Rudor ends up.

Wouldn't be super shocked if this were FAQ'd away, but as it stands, no.

Wave 8 is introducing a few effects (Rudor, Dengar, and R5-P8) that trigger off of being attacked and that have the possibility of impacting further attacks made by the same attacker in a way that is not currently possible, I'm expecting that we see something in the FAQ that will help clarify this.

Things get really interesting if Rudor is attacked by a HWK with Tactician and TLT.

If the initial attack happens with Rudor in arc and at range two:

If Rudor has initiative he can take his action before he receives the stress from Tactician (he could even trigger PTL if he wanted to).

If Rudor boosts or barrel rolls into range 1, then the HWK will still be able to attack but won't deal further stress from tactician.

If Rudor boosts or barrel rolls into range 3 or beyond, or out of arc then the HWK gets it's second attack but tactician will not deal further stress and Rudor can use Autothrusters.

I asked the same about Cluster Missiles when he was first spoiled.

There should be a lot of FAQ updates coming with the wave, lol

If the TLT was on a warthog, and valen used boost to leave the firing arc after the first attack, does the second attack still trigger? Or is he no longer a valid target?

If the TLT was on a warthog, and valen used boost to leave the firing arc after the first attack, does the second attack still trigger? Or is he no longer a valid target?

If Rudor boosted out of arc ( or entered range one ) after the primary attack, the Y-Wing would not be able to follow-up with a secondary attack against Rudor. It could perform the secondary attack on a different ship if it had one as a legal target.

If Rudor boosted out of arc ( or entered range one ) between TLT shots the Y-Wing would still be able to attack with the second TLT shots. Everything that has to do with deciding if a target is legal is done during the declare target step which only happens once for TLT.

If the TLT was on a warthog, and valen used boost to leave the firing arc after the first attack, does the second attack still trigger? Or is he no longer a valid target?

Moving out of arc is no different than moving into Range 1. When the attack was triggered you were a valid target, therefore you stay a valid target no matter where you end up and TLT fires twice.

I really like the idea of jumping into autothrusters range just before the attack triggers, dodging Tactician would be a nice bonus.

The real question for both Valen and tractor beam is the nitty gritty of how tactician actually works. If Valen boosts to r1 is tactician still valid? Similarly if he boosts into r2 does it become active? This leads to the similar but entirely unclear does tractoring someone into/out of legal tactician qualifications affect it? Who knows?

The real question for both Valen and tractor beam is the nitty gritty of how tactician actually works. If Valen boosts to r1 is tactician still valid? Similarly if he boosts into r2 does it become active? This leads to the similar but entirely unclear does tractoring someone into/out of legal tactician qualifications affect it? Who knows?

Honestly, with the large number of email rulings we've had that haven't yet been reflected in the FAQ ( or RRG where appropriate ) it's getting hard to keep some of the fiddly bits straight.

The real question for both Valen and tractor beam is the nitty gritty of how tactician actually works. If Valen boosts to r1 is tactician still valid? Similarly if he boosts into r2 does it become active? This leads to the similar but entirely unclear does tractoring someone into/out of legal tactician qualifications affect it? Who knows?

Tactician will still trigger if Valen boost into range 1 or tractor beam drags someone out of range 2 after the attack in question. Tactician ist riggered by performing an attack on a ship at range 2. When you performed the attack, he was at range 2, so where he ends up after doesn't matter, he'll still get the stress. As mentioned above, it COULD stop him from taking 2 stress from TLT/tactician if he can get out of the range 2 band after the first shot.

The real question for both Valen and tractor beam is the nitty gritty of how tactician actually works. If Valen boosts to r1 is tactician still valid? Similarly if he boosts into r2 does it become active? This leads to the similar but entirely unclear does tractoring someone into/out of legal tactician qualifications affect it? Who knows?

Tactician will still trigger if Valen boost into range 1 or tractor beam drags someone out of range 2 after the attack in question. Tactician ist riggered by performing an attack on a ship at range 2. When you performed the attack, he was at range 2, so where he ends up after doesn't matter, he'll still get the stress. As mentioned above, it COULD stop him from taking 2 stress from TLT/tactician if he can get out of the range 2 band after the first shot.

It's curious we haven't seen a FAQ yet - especially considering that the whole wave was delayed so long. FFG reps know what the buzz is in these forums.

I have to remind myself that they are going through some restructuring, so this probably got side-lined, though.

Having said that, this wave hits soon and people will be making up the rules until we hear an official word. My thinking is that the attack and its respective range are re-assessed before each die-roll (based on no specific language in the rules).. This seems contrary to some point made above.

Didn't mean to ask a rhetorical question - thanks for all your input

The real question for both Valen and tractor beam is the nitty gritty of how tactician actually works. If Valen boosts to r1 is tactician still valid? Similarly if he boosts into r2 does it become active? This leads to the similar but entirely unclear does tractoring someone into/out of legal tactician qualifications affect it? Who knows?

Tactician will still trigger if Valen boost into range 1 or tractor beam drags someone out of range 2 after the attack in question. Tactician ist riggered by performing an attack on a ship at range 2. When you performed the attack, he was at range 2, so where he ends up after doesn't matter, he'll still get the stress. As mentioned above, it COULD stop him from taking 2 stress from TLT/tactician if he can get out of the range 2 band after the first shot.

This really isn't as clear cut as you make it seem. That's one valid interpretation but in general the wording on tactician is unclear. Since the trigger on tactician is after you perform an attack it seems like it's reasonably valid to state that you only determine the remaining portion of the conditional at that time rather than retroactively on the board state at the time the attack commenced. Arguing about it actually goes nowhere since there is no real RAW explanation as it's never been possible before wave 8 to my knowledge.

The trigger on tactician is not just "after you perform an attack" though. It's "After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at range 2". If it read, "After you perform an attack, if the defender is inside your firing arc and at range 2", then you could argue that it's checked separately. But you performed an attack on a ship that was in arc and at range 2, regardless of where the ship ends up afterwards.

So the wording problem is still there you just aren't seeing it apparently. You take 'in arc at range 2' to refer to the attack but if you take it to refer to the ship as in 'after you perform an attack against a ship [that is] inside your firing arc at range 2' and the ship you attacked is not in arc or is not range 2 then you have no ship you have performed an attack against which satisfies tactician.

Is this similar to Dengar with Boba removing the attacker's TLT between attacks? Does the Y-wing still get to make the 2nd shot if it no longer has the turret? The attack was legal when declared.

So the wording problem is still there you just aren't seeing it apparently. You take 'in arc at range 2' to refer to the attack but if you take it to refer to the ship as in 'after you perform an attack against a ship [that is] inside your firing arc at range 2' and the ship you attacked is not in arc or is not range 2 then you have no ship you have performed an attack against which satisfies tactician.

I see exactly what you're saying. I just disagree with you. You're adding words to it for your interpretation. If it was worded differently like I said in my last post, I'd be fine with the interpretation that he's no longer at range 2 when it triggers so it doesn't work. But regardless of where he ends up AFTER the attack, you DID perform an attack against a ship at range 2 for tactician.

Is this similar to Dengar with Boba removing the attacker's TLT between attacks? Does the Y-wing still get to make the 2nd shot if it no longer has the turret? The attack was legal when declared.

I think so. We're past the point that the card is invoked when we get to the second shot. You establish range of the attack when you declare the target, so if a ship moves between shots the range of the attack wouldn't change.

I suspect that Tactician uses would change because it isn't tied to the range of the attack but to the distance between ships (at least I think that's how Tactician was ruled as working).

I think the FAQ has set a precedent with Darth Vader (crew).

Darth Vader

If a ship equipped with Darth Vader can attack twice in one round (such as a ship equipped with Gunner or Cluster Missiles), it can use Darth Vader after the first attack and after the second attack. If Darth Vader destroys the ship to which he is equipped, it can still perform its second attack.

If Vader can still deal damage on a second attack after he's been killed (or killed his own ship) during a first attack, then I would say that a TLT that's removed by Boba Fett after it's first attack would still get it's second attack.

I think the FAQ has set a precedent with Darth Vader (crew).

Darth Vader

If a ship equipped with Darth Vader can attack twice in one round (such as a ship equipped with Gunner or Cluster Missiles), it can use Darth Vader after the first attack and after the second attack. If Darth Vader destroys the ship to which he is equipped, it can still perform its second attack.

If Vader can still deal damage on a second attack after he's been killed (or killed his own ship) during a first attack, then I would say that a TLT that's removed by Boba Fett after it's first attack would still get it's second attack.

I think the consensus is the ship can make the second attack if it has been destroyed, but Vader cannot deal damage a second time. The first paragraph says you can use Vader if you still have hull left, and although that doesn't technically say that you can't use Vader if you don't have hull left, I think that's how it's read.

Still, I don't think this is really the same case as TLT/Fett.

Vader's trigger isn't relevant here though. What's relevant is that Vader kills the ship firing between attacks (particularly, between Cluster Missile attacks, which are identical in how they function to TLT attacks), and the second attack still goes off. Once the sequence of attacks has started and the targetting step has happened (which only happens once with CM or TLT) the attack continues to the finish even if something changes that would make it illegal if you were trying to initiate it at that point in the process.

So, for comparison:

Firespray with 2 HP and Vader crew fires Cluster Missile. Attack 1> Vader triggers (killing Firespray) > Attack 2 works fine.

Accordingly, Y wing fires TLT. Attack 1> Rudor moves out of range, or Dengar kills the Y wing > Attack 2 works fine.

Whether Vader can go off again is immaterial, it's not relevant to the discussion of whether the second attack can.

The more interesting question is whether Rudor gets Autothrusters for the second attack if he moves from r2 to 3 or in to out of arc between attacks - and I think that he would, because Autothrusters measure their range entirely independently when a defence die comes up blank.

The first paragraph says you can use Vader if you still have hull left, and although that doesn't technically say that you can't use Vader if you don't have hull left, I think that's how it's read.

That's not how hull points work. You don't lose them. You are destroyed when the number of damage cards you have equals or exceeds your hull value. No ship has a limit on the number of hull cards that they can receive and they can continue to take damage after they already have enough cards to be destroyed.

I wonder why the FAQ would rule that Vader needs at least a singe hull to function and it doesn't seem to be related to needing to pay the full cost. It doesn't seem to match up with how hull value actually works. I wonder if they added the entry to avoid turning it into a timing issue?

I think it's probably more colloquial terminology than anything else. The actual rule requires damage cards to equal or exceed the hull value as we all know. But how many time has an opponent asked "how many hull points have you got left on that ship?" and you've immediately given them a numerical answer that's not the actual hull value, but actually the number of cards it's going to require to destroy it - "I'm down to one left.".

It's not necessarily a reduction of hull value, but more a damage card to hull value count. Anyone that's played any kind of game involving "hit points" will instinctively understand it this way. It's just one way of accounting for the damage, which may not be entirely accurate according to the rules and the actual game mechanic, but is nevertheless still conveying the same base meaning.

The people publishing the rules shouldn't put colloquial language in the rules ref or faq though...

The people publishing the rules shouldn't put colloquial language in the rules ref or faq though...

You may find that could have been the "standard" response to a question that was worded like that to start with. After all, a lot of people think along those lines judging by the number of times I see it phrased here. And instead of going down the path of trying to explain the difference between losing hull points and gaining damage cards to equal hull points, sometimes it's easier to reply in terminology that the person asking will understand better.

This is the same strategy I've used when teaching diverse groups. It's just adapting the terminology to make it understandable for a particular individual or group. If I was teaching university graduates, I'd employ different terms and methods of getting my point across than I would with a group of high school drop outs. I've also had to change things depending on ethnicity. It doesn't make too much difference how you get someone to understand a concept, as long as you get them to understand it clearly.