Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I would like to have seen a ruling on how Thread Tracers work. I'm happy enough that I'll need to use the normal TL rules, but having seen some other opinions on these boards, not everyone feels the same way.

Other than that? A pretty decent FAQ I thought.

Cheers

Baaa

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

Trying to get away with those kinds of shenanigans more than once would be pretty obvious, I would think. Having a clearly spelled out resolution on what to do if the wrong number of dice are rolled is definitely the preferable way to go; there's been at least one multi-page thread in the rules sub-forum about how that situation should be handled that was probably the impetus for this section being added.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I agree that it is not in the spirit of the game. But why specifically make it legal then?

How 'bout that Valen Rudor/Tractor Beam interaction with Tactician?

After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2

OK, I made an attack against a ship inside my firing arc at Range 2. I know it was an attack against a ship inside my firing arc at Range 2, because neither of us rolled extra dice or anything.

Whoops, sorry, that wasn't an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2.

And still no answer to Omega Leader v R7 astromech

It kind of hints at the answer with the phrasing about effects generating from the target locked ship, but it would nice to have a definitive answer.

Doesn't it modify Omega Leader's dice?

It makes Omega Leader modify his own dice.

RIght, so it doesn't need a FAQ since his card has nothing to do with his own dice. I mean, you can actually Juke Omega Leader so R7 works just fine, correct? Or am I also misreading GZ's post?

I think you are misreading my post.

First, unless I've gone mad, you can't Juke OL if he has you locked. You can't modify ANY dice when attacking or defending against his attacks.

Second, my point is that R7 does NOT bypass Omega Leader. The defender (with R7) is only given the opportunity to trigger cards that allow HIM to modify dice, per the modify attack dice step rules. There is no step where he (the defender) can activate cards that make the attacker modify dice.

So either:

A) R7 is the defender modifying dice. If so, R7 can be triggered in the Modify Attack Dice step, because "The defender can resolve any card abilities that allow HIM to modify the attack dice." (Emphasis mine). Since it is the defender modifying, OL prevents it.

Or

B) R7 forces the attacker to modify dice. If so, R7 cannot be triggered in the Modify Attack Dice step, against any target, because it is not a "card abilitity that allows HIM to modify dice", it is now a "card ability that forces opponent to modify dice". The good news is, Omega Leader wouldn't prevent R7 if this is the case. The bad news is, there isn't a provisional n to activate such a card in the rules, so you couldn't activate it against OL or ANY target, EVER.

Fantastic explanation. I'd basically copy and paste it in this related discussion, but I think I'll let that thread stew a little longer before I hit it again.

I sometimes wonder if threads like this, in which it's basically coming down to arguing over who was the most-right before the FAQ was released, make Alex and Frank either just want to punch most of us in the nose, or just give up designing games altogether.

Srsly.

I don't know if you've ever written legislation, but yes. Both.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I agree that it is not in the spirit of the game. But why specifically make it legal then?

In this situation the first two dice are rolled legally and whatever results they yielded stand. The second two dice fall into the category of "too many dice rolled", and both of those two dice, specifically, are picked back up. One new die is then rolled to add to the initial two results.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I agree that it is not in the spirit of the game. But why specifically make it legal then?

In this situation the first two dice are rolled legally and whatever results they yielded stand. The second two dice fall into the category of "too many dice rolled", and both of those two dice, specifically, are picked back up. One new die is then rolled to add to the initial two results.

Completely agree. If I was making a ruling that is how I would handle it.

Also, if someone was trying to abuse the rules for their own gain this way (which is what this train of thought is) They would be warned the first time and then DQ'ed and reported to FFG the second.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I agree that it is not in the spirit of the game. But why specifically make it legal then?

In this situation the first two dice are rolled legally and whatever results they yielded stand. The second two dice fall into the category of "too many dice rolled", and both of those two dice, specifically, are picked back up. One new die is then rolled to add to the initial two results.

That would make more sense, but it's not how I read it.

"..he must pick up all of his dice and reroll them."

I think this all clearly shows that range, and range of attack ate the same thing. The example they have just has multiple ranges of attack due to it having a turret and things that need to be in primary arc.

I think this highlights a tangled core concept that's coloring people's thoughts:

People generally acknowledge that, if you have an attack that cares about arc and an effect that ignores it, or vice-versa, they are two different measurements and are tracked separately. But when both the attack and the effect are in-arc only, there's a strong intuitive urge to treat both measurements as literally identical, to the point where you can't track them separately, and anything that changes one must change the other as well. I think it would be bad for the rules to work that way.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

Rule #1: Don't be a ****.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

Rule #1: Don't be a ****.

Again, not my point.

I have no intention of using this. But if my opponent uses it I can't complain, because he is in his right to do so.

And if someone accidentally rolls in this manner. I am going to assume they are being gamey and abusing the rules, when they maybe are not.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

In this situation the first two dice are rolled legally and whatever results they yielded stand. The second two dice fall into the category of "too many dice rolled", and both of those two dice, specifically, are picked back up. One new die is then rolled to add to the initial two results.

That would make more sense, but it's not how I read it.

"..he must pick up all of his dice and reroll them."

Sure, but if I were TO, I'd simply choose to interpret "pick up all his dice and re-roll them" to mean "pick up all his illegally rolled dice and re-roll them".

Not all the dice he owns, not all seven dice he brought with him in his tray, not all his dice from Warhammer 40k; just all his illegally rolled dice. If any played wanted to report that judgment to FFG or make a stink about it, I think it's pretty clear what their REAL intentions were and I can't see a soul siding with them.

Just my two cents.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

Not legal. The FAQ requires you to "roll the required number of additional dice". When you deliberately rolled two more instead of one more, you cheated.

The rules in general require you to roll the required number of dice. Nevertheless, if you get it wrong, there are rules to let you correct it, rather than just calling you a cheat.

Ok, I am going to have to spell it out very clearly.

I don't think it will be that much of a problem (although the possibility exists). The main question I was trying to bring forward is:

Why did FFG put such a stupid rule in the FAQ?

Ok, I am going to have to spell it out very clearly.

I don't think it will be that much of a problem (although the possibility exists). The main question I was trying to bring forward is:

Why did FFG put such a stupid rule in the FAQ?

But what happens if dice hit the floor? Are those legal rolls? Is a dice that hit the floor considered not rolled and you just reroll that dice or do you reroll all? These are questions that we need answers to. Its like they only gave us half of the information. Just kidding.

Is it just me or is the new "rolling dice" section wide open to abuse?

Example:

I perform an attack that requires me to roll three dice.

If, at first, I only roll two dice the rules tell me to roll more.

Seeing I have made a bad roll for the first two, I roll two more.

I am then required to re-roll all of them, which is pretty advantageous. And perfectly legal.

But after a while would be pretty obvious to your opponent, and then to a TO they probably called over to observe for a bit.

I agree that it is not in the spirit of the game. But why specifically make it legal then?

Because you don't make rules about not being an *******, that is kinda expected.

Ok, I am going to have to spell it out very clearly.

I don't think it will be that much of a problem (although the possibility exists). The main question I was trying to bring forward is:

Why did FFG put such a stupid rule in the FAQ?

It's not a stupid rule. It gives players a uniform way to resolve these issues.

What you are suggesting is intentional cheating and is covered by the Unsportsmanlike Conduct section of the tournament rules.

I enjoy that they revised feedback array, can no longer use it while on an asteroid. Also feel somewhat vindicated about being right on the inquisitors' ability.

You were only right because they changed the wording on Autothrusters (autothrusters now triggers off the attacker's firing arc, which it did not before). Without that change, it would be the opposite.

I have one question, can TLT's possibly shoot you at range 1 now?

I have one question, can TLT's possibly shoot you at range 1 now?

Nope. You measure closet-to-closest for the turret, but find that's at range 1. Therefore TLTs are not a legal choice to attack with and we move on.

Your Y-wing/Ghost switches to its primary, but finds its target is in arc at range 2. Therefore you must take a range 2 primary attack instead of using your turret.

EDIT: Good changes all around (well, except for the two TIE Adv. Proto pilots, who both make absolutely no sense, but at least we have rulings to follow). The change to Autothrusters will help clear up a lot.

I have one question, can TLT's possibly shoot you at range 1 now?

Nope. You measure closet-to-closest for the turret, but find that's at range 1. Therefore TLTs are not a legal choice to attack with and we move on.

Your Y-wing/Ghost switches to its primary, but finds its target is in arc at range 2. Therefore you must take a range 2 primary attack instead of using your turret.

So its more like the way effects work range-wise then?