I have been trying to interpret it myself and find the wording too absolute. It simply says it may reroll 1 die. So no matter what source the squadron recieves the reroll from, it may reroll 1 die. No more.

Now I agree that that would be a too strickt interpretation, I do agree that you could reroll a dice for each BCC in range, in combination of other abilities and rerolling rerolls.

It is worth 8 points, so you may expect a lot from it.

Sure you get 1 reroll per card, but is it per card since they are different upgrades due to being on a different ship? Or is it just the 1 time.

I believe in the first definition. Since one can aggressively reroll dice from multiple sources, why can't the a card with the service name on a different ship work? They are after all a While effect and the rule for While effects is worded to work 1 at a time due to the "A 'While' effect..." wording.

I believe they would stack, but agree that an FAQ ruling would be extremely helpful as reasonable people can disagree on this one (as it's never really directly been something that's been in the game before, with several effects with the same name providing a triggered bonus).

For what it's worth, even if they do stack I can't see the benefit of more than 2. Rerolling rerolls gets increasingly diminishing returns and it's not a cheap upgrade. With 2 rerolls you'd be able to better assist your two-dice bombers from extremely bad rolls and make Luke Skywalker a royal jerk if he wants to go fishing for a crit, but otherwise it gets not great.

I believe they would stack, but agree that an FAQ ruling would be extremely helpful as reasonable people can disagree on this one (as it's never really directly been something that's been in the game before, with several effects with the same name providing a triggered bonus).

For what it's worth, even if they do stack I can't see the benefit of more than 2. Rerolling rerolls gets increasingly diminishing returns and it's not a cheap upgrade. With 2 rerolls you'd be able to better assist your two-dice bombers from extremely bad rolls and make Luke Skywalker a royal jerk if he wants to go fishing for a crit, but otherwise it gets not great.

For what it's worth, even if they do stack I can't see the benefit of more than 2. Rerolling rerolls gets increasingly diminishing returns and it's not a cheap upgrade. With 2 rerolls you'd be able to better assist your two-dice bombers from extremely bad rolls and make Luke Skywalker a royal jerk if he wants to go fishing for a crit, but otherwise it gets not great.

You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, and I could see two BCC's at least having potential for crit fishing with minimal risk, going back to the double-reroll discussions we had from early Wave 2. Much like OE + Vader/Screed/Leading Shots lets you reroll aggressively once before rerolling conservatively the second time to clear out the blanks, a pair of BCC with say Y-wings, Luke, Nym, or TIE bombers would let you dredge up more hit/crits than you otherwise could.

Not necessarily saying you could lean heavily enough into bombers to make the 16-point investment worth it, but it's at least worth testing out. I really can't see value added from 3+ of them apart from redundancy on the squishy transports.

For what it's worth, even if they do stack I can't see the benefit of more than 2. Rerolling rerolls gets increasingly diminishing returns and it's not a cheap upgrade. With 2 rerolls you'd be able to better assist your two-dice bombers from extremely bad rolls and make Luke Skywalker a royal jerk if he wants to go fishing for a crit, but otherwise it gets not great.

You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, and I could see two BCC's at least having potential for crit fishing with minimal risk, going back to the double-reroll discussions we had from early Wave 2. Much like OE + Vader/Screed/Leading Shots lets you reroll aggressively once before rerolling conservatively the second time to clear out the blanks, a pair of BCC with say Y-wings, Luke, Nym, or TIE bombers would let you dredge up more hit/crits than you otherwise could.

Not necessarily saying you could lean heavily enough into bombers to make the 16-point investment worth it, but it's at least worth testing out. I really can't see value added from 3+ of them apart from redundancy on the squishy transports.

You have to buy the ship as well so if we do the cheaper GR-75 that is 48 points spend on making squadrons do more damage to ships than naught. Well statistically anyways

For what it's worth, even if they do stack I can't see the benefit of more than 2. Rerolling rerolls gets increasingly diminishing returns and it's not a cheap upgrade. With 2 rerolls you'd be able to better assist your two-dice bombers from extremely bad rolls and make Luke Skywalker a royal jerk if he wants to go fishing for a crit, but otherwise it gets not great.

You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, and I could see two BCC's at least having potential for crit fishing with minimal risk, going back to the double-reroll discussions we had from early Wave 2. Much like OE + Vader/Screed/Leading Shots lets you reroll aggressively once before rerolling conservatively the second time to clear out the blanks, a pair of BCC with say Y-wings, Luke, Nym, or TIE bombers would let you dredge up more hit/crits than you otherwise could.

Not necessarily saying you could lean heavily enough into bombers to make the 16-point investment worth it, but it's at least worth testing out. I really can't see value added from 3+ of them apart from redundancy on the squishy transports.

It is ultimately more than 16 points.

You have to buy the ship as well so if we do the cheaper GR-75 that is 48 points spend on making squadrons do more damage to ships than naught. Well statistically anyways

Only if you wouldn't otherwise be bringing the transports. Certainly it's not as simple as just "16 points, boom done," but it never is, and the cost of the upgrade itself is a pretty good measuring sick to use in this case.

Why wouldn't it stack?

That's like saying you couldn't use two tractor beams on two ships "since it's the same card and same effect"

Seems pretty clear they will be cumulative no different than oe/Vader

Why wouldn't it stack?

That's like saying you couldn't use two tractor beams on two ships "since it's the same card and same effect"

Seems pretty clear they will be cumulative no different than oe/Vader

Well, I agree with the intent, but it is different, from a rules perspective.

Because the two triggers for two tractor beams happen at different activations ... Ergo, there is no simultanious timing...

The "Core" of the "Dispute" (yes, I am indeed using inverted commas here... ) is that you can't ahve the same trigger go off simultanious with itself, even if it from two different sources... A "Bomber Command Reroll:" is a "Bomber Command Reroll" and won't stack with a "Bomber Command Reroll."\

Vader and OE are... "Vader" and "Ordnance Experts"... Two differently named effects...

The argument is, "On This Attack, you have already used a Bomber Command Reroll, and you can't use another... But you could reroll from another source, such as Toryn Farr or a Named ability that let you do so, such as Keyan... "

... So in closing, yes, I agree with the intent of your statement, and in the conclusion you got to - but unfortunately, I must feel I dismiss the argument as irrelevant

Hahahah! It's ok, I'm regularly dismissed

Dismissed is Better than Dissed, I'm sure

... as, I mean, your Record shows you shouldn't be ignored

Drasnighta, while you are on a roll.

It reads to me that the effect triggers with the while clause, there is no player choice here, so in the instance while you are attacking with a squadron at range 1-5 you have a BCC Effect. The choice given to the player is to resolve the effect or not, however, the effect has triggered with the while clause.

I know this brings no clarity to the subject, let's wait for FFG on that one, but this does make a clarification of the process in my own mind. Am I reading that about right?

Correct.

The effect triggers if you are in Range and attacking with a Bomber, giving you the opportunity to use Bomber Command. However, that opportunity is a may statement itself, so you do not have to use the Reroll if you do not wish to.

The issue is purely wether two commands means it triggers twice, or wether two commands in an overlap is just an extended area to that "opportunity" trigger.

It is just unfortunate that this will be our first encounter with such a rule interaction... The good news is, this will set a precedent for all such interactions in the future...

I don't think it stacks. The reason is that there is no trigger beyond the distance. Further, the ability explicitly states you may reroll one die.

If this could be stacked, then why can't Swarm be stacked by attacking a squadron engaged by multiple enemy squadrons? After all, Swarm only refers to a single additional squadron. If you could stack BCC, you should be able to reroll as many dice as the are separate engagements with a swarm target.

In fact, if you could stack this upgrade, then every potential "while" statement in the fame becomes a recursive loop that feeds itself infinitely.

So no, for the reasons above, I don't believe that BCC or any future similar upgrades stack.

I don't think it stacks. The reason is that there is no trigger beyond the distance.

The trigger is "while a friendly squadron... is attacking a ship." "Friendly squadron," " Bomber ," and "at distance 1-5" are all conditions that must be met, but the trigger is the squadron attacking a ship.

Further, the ability explicitly states you may reroll one die.

This is true, for the effect triggered by that card. If there are multiple effects triggered by multiple cards, each permits one die reroll. Identical mechanic to combining OE, Leading Shots, and Vader.

If this could be stacked, then why can't Swarm be stacked by attacking a squadron engaged by multiple enemy squadrons? After all, Swarm only refers to a single additional squadron. If you could stack BCC, you should be able to reroll as many dice as the are separate engagements with a swarm target.

Swarm is one effect, triggered once by the attacking TIE fighter's card when the trigger "attacking a squadron engaged with another squadron" is fulfilled. If it said something like "you may reroll 1 die for each squadron engaged with the target ," there would be a case for multiple rerolls from one instance of swarm --though, what the connection to BCC is, I don't follow. That's one effect fulfilled in multiple ways; stacked BCC is multiple effects fulfilled once.

In fact, if you could stack this upgrade, then every potential "while" statement in the fame becomes a recursive loop that feeds itself infinitely.

A w hile effect is specifically defined in the RRG to occur only once during a given instance of the specified event, so no, it doesn't recurse. BCC stacks because the multiple separate cards produce multiple separate effects that happen to have the same name. It is mechanically no different than a ship with two Damaged Munitions crits faceup on it. You remove one die for the first Damaged Munitions , and then one die for the second one.

... IMO.

I don't think it stacks. The reason is that there is no trigger beyond the distance.

The trigger is "while a friendly squadron... is attacking a ship." "Friendly squadron," " Bomber ," and "at distance 1-5" are all conditions that must be met, but the trigger is the squadron attacking a ship.

Further, the ability explicitly states you may reroll one die.

This is true, for the effect triggered by that card. If there are multiple effects triggered by multiple cards, each permits one die reroll. Identical mechanic to combining OE, Leading Shots, and Vader.

If this could be stacked, then why can't Swarm be stacked by attacking a squadron engaged by multiple enemy squadrons? After all, Swarm only refers to a single additional squadron. If you could stack BCC, you should be able to reroll as many dice as the are separate engagements with a swarm target.

Swarm is one effect, triggered once by the attacking TIE fighter's card when the trigger "attacking a squadron engaged with another squadron" is fulfilled. If it said something like "you may reroll 1 die for each squadron engaged with the target ," there would be a case for multiple rerolls from one instance of swarm --though, what the connection to BCC is, I don't follow. That's one effect fulfilled in multiple ways; stacked BCC is multiple effects fulfilled once.

In fact, if you could stack this upgrade, then every potential "while" statement in the fame becomes a recursive loop that feeds itself infinitely.

A w hile effect is specifically defined in the RRG to occur only once during a given instance of the specified event, so no, it doesn't recurse. BCC stacks because the multiple separate cards produce multiple separate effects that happen to have the same name. It is mechanically no different than a ship with two Damaged Munitions crits faceup on it. You remove one die for the first Damaged Munitions , and then one die for the second one.

... IMO.

I don't think it stacks. The reason is that there is no trigger beyond the distance.

The trigger is "while a friendly squadron... is attacking a ship." "Friendly squadron," " Bomber ," and "at distance 1-5" are all conditions that must be met, but the trigger is the squadron attacking a ship.

Further, the ability explicitly states you may reroll one die.

This is true, for the effect triggered by that card. If there are multiple effects triggered by multiple cards, each permits one die reroll. Identical mechanic to combining OE, Leading Shots, and Vader.

If this could be stacked, then why can't Swarm be stacked by attacking a squadron engaged by multiple enemy squadrons? After all, Swarm only refers to a single additional squadron. If you could stack BCC, you should be able to reroll as many dice as the are separate engagements with a swarm target.

Swarm is one effect, triggered once by the attacking TIE fighter's card when the trigger "attacking a squadron engaged with another squadron" is fulfilled. If it said something like "you may reroll 1 die for each squadron engaged with the target ," there would be a case for multiple rerolls from one instance of swarm --though, what the connection to BCC is, I don't follow. That's one effect fulfilled in multiple ways; stacked BCC is multiple effects fulfilled once.

In fact, if you could stack this upgrade, then every potential "while" statement in the fame becomes a recursive loop that feeds itself infinitely.

A w hile effect is specifically defined in the RRG to occur only once during a given instance of the specified event, so no, it doesn't recurse. BCC stacks because the multiple separate cards produce multiple separate effects that happen to have the same name. It is mechanically no different than a ship with two Damaged Munitions crits faceup on it. You remove one die for the first Damaged Munitions , and then one die for the second one.

... IMO.

That only applies to upgrades.

A w hile effect is specifically defined in the RRG to occur only once during a given instance of the specified event, so no, it doesn't recurse. BCC stacks because the multiple separate cards produce multiple separate effects that happen to have the same name. It is mechanically no different than a ship with two Damaged Munitions crits faceup on it. You remove one die for the first Damaged Munitions , and then one die for the second one.

... IMO.

That only applies to upgrades.

Looks like your response got eaten by the internet, but it looks like these two pieces belonged together. If so, do you have a source for that? Because RRG 5 - Effect Use and Timing makes no such distinction.

I think a better way to consider Swarm and BCC different is the source, the quantity, and the area of effect. Swarm only affects a squadron if it is printed on that squadron's card . Since it's only on that squadron's card, there's only one instance, so it can only be triggered once. With BCC, the question is whether gaining the bonus from two different Gozantis counts as two separate instances of the effect, or just one. If the former, than both can be triggered by the same "While. . ." condition, just like you can use a single Nav Dial/Token to trigger Ozzel/Engine Techs or Ozzel/Nav Teams. If it's the latter, then it's a single effect and therefore can only be triggered once.

To be honest, I have no idea what FFG's intent was here. Personally, I feel like the RAI was for it to be a single effect, but the RAW makes it separate. If they had intended for it to be a single effect, it would have been simpler to have a special rule akin to Swarm. Something like "Precision." "When a squadron with Precision attacks a ship, it may re-roll one die." Then have a single sentence in the BRB that states you can't have multiple instances of the same special rule (which it might, I don't know) and problem solved. Then you could have things like AoE Swarm or Grit, and it would be simple to know if they stacked or not.

Then have a single sentence in the BRB that states you can't have multiple instances of the same special rule (which it might, I don't know) and problem solved.

It does not.

As it is, the only effect that can be "Stacked" this way, is Heavy . You can be Heavy multiple times, but it makes no difference wether you are or not. As no other effect is granted in a bubble... So far ...

I mean, counter is via Dengar, but the card also specifically states how it stacks.

(I mean, the RRG also initially left out the fact you can't have multiples of the same upgrade card on the one ship as well, so who knows...)

A w hile effect is specifically defined in the RRG to occur only once during a given instance of the specified event, so no, it doesn't recurse. BCC stacks because the multiple separate cards produce multiple separate effects that happen to have the same name. It is mechanically no different than a ship with two Damaged Munitions crits faceup on it. You remove one die for the first Damaged Munitions , and then one die for the second one.

... IMO.

That only applies to upgrades.

Looks like your response got eaten by the internet, but it looks like these two pieces belonged together. If so, do you have a source for that? Because RRG 5 - Effect Use and Timing makes no such distinction.

Shows me for posting late and after a drink. I concede after checking the RRG and FAQ that this does not affect only upgrade cards.

I do feel obligated to note that Faceup Damage Cards have specific wording that indicates they are active at all times while the card remains faceup . This is a specific statement for faceup damage cards that is repeated nowhere else in the rules for any other type of card or effect. The wording specifically is:

• Faceup damage cards have either an effect that must be resolved immediately when the card is dealt or a persistent effect that applies while the card is faceup.

• Faceup damage cards remain faceup unless an effect flips them facedown. While a damage card is faceup, its effect applies to the ship.

Further, the Power Failure card itself has a very specific word in it that leads to its effect: Reduce. Reduce in Armada is used as the opposite of Increase, and both are primarily used only when modifying the core value of a statistic (such as increasing battery armament, squadron value, etc). In the case of Power Failure, the two effects MUST be active at all times (per the RRG), and per the card each reduces the engineering value by a specific amount.

I feel that because of the unique rules for damage cards, which are not given for card effects or upgrades, we should disregard the ability of identical damage cards to stack effects as they function differently from any other card type in the game so far.

Then have a single sentence in the BRB that states you can't have multiple instances of the same special rule (which it might, I don't know) and problem solved.

It does not.

As it is, the only effect that can be "Stacked" this way, is Heavy . You can be Heavy multiple times, but it makes no difference wether you are or not. As no other effect is granted in a bubble... So far ...

I mean, counter is via Dengar, but the card also specifically states how it stacks.

(I mean, the RRG also initially left out the fact you can't have multiples of the same upgrade card on the one ship as well, so who knows...)

Clearly they'll have to hire us for the 2nd edition rulebook.

Then have a single sentence in the BRB that states you can't have multiple instances of the same special rule (which it might, I don't know) and problem solved.

It does not.

As it is, the only effect that can be "Stacked" this way, is Heavy . You can be Heavy multiple times, but it makes no difference wether you are or not. As no other effect is granted in a bubble... So far ...

I mean, counter is via Dengar, but the card also specifically states how it stacks.

(I mean, the RRG also initially left out the fact you can't have multiples of the same upgrade card on the one ship as well, so who knows...)

Clearly they'll have to hire us for the 2nd edition rulebook.

It would run in the hundreds of pages no doubt

I can be a wordy bastard... But mostly that's because I'm repeating myself over and over... In a Reference, I can say things clearly once...

But there's no way I'd take that job... Even though I am currently without a job sans my father status, and all........... Its too intimidating.

I'd start being always right, for one thing... And that is something that simply cannot come to pass .

I'm sure I could do a better job of writing the rule book.

I'm also sure whoever wrote it could do a better job of writing the rule book.

What happened was, whoever was supposed to be writing the rule book was given the Rulebook Project.

And then, three days later, his boss had forgotten that he was supposed to be writing the rulebook, so just as he had gotten the framework for the rules laid out, his boss gave him another project.

Both projects were his #1 priority, but the other one had an earlier deadline, so he prioritized that one first.

By the time he'd finished the other project, he'd forgotten where he was in the rulebook, so he had to waste a day reading through what he'd already written to get his continuity of thought back.

Two days later, he was scheduled to give a presentation to the CEO on how the rulebook-writing project was coming along.

He was supposed to have been working on it for three weeks now, so he couldn't show up with 4 days worth of work done on it, so threw down some half-ass boilerplate that was generally right but not very good, knowing that the CEO wouldn't read it that closely anyway and he could circle back and revise it after the presentation.

The presentation went well--it better have, he spent a day preparing for it--so the middle manager who was sitting in on the meeting got the idea that it was almost done. Which means the author was freed up to do another project, with which he was tasked immediately upon his return to the office that day.

That project had to do with starting playtesting on the rules that were supposedly almost written--after all, if they're 90% done like he just told the CEO, that's close enough to work with the playtesters, right?

So then he set up a SharePoint to start getting the playtesters' feedback, and gave them the current version of the rulebook. They immediately stormed into his office--completely bypassing the SharePoint that he'd spent a day and a half setting up for them to give feedback through--to ask him why the rulebook was so terrible, and here fix this, this, this, and this we can't even use this as it is right now.

So he stayed late that night, scrambling to get the barest fixes the playtesters needed to get their piece started, by now having completely lost his entire train of thought on how he was going to lay out the rulebook, much less scrub it for quality. Having worked on the rulebook far later than he ought to have, he introduced numerous new mistakes due to his fatigue.

Some were caught during playtesting; some were caught as this cycle continued until the publication deadline. One was even caught by the CEO when he went to present in the status of his project again the following week.

At the project's deadline, the rulebook was sent to an editor who had never seen the game played, who thumbed through it looking for misspellings and grammatical errors before pencilwhipping it and passing it over to the publishing department, from whence it went to packaging, to shipping, to Lion Rampant's warehouse, to the Sentry Box, where Dras bought it.

On that day, for the first time, someone who had both the time and willpower to do so sat down and actually read the rulebook all the way through.

... I have got to get out of my office job. It's killing me.

At the project's deadline, the rulebook was sent to an editor who had never seen the game played, who thumbed through it looking for misspellings and grammatical errors before pencilwhipping it and passing it over to the publishing department, from whence it went to packaging, to shipping, to Lion Rampant's warehouse, to the Sentry Box, where Dras bought it.

On that day, for the first time, someone who had both the time and willpower to do so sat down and actually read the rulebook all the way through.

Would you believe that, on that day, my thought walking out of the Sentry Box was

"This is Brand New. Its my first new Game in the 5 years I've lived in Canada. I've paid $136 for this... I'm going to get this sh*t squared away before I play the first time....."

Still don't feel like I've completely accomplished that... But I'm trying...

I would love to get Ard's breakdown of how the Tournament FAQ was produced.