Here is the situation:
1) Greedo declares an attack against Lando, triggering slow on the draw
2) Lando uses Slow on the draw to perform an attack
3) Lando gets 3 damage through and stun/hide
Greedo is mid-attack (he declared the target but hasn't done anything else) and is now stunned - can he continue with the attack?
If not (we ruled he could not), does he still get that action back or is it lost? (we ruled he lost it).
Sounds like what I would do.
The action is spent, and I would say that the attack aborts because you can't perform an attack while stunned. The dice have not yet been rolled.
So, don't ever do that.
(I think a similar question was asked last week.)
Edit: Here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/229077-greedos-timing/
Edited by a1bertSounds like what I would do.
The action is spent, and I would say that the attack aborts because you can't perform an attack while stunned. The dice have not yet been rolled.
So, don't ever do that.
(I think a similar question was asked last week.)
Edit: Here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/229077-greedos-timing/
I think it would go through because the attack was already declared (thats what triggered slow the draw) so the attack would finish then if he had another action (if the attack was his 1st action) he could get rid of the stun or do nothing.
Sounds like what I would do.
The action is spent, and I would say that the attack aborts because you can't perform an attack while stunned. The dice have not yet been rolled.
So, don't ever do that.
(I think a similar question was asked last week.)
Edit: Here https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/229077-greedos-timing/
I looked at that thread and I don't know, hmm now I am curious
The only thing the rules say is you can't "perform an attack" while stunned.
There's no definition for "perform" in the rules, so no way to really say for certain one way or the other.
Not being able to attack makes the most sense logically.
Edited by DTDanixThere are other cases when an attack can be caused to abort, like the target becoming defeated by Relentless, or the target moving away from line of sight using an ability (for example command card). So, the attack being aborted due to becoming stunned during the attack would be analogous.
But "Declare a Target" is under the steps of "Performing an Attack" in the RRG; it's step 1. So you've already started "Performing the Attack" when you become ineligible to perform attacks. At what point do you become unable to continue the attack? What if you became stunned during step 2 or 3? Can you not finish the attack then?
The target dying or moving out of LOS before the attack resolves do cause the attack to abort, but those are issues with the target, not with the attacker. And the attacker being defeated during the attack causes the attack to abort, because a figure is removed from the map when it is defeated. But I'm not sure becoming stunned is that clear.
Stunned says "You cannot attack or voluntarily exit your space."
If you become stunned and continue to perform the attack, you have performed an attack while stunned (with all the after attack resolves abilities), but stunned says you cannot attack. I see this as a contradiction and thus it should not be possible to continue an attack (from any step) if you become stunned .
If would be different if Stunned said "You cannot declare target, or voluntarily exit your space."
(Who needs a definite answer, ask FFG.)
Edited by a1bertBut "Declare a Target" is under the steps of "Performing an Attack" in the RRG; it's step 1. So you've already started "Performing the Attack" when you become ineligible to perform attacks. At what point do you become unable to continue the attack? What if you became stunned during step 2 or 3? Can you not finish the attack then?
The target dying or moving out of LOS before the attack resolves do cause the attack to abort, but those are issues with the target, not with the attacker. And the attacker being defeated during the attack causes the attack to abort, because a figure is removed from the map when it is defeated. But I'm not sure becoming stunned is that clear.
Yeah and do you get refunded the action? I spent the action to attack and the process already started, This is another reason I think it should go through but I understand if it doesn't work like that.
Edited by krzykoopaYou spent the action to do the attack, but the attack got blocked by process of becomming stunned. You're stunned, can't complete the attack, and have lost the action, that's how I see it as well. There's a reason Greedo is so cheap for an otherwise decent character, he has a really big disadvantage.
It might be different if the effect occured after rolling dice, but this effect is at the start of the attack. Thematically, Greedo is busy drawing his gun and has designated a target, but before he's drawn, the target realized whats happening and has shot him, stunning him. He is "Slow on the draw" afterall...
Which is why I love his model with his partially drawn gun, so appropriate!
I wanted to ask, if greedo attacks someone like inquisitor who has spec. action as ranged attack, can he interrupt to perform such attack? Or it would only work for melee?
Lightsaber Throw is a special action. Slow on the Draw does not give an action, it does not even give an Attack action. Slow on the Draw lets the target to perform an attack (with the figure's attack type, attack pool and abilities).
Edited by a1bertI think this one comes down to a bit of word ambiguity from FFG.
Does "You cannot attack" mean you can't finish an attack, or you can't start a new one?
I was leaning towards Greedo being able to finish his attack because the timing to check the stun condition has already happened (before Step 1 of attacking), but then I looked into the RRG some more and changed my mind.
RRG says "If an interrupt makes the current action or ability invalid, that effect is not resolved. Any costs used to resolve that effect are still paid."
The example they use is a figure moving out of LOS after the "declare target" step. So really it's between Step 1 and Step 2. The attack is now invalid. Even though the "Valid Target and LOS" check has already happened.
This is strange to me because it implies that there is some other LOS check trigger, or that the game timing has been rewound 1 step.
Stun in this case would work in the same way, becoming applied between Greedo's Step 1 and Step 2. So I'd say that probably does make his attack invalid, even though it's technically a timing rewind and the wording is vague.
Of course it does make sense logically and thematically too.
On the other hand, the check for stun is before Step 1 where as the LOS check as per the example above is within Step 1 which is the step that's being interrupted. So the timing is technically a little bit different. In either case, it's kind of still a timing rewind.
**** it, now I've changed my mind again.... I dunno.... Pretty much everything happens off timing and triggers. Stunning half way through an attack seems to break all these rules.
As a side note: Greedo is causing a lot of timing issues. It's a fun, fluffy ability but seems to have not been play tested much.
Also can you declare an attack against an invalid target? So you can trigger certain "when attack is declared" events, even though the attack itself is aborted after the valid target check in Step 1.
Coz that could be abused and yet the example above seems to imply that valid target check can be interrupted to change a target from valid to invalid after the check is made.
If the check isn't made till the end of Step 1, then the interrupt makes sense without rewinding. But that would also allow of other shenanigans.
Of course, that's for valid/invalid target and LOS not for stun.
Edited by InquisitorszSorry to resurrect this, but does Greedo get his Parting Shot if stunned?
Did FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
Sorry to resurrect this, but does Greedo get his Parting Shot if stunned?
Did FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
Your question is incomplete.
1. If Greedo is already stunned before an attack targeting him, Parting Shot cannot perform attack due to being stunned.
2. If Greedo is not stunned, Parting Shot can perform an attack because conditions are only applied after the attack resolves, and Parting Shot happens during step 7 of the attack. I.e. Stun in the attack that defeats Greedo is useless, because he will never receive the condition. He's already removed from the map when it is time to assign conditions from the condition keywords.
See the attack resolution order from my signature.
There should be newer threads about Parting Shot. (And to some of the above questions : No, you cannot declare attacks against invalid targets.)
See here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/217971-stun-to-prevent-parting-shot/ for the lengthy how and why's of it. Page 2 includes the mail from Paul Winchester confirming it.
Edited by a1bertDid FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
I asked and got a quick response:
They've been super quick with replying to rules questions lately.... We should update the unofficial FAQ and send the whole list in, or get all these email responses pasted in there.
Did FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
I asked and got a quick response:
Stunned says “you cannot attack” which should be interpreted as “you cannot declare an attack.” With this in mind, if Greedo gets stunned after declaring his attack (by way of Slow on the Draw) he would be allowed to complete the interrupted attack, but would not be allowed to declare any new attacks after gaining the condition.Hope that clears it up!
Wow, completely unintuitive and the opposite of the way I've been playing Hired Guns (who so far haven't been allowed a Parting Shot, if they became stunned during the attack that defeated them...) Bad news for my Rebels players, I guess...
Wow, completely unintuitive and the opposite of the way I've been playing Hired Guns (who so far haven't been allowed a Parting Shot, if they became stunned during the attack that defeated them...) Bad news for my Rebels players, I guess...I asked and got a quick response:Did FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
Stunned says “you cannot attack” which should be interpreted as “you cannot declare an attack.” With this in mind, if Greedo gets stunned after declaring his attack (by way of Slow on the Draw) he would be allowed to complete the interrupted attack, but would not be allowed to declare any new attacks after gaining the condition.
Hope that clears it up!
Todd Michlitsch
Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
Different situation. Slow on the draw might cause Greedo to become stunned after he's declared his attack, and this ruling allows him to continue his attack in that case.
Parting shot happens before the attack completes and stun is only applied after the attack.
Wow, completely unintuitive and the opposite of the way I've been playing Hired Guns (who so far haven't been allowed a Parting Shot, if they became stunned during the attack that defeated them...) Bad news for my Rebels players, I guess...
I asked and got a quick response:Did FFG ever clerify the above or we just assume Greedo can't finish the attack because of the stun condition?
Stunned says “you cannot attack” which should be interpreted as “you cannot declare an attack.” With this in mind, if Greedo gets stunned after declaring his attack (by way of Slow on the Draw) he would be allowed to complete the interrupted attack, but would not be allowed to declare any new attacks after gaining the condition.
Hope that clears it up!
Todd Michlitsch
Game Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
Different situation. Slow on the draw might cause Greedo to become stunned after he's declared his attack, and this ruling allows him to continue his attack in that case.
Parting shot happens before the attack completes and stun is only applied after the attack.
Yeah, my mistake - I literally just checked back in now to fix my mistake, but you guys beat me to it.
I expected the reverse due to the wording of Stunned in the condition card, but minimizing the chance of 'aborted attacks' is good, so overall I think we're on the positive. And actually encountering the case is not that probable.
They've been super quick with replying to rules questions lately.... We should update the unofficial FAQ and send the whole list in, or get all these email responses pasted in there.
I keep the unofficial FAQ post up to date, make sure you PM those items to me as well since I am sometime skimming the boards from my phone and not my computer (which is easier to post from).