Question:

Does Dengar's title text give him the ability to perform an ADDITIONAL attack (such as the title card "Special Ops Training")?

Here is how I understand the rules on attacking - you may perform ONE attack per round (whether from title text, upgrade card, or normal primary attack) unless you have a card that SPECIFICALLY states you may perform "an ADDITIONAL attack." His title text states that he may perform "an attack", not "an additional attack."

So for example if I attack Dengar with Soontir Fel, and he chooses to use his title text to perform an attack against Soontir "after defending," then Dengar CANNOT also perform his "normal" primary weapon attack.

Also, and this may seem like a stupid question, but R5-P8's ability is not considered "an attack" right?

One more thing - I read in the FAQ next to Dengar's card (x-wing faq v423 hi res, page 10) that:

"Dengar’s ability resolves after any “after attacking” or “after defending” abilities that do not perform an attack. This simply means that he must resolve a card like R5-P8 before resolving his title text correct? It is just a timing issue?

Thanks!

Dengar is not a title... he is a pilot...

"Dengar’s ability resolves after any “after attacking” or “after defending” abilities that do not perform an attack. This simply means that he must resolve a card like R5-P8 before resolving his title text correct? It is just a timing issue?

Yes, that's exactly what that means.

Dengar's ability is an additional attack, and it's not required for abilities to state that the attack they're providing is additional. The general rule is 'you can make one attack at your PS in the combat phase' not that you can ONLY make one...

R5P8 is not an attack.

Question:

So for example if I attack Dengar with Soontir Fel, and he chooses to use his title text to perform an attack against Soontir "after defending," then Dengar CANNOT also perform his "normal" primary weapon attack.

Also, and this may seem like a stupid question, but R5-P8's ability is not considered "an attack" right?

The thing to remember is Dengar's return attack is happening during the other player's attack in the Combat phase.

Soontir attacks Dengar, and during Soontir's attack sequence, R5-P8 triggers at Step 8.ii (because it's not an attack) and rolls an attack die and resolves it, then Dengar triggers at Step 9.ii and makes his return attack. When that attack is resolved, Soontir's attack is now finished and his activation in the Combat phase ends. On to the next ship, which would be Dengar and he gets to perform an attack as per his normal Pilot Skill sequence.

Dengar would only miss his normal attack if he used something like Gunner during the return attack that's happening in Soontir's activation, because that states "You cannot perform another attack this round."

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

And, to be quite honest, in this game it appears the FAQ, players, and judges pick and choose which words (or absence thereof) on which cards to place importance on. Logic dictates that if you are going to rule/argue one way or another because you interpret what a card means by EXACTLY what it says on the card, then you should have that approach to all of your rulings/arguments. Not just some or another. This is just something I have encountered personally in tournaments and free play, and it has made the game not fun for me. So much so that I have actually decided not to play anymore.

Thank you everyone for your input. I appreciate your time and feedback.

Dengar is not a title... he is a pilot...

No kidding genius.....that's why my post says "Dengar's Title Text"." Title text = pilot ability. Pilot ability = title text. The more you know.....

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

Yup. That's exactly how Quickdraw works.

The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear. Not every word in a card's text has special signifigance in the rules, some of them are just there to make the card easier to read.

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

Yup. That's exactly how Quickdraw works.

The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear. Not every word in a card's text has special signifigance in the rules, some of them are just there to make the card easier to read.

"The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear." That is my entire point. It IS less clear because they put other words in other cards that do have significance, whereas some do not. What is the point of that? How can you make accurate interpretations that equate to rulings when you are not certain of which words are significant and which are not?

Dengar is not a title... he is a pilot...

No kidding genius.....that's why my post says "Dengar's Title Text"." Title text = pilot ability. Pilot ability = title text. The more you know.....

Actually Title text = title ability, Pilot text = pilot ability, not the other way around.

And, to be quite honest, in this game it appears the FAQ, players, and judges pick and choose which words (or absence thereof) on which cards to place importance on. Logic dictates that if you are going to rule/argue one way or another because you interpret what a card means by EXACTLY what it says on the card, then you should have that approach to all of your rulings/arguments. Not just some or another. This is just something I have encountered personally in tournaments and free play, and it has made the game not fun for me. So much so that I have actually decided not to play anymore.

And if you've decided not to play anymore, why ask the question in the first place?

Dengar is not a title... he is a pilot...

No kidding genius.....that's why my post says "Dengar's Title Text"." Title text = pilot ability. Pilot ability = title text. The more you know.....

Actually Title text = title ability, Pilot text = pilot ability, not the other way around.

And, to be quite honest, in this game it appears the FAQ, players, and judges pick and choose which words (or absence thereof) on which cards to place importance on. Logic dictates that if you are going to rule/argue one way or another because you interpret what a card means by EXACTLY what it says on the card, then you should have that approach to all of your rulings/arguments. Not just some or another. This is just something I have encountered personally in tournaments and free play, and it has made the game not fun for me. So much so that I have actually decided not to play anymore.

And if you've decided not to play anymore, why ask the question in the first place?

Because at the time I asked this question I was still planning on playing. However due to financial difficulties I have decided to not play and sell my set.

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

Yup. That's exactly how Quickdraw works.

The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear. Not every word in a card's text has special signifigance in the rules, some of them are just there to make the card easier to read.

"The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear." That is my entire point. It IS less clear because they put other words in other cards that do have significance, whereas some do not. What is the point of that? How can you make accurate interpretations that equate to rulings when you are not certain of which words are significant and which are not?

To use the phrase "additional attack" in Dengar's ability wouldn't make any sense. He isn't making any other attacks during the same timing window and his counter attack may very well be the first attack he makes in the round. It may actually be the only attack that he makes in the round if he has the Blinded Target crit or destroys the only target range three or closer with the counter attack before he takes his regular attack. On the other hand, the attack from the TIE/sf title happens during that ships normal combat phase activation. It is impossible to make that attack without first having made a primary arc attack.

It sounds like you've had either had some really bad luck in finding a decent group of folks to play with or you tried to use some tortured interpretation of a card or rule and got pissed that no one would let you. The rules aren't perfect and wording could be tighter but I think that most X-Wing communities are pretty decent about using reasonable interpretations of the rules and being consistent about them.

Dengar is not a title... he is a pilot...

No kidding genius.....that's why my post says "Dengar's Title Text"." Title text = pilot ability. Pilot ability = title text. The more you know.....

No Pilot Ability does not equal Title Text even if you would love it to be the case.

There is Title Upgrade Card and they could be called Title text then maybe. But pilot have nothing to do with Title.

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

Yup. That's exactly how Quickdraw works.

The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear. Not every word in a card's text has special signifigance in the rules, some of them are just there to make the card easier to read.

"The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear." That is my entire point. It IS less clear because they put other words in other cards that do have significance, whereas some do not. What is the point of that? How can you make accurate interpretations that equate to rulings when you are not certain of which words are significant and which are not?

You missplace Title Text for Pilot Ability, and then you call the dev team not clear on the text they use. Way to go...

In the circle I played in we referred to the text on their pilot card, or as you call "pilot ability" as "title text." We referred to any upgrade card such as "title" or "modification" by it's name, not by the type of upgrade card it was. So instead of saying "I am going to activate his 'title text'" or "I am going to activate his 'system upgrade'", we would say "I am going to activate 'Special Ops Training'" or "I am going to activate 'sensor jammers.'" You may refer to cards differently in your group, but that is you and your group's choice.

Ok so then my next question:

If this is indeed an ADDITIONAL attack, then how come it is not specifically stated in his title text? Why the need for the word "additional" on the text of Special Ops Training? Why not just state "....you may perform an attack from your auxiliary firing arc" ? as opposed to "...you may perform an ADDITIONAL attack from your auxiliary firing arc." And if this is the case, with Quickdraw's title text, could you not then (if you had an enemy ship in your primary firing arc and an enemy ship in your auxiliary firing arc):

1. Perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

2. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

3. Defend and lose a shield

4. Activate title text and perform a primary attack from your primary firing arc and not activate Special Ops Training for the extra attack die.

5. Activate Special Ops Training and perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc.

So, in essence, Quickdraw could perform a total of four attacks in one round if he has an enemy ship in both firing arcs and loses a shield while defending.

Yup. That's exactly how Quickdraw works.

The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear. Not every word in a card's text has special signifigance in the rules, some of them are just there to make the card easier to read.

"The text you suggest for the TIE/sf would work the same way as the actual card but be less clear." That is my entire point. It IS less clear because they put other words in other cards that do have significance, whereas some do not. What is the point of that? How can you make accurate interpretations that equate to rulings when you are not certain of which words are significant and which are not?

To use the phrase "additional attack" in Dengar's ability wouldn't make any sense. He isn't making any other attacks during the same timing window and his counter attack may very well be the first attack he makes in the round. It may actually be the only attack that he makes in the round if he has the Blinded Target crit or destroys the only target range three or closer with the counter attack before he takes his regular attack. On the other hand, the attack from the TIE/sf title happens during that ships normal combat phase activation. It is impossible to make that attack without first having made a primary arc attack.

It sounds like you've had either had some really bad luck in finding a decent group of folks to play with or you tried to use some tortured interpretation of a card or rule and got pissed that no one would let you. The rules aren't perfect and wording could be tighter but I think that most X-Wing communities are pretty decent about using reasonable interpretations of the rules and being consistent about them.

To your last paragraph there, it's not that I tried to make a tortured interpretation of the card, but the fact that on some rulings they would care more about the specific text on the card(s) in question, and on other rulings they would not take the same approach or use a very vague interpretation. And that just didn't sit well with me. So for the primary financial reason of not playing anymore, in conjunction with a poor approach to interpretations and rulings by our league/tournament administrator has led me to not play anymore. It is not worth my time or money to play a game where that is going to be the case.

LOL. EPT is not title card. Title cards are a different upgrade and don't have a corresponding icon on pilot cards. The icon for the back of the title cards looks like an X-wing trophy. See TIE/x1, TIE/v1, Special Ops training, Royal Guard TIE, A-Wing Test Pilot etc. Those are titles, not Elite Pilot Talents (which are actually just called Elite now according to the Rules Reference).

And nice edit, cupcake.

I'm sorry you are talking about editing when you have an edit yourself, cupcake Hilarious!

Oh and thanks for the history lesson Nostrodouchebag

I knew I should have quoted you to capture your brilliance for all to see.

If there was an emoji for the middle finger, I would tell you to quote that (for the record of course).

And ah, another keyboard warrior huh? I know your kind. What do you kids refer to those people as? You know, the people who don't actually contribute to the conversation at hand, just like to go around trying to sound smart and tough so they can feel better about themselves. I believe "troll" is the correct terminology? Correct me if I'm wrong.....(insert middle finger emoji here)

Selling everything because the cards are too hard to understand and giving up playing... and yet he's still here...

Selling everything because the cards are too hard to understand and giving up playing... and yet he's still here...

Ah isn't it nice to live in your own little world where you so conveniently leave out the reason I stopped playing? And then you make an argument, or in this case a pointless, retarded comment like that, based on incomplete information. If your ass wasn't already perfectly occupying your shoulders, I would tell you to wear your ignorance there, because it sure suits you well

Selling everything because the cards are too hard to understand and giving up playing... and yet he's still here...

Ah isn't it nice to live in your own little world where you so conveniently leave out the reason I stopped playing? And then you make an argument, or in this case a pointless, retarded comment like that, based on incomplete information. If your ass wasn't already perfectly occupying your shoulders, I would tell you to wear your ignorance there, because it sure suits you well

Someone hasn't had enough coffee today?

Selling everything because the cards are too hard to understand and giving up playing... and yet he's still here...

Ah isn't it nice to live in your own little world where you so conveniently leave out the reason I stopped playing? And then you make an argument, or in this case a pointless, retarded comment like that, based on incomplete information. If your ass wasn't already perfectly occupying your shoulders, I would tell you to wear your ignorance there, because it sure suits you well

Someone hasn't had enough coffee today?

Energy drinks for me today. For you, I suggest Smart water. It MIGHT (big emphasis) do you some good.