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.

OMG, what a comedic little star you've turned out to be. I don't need smart water. I can understand this game... unlike you.

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.

OMG, what a comedic little star you've turned out to be. I don't need smart water. I can understand this game... unlike you.

Uh oh look out Mr. Grumpy is coming out of the closet (in more than one way) because someone was mean and made him look stupid (not that you need any help with that).

Would like to me to keep making you look like a fool? Or are you going to put on your parachute...I mean big boy pants, and walk away?

Become wise, you have. Hard for you it is, I know.

Yoda, you're not.

Well, this has gone well.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that X-Wing is very prescribed in the names it gives to different things and therefore it's important that you recognise the meaning of each part of a card or a name given to something.

So Dengar's double tap is a 'pilot ability' and this matters for damage cards and upgrades which effect 'pilot ability'.

An upgrade card - such as a title, modification etc is named as such and could be effected by other cards which specifically name them.

While I understand your gaming group refers to them as one thing or another, you have to follow the conventions of the game, otherwise you meet the confusing areas such as this one.

In answer to your question:

Dengar makes ONE attack when it is his tun to attack at whatever pilot skill he may have at the time. This can be with a primary or secondary weapon, or could be feedback array.

When Dengar is shot at by a ship IN HIS ARC, he may make an additional attack at that ship with primary, secondary etc. This can happen before or after he has made his own shot. This second attack can happen once per round.

The term TITLE is very specific in this game... Creating the term 'TITLE TEXT' to refer to a pilot ability seems like the loose rules interpretations that you have been struggling with thus far. Should your financial status improve, I would recommend checking out the FAQ and Rules References for clarifications. Good luck, either way.

You may think we are troll for telling you to use proper word and ability name. But, like other said, when you play a complex game, you can't just make up designation as you see fit. First you may not be understood by other, and second they are important to see why someone mess up some rule.

When I see someone that mix up name of thing in a game, I already know where the problem is in the interpretation of the rule.

Do your smart ass if you want, and continue to think you are the right one to say this or that. And continue to not understand everything in the game.

There is a reason, additional attack is used for Special Force, because this is an additional attack during his attack phase. This is to make it clear he will do two different attacks in the same attack phase.

Dengar is not an additional attack. It is a new opportunity to attack during someone else attack phase. They are absolutely not related or similar at all.

Edit: In fact, adding "additional" to Dengar pilot could create other confusion, like, does Dengar do two attack when he is defending. Does it mean he retaliate with a normal attack and an additional attack. Being clear in a game is not just pleasing someone.

Edit: In fact, adding "additional" to Dengar pilot could create other confusion

Well put.

It amazes me how often you have people come here and try to argue about a rule, when it is so painfully clear they don't understand the rules in the first place, and base their whole argument on either something that isn't on the card, or an interpretation that makes no real sense.

In the OP's case he's hung up on the word additional, but as was pointed out many times, that word is not only, not required but would actually make things worse.

Edit: In fact, adding "additional" to Dengar pilot could create other confusion

Well put.

It amazes me how often you have people come here and try to argue about a rule, when it is so painfully clear they don't understand the rules in the first place, and base their whole argument on either something that isn't on the card, or an interpretation that makes no real sense.

In the OP's case he's hung up on the word additional, but as was pointed out many times, that word is not only, not required but would actually make things worse.

He seems to have a perfect understanding of the Quickdraw/Title interaction (Title meaning 'Special Ops Training' and not 'Title Text' aka 'Pilot Ability') but is having issues with a word that DOES NOT appear on the Dengar pilot card. I am confused by his confusion.

the reason things such as Gunner say "an additional attack" is because they are happening when you would perform your usual attack, before you deactivate.

Dengar, Quickdraw, and Corran only say "attack" because its not their normal activation when it procs. As we have seen time and time again, nothing that happens outside of your activation affects your activation except if youre sitting on a rock or "this phase/round" effects not getting to trigger more than once.

Couldn't Dengar being shot by Dengar create a situation where one of the Dengars would perform his counter attack during his normal attack sequence?

Couldn't Dengar being shot by Dengar create a situation where one of the Dengars would perform his counter attack during his normal attack sequence?

Sort of, I guess.

Dengar A has initiative. Dengar B does not. Both at PS9. Both are in each others arc.

Dengar A shoots Dengar B, damage is resolved. Dengar B gets his revenge attack and shoots Dengar A. Dengar A can then choose to make his revenge shot if he wants to.

Irrespective of Dengar A taking his revenge shot, Dengar B then makes his normal attack and shoots Dengar A. If Dengar A DID NOT make his revenge attack in the first opportunity, he may now make it.

Further confusion can arise if one of them is killed.

Assuming Dengar A kills B in his attack, B will get both his revenge attack AND his normal attack, as a result of simultaneous attacks. Dengar A would get revenge, but why waste it?

If Dengar B kills Dengar A with his revenge attack, A could trigger his revenge attack before dying.

If Dengar B kills Dengar A with his normal attack, A could trigger his revenge before dying, if he didn't take it at the previous opportunity.

The word 'Dengar' has lost all meaning.

Dengar v Dengar is whacky even if you arent trying to be all RAW-like. I think thats why people tend to avoid that conflict lol ive never seen Dengar trigger Dengar which triggers Dengar, usually one of them is out of arc or opts to not shoot at dengar.

Dengar v Dengar is whacky even if you arent trying to be all RAW-like. I think thats why people tend to avoid that conflict lol ive never seen Dengar trigger Dengar which triggers Dengar, usually one of them is out of arc or opts to not shoot at dengar.

I have.

I believe I've seen the game end in a FINAL SALVO because Dengar shot Dengar who Dengared Dengar, killing Dengar who then Dengared Dengar and got simultaneous fire which killed Dengar. I think that's how it went anyway. Each ship shot the other twice and they both died.

that is such a mouthful to say rofl...love it

Speaking of dengar v. dengar did we ever get a solution to how his revenge shot interacts with simultaneous fire? Ie if he doesn't have initiative and is destroyed at ps9, then takes his revenge shot does that satisfy simultaneous fire? I remember that being confusing and I don't recall if we ever actually got a resolution.

Speaking of dengar v. dengar did we ever get a solution to how his revenge shot interacts with simultaneous fire? Ie if he doesn't have initiative and is destroyed at ps9, then takes his revenge shot does that satisfy simultaneous fire? I remember that being confusing and I don't recall if we ever actually got a resolution.

No longer an issue with the new timing chart. The counter attacks are resolved before you check for and remove destroyed ships, at which point Simultaneous would apply as normal.

Speaking of dengar v. dengar did we ever get a solution to how his revenge shot interacts with simultaneous fire? Ie if he doesn't have initiative and is destroyed at ps9, then takes his revenge shot does that satisfy simultaneous fire? I remember that being confusing and I don't recall if we ever actually got a resolution.

No longer an issue with the new timing chart. The counter attacks are resolved before you check for and remove destroyed ships, at which point Simultaneous would apply as normal.

The timing chart doesn't really help there at all. You get to box 10 and need to ask yourself if the ship needs to be kept in play due to simultaneous fire.

If Dengar's counter attack counts as an "opportunity to attack" then there is no more reason to keep the ship alive due to simultaneous fire than there would be if Dengar had had initiative.

Speaking of dengar v. dengar did we ever get a solution to how his revenge shot interacts with simultaneous fire? Ie if he doesn't have initiative and is destroyed at ps9, then takes his revenge shot does that satisfy simultaneous fire? I remember that being confusing and I don't recall if we ever actually got a resolution.

No longer an issue with the new timing chart. The counter attacks are resolved before you check for and remove destroyed ships, at which point Simultaneous would apply as normal.

The timing chart doesn't really help there at all. You get to box 10 and need to ask yourself if the ship needs to be kept in play due to simultaneous fire.

If Dengar's counter attack counts as an "opportunity to attack" then there is no more reason to keep the ship alive due to simultaneous fire than there would be if Dengar had had initiative.

Mind=Blown

The timing chart doesn't really help there at all. You get to box 10 and need to ask yourself if the ship needs to be kept in play due to simultaneous fire.

If Dengar's counter attack counts as an "opportunity to attack" then there is no more reason to keep the ship alive due to simultaneous fire than there would be if Dengar had had initiative.

I am convinced that the "opportunity to attack" referenced in the Simultaneous Fire rule is the normal attack a ship gets when it becomes the active ship during the Combat Phase.

Another weird interaction is:

Dengar A (with init) attacks Dengar B and deals enough damage cards to kill him.

Before being removed, Dengar B counterattacks Dengar A and misses.

Dengar B uses Gunner to attack again.

Dengar B "can no longer attack this round".

Because of the Simultaneous Attack rule, we still need to wait until the Dengar B becomes the active ship to remove him, even if he won't be attacking?

Also note that a similar situation is possible with Snap Shot. If a ship without initiative uses Snap Shot before its normal activation during the Combat Phase, will it get to attack if it is later destroyed by a ship with the same PS?

My personal opinion, and I'm pretty sure this is how it'll be ruled if it gets in a FAQ, is that the Simultaneous Attack rule could be re-written as:

During the Combat phase, all ships with a pilot skill value equal to the active ship have the opportunity to attack before being destroyed. If a ship would be destroyed and it has the same pilot skill value as the active ship but has not had an opportunity to attack yet yet become the active ship this phase, it is not destroyed. Instead, it retains its Damage cards and continues to function as normal, suffering any effects on its Damage cards. After it has had its opportunity to attack finished its activation this phase, it is destroyed and removed from the play area.

An opportunity to Attack mean activating during the Attack Phase of the game.

Maybe they should change the wording, but they never gave any indication that it was refering to having rolled dice for an attack.

An opportunity to Attack mean activating during the Attack Phase of the game.

Maybe they should change the wording, but they never gave any indication that it was refering to having rolled dice for an attack.

Well the problem is the FAQ for blinded pilot says that Corran's end phase attack clears it, and that also discusses opportunity to attack:

If a ship gets an opportunity to attack from a card

effect (such as Dengar or Corran Horn), that ship can

resolve one of those abilities and flips Blinded Pilot

facedown.

This makes it very confusing as to how the simultaneous attack rule should be implemented.

I am convinced that the "opportunity to attack" referenced in the Simultaneous Fire rule is the normal attack a ship gets when it becomes the active ship during the Combat Phase.

I think that you are most likely correct in what the intent is. At the time that the rules were written there was no way to have had an opportunity to attack without having been the active ship in the combat phase. It's very possible that it was never updated once that changed.

Also note that a similar situation is possible with Snap Shot. If a ship without initiative uses Snap Shot before its normal activation during the Combat Phase, will it get to attack if it is later destroyed by a ship with the same PS?

Quickshot can have the same issue. With how the rules are currently written, any attack taken during a round would satisfy the "opportunity to attack" that simultaneous fire is looking for.

This devolved into useful information. Can we get back to the namecalling and bickering at hand please?