15 minutes ago, jagsba said:

yeah, but that's another ship and an action. We're talking about an upgrade where he still gets to lock on offense and just burns force to mod blanks on defense.

One blank. If he rolls zero evades. And he's not in the bullseye.

27 minutes ago, jagsba said:

but the ability to turn blank blank focus into two evades is still crazy good.

Would you says it's almost ... Brilliant?

And, just to point it out, this upgrade is not turning [blank][blank][eyeball] into two [evades]. It's turning one into one. The other [evade] is coming from somewhere else.

I mean, if the upgrade doesn't actually sometimes provide a desperate [evade] result ... then why take it? I don't have a real solid idea of cost -- mainly because I don't have a good way to quantify how much "not being in bullsye] is worth" -- but as written, on a three-AGI ship, it will trigger right around one-fourth of the time.

But okay, I kinda get the concern, so how about, "If you do, you may not spend a focus or calculate token to modify [eyeball] results."

Anyway, if y'all're really interested, we can take it out of the thread. This has actually been a little helpful to my inquiry ... I'm starting to suspect that Brilliant Evasion probably did not start off as sucking so much; it was likely nerfed into the ground by committee.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

One blank. If he rolls zero evades. And he's not in the bullseye.

Would you says it's almost ... Brilliant?

And, just to point it out, this upgrade is not turning [blank][blank][eyeball] into two [evades]. It's turning one into one. The other [evade] is coming from somewhere else.

yeah, all of this is under the presumption that i have another way to mod focus results (luke has a second force to use, all force users have a regular action)

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I mean, if the upgrade doesn't actually sometimes provide a desperate [evade] result ... then why take it? I don't have a real solid idea of cost -- mainly because I don't have a good way to quantify how much "not being in bullsye] is worth" -- but as written, on a three-AGI ship, it will trigger right around one-fourth of the time.

and on a 2 agi ship it triggers around 40% of the time. and only a small percent is double focus where it wouldn't matter.

It's basically a better purple evade (same result, more limited use, but doesn't take an action and you get to decide when to spend the cost).

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

But okay, I kinda get the concern, so how about, "If you do, you may not spend a focus or calculate token to modify [eyeball] results."

then its basically heroic lite, and still pretty **** good.

7 minutes ago, jagsba said:

and on a 2 agi ship it triggers around 40% of the time. and only a small percent is double focus where it wouldn't matter.

6% ain't nothing. Takes it down to about one time in three?

Quote

It's basically a better purple evade (same result, more limited use, but doesn't take an action and you get to decide when to spend the cost).

then its basically heroic lite, and still pretty **** good.

Agreed. I'm okay with both of those things, pretty sure.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Those of y'all buying into @Brunas' argument probably shouldn't get too comfortable with it. (And please don't propagate it!) It won't play out that way if it gets FAQed.

That's fine, you can disagree, run your events however you'd like.

It's dishonest (or breaking NDA if you happen to have access to said knowledge) as to whether or not it will certainly be ruled a certain way though, so don't do that.

Thankfully this interaction is pretty rare so it probably doesn't matter much that there's disagreement though.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

Thankfully this interaction is pretty rare so it probably doesn't matter much that there's disagreement though.

Padme vs CLT could DEFINITELY happen at my event tomorrow...

3 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

Padme vs CLT could DEFINITELY happen at my event tomorrow...

Yeah as a CLT player and Padme still having that new ship smell, its pretty common matchup.

Dice can be modified in the following ways:
Add: To add a die result, place an unused die displaying the result next
to the rolled dice. 

My take: What's being modified is "an unused die", not an eyeball.

Besides, how weird would it be if Padme hard countered CLT

16 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's dishonest (or breaking NDA if you happen to have access to said knowledge) as to whether or not it will certainly be ruled a certain way though, so don't do that.

(1) I'm not under FFG NDA, but having once been under FFG NDA, I do have some insight into how these types of questions go. (2) Nothing is certain, but unless FFG is prepared to explain how one is modifying an [eyeball] result that doesn't exist (and they aren't), I'm pretty comfortable with saying it won't be ruled the way you're saying. (3) Has "distinguishing between fact and opinion" been removed from elementary school curricula? (Serious question; it wouldn't surprise me at all if the answer is yes.)

Is it super relevant? If you roll a focus, you can add one but the net result is the same after you spend a force/ focus - you turn 1 of them. If you don’t roll a focus, you can add a focus result, then spend a force/token to change it - you are still modding that same result. It doesn’t say you can only modify it once.

Outstanding question for me ... if I roll a focus and TL reroll it into another focus, is it the same focus result, or a different one.

Its like inception, but with weighted dice.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

One blank. If he rolls zero evades. And he's not in the bullseye.

Would you says it's almost ... Brilliant?

And, just to point it out, this upgrade is not turning [blank][blank][eyeball] into two [evades]. It's turning one into one. The other [evade] is coming from somewhere else.

I mean, if the upgrade doesn't actually sometimes provide a desperate [evade] result ... then why take it? I don't have a real solid idea of cost -- mainly because I don't have a good way to quantify how much "not being in bullsye] is worth" -- but as written, on a three-AGI ship, it will trigger right around one-fourth of the time.

But okay, I kinda get the concern, so how about, "If you do, you may not spend a focus or calculate token to modify [eyeball] results."

Anyway, if y'all're really interested, we can take it out of the thread. This has actually been a little helpful to my inquiry ... I'm starting to suspect that Brilliant Evasion probably did not start off as sucking so much; it was likely nerfed into the ground by committee.

I posted the same thing a few pages back (BE should have been defensive AO) and got told I need to just purple evade

Yeah, I'd say it should prevent more mods and cost 2. Strictly worse than Heroic (on defense), only for defense, negated by bullseye, and twice the cost, but gives an option to prevent the dreaded CLT 1-shot and corresponding NPE

45 minutes ago, prauxim said:

Yeah as a CLT player and Padme still having that new ship smell, its pretty common matchup.

Dice can be modified in the following ways:
Add: To add a die result, place an unused die displaying the result next
to the rolled dice. 

My take: What's being modified is "an unused die", not an eyeball.

Besides, how weird would it be if Padme hard countered CLT

I'm tentatively on board with brunas now. Imagine this:

There are several types of dice modifications, including changing, rerolling, and splorging. Padme says you cannot modify more than one focus result. CLT tells you to splorg a focus result. After you've splorged the CLT focus result, you cannot modify any more focus results.

5 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

I'm tentatively on board with brunas now. Imagine this:

There are several types of dice modifications, including changing, rerolling, and splorging. Padme says you cannot modify more than one focus result. CLT tells you to splorg a focus result. After you've splorged the CLT focus result, you cannot modify any more focus results.

Easiest solution is just don't be in padmes arc and none of it matters

...4head

9 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

There are several types of dice modifications, including changing, rerolling, and splorging. Padme says you cannot modify more than one focus result. CLT tells you to splorg a focus result. After you've splorged the CLT focus result, you cannot modify any more focus results.

No, CLT tells you to splorg a result, and part of splorging a result is picking a face to be displaying after you splorg it. "Splorg an [eyeball] result" is simply a shorter way of writing, "splorg a result, and then follow the rules for splorging a result by turning one face upward."

There is no [eyeball] result until after the dice-add modification has occurred.

@Ablazoned, you have been Jedi mind-tricked, hard.

Are we doing rules shenanigans?

What exactly is a "Game Effect"?

There are multiple cards that reference "game effect(s)" but the term is never defined explicitly.

Is 'being on a rock' a "game effect"? Is spending a target lock a "game effect"? Is having a primary weapon value of 3 a "game effect"?

15 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Are we doing rules shenanigans?

What exactly is a "Game Effect"?

There are multiple cards that reference "game effect(s)" but the term is never defined explicitly.

Is 'being on a rock' a "game effect"? Is spending a target lock a "game effect"? Is having a primary weapon value of 3 a "game effect"?

No, the rules are a sacred text which contain no errors and can't be interpreted.

Are RAWers the young Earth creationists of xwing?

15 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, CLT tells you to splorg a result, and part of splorging a result is picking a face to be displaying after you splorg it. "Splorg an [eyeball] result" is simply a shorter way of writing, "splorg a result, and then follow the rules for splorging a result by turning one face upward."

There is no [eyeball] result until after the dice-add modification has occurred.

@Ablazoned, you have been Jedi mind-tricked, hard.

Everyone gets both sides of this now. I don't know why you want to fight over it so badly. There's some confusion. FFG should probably clarify. Camp A thinks it should work one way, camp B another. FFG will arbitrarily pick one, and one side will be accidentally correct.

For what it's worth, I didn't even realize this was a point of confusion or debate until @Ablazoned's original response. I went and asked other people who care too much about the rules as a sanity check - they agreed with me, but I (and they) don't speak for FFG. Seriously, this is one of the last impactful rules confusions in the game. Your disagree with me - that's fine, your opinion is reasonable.

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, CLT tells you to splorg a result, and part of splorging a result is picking a face to be displaying after you splorg it. "Splorg an [eyeball] result" is simply a shorter way of writing, "splorg a result, and then follow the rules for splorging a result by turning one face upward."

There is no [eyeball] result until after the dice-add modification has occurred.

@Ablazoned, you have been Jedi mind-tricked, hard.

The text of CLT says "add a [eyeball] result".

14 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

The text of CLT says "add a [eyeball] result".

Yes. So what? It has to specify some kind of result ultimately ends up in the dice-pool, because that's how adding a dice result works. They could say, if they really, really wanted to be pedantic, "Add a die to the dice-pool, and then turn the [eyeball] symbol up on that die." That's how dice-adding works in the game, by the rules, right? Instead, simply to save characters, they're specifying how the dice-add modification ultimately should display in the dice pool: as an [eyeball] result.

You are adding a result (which is a modification), then showing the [eyeball] side of the resultant die (which isn't a modification). Ultimately, because of a dice modification, there is an [eyeball] result in the dice pool. That does not -- in any way, shape, or form -- mean than an [eyeball] has been modified. Padme has nada to say about it.

This is so surreal. You guys are literally claiming the modification of a die result that doesn't yet exist. You really, truly don't think that's bizarre?

I'm not making a stand on this hill because this hill is important, @Brunas; I'm making a stand on this hill because the attackers of it are utterly fascinating.

5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This is so surreal. You guys are literally claiming the modification of a die result that doesn't yet exist. You really, truly don't think that's bizarre?

I did not realize my activities today would include trying to find a way to make an "unborn focus termination but only in the first trimester" joke without getting banned from the forums, but here we are.

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I did not realize my activities today would include trying to find a way to make an "unborn focus termination but only in the first trimester" joke without getting banned from the forums, but here we are.

FWIW, I wouldn't hit "Report."

7 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I did not realize my activities today would include trying to find a way to make an "unborn focus termination but only in the first trimester" joke without getting banned from the forums, but here we are.

place an unused die displaying the result next
to the rolled dice. 

It exists, its just "in reserves"

It's admittedly awkward, but you are arguing that a modification of an eyeball can result in an eyeball

1 minute ago, prauxim said:

It's admittedly awkward, but you are arguing that a modification of an eyeball can result in an eyeball

(FWIW, it can. See any form of re-roll.)

Performing an attack is not specified when it occurs in the rules reference. It just talks a bit about theme (which doesn't matter for RAW). Therefore, when I roll the die for Porkins' ability, if I verbally go through the steps of declaring the target (myself) etc., it's an attack. Porkins is in his own bullseye, since he is range 0 of himself and things can be in your bullseye at range 0. Furthermore, the bullseye is printed on his cardboard base so he must be inside it. Therefore, if I equip Marksmanship to Porkins, every time I use his ability and roll a hit I may change it to a crit and never suffer damage with him ever.

I'm two standard deviations above average height so you have to accept this from me.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

(2) Nothing is certain, but unless FFG is prepared to explain how one is modifying an [eyeball] result that doesn't exist (and they aren't)

This is the root of the disagreement - you're adding additional English meaning to the definition of "modify" in the rules. Perhaps that is intended, but perhaps it is not. Certainly no one has explained to me (a fluent English speaker! :P) how "spending" is "modifying" a result either, but the rules say that it is so cool I guess.

Quote

(3) Has "distinguishing between fact and opinion" been removed from elementary school curricula? (Serious question; it wouldn't surprise me at all if the answer is yes.)

Pretty sure he was telling you the hyperbole is unnecessary... and I'll add condescension to that list I guess

Clearly a bunch of us have come to different conclusions on this one, so it needs clarification one way or another. The way the rules are written now I'd definitely rule it the same way as @Brunas if it came up, and I came to that conclusion independently. A bunch of others would rule it the other way. Being charitable, I'm assuming no one has a vested interest in either ruling this time around because indeed it's somewhat edge case and I don't think any of us are flying Padme anyways...

Thus let's just submit it to both FFG and the judge Illuminati and see what they say - cool? As @Brunas noted both will make arbitrary choices, attach arbitrary "justifications" to them to make it sound like anyone could have reasoned it out and one side will arbitrarily declare their reasoning was correct. And so it goes...

7 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I'm two standard deviations above average height so you have to accept this from me.

Really? Because I'm 6'5", well over 300 pounds, and built like a truck.

... Sigh.

11 minutes ago, punkUser said:

Thus let's just submit it to both FFG and the judge Illuminati and see what they say - cool?

Is there even an official channel to do that?

Remember that Nien's time in the meta came, went, and was over for 6 months before FFG ruled multiple tokens are dealt individually, during which time we had the Illuminati's (wrong) interpretation