Holy heck you're taking a loose interpretation of the ability queue. The removal of tokens and renewal of charges are game effects. Things that happen from player abilities are processed afterwards. What is so hard to consider about that? Did one of your fellows rules lawyer "is" to mean "not" or something?

11 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Double reinforce - weird. I guess you could reinforce front and back every other turn? Feels bad when they attack from on your middle line and ignore both tokens. Also feels bad when they don't. Bad all around.

Not quite - you can actually have two front reinforce tokens. For example, let's say it were the case that tokens were cleared before timing of Baffle triggers.

1. A friendly ship locks Tavson

2. <regular turn stuff>

3. End of Turn Begins

4. Round Tokens are removed

5. Baffle Triggers - tavson takes a damage and chooses to front reinforce.

6. <planning/activation phase starts>

7. Tavson takes an action. He already has a front reinforce token from the previous end phase. He chooses to front reinforce as he hasn't done it yet this turn.

Yes, two reinforce tokens mean you cancel (up to) 2 damage per shot.

10 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Holy heck you're taking a loose interpretation of the ability queue. The removal of tokens and renewal of charges are game effects. Things that happen from player abilities are processed afterwards. What is so hard to consider about that? Did one of your fellows rules lawyer "is" to mean "not" or something?

I think I may have been a bit unclear. I'm not taking any interpretation of the ability queue here. What I'm (attempting) to argue is looking through the ability queue to figure out what happens during clean up in the end phase is a bit like deep diving into the offsides rules during a time-out.

I'm much more familiar with the ability queue than I would ever want to inflict on any other human - the argument is not that "the ability queue dictates you do X" it's "using the ability queue in this circumstance breaks the game". Since we all start with the basic assumption that the game isn't broken, we can't use certain parts of the ability queue rules during the end phase - much like we don't use the ability queue rules during modifying attack dice.

5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I'm much more familiar with the ability queue than I would ever want to inflict on any other human - the argument is not that "the ability queue dictates you do X" it's "using the ability queue in this circumstance breaks the game". Since we all start with the basic assumption that the game isn't broken, we can't use certain parts of the ability queue rules during the end phase - much like we don't use the ability queue rules during modifying attack dice.

That smells like an assumption that FFG didn't intend Tav and QD to work the way they should RAW per the ability queue in the End Phase. Have they communicated this to you guys directly?

55 minutes ago, Brunas said:

No - giving your opponent first player, so their tokens are cleared first, then you baffle quickdraw to perform an attack with juke is scary. Tavson baffling after tokens are removed and reinforcing, to then reinforce the next turn as well to have a double reinforced upsilon is scary.

Even with 4 pts Juke, this QD never worked for me as well as other QD's. There are a lot of things that have to go right to trigger this circumstantial dream. It can be worked out, and it's apocalyptic when it does, especially against a non-force sensitive phantom, but you're better off with just Fanatical, Crackshot, or empty talent.

I think of the build as a noob-crusher, but shooting yourself in the foot against good players. Did I also mention Juke is 7 pts and Obi Wan and other force users are in the game?

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Not quite - you can actually have two front reinforce tokens. For example, let's say it were the case that tokens were cleared before timing of Baffle triggers.

1. A friendly ship locks Tavson

2. <regular turn stuff>

3. End of Turn Begins

4. Round Tokens are removed

5. Baffle Triggers - tavson takes a damage and chooses to front reinforce.

6. <planning/activation phase starts>

7. Tavson takes an action. He already has a front reinforce token from the previous end phase. He chooses to front reinforce as he hasn't done it yet this turn.

Yes, two reinforce tokens mean you cancel (up to) 2 damage per shot.

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I understood the implications of 2 front reinforce tokens, and how you'd get there, but it's only going to matter when you have at least 3 damage coming in and you also don't roll a natural evade. So, even when your opponent rolls 3 hits, the second reinforce only matters 62% of the time.

So, definitely concerning, but not at the point where I'm ready to PANIC!!. (I would have been there for double reinforce in 1.0). They could (and should) probably amend the rules to say that Reinforce tokens do not stack.

Amusingly the dice calculator does not allow double reinforce. @punkUser, was this intentional, a weird edge case you didn't consider, or just too difficult to code?

2 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

That smells like an assumption that FFG didn't intend Tav and QD to work the way they should RAW per the ability queue in the End Phase. Have they communicated this to you guys directly?

No? Why would they? I'm not sure what you're going for here.

They also didn't communicate that player dice modification isn't subject to the ability queue. There's a large set of ways the game breaks (unrelated to this), it's been more or less up to us the community to sort through reasonable ways to navigate those situations. This is one of them. Everyone doesn't agree with the solution to the problem, which is fine of course. I just use the system open rulings because I haven't seen an obvious way to break it, and no one else has. If someone did find an issue with it, it would be time to revisit and repair.

It's not always as simple as "RAW and ability queue say X". Again, this is separate from the "RAW isn't the way to go" stance. The game just breaks in scenarios like these - you get round tokens persisting between rounds, player order determining things like token removal order, it's just a huge messy landmine. The rules aren't perfect, but they mostly work.

I'm not sure which statements you disagree with. Do you disagree with the rules having mistakes, or that this particular interaction is a mistake? Or something else? I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm not clear what the stance is.

5 minutes ago, Hoarder of Garlic Bread said:

Did I also mention Juke is 7 pts and Obi Wan and other force users are in the game?

1 minute ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I understood the implications of 2 front reinforce tokens, and how you'd get there, but it's only going to matter when you have at least 3 damage coming in and you also don't roll a natural evade. So, even when your opponent rolls 3 hits, the second reinforce only matters 62% of the time.

So, definitely concerning, but not at the point where I'm ready to PANIC!!. (I would have been there for double reinforce in 1.0). They could (and should) probably amend the rules to say that Reinforce tokens do not stack.

Oh I agree - it's just usually that carrying over round tokens between turns (which are cleared at the end of every round) is generally enough to convince people that these weird edge cases aren't intended to work. I agree, the double reinforce probably isn't the best use of a TO foolish enough to let you do this. Ironically enough, Hux probably is - or double evade quickdraw?

2 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Amusingly the dice calculator does not allow double reinforce. @punkUser, was this intentional, a weird edge case you didn't consider, or just too difficult to code?

IT USED TO
I ADDED IT AND HE TOOK IT OUT

COLLUSION

7 minutes ago, Brunas said:

The game just breaks in scenarios like these - 1. you get round tokens persisting between rounds, 2. player order determining things like token removal order, 3. it's just a huge messy landmine.

1. What causes you to think this isn't supposed to be part of Tavson's ability?

2. Player 1 removes their round tokens, Player 2 removes theirs, and then player abilities kick in. What's so confusing about that?

3. Built on the group think assumption that it "shouldn't" work that way...

I've always been really confused how a System Open can be two weeks away and no one knows what they might win.

2 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I've always been really confused how a System Open can be two weeks away and no one knows what they might win.

13 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Oh I agree - it's just usually that carrying over round tokens between turns (which are cleared at the end of every round) is generally enough to convince people that these weird edge cases aren't intended to work. I agree, the double reinforce probably isn't the best use of a TO foolish enough to let you do this. Ironically enough, Hux probably is - or double evade quickdraw?

Just now, RStan said:

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

The only fair way to do Tavson/Baffle is the way system opens have been. That is to say yes, you can baffle then immediately recover the charge.

The alternatives are much scarier: Quickdraw gets to baffle with an evade token, but after your opponent has cleared tokens so you start taking juke shots into ships that are guaranteed to not have tokens. Or, Tavson starts carrying over round tokens into the next turn.

I got tagged, someone else answered for me (same team!) but this is what my personal answer is as well.

What if we had a way to get an answer, like with a question form or something? that'd be pretty neat right?

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

25 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

1. What causes you to think this isn't supposed to be part of Tavson's ability?

2. Player 1 removes their round tokens, Player 2 removes theirs, and then player abilities kick in. What's so confusing about that?

3. Built on the group think assumption that it "shouldn't" work that way...

1. TO intuition. Entirely subjective. Unfortunately, there's a lot of calls you have to make like this. It's natural that people are going to disagree on most cases. This is the first disagreement I've heard on the end phase timings, but unfortunately there's no "governing body"/standard for all of this. There was an attempt to create one - everyone saw how well it worked.

2. It's not that it's confusing. It's that there's a large set of interactions that break (or appear to break) the core game rules when this works. Similarly, requiring players to modify their dice using the ability queue wasn't confusing. It just "broke" a lot of card interactions similarly.

3. I'm not sure what the group think is here. My interactions/discussions with others on this subject (outside of this passing comments) is:

• Reached out to Iain before the first system open after wave 2 to let him know of the potential incoming dumpster fire. I don't even think I passed along a recommendation, just a "hey heads up, this is likely going to be an issue"
• Used the system open rules for Krayt Cup - no one brought up any problems or disagreements.
• Made fun of the Canada Grand Championship for ruling the opposite way and having to deal with the resulting dumpster fire(s)
• This conversation

My point is, I'm not sure where the "group think" assumption comes from. My thoughts on this are pretty squarely my own, and while I know people tend to use some of my rulings as such, I don't think I'm part of some echo chamber. My personal understanding is most people seeing that situation instinctively think allowing round tokens to persist between rounds is an oversight, but that might not be the case.

For my own curiosity, how divisive is this issue? https://strawpoll.com/phxw89y2

21 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

What if we had a way to get an answer, like with a question form or something? that'd be pretty neat right?

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

FFG's "rules responses by dumpster fire" doesn't appear to be listed, but is definitely the most successful way to get rulings...

1 hour ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Ultimately it's a game of plastic spaceships and there's no money on the line. If the TO wants to Declare how something works, I either have to accept it or go home.

Meekly ofc

1 hour ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that I haven't seen more of this in FO play, given that Tavson is a known staple. Has Dion been deep-stating by suppressing this from game streams?

If you look at the numbers it's really just that they're not being played. They absolutely suppressed swarm games due to them being a pain on the **** to stream though

Just now, jagsba said:

Meekly ofc

Is there another way?

Baffle wasn't hyperspace legal for a while after the upsilon came out. It only released back into the pool after everyone decided FO was DOA

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

This is the first disagreement I've heard on the end phase timings

Interesting. Quite a few of us pointed out the issue when the Unofficial Rulings were first made public back in Dec/Jan.

5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I'm not sure what the group think is here.

The ruling was made and has been maintained by a "loose" group of TO's/Judges who decided, either via discussing directly with each other or for signing off on it and enforcing it, that as written it was "broken". That fits group think.

9 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's not that it's confusing. It's that there's a large set of interactions that break (or appear to break) the core game rules when this works. Similarly, requiring players to modify their dice using the ability queue wasn't confusing. It just "broke" a lot of card interactions similarly.

Exactly how?

Just now, Brunas said:

Baffle wasn't hyperspace legal for a while after the upsilon came out. It only released back into the pool after everyone decided FO was DOA

Biohexacryptical

Just now, Hiemfire said:

The ruling was made and has been maintained by a "loose" group of TO's/Judges who decided, either via discussing directly with each other or for signing off on it and enforcing it, that as written it was "broken". That fits group think.

As an etiquette thing, this comes off as a little ad hominem. Any decision made by a group of people with experience and knowledge can't be called group think without making the term meaningless.

Just now, PaulRuddSays said:

this comes off as a little ad hominem.

🤨 Not my intention.

18 minutes ago, Brunas said:

FFG's "rules responses by dumpster fire" doesn't appear to be listed, but is definitely the most successful way to get rulings...

Big Sad Agree. However, after some of my interactions with various people I also think that form is broken, but I have no way to verify / test it.

42 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Interesting. Quite a few of us pointed out the issue when the Unofficial Rulings were first made public back in Dec/Jan.

That's what I mean though, that ruling wasn't new then. It wasn't even "in" the unofficial rulings - it was just "also here's the stuff from the system open". Now that I think about it, I've never looked through the final/public "unofficial" rulings, so maybe it was just copy/pasted from the system open stuff?

42 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

The ruling was made and has been maintained by a "loose" group of TO's/Judges who decided, either via discussing directly with each other or for signing off on it and enforcing it, that as written it was "broken". That fits group think.

Yeah, I was going to say - this was actually a straight unilateral decision from the system opens. There's some wink wink nudge nudge that it came from discussion with FFG, but I don't have any information that that's actually the case.

44 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Exactly how?

These exact situations are the ones I was concerned about, but how had me curious so I went around and double checked for other cards that use recurring charges to keep state. There's suprisingly few (outside of force users), but almost all of them are going to be in similar scenarios.

Just a random example: Baffle Quickdraw attacks an ARC with palpatine that already spent their force this turn. The timing for force regen/attack will matter there for whether or not you can stress quickdraw. I would argue that it is unintuitive/unintended/broken that the ARC can spend a force during engagement to stress quickdraw, regen the force in the end phase, then be attacked by quickdraw again and stress quickdraw again (and then carry over 0 force into the next turn). Really, all force users would regen force before baffle triggers my "the game is not working correctly" sense.

Baffle and Quickdraw/Tavson appear to be the place where it breaks core game rules the hardest - e.g. Hux in the end phase. I don't know for certain that that's the case, as I just took a cursory glance. Nym might be an issue, as well as Dooku crew, but I don't have time to go figure out weird things you can do with them at the moment.