Can Poe's ability change a focus result from R5-K6 to an evade if he uses a target lock to re roll in combat (and has a focus token).

12 hours ago, MrFeggins said:

Can Poe's ability change a focus result from R5-K6 to an evade if he uses a target lock to re roll in combat (and has a focus token).

I would be inclined to say no as Poe's ability is "While attacking or defending" and R5-K6 creates a dice roll outside of attacking or defending (as in the die is not part of the attack dice pool nor the defense dice pool). Even though you'll roll this die during the combat step it is not from, nor part of the actual instance of "attacking" or "defending."

I'd concur on the RAW - but equally, it absolutely wouldn't be broken for it to work that way IF you spend the lock when attacking, and my ruling would probably be what the hey, sure, go for it.

It definitely doesn't work if you spend it on Threat Tracker which is pretty likely to be one part of the source for the question.

1 hour ago, ZealuxMyr said:

I would be inclined to say no as Poe's ability is "While attacking or defending" and R5-K6 creates a dice roll outside of attacking or defending (as in the die is not part of the attack dice pool nor the defense dice pool). Even though you'll roll this die during the combat step it is not from, nor part of the actual instance of "attacking" or "defending."

I disagree.

“While attacking or defending,” is a timing window. It is not a stipulation that the focus result must be one of the dice rolled for their normal purpose. The timing window applies between steps 1-7 on the timing chart. As long as the triggering target lock was spent while Poe is the attacker or defender, the die roll for R5-K6 happens during the timing specified on Poe’s pilot ability.

I’m asserting the die rolled for R5-K6 can be legally modified by Poe. However, because of once per opportunity, using Poe in this way would prevent Poe from using his ability on the dice that matter most.

22 minutes ago, jmswood said:

I disagree.

“While attacking or defending,” is a timing window. It is not a stipulation that the focus result must be one of the dice rolled for their normal purpose. The timing window applies between steps 1-7 on the timing chart. As long as the triggering target lock was spent while Poe is the attacker or defender, the die roll for R5-K6 happens during the timing specified on Poe’s pilot ability.

I’m asserting the die rolled for R5-K6 can be legally modified by Poe. However, because of once per opportunity, using Poe in this way would prevent Poe from using his ability on the dice that matter most.

Theres no "modify results step" when resolving an ability like R5 K6, the result is whatever you roll.

it would be great to be able to sped a focus on those Lando rolls when I need a bunch of evades that turn but that aint gona happen.

36 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Theres no "modify results step" when resolving an ability like R5 K6, the result is whatever you roll.

This the most compelling argument I’ve seen, but we know from Palpatine and C-3PO that dice results can be modified without a modify dice step.

41 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

it would be great to be able to sped a focus on those Lando rolls when I need a bunch of evades that turn but that aint gona happen.

This is because of the rules for focus tokens, not the broader rules for dice modification. You can modify Lando’s roll with C-3PO.

1 hour ago, jmswood said:

This the most compelling argument I’ve seen, but we know from Palpatine and C-3PO that dice results can be modified without a modify dice step.

you at correct in that Palp and 3PO do modify dice outside of the modify steps, however both triggered abilities that trigger before dice are rolled and resolve their own effect within a tight timing window.

Poe's ability is not a triggered ability and is just like many other optional dice mods like RAC or predator where they are used in the dice modification step when attacking or defending. they are not triggered abilities and can be used in whatever order you like within the modification window.

Do I wish this worked? maybe but honestly Poe's 99.99% better off running R2D2 or R5-P9 anyways.

I'll say one thing: if you're able to modify this specific die, if the precedent of Poe stands, it wouldn't be limited to Poe and R5-K6.

The text of Poe's ability is similar to the text of the entry on Focus tokens in the Rules Reference (that and the FAQ are the definitive documents), in that it only specifies "when attacking or defending" as the timing window. The Rules Reference does specify whether you turn focus results to hit or evade results, but only based on the color of the die, not by whether they've been used in an attack. Likewise, you'd be able to reroll R5-K6's die with Lone Wolf (again, only specifies "when attacking or defending") if it rolled a blank.

It gets worse.

If a defender is dealt Major Explosion, it is handled in Step 7, which is still part of "an attack." If this were precedent, Lone Wolf could reroll a blank there. I can't imagine anyone would want to, but it'd still be a die rolled at some time during steps 2-7.

That seems so clearly outside of the scope as RAI, and the case for allowing Poe to modify this die doesn't seem stronger than the case against it, I'd rule against Poe modifying R5-K6. There's at least a little something to @jmswood 's take, I'd say, but not much. To me, it cuts at a question of the goal of rules interpretations. If we're looking to blow up the traditional understanding of the game based on a thin reed, we can do that. However, it seems, to use an excessive term, unethical. I think a better "judicial philosophy" would be that if RAI seems clear, if there's a strong-enough argument from the text of the cards, the Rules Reference and FAQ, and prior rulings, plus the argument against it isn't overwhelmingly strong, taking the interpretation closest to RAI seems wise. @ZealuxMyr 's take that "when attacking or defending" refers to dice rolled for the attack dice pool, or the defense dice pool, rather than dice which coincidentally are rolled seems like the sanest choice.

//

Either way, Lando crew wouldn't be effected, since his dice are not currently rolled during an attack. Even if you had something like Lando on Thane Kyrell, Thane's free action is still an "after" trigger, and thus no longer part of the attack.

I will concede my interpretation probably contradicts “rules as intended” with the caveat that RAI is an assumption, not a fact.

These are the facts:

”A card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card.” - This inherently means card abilities are resolved in specific timing windows.

”While attacking or defending,” Is the timing specified on Poe Dameron.

”After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.” Target locks are spent almost exclusively during the timing window of attacking.

The agregation of these facts, absent any assumption of intent, produces one “rules as written” solution: Poe can modify the die rolled for R5-K6 within the timing window specified on his card ability.

I freely acknowledge my simplistic RAW interpretation opens doors for other modifications such as those presented by @theBitterFig . The only things broken by my interpretation are convention and consensus. Neither of those things are inviolate. Arguments like “we’ve never done it that way” or “that’s not RAI” are subjective. They rarely hold water, though sometimes they should.

@MrFeggins If you are playing casually, do whatever you and your opponent can agree on. If you are playing competitively, make your case politely to an official. Accept the offical’s ruling, thank them for their time and get on with the game without flaunt or fuss.

Thank you for all your input. I agree with all that you have said and find it interesting that I'm not the only one who has interpreted the timing of Poe's ability in conjunction with out of turn effects.

This has cleared up my thinking and will talk to my opponent before hand if they agree to the combo working or not.

It is refreshing to see a civil conversation of rules interpretations. Thank you all.

10 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

It gets worse.

If a defender is dealt Major Explosion, it is handled in Step 7, which is still part of "an attack." If this were precedent, Lone Wolf could reroll a blank there. I can't imagine anyone would want to, but it'd still be a die rolled at some time during steps 2-7.

To this point: Boba Fett (scum) or Jess Pava would be able to reroll a hit result in an effort to avoid suffering an additional critical damage from the Major Explosion (TFA) card or an additional damage from the Minor Explosion (Original) card [provided their pilot abilities could trigger and resolve].

I've never seen anyone suggest that, but yeah, if this works for Poe, that should work for them as well.

And again, I don't think it would be too bad if it did.

9 hours ago, jmswood said:

I will concede my interpretation probably contradicts “rules as intended” with the caveat that RAI is an assumption, not a fact.

These are the facts:

”A card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card.” - This inherently means card abilities are resolved in specific timing windows.

”While attacking or defending,” Is the timing specified on Poe Dameron.

”After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.” Target locks are spent almost exclusively during the timing window of attacking.

The agregation of these facts, absent any assumption of intent, produces one “rules as written” solution: Poe can modify the die rolled for R5-K6 within the timing window specified on his card ability.

I freely acknowledge my simplistic RAW interpretation opens doors for other modifications such as those presented by @theBitterFig . The only things broken by my interpretation are convention and consensus. Neither of those things are inviolate. Arguments like “we’ve never done it that way” or “that’s not RAI” are subjective. They rarely hold water, though sometimes they should.

@MrFeggins If you are playing casually, do whatever you and your opponent can agree on. If you are playing competitively, make your case politely to an official. Accept the offical’s ruling, thank them for their time and get on with the game without flaunt or fuss.

I guess what I mean is that when we're looking at two different interpretations of RAW (RAW-1 which is more in line with conventional wisdom, and RAW-2 which isn't), our best guess at RAI and the broader impact to the game are worth considering. The relative strengths of RAW-1 and RAW-2 should be the biggest factor, but not the only factor. If RAW-2 has a strong enough case, yeah, convention and consensus can take a back seat, but philosophically I believe the RAW-2 case should be really strong for that to happen. When judging the rules in X-Wing, as in broader law in society, there are often competing interpretations of RAW. It isn't accurate that there is only "one 'rules as written' solution"--we're debating different RAW interpretations here, and each think our take is stronger. But there are two interpretations. Just like with the 'Deadeye spending focus to reroll dice' argument, there's not nothing here. There's at least something to the argument in both cases, but I think it's a bit of a stretch in either case.

It's kind of up to us as a community to decide whether we'll blow up the rules on a stretch. Modifying dice rolled during an attack which are not part of the attack doesn't necessarily seem unbalanced in game terms. However, they "break" the common understanding of the game.

//

Thanks @ZealuxMyr for the Boba/Jess. I figured there'd be something like that, but couldn't think of it last night.

@theBitterFig You assert there are 2 RAW interpretations in this case. I don’t see it that way. I see 1 RAW interpretation and 1 RAI interpretation.

Prohibiting the Poe/R5-K6 interaction relies on a generally accepted assumption that Poe’s pilot ability is limited to dice rolled for their standard purpose. Given Poe’s timing window, this assumption isn’t surprising because relatively few card abilities roll dice for a purpose other than resolving an attack, and even fewer do so during an attack. The communal assumption is strengthened by the scarcity of card abilities that modify dice rolled to resolve card abilities. The scarcity conditions players to assume non-standard dice rolls cannot be modified. This assumption might be Rules as Intended, but it is not Rules as Written.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

It's kind of up to us as a community to decide whether we'll blow up the rules on a stretch. Modifying dice rolled during an attack which are not part of the attack doesn't necessarily seem unbalanced in game terms. However, they "break" the common understanding of the game.

The community can drive the conversation, but rulings aren’t actually democratic unless it’s consensus between opponents at the same table. We can’t blow up rules that don’t exist. I’m not stretching. I’m exploring a technicality I was previously unaware of. It’s a thought experiment. I’ve gone through the Rules Reference and the FAQ with the intent of proving myself wrong. If I find something, I’ll post it here. I welcome your help in that endeavor. I’ve been wrong before, and I’m interested in reading any post that proves me wrong with actual rules text.

I haven't read all the discussion on this page, but it seems to me that the rules as written would preclude the suggestion made by the OP.

Reason: I believe the rules say that dice may only be modified during the actual attack and defense rolls, and nothing else, with only cards that explicitly say otherwise allowed to modify them at different times.

If I have totally missed the point of this discussion, sorry

1 minute ago, Infinite_Maelstrom said:

I believe the rules say that dice may only be modified during the actual attack and defense rolls, and nothing else, with only cards that explicitly say otherwise allowed to modify them at different times.

If the rules say any of the things you believe, then you should quote those rules with a citation. Since the start of this thread I searched the Rules Reference and FAQ repeatedly and fruitlessly. I’ve tried to prove myself wrong, and I’ve asked other people to do the same. We’re passing 15 posts in this topic and no one has quoted a rule that explicitly prohibits Poe from modifying R5-K6. I would if I could find it.

I feel like there are already other examples of things happening inside windows, but they escape me at the moment.

14 minutes ago, jmswood said:

If the rules say any of the things you believe, then you should quote those rules with a citation. Since the start of this thread I searched the Rules Reference and FAQ repeatedly and fruitlessly. I’ve tried to prove myself wrong, and I’ve asked other people to do the same. We’re passing 15 posts in this topic and no one has quoted a rule that explicitly prohibits Poe from modifying R5-K6. I would if I could find it.

That is a fair point. I will now need to spend several hours trying to find the particular rule I was thinking of...