So if the ATST already has Arsenal 2, how does Weiss help until we get the Tanks from Rogue 1?

It says so literally in the article. You add the value, so it becomes Arsenal 4.

While their articles often get things wrong, we can safely assume this one is accurate in this regard. Otherwise, FFG will have released a card that is literally unusable (the AT-ST is the only unit that can equip Weiss at this point).

They said in many demos (including from the lead designer) that keywords like that are additive. So, as Tareq said, it becomes Arsenal 4 when Weiss is activated.

33 minutes ago, Lickintoad said:

They said in many demos (including from the lead designer) that keywords like that are additive. So, as Tareq said, it becomes Arsenal 4 when Weiss is activated.

Exactly this. All keywords add. It's the same reason why you might put Tageting Scopes (which give Precise 1) to Stormtroopers (who have Precise 1) - because it becomes Precise 2.

Arsenal is just a little weird about this because Arsenal 1 wouldn't do anything at all unless it stacked with something else.

It says in the article that ATST with weiss gets ARSENAL 4. How can you miss?

It works similar to Runewars where it becomes Arsenal 4 as many people have pointed out.

With Arsenal does each weapon need to fire separately? Or for example could the 88 twin LBC fire at the same time as the DW-3 CGL at the same target?

10 minutes ago, Timinater said:

With Arsenal does each weapon need to fire separately? Or for example could the 88 twin LBC fire at the same time as the DW-3 CGL at the same target?

They can fire at the same target, but at present we don’t know if they roll separately or all together.

My gut feel based on other FFG games is separately, but there are differing views.

The only way to fire the mortar and another weapon at the same target is if the target is overlapping the 3-4 range band. And then, the grenade launcher wouldn't reach, as it's 1-2. So, yeah. You'd need to be able to target separate units with each weapon. But, I assume that, if you target the same ... uh ... target, then you could roll them together.

On 1/13/2018 at 9:41 AM, Soulless said:

It says in the article that ATST with weiss gets ARSENAL 4. How can you miss?

It's a very awkward rule to assume that all combined effects are additive, because the ARSENAL rule says that you an only fire "up to" the number of weapons specified. In most games, that would be an absolute limit. In most games (especially the existing Star Wars miniatures games), the card would have to read "This model increases its ARSENAL value by 2. If it does not have an ARSENAL value, the model becomes ARSENAL 2."

On 1/13/2018 at 2:45 PM, Lickintoad said:

The only way to fire the mortar and another weapon at the same target is if the target is overlapping the 3-4 range band. And then, the grenade launcher wouldn't reach, as it's 1-2. So, yeah. You'd need to be able to target separate units with each weapon. But, I assume that, if you target the same ... uh ... target, then you could roll them together.

Well, a spread out unit could be easily hit with weapons at different bands. For example, if a unit of 3 models had one at range 3, one at range 4, and one model partially in both range bands. This would be a fairly common situation if units are getting stacked up against cover, as a flanking unit could catch targets in a line.

Should we be expecting any other Imperial Assault characters ending up in Legion? Get some Fenn or Mak action happening (Mak might be worth a few extra points in a larger scale game where his wicked mad sniper skills can shine).

2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

It's a very awkward rule to assume that all combined effects are additive, because the ARSENAL rule says that you an only fire "up to" the number of weapons specified. In most games, that would be an absolute limit. In most games (especially the existing Star Wars miniatures games), the card would have to read "This model increases its ARSENAL value by 2. If it does not have an ARSENAL value, the model becomes ARSENAL 2."

I think it's just awkward because we aren't actually playing the game yet. Like anything else, the rules will become second nature as we spend more time with them.

Also, remember in FFG's games, the text explaining the rule has always been reminder text, not the complete rules explanation.

3 hours ago, Dr Lucky said:

I think it's just awkward because we aren't actually playing the game yet. Like anything else, the rules will become second nature as we spend more time with them.

Also, remember in FFG's games, the text explaining the rule has always been reminder text, not the complete rules explanation.

Yes, but it's also typically used very specific language, so that each upgrade card can be read essentially as a math formula. Which is really what it is. The difference is that most cards tell you which math to apply by the language they use. In this case, the math is presented in a way that is potentially unclear unless you have the core rule directly in front of you.

3 hours ago, TheEldarGuy said:

Should we be expecting any other Imperial Assault characters ending up in Legion? Get some Fenn or Mak action happening (Mak might be worth a few extra points in a larger scale game where his wicked mad sniper skills can shine).

I'm a little surprised at that, actually. For a commander, I'm surprised they didn't go with General Veers who wears essentially the same uniform and, critically, actually appeared in the films. Where he leads a successful ground invasion, no less!

Probably because Veers was the next Commander unit and they didn't want people having to choose between running him as CO or as pilot this early in the game.

1 hour ago, thecactusman17 said:

I'm a little surprised at that, actually. For a commander, I'm surprised they didn't go with General Veers who wears essentially the same uniform and, critically, actually appeared in the films. Where he leads a successful ground invasion, no less!

I'm pretty happy about it. Veers rode in an AT-AT, which, despite the wishes of many people, I don't think will be making an appearance in this game. Not at the tournament level, anyway. Veers' AT-AT is very well represented by his Maximum Firepower card, which serves as a good approximation of an AT-AT firing weapons into the skirmish.

I'm glad they've broken into the IA world, as there's a lot there that can be used that may or may not be "canon" stuff. ISB Infiltrators and so on. Weiss' appearance means they're going to be looking outside canon for more ideas, and that means more choices for the game in the long run, so it's not just Rebel troopers vs. Stormtroopers all the time. Later on, anyway.

3 hours ago, Lickintoad said:

I'm pretty happy about it. Veers rode in an AT-AT, which, despite the wishes of many people, I don't think will be making an appearance in this game. Not at the tournament level, anyway. Veers' AT-AT is very well represented by his Maximum Firepower card, which serves as a good approximation of an AT-AT firing weapons into the skirmish.

I'm glad they've broken into the IA world, as there's a lot there that can be used that may or may not be "canon" stuff. ISB Infiltrators and so on. Weiss' appearance means they're going to be looking outside canon for more ideas, and that means more choices for the game in the long run, so it's not just Rebel troopers vs. Stormtroopers all the time. Later on, anyway.

Except that Veers isn't just "that guy who rides in an AT-AT." He's the only Imperial recognized as a General in the entire original trilogy. He's on direct speaking terms with Vader. And to boot, the actor has appeared in several other fan-favorite films and TV hows.

And did I mention that he is a real film character who's actor appeared in at least 4 major film franchises (Star Wars, James Bond, Indiana Jones and Game of Thrones)? Wearing the exact same uniform? Perhaps if they couldn't use his face they could at leas use the character name.

5 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Except that Veers isn't just "that guy who rides in an AT-AT." He's the only Imperial recognized as a General in the entire original trilogy. He's on direct speaking terms with Vader. And to boot, the actor has appeared in several other fan-favorite films and TV hows.

And did I mention that he is a real film character who's actor appeared in at least 3 major film franchises (Star Wars, James Bond, and Game of Thrones)? Wearing the exact same uniform? Perhaps if they couldn't use his face they could at leas use the character name.

He's already a commander, so I have no real idea what you're asking for. He doesn't need to be riding around in an AT-ST to command. The whole point is to have a commander that costs less than Vader.

11 hours ago, TheEldarGuy said:

(Mak might be worth a few extra points in a larger scale game where his wicked mad sniper skills can shine).

Oh Pleeeeeaseee!!! Mak was the first model I picked up and played.

Although, with the rumoured Bothan changes (apparently they disappeared from RPG reprints or something), I would not bank on it too soon.

I foresee maybe a community project for including IA characters? I'd wanna see a few more releases first though. To get a feel for how they want to approach more skills, key words, and abilities.

16 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

It's a very awkward rule to assume that all combined effects are additive, because the ARSENAL rule says that you an only fire "up to" the number of weapons specified. In most games, that would be an absolute limit. In most games (especially the existing Star Wars miniatures games), the card would have to read "This model increases its ARSENAL value by 2. If it does not have an ARSENAL value, the model becomes ARSENAL 2."

I agree that it is an awkward wording but there is no assuming to be done here since the article states specifically that with weiss the ATST gets ARSENAL 4.

We don't have the RRG so we can't really know the rules will be additive or not additive. Granted, Alex Davy already confirmed the numbers are additive so it's a moot point to argue that they are not.

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

We don't have the RRG so we can't really know the rules will be additive or not additive. Granted, Alex Davy already confirmed the numbers are additive so it's a moot point to argue that they are not.

I am too used to Flames of War - the game designer never got the rules right.

21 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

We don't have the RRG so we can't really know the rules will be additive or not additive. Granted, Alex Davy already confirmed the numbers are additive so it's a moot point to argue that they are not.

The devil's advocate argument is that rules Precise has the word "additional" or Cover "improve by", which would stack intuitively regardless. Whereas Arsenal doesn't have any phrasing like that.

Not that I believe that, that's just what the argument is. Every [Rule] X keyword has a digit in its rules text matching X, so it's pretty clear to me the intent is those digits always correspond to your total value for X.