1 hour ago, OMGBRICK said:

The fact that the Learn to Play guide is out and people are still able to justify both sides of the grenade argument with the rules is a testament to how poorly worded that section is.

I've noticed a few things like that. There is one point that heavily implies only leaders can make melee attacks

1 hour ago, OMGBRICK said:

@Orcdruid The fact that a lot of people are arguing that they don't stack - even with access to the guide - shows that its not clearly shown. Like I said earlier, I can see why you're interpreting it your way. I just happen to fall in the opposite camp. Looking forward to clarification in the RRG. Will be glad to field grenades either way (even more so if they stack).

Alternatively it demonstrates that many people have poor reading comprehension skills.

Key words are additive. Impact 1 + Impact 1 = Impact 2.

Each member of a unit may use one weapon in an attack, although all unique weapons must fire together, according to the advanced rules for splitting fire. That means each trooper who uses an impact grenade contributes 1 black die and which has the value of impact 1.

If 4 fire impact grenades they contribute impact 4 and 4 black dice to their target. If the 5th man target something else with an E-11 it doesn’t benefit from any of that Impact.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Alternatively it demonstrates that many people have poor reading comprehension skills.

Key words are additive. Impact 1 + Impact 1 = Impact 2.

Each member of a unit may use one weapon in an attack, although all unique weapons must fire together, according to the advanced rules for splitting fire. That means each trooper who uses an impact grenade contributes 1 black die and which has the value of impact 1.

If 4 fire impact grenades they contribute impact 4 and 4 black dice to their target. If the 5th man target something else with an E-11 it doesn’t benefit from any of that Impact.

Each unique weapon adds its keyword to the attack once. That means 5 minis using grenades only gets Impact 1. If multiple weapons have the same keyword, that is cumulative.

And if you have 4 grenades and 1 E-11, you can use the Impact for the attack on the E-11 die to change that white hit to a crit.

It's almost as if I got to see this work first hand and ask questions...

@Undeadguy In Derrault's scenario, the fifth man targeted something else with the E-11. So it WOULDN'T get the Impact correct? If it had been part of the same attack pool it WOULD get the Impact.

If we are going to interpret the LtP verbatim, which I think is a bad idea, the rules clearly state the following in bold:

Weapon keywords are cumulative, when performing an attack that includes two weapons that have the Impact 1 keyword, these two keywords combine to add up to Impact 2.

So I guess you can only ever stack 2 grenades per the rules.

1 minute ago, OMGBRICK said:

@Undeadguy In Derrault's scenario, the fifth man targeted something else with the E-11. So it WOULDN'T get the Impact correct? If it had been part of the same attack pool it WOULD get the Impact.

Yea, you can only use a weapon once when you take the attack action and those keywords don't transfer over to other attacks. But I don't see why would want to split fire if you only have a squad of 6 minis. Maybe if you have different ranges? Like the rocket launcher being 2-4 while E-11 is 1-3.

Interesting possibilities.

@Undeadguy My first thought would be to add suppression to more than one unit. Second thought would be because of range issues.

Just now, OMGBRICK said:

@Undeadguy My first thought would be to add suppression to more than one unit. Second thought would be because of range issues.

To generate suppression you have to roll a hit or crit I believe, but it doesn't have to deal wounds. So splitting Stormtroopers might be a bad idea

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

It's almost as if I got to see this work first hand and ask questions...

So this demo you went to was overseen by an FFG official who has access to special rules not yet posted for the rest of us?

16 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

So this demo you went to was overseen by an FFG official who has access to special rules not yet posted for the rest of us?

I'm not sure you meant that to sound as if there is NOT an entire rule book that has yet to be posted, but it is possible the full rules reference does a better job of explaining, and that document is not yet available to the general public.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

If we are going to interpret the LtP verbatim, which I think is a bad idea, the rules clearly state the following in bold:

Weapon keywords are cumulative, when performing an attack that includes two weapons that have the Impact 1 keyword, these two keywords combine to add up to Impact 2.

So I guess you can only ever stack 2 grenades per the rules.

No, per the rules on forming the attack pool, each mini gets its own weapon choice and adds that to the pool it’s going into. That means they are additive to impact X where x is the number of minis in the unit using grenades.

23 minutes ago, Derrault said:

No, per the rules on forming the attack pool, each mini gets its own weapon choice and adds that to the pool it’s going into. That means they are additive to impact X where x is the number of minis in the unit using grenades.

I disagree with your guess. Imma wait for further info from FFG. Good day.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I'm not sure you meant that to sound as if there is NOT an entire rule book that has yet to be posted, but it is possible the full rules reference does a better job of explaining, and that document is not yet available to the general public.

I know that the RRG isn't out to the pulic yet, so I doubt Spikey Bits has access to it. Therefore he would be using the same L2P guide as above.

9 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

I know that the RRG isn't out to the pulic yet, so I doubt Spikey Bits has access to it. Therefore he would be using the same L2P guide as above.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood your meaning.

This arguing about this is crazy to me. You believe what you believe he will believe what he'll believe and I will believe what I'll believe. We all understand the other's pov. However I would put money down that no one will be changing their mind until we hear it from the horses mouth. Unfortunately there is a chance it won't be in the rrg and we won't get an FAQ for 6 months

@Undeadguy The pics are beyond welcome. Thanks for saving my weekend!

It doesn't seem that same weapons stack keywords. In this demo video a unit of two speeder bikes shoots at an at-rt. Both bikes are firing the same weapon with impact 1. The guy running the demo explicitly states that the bikes only have impact 1. Happens around 13 minutes in.

56 minutes ago, dukncuver said:

It doesn't seem that same weapons stack keywords. In this demo video a unit of two speeder bikes shoots at an at-rt. Both bikes are firing the same weapon with impact 1. The guy running the demo explicitly states that the bikes only have impact 1. Happens around 13 minutes in.

He “explicitly” reads the attribute of the attack. You’re reading more into that than is warranted given that they were playing a stripped down version of the game.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

He “explicitly” reads the attribute of the attack. You’re reading more into that than is warranted given that they were playing a stripped down version of the game.

We can throw the same argument back at you. You are reading more into the learn to play rules than is warranted given it’s a stripped down version of the rule book.

There are plenty of things that make it ambiguous other than your snarky “poor reading comprehension” theory. No one is an expert enough in this yet other than the designers to have that authoritative a stance.

That’s also the worst possible way to discuss rules for a new game, we want to be inclusive and supportive to people to grow it.

Specific points:

1. There is a clear separation on the card between the dice a weapon provides and it’s keywords. Is this meant to make a distinction between how the pieces function? We’re not sure yet. We need more evidence/experience.

2. The first portion of the weapon section talks about units having weapons, not individual models. It’s not until the end that it references models picking a weapon. It’s not worded as though they all have that weapon either, but each one is using one of the units weapons.

3. The impact section talks about a unit performing an attack with a particular weapon, not individual models.

4. The heavy weapon upgrade section talks about limiting its weapon to that specific miniature and that it can use the “units” other weapons.

Those and other bits seem to me that from a rules perspective, the unit has weapons, not individual mini’s. Even heavy weapons are weapons assigned to the unit, but they have an extra rule limiting it to a particular mini.

Basically, the rules interact as though there is a single blaster or grenade each mini is passing around, taking turns with. So you need multiple uniquely named weapons to invoke the stacking clause.

However, I also understand that this is a hard viewpoint to understand, as it doesn’t make a lot of sense if you try to apply any sort of real world logic to it, it only works from a theoretical rules perspective.

If my above interpretation matches the way they intend the rule to work, I strongly believe they need to modify the wording so we can avoid debates. I believe it should be something like this:

”Weapon keywords are cumulative; when performing an attack that includes two uniquely named weapons that have the impact 1 keyword, these two keywords combine to add up to impact 2”

From what I can read, the only interpretation I have is that you add Impact for each weapon fired. The rules specifically mention that each trooper selects a weapon to use when attacking from their available options. I see the bolded section about adding Impact together and it appears to be very clear that the weapons do not have to be unique. If so, the word different should have been inserted in that paragraph somewhere. Now, I am not saying that I am right by any means, but if I am wrong, then the rules are not clear. One example of a complicated attack action would have been nice just for clarity.

I surmise we will have an answer to the stacking impact/grenade ambiguity and further questions that arise in the next couple of weeks, when we actually get our hands on the Rules reference. Its also good that its a living document that can be edited and revised as needed for clarification, balance, etc.

I honestly don't know why this issue has to be solved now. It's not like anyone is playing the game because the full rules haven't been released. And I'm pretty sure the grenade thing will be cleared up with the RRG or a day 1 FAQ.

Two interpretations seem possible, if you regard the wording: the card "Impact Grenade" gives impact-1 for the squad so equipped or impact-1 for every trooper throwing the grenade giving impact-6 for a whole squad. But if you compare the points cost and and the impact value with the specialist anti-armour weapon of, say, the AT-ST, only one reading seems plausible.

10 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

So this demo you went to was overseen by an FFG official who has access to special rules not yet posted for the rest of us?

Oh boy, you got me! Because every FFG employee has a comprehensive understanding of the rules and NEVER in the history of FFG has someone made a mistake interpreting the rules.

It was apparent Spikey Bits had more knowledge than he was letting on to. During the demo, Speeder bikes only have Impact 1 while attacking the AT-RT because the weapon only grants a single instance of its keyword to the attack pool, despite 2 bikes using the same weapon.

According to the beasts of war lets play, the 600 point one i think, he attacks an at-rt with 2 speeders and uses impact one. Its not definitive but it’s something