8 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Slippery slope?

Rocky slope isn't a phrase I'm aware of.

Just so! But you have to excuse me, I'm a semi-literate Yorkshireman and therefore English is my second language!

4 hours ago, Derrault said:

No.

Unit keywords apply to the unit, weapons keywords are added for each weapon used.

Unit upgrade cards apply keywords to the entire unit.

Hence, Precise 1 on the stormtrooper unit card is exactly that, 1. Impact 1 on a grenade is applied exactly as many times as it gets used. Scopes add 1 to precise.

I know that if you read the post in making that my point is that both Arsenal and Precise should work the same as per RAW, Ie they don't stack (and before it starts up again I know that they dont, Arsenal stacks, just not according to the rulebooks)

16 hours ago, syrath said:

Arsenal 2 (while attacking , each mini in this unit can use up to two of its weapons). This does not say that you get an extra attack and it does not say it doubles the amount of weapons used. It specifically says that each mini in this unit can use two of it's weapons.Now we also know that Arsenal is not a weapon quality, but is a unit quality, and so far there is no rule to say that they stack, unlike weapon qualities where we even have a nice example given in the book for Impact.

The wording for Arsenal 2 is:

Quote

While attacking, each mini in this unit can use up to 2 of its weapons.

So Arsenal 2 did not say you get a second attack or you can use a second weapon, it says clearly you can use 2 weapons. If i had this keyword twice, like the AT-ST with generalupgrade i have two abilities with the text "While attacking, each mini in this unit can use up to 2 of its weapons.". Nowhere in the rules is a hint, that you could only have an ability once. That is not stacking, it is the possibility to have more than one instance of an ability. In the most ways, explicit in the core and wave 1, it is like stacking, but there are many theoretically exceptions.

1 hour ago, TobiWan said:

The wording for Arsenal 2 is:

So Arsenal 2 did not say you get a second attack or you can use a second weapon, it says clearly you can use 2 weapons. If i had this keyword twice, like the AT-ST with generalupgrade i have two abilities with the text "While attacking, each mini in this unit can use up to 2 of its weapons.". Nowhere in the rules is a hint, that you could only have an ability once. That is not stacking, it is the possibility to have more than one instance of an ability. In the most ways, explicit in the core and wave 1, it is like stacking, but there are many theoretically exceptions.

Being told to use 2 weapons twice doesn’t mean you can use 4, it means you can use 2 though. So it needs to stack, having an ability like that twice is useless.

7 minutes ago, Thoras said:

Being told to use 2 weapons twice doesn’t mean you can use 4, it means you can use 2 though. So it needs to stack, having an ability like that twice is useless.

And that is the point where i see it completely different. The wording says "when you make an attack-action and you have this card you can fire with two of your weapons" and the other card says "when you make an attack-action and you have this card you can fire with two of your weapons". This is not "fire with x weapons more than one" or "you get a second shot with another weapon". In the text is no replacement of any kind and multi instances of this cardtext are in result multi instances of the ability. Sure, the first card automatically replace the rule "fire one weapon per mini", but the second replace nothing and giving you only the option to fire up to 2 weapons in your attack-action. At this point it is not from interest how many weapons you have fired before.

Think of it like tab-cards.

The rule says fire one weapon per mini per attack.

Tab first card->let you shoot with up to two weapons (replaces by definition the rule from the line above).

Tab second card->let you shoot with up to two weapons.

52 minutes ago, TobiWan said:

And that is the point where i see it completely different. The wording says "when you make an attack-action and you have this card you can fire with two of your weapons" and the other card says "when you make an attack-action and you have this card you can fire with two of your weapons". This is not "fire with x weapons more than one" or "you get a second shot with another weapon". In the text is no replacement of any kind and multi instances of this cardtext are in result multi instances of the ability. Sure, the first card automatically replace the rule "fire one weapon per mini", but the second replace nothing and giving you only the option to fire up to 2 weapons in your attack-action. At this point it is not from interest how many weapons you have fired before.

Think of it like tab-cards.

The rule says fire one weapon per mini per attack.

Tab first card->let you shoot with up to two weapons (replaces by definition the rule from the line above).

Tab second card->let you shoot with up to two weapons.

I’m not sure what you mean by tab-cards, sorry. We may end up having to agree to disagree.

Here is how I’d explain my rationale.

Like you said, the base rule is 1 weapon per mini.

You then have two instances of a rule that says “2 weapons per mini”

Thats not two new weapons or two unused weapons, it’s two weapons total. There is no additional modifier, it’s just two total.

If you have fired four weapons during a turn , you have broken both instances of the “you may fire two weapons” rule.

I don’t like going outside of the rules for comparisons, but since this is more of a language thing, I think it works.

Parent A says “you may eat two pieces of candy”

Parent B says “you may eat two pieces of candy”

You may only eat two pieces of candy, not four. One parent would need a modifier in their wording “2 more pieces of candy” or something similar.

Guys, I submitted a bunch of questions to Alex, including stacking key words. I'll let you know when I get a reply. It will be the closest thing to official until the RRG updates.

16 minutes ago, Thoras said:

I’m not sure what you mean by tab-cards, sorry. We may end up having to agree to disagree.

Here is how I’d explain my rationale.

Like you said, the base rule is 1 weapon per mini.

You then have two instances of a rule that says “2 weapons per mini”

Thats not two new weapons or two unused weapons, it’s two weapons total. There is no additional modifier, it’s just two total.

If you have fired four weapons during a turn , you have broken both instances of the “you may fire two weapons” rule.

I don’t like going outside of the rules for comparisons, but since this is more of a language thing, I think it works.

Parent A says “you may eat two pieces of candy”

Parent B says “you may eat two pieces of candy”

You may only eat two pieces of candy, not four. One parent would need a modifier in their wording “2 more pieces of candy” or something similar.

Tab = exhaust

With your parents example:

The rule of my parents is that i got a piece of candy, when i take a meal-action.

Mum, can i get now 2 pieces of candy (instead of one)?->yes->mum exhausted.

Dad can i get now 2 pieces of candy->yes->dad exhausted.

I understand your point of argumentation, because you can read the text as a limitation, especially with the term "up to 2 Weapons". But you will not find any hint in the rules that forbids it to trigger the same ability from different cards more than once. The next point is, that the ability do not say that you replace x by y, they only say fire 2 Weapons. There is no note to the other weapons fired before.

Especially the part:

You then have two instances of a rule that says “2 weapons per mini”

That is the wrong assumption in my opinion. You have only one rule, this rule says "one mini one weapon", the card break the rule but bring not in a new rule.

Quote

Guys, I submitted a bunch of questions to Alex, including stacking key words. I'll let you know when I get a reply. It will be the closest thing to official until the RRG updates.

to late

23 minutes ago, TobiWan said:

Tab = exhaust

With your parents example:

The rule of my parents is that i got a piece of candy, when i take a meal-action.

Mum, can i get now 2 pieces of candy (instead of one)?->yes->mum exhausted.

Dad can i get now 2 pieces of candy->yes->dad exhausted.

I understand your point of argumentation, because you can read the text as a limitation, especially with the term "up to 2 Weapons". But you will not find any hint in the rules that forbids it to trigger the same ability from different cards more than once. The next point is, that the ability do not say that you replace x by y, they only say fire 2 Weapons. There is no note to the other weapons fired before.

Especially the part:

You then have two instances of a rule that says “2 weapons per mini”

That is the wrong assumption in my opinion. You have only one rule, this rule says "one mini one weapon", the card break the rule but bring not in a new rule.

to late

But what about the overriding house rule that says you can only have candy once per day unless specified you get an additional candy action?

Cause it wouldn't matter if the 2 cards gave the same actions in 2 different instances when you cant take more than one attack action anyways.

By the way its "tap" and "untap" not "tab"

19 hours ago, azavander said:

Cause it wouldn't matter if the 2 cards gave the same actions in 2 different instances when you cant take more than one attack action anyways.

Sorry, but this is completely not the discussion.

The card didn't manipulate the number or types of actions. The card describes what you can do with your one attack-action.

From my point of view it's a key difference if I have ability x two times or if I have to stack them to ability x*2.

12 minutes ago, TobiWan said:

Sorry, but this is completely not the discussion.

The card didn't manipulate the number or types of actions. The card describes what you can do with your one attack-action.

From my point of view it's a key difference if I have ability x two times or if I have to stack them to ability x*2.

It is a difference if you have 2*1 or 1*2? .

As long as you are allowed to resolve the same ability from different sources it does not really matter if its adding up or if each can be done separately.
If precise 1 and precise 1 add up to precises 2 or if precise 1 and precise 1 just work together does not change anything. You could reroll two additional dice when you use an aim.
The only question is: can the same keywords from different sources be resolved, or are they unique and can only resolved once, no matter of the source.

My understanding is, that all "X" keywords stack. The only question is if they add up or not (important for a few keywords, like Jump and Speeder).

15 minutes ago, Tokra said:

It is a difference if you have 2*1 or 1*2? .

As long as you are allowed to resolve the same ability from different sources it does not really matter if its adding up or if each can be done separately.
If precise 1 and precise 1 add up to precises 2 or if precise 1 and precise 1 just work together does not change anything. You could reroll two additional dice when you use an aim.
The only question is: can the same keywords from different sources be resolved, or are they unique and can only resolved once, no matter of the source.

My understanding is, that all "X" keywords stack. The only question is if they add up or not (important for a few keywords, like Jump and Speeder).

I disagree with this interpretation myself. It would depend on the wording of each individual ability if you try to go the “resolve multiple effects separately” route

Precise for instance

”During the “Reroll Attack Dice” step of an attack, when a unit that has the precise x keyword spends an aim token, that unit can reroll up to x additional attack dice”

This isn’t worded in a way you could resolve two instances of precise 1. You’d resolve the first one. You’d go to resolve the second and see you have already rolled 1 additional die during this step.

59 minutes ago, Thoras said:

I disagree with this interpretation myself. It would depend on the wording of each individual ability if you try to go the “resolve multiple effects separately” route

Precise for instance

”During the “Reroll Attack Dice” step of an attack, when a unit that has the precise x keyword spends an aim token, that unit can reroll up to x additional attack dice”

This isn’t worded in a way you could resolve two instances of precise 1. You’d resolve the first one. You’d go to resolve the second and see you have already rolled 1 additional die during this step.

In my interpretation you get additional rerolls from precise. There is no limitation in the wording, only a right to take an additional dice. When you begin to separate the keywords for the abilities in stackable and not, you create a deeply implemented growing problem in the game.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

It is a difference if you have 2*1 or 1*2? .

As long as you are allowed to resolve the same ability from different sources it does not really matter if its adding up or if each can be done separately.
If precise 1 and precise 1 add up to precises 2 or if precise 1 and precise 1 just work together does not change anything. You could reroll two additional dice when you use an aim.
The only question is: can the same keywords from different sources be resolved, or are they unique and can only resolved once, no matter of the source.

My understanding is, that all "X" keywords stack. The only question is if they add up or not (important for a few keywords, like Jump and Speeder).

Jump is an excellent example for the difference between stack and multi instance.

Think about a Boba Fett with a jump pack upgrade card, which allows him jump 1 in a single move action and must be exhaust after this. Now he get a second card (rocket shoes ie), which allows a jump 1 in a single move action and must be exhausted too. Can he trigger both together to get jump 2? I don't think so.

22 minutes ago, TobiWan said:

Jump is an excellent example for the difference between stack and multi instance.

Think about a Boba Fett with a jump pack upgrade card, which allows him jump 1 in a single move action and must be exhaust after this. Now he get a second card (rocket shoes ie), which allows a jump 1 in a single move action and must be exhausted too. Can he trigger both together to get jump 2? I don't think so.

Or look for speeder X. There is a big difference if Speeder 1 and Speeder 2 from different sources would add up to Speeder 3 or if they are two different effects, that have to be fulfilled. If they are seperate it could mean that you have to do two compulsory move. But if they add up you could end at Speeder 3, and fly over everything.

4 hours ago, TobiWan said:

Sorry, but this is completely not the discussion.

The card didn't manipulate the number or types of actions. The card describes what you can do with your one attack-action.

From my point of view it's a key difference if I have ability x two times or if I have to stack them to ability x*2.

Actually it is the discussion, not trying to get snippy here, but you said you tap the card use the ability, tap the 2nd card and use it again. Which is exactly why I am saying this is is a bad example, those cards don't allow you to make an extra/additional attack, they allow you fire an additional weapon when you attack. So you make you attack action, using arsenal 2 and fire two weapons. You don't get a 2nd attack action triggering or allowing you to use Weiss and fire 2 more weapons. If they don't stack then Weiss is literally a useless card at this time, until another vehicle comes along with out Arsenal.

If Weiss card said that after attached vehicle makes an attack you may make an additional attack with Arsenal 2, I would agree with you.

3 hours ago, azavander said:

Actually it is the discussion, not trying to get snippy here, but you said you tap the card use the ability, tap the 2nd card and use it again. Which is exactly why I am saying this is is a bad example, those cards don't allow you to make an extra/additional attack, they allow you fire an additional weapon when you attack. So you make you attack action, using arsenal 2 and fire two weapons. You don't get a 2nd attack action triggering or allowing you to use Weiss and fire 2 more weapons. If they don't stack then Weiss is literally a useless card at this time, until another vehicle comes along with out Arsenal.

If Weiss card said that after attached vehicle makes an attack you may make an additional attack with Arsenal 2, I would agree with you.

I don't think so. When you take an attack-action you have a clear step, where you decide which weapons and targets you choose. As an example, a bunch of stormies with a special weapon and granates can decide to attack 3 different targets and this is not equal to 3 attack-actions.

When arsenal will stack, you've got different rules for unit abilities. Ie Arsenal and precise probably have another game mechanic as jump and speeder. In this case you need a clarification for every new unit ability that will be released.

Just to clarify my opinion. I think an AT-ST with general upgrade let you use 4 weapons too. The functionality in this case is nearly equal to stacking, but I think it is not a real stack, because of the argument above. It's using of multiple instances of an ability from different sources.

40 minutes ago, TobiWan said:

I don't think so. When you take an attack-action you have a clear step, where you decide which weapons and targets you choose. As an example, a bunch of stormies with a special weapon and granates can decide to attack 3 different targets and this is not equal to 3 attack-actions.

When arsenal will stack, you've got different rules for unit abilities. Ie Arsenal and precise probably have another game mechanic as jump and speeder. In this case you need a clarification for every new unit ability that will be released.

Just to clarify my opinion. I think an AT-ST with general upgrade let you use 4 weapons too. The functionality in this case is nearly equal to stacking, but I think it is not a real stack, because of the argument above. It's using of multiple instances of an ability from different sources.

I follow where your coming from, I think, basically that each ability At-st Card ability and Weiss give the ability to modify the same attack step. It ends up being 4 but as 2 separate sub actions instead of one overall action.

Wait a minute, a scope is used for ranged attacks right? Even IF allowed to equip his lightsabre with one how would he use it? A scope is used to site your target and then shoot so throwing a lightsaber would be pointless with a scope since you can't use it AND throw.

12 hours ago, azavander said:

I follow where your coming from, I think, basically that each ability At-st Card ability and Weiss give the ability to modify the same attack step. It ends up being 4 but as 2 separate sub actions instead of one overall action.

I think my problem with this argumentation could be better explained with a fictional example.

In wave 7 ffg bring out a new unit ability.

Cloaking field x (precise up to value x will not work against this unit).

Now a group of Stormies with scopes fire at an unit with cloaking field 1.

If precise stacks, the stormies will have precise 2 und can reroll 4 dice with an aim token.

In the case of the usage of multiple instances they loose both precise 1 and they only can reroll 2 dices.

That's the point I talking about. In normal situation there is no difference between stack and multi usage but in future it could be a very important definition.

I think an another point of view is my interpretation of how rules are written. When it's not correct to use the same ability multiple times from different sources, that should be written in the rules. On the other hand, when an ability will stack, that should be written in the rules too. I i think, with the given rules it will work fine, but I can understand why this is a problem for many players.

4 hours ago, TobiWan said:

I think my problem with this argumentation could be better explained with a fictional example.

In wave 7 ffg bring out a new unit ability.

Cloaking field x (precise up to value x will not work against this unit).

Now a group of Stormies with scopes fire at an unit with cloaking field 1.

If precise stacks, the stormies will have precise 2 und can reroll 4 dice with an aim token.

In the case of the usage of multiple instances they loose both precise 1 and they only can reroll 2 dices.

That's the point I talking about. In normal situation there is no difference between stack and multi usage but in future it could be a very important definition.

I think an another point of view is my interpretation of how rules are written. When it's not correct to use the same ability multiple times from different sources, that should be written in the rules. On the other hand, when an ability will stack, that should be written in the rules too. I i think, with the given rules it will work fine, but I can understand why this is a problem for many players.

This is why there need to be a difference between Stacking and adding up.

The first question is: Do several keywords with the same name from different sources work. This is answer is no, there is no need for further differentiation.

But if they work, the next question is: Do they each work on their own or do they add their value up (like Impact does).
If you have precise 1 twice, will this be 2 times precise 1 (where each work on its own) or will it become precise 2.

This two questions have to be answered for all "X" keywords. Either in general or just once for all.

On 1 April 2018 at 7:13 PM, Tokra said:

This is about the same as Stormtrooper who mount the scope on Grenates.

They could have called it different. For exampe "Blue Milk Buff". Or wrote a limit on the score like Guns only, but for this they had to define "Guns".
It might sound strange to use a scope on a melee attack, but it is fine. Just dont think to much about it.

"Sir, were running out if scopes very quickly!"

On 1 April 2018 at 7:13 PM, Tokra said:

This is about the same as Stormtrooper who mount the scope on Grenates.

They could have called it different. For exampe "Blue Milk Buff". Or wrote a limit on the score like Guns only, but for this they had to define "Guns".
It might sound strange to use a scope on a melee attack, but it is fine. Just dont think to much about it.

"Sir, were running out if scopes very quickly!"

this is pretty much a none issue, because why would you need to, ever seriously? maybe against a AT-ST but still this would hardly ever come up.

11 hours ago, Anatak12 said:

this is pretty much a none issue, because why would you need to, ever seriously? maybe against a AT-ST but still this would hardly ever come up.

It would really help to mention what you are referring to.
What is not an issue, what would hardly come up.

If you mean a scope for an melee attack, it will come up more often than you might think.