On 7.4.2018 at 3:32 PM, Tokra said:

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.

Of course will multiple instances or the other (not the weaopn keyword stack) stack become valid. I don´´'t think so, that situation like stormies with scopes or AT-STs with general wasn't present in any playtest.

With the given rules a clarification is not necessary, because stacking is a weapon ability only keyword and multi instances are not disallowed. In maximum they need a line in the faq ,that it is allowed to use multiple instances. When the unit keywords get a stack like functionality they are building an unnecessary limitation of the possibilities for the use of keywords in my opinion (like in my example before. A Keyword with value x = y*2 is more valuable than the same keyword two times with value y).

If they take the path and say "jump will not stack but precise will do.", we will get the disadvantage that every new keyword needs a clarification. I personally think that is not an elegant solution for the problem.

10 hours ago, Tokra said:

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.

Seriously? you're having trouble figuring that out. the topic header isn't enough for you? as for targeting and Luke it would be purely situational and makes no sense, but hey you want to waste an action and "aim" be my guest

54 minutes ago, Anatak12 said:

Seriously? you're having trouble figuring that out. the topic header isn't enough for you? as for targeting and Luke it would be purely situational and makes no sense, but hey you want to waste an action and "aim" be my guest

If you think his statement was strange, you must not have read the whole thread. It has strayed a bit from the OP.

From this thread I’ve become convinced that multiple sources of Arsenal 2 should not stack to give additional effects, based on RAW. The Parent-Candy example helped. It’s a good FAQ question.

I personally don’t care at all about Luke using a scope with a lightsaber, or Stormtroopers using scopes with grenades. I can imagine an abstract reasoning for a careful lightsaber strike or grenade throw, so go right ahead and do it. FFG might decide to FAQ it to make it illegal, but I wouldn’t call it a priority.

On 8.4.2018 at 8:53 PM, 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.

18 hours ago, Anatak12 said:

Seriously? you're having trouble figuring that out. the topic header isn't enough for you? as for targeting and Luke it would be purely situational and makes no sense, but hey you want to waste an action and "aim" be my guest

Luke vs Vader, troopers with scopes in melee, Luke/Vader vs big boys and that is only core. ^^

Don't forget, you have only one attack action per round. What will you do with your second action when you are already in melee? Cover or aim. When I have a good chance to kill the other before he can fight back, I will prefer aim.

My favorite combination for Luke: Saber Throw and Scope. By the rules, that works ...

I swear, some of your guys are Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy.

" His people are entirely literal. Metaphors go right over his head."

" Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are excellent and I would catch it."

If you want to justify it, just take it as the scope makes the melee attack heavier/bigger on the strike and thus harder to avoid...

8 hours ago, Shadows of the Future said:

If you want to justify it, just take it as the scope makes the melee attack heavier/bigger on the strike and thus harder to avoid...

People need to stop trying to justify things, not contort themselves to find justifications.

Play by the rules, divorce the “story” you are trying to force to fit the mechanics and then it’s not a problem.

58 minutes ago, Thoras said:

People need to stop trying to justify things, not contort themselves to find justifications.

Play by the rules, divorce the “story” you are trying to force to fit the mechanics and then it’s not a problem.

Anyone with issues might imagine that the card might as well have been titled: “Target practice” or “Disciplined” or “Focused”.

On 3/31/2018 at 4:08 AM, Dwing said:

So it seems like it is allaowed RAW, but gameplay wise it seems pretty lame Luke can equip a targeting scope on his lightsaber to get a reroll in close combat. How do you feel about this, is rules written the only things that matter, or does card name and artwork play a factor in what you can do with it?

I file this one under “Is this stupid as ****? — 1. Yes it is. ——> ‘Don’t do that. It’s stupid.’”

On 10/04/2018 at 5:57 AM, elfholme said:

From this thread I’ve become convinced that multiple sources of Arsenal 2 should not stack to give additional effects, based on RAW. The Parent-Candy example helped. It’s a good FAQ question.

Seriously...so an upgrade which specifically gives an ability to shoot more guns that comes in a unti that can already shoot more guns can't be combined to shoot even more guns which I add has zero point being in the box if it could not be used.

Duuuuuuude

On 4/23/2018 at 3:59 PM, DarkTrooperZero said:

Seriously...so an upgrade which specifically gives an ability to shoot more guns that comes in a unti that can already shoot more guns can't be combined to shoot even more guns which I add has zero point being in the box if it could not be used.

Duuuuuuude

What about your statement has to do with RAW, dude? You are confusing RAW with (your impression of) RAI.

1 hour ago, elfholme said:

What about your statement has to do with RAW, dude? You are confusing RAW with (your impression of) RAI.

I think the point he is making - RAW and RAI notwithstanding - is why would FFG release a unit/upgrade/card for something that does the exact same thing that the unit it is affecting can already do and therefore be in a sense useless? I think of it like in X-wing - if anyone has heard of that minor game - where you take a crew upgrade on, say for example the Firespray allowing it to take an evade action, when it already can.

Now that said. There may be a day where the Empire has another ground vehicle that does not have arsenal, in which case Weiss is a viable option. But that is not this day!

16 hours ago, Crawfskeezen said:

I think the point he is making - RAW and RAI notwithstanding - is why would FFG release a unit/upgrade/card for something that does the exact same thing that the unit it is affecting can already do and therefore be in a sense useless? I think of it like in X-wing - if anyone has heard of that minor game - where you take a crew upgrade on, say for example the Firespray allowing it to take an evade action, when it already can.

Now that said. There may be a day where the Empire has another ground vehicle that does not have arsenal, in which case Weiss is a viable option. But that is not this day!

What you are describing is exactly RAI. You are assuming intent because it is what makes sense to you. That has nothing to do with RAW.

I actually agree with you that that is how it was probably intended. My statement was about RAW, nothing more. When discussing RAW, it doesn’t *matter* what my thoughts are on the intent of a card or rule. RAW doesn’t care about intent.

1 hour ago, elfholme said:

What you are describing is exactly RAI. You are assuming intent because it is what makes sense to you. That has nothing to do with RAW.

I actually agree with you that that is how it was probably intended. My statement was about RAW, nothing more. When discussing RAW, it doesn’t *matter* what my thoughts are on the intent of a card or rule. RAW doesn’t care about intent.

Yea, fair point, you are correct. I guess where I struggle with the differentiation is the difference between the intent or interpretation of a rule versus the necessity or redundancy of said rule. Now that may be/rightfully is a product of my my interpretation but I think there is a difference between that and interpreting or determining the specific wording of the rules. "Why do you need two of the same rule?" vs. "Is that what this rule does?" But for all intents and purposes you are correct.