Hi! I have 2 related questions about attacking.

1. Regarding page 14 of the rules reference, step 3 of the attack sequence.

If I did not miss anything this means that Z-74 bikes can use both their AX-20 Blaster Cannons and their EC 17 Hold Out Blaster against different targets in the same attack action, even though they do not have Arsenal.

Step 3 says that if “ there are any weapons left that have not been added to the attack pool, the player may repeat steps 1-2 (declare defender/form attack pool) , forming a new attack pool with the new weapons ”. The limitation to one weapon per mini is only mentioned in step 2, where it says “The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini may contribute one weapon to the attack pool ”. The Z-74 unit does have weapons left when they formed an attack pool with one of their weapons, so they should be allowed to repeat steps 1 and 2 of the attack sequence, correct?

The paragraph Arsenal (x) at page 13 does not contradict this, because it refers to step 2 of the attack sequence and allows each miniature to contribute more than one weapon to a particular attack pool.

2. Regarding page 46 of the rules reference, the paragraph concerning weapons and weapon upgrades

The rules reference says that miniatures with hardpoint upgrade cards, grenades or heavy weapon upgrade cards can use their respective secondary weapon “ instead ” of their regular one during the attack sequence. That means unlike Z-74 bikes or AT-RTs in melee the miniatures in such units actually would need arsenal (x) to use more than one weapon during their attack sequence, correct?

You can only add your attack dice to one pool unless you have arsenal. a pair of speeder bikes could each put a single weapon with a different name into a different pool. Example: Unit leader uses main weapon and adds attack pool to the unit in their ARC. The 2nd Unit adds its dice for its hold out blaster to a different attack. Each unit is only making one attack with one weapon. Reminder, all weapons with the same name must add their dice to the same pool.

23 hours ago, M.Mustermann said:

The limitation to one weapon per mini is only mentioned in step 2, where it says “The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool ”.

You even quoted the exact rule (although I fixed your typo). The other part of the attack, "If there are any weapons remaining that have not been added..." happens after you choose one weapon from each mini.

On 5/21/2018 at 5:28 PM, Turan said:

You even quoted the exact rule (although I fixed your typo). The other part of the attack, "If there are any weapons remaining that have not been added..." happens after you choose one weapon from each mini.

Thanks for the answer. I still think my initial interpretation of the text is correct. I am pretty sure the rule is intended the way you describe it, but it is definetly written in another way. Step 3 of the attack sequence should say something like "If the attacking unit did not contribute any weapons to the first attack pool even though it could have legally done so... " instead of "If there are any weapons remaining that have not been added to the attack pool...".

In the example of a Z-74 unit shooting at an enemy unit with both of their AX-20 Blaster  Cannons, the attacking Z-74 unit still does have weapons remaining that have not been added to the attack pool, even though each miniature contributed the maximum number of weapons it could to the first attack pool. The Hold Out Blasters are certainly a weapon of that attacking unit. At step 3 of the attack sequence, they can only either be a part of the subset "weapons that have ´been added to the attack pool generated during step 2" or "weapons that have not been added to the attack pool generated during step 2 of the attack sequence". A third option doesn't exist. The Hold Out Blasters have clearly not been added to the first attack pool. The way the rule is written now, they would trigger the option to generate a separate attack pool.

Step 2 of the attack sequence is called "form attack pool" and explicitly refers to forming a particular attack pool. Each miniature can contribute one weapon to "the attack pool"(i.e. the particular attack pool that is formed during step 2 of the attack sequence. There is no indication that the restriction"one miniature -one weapon" is applicable for the whole attack action respective the whole attack sequence.

Step 3 says you are forming a " separate attack pool ", in other words another attack pool than the first one. It also says you " repeat " step 1 and step 2 of the attack sequence. In that logic sequence the sentence in step 2 "The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool" obviously refers to the second, separate attack pool.

Azavander: Thank you as well, but my question was directed at the wording of the rules. An answer just from memory with no direct connection to the text does not clarify the problem. It migh be a pedantic, but the terms "unit", "miniature", "weapon", "attack", "attack action", "attack sequence" and "attack pool" are defined in certain way, that is not at all consistent with your answer, with the exeption of your last sentence.

@M.Mustermann , yeah I think you’ve cleverly found a loophole in the phrasing of the rule. Hopefully the devs have seen it as well and fix it. If their intent is that each speeder mini can use both weapons then they’ve been playing their own demo games wrong ? .

I think the most minimal way to clean it up is to add a bullet point that says “during an attack each mini may select up to 1 weapon unless the unit has the Arsenal X keyword”. Or something along those lines.

31 minutes ago, M.Mustermann said:

Thanks for the answer. I still think my initial interpretation of the text is correct. I am pretty sure the rule is intended the way you describe it, but it is definetly [sic] written in another way.

I don't understand how this is unclear: Step 2b of attack, choose weapons, says very plainly "The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool."

When you get to forming another attack pool for a different target, you have already chosen one weapon from that mini.

34 minutes ago, M.Mustermann said:

Azavander: Thank you as well, but my question was directed at the wording of the rules. An answer just from memory with no direct connection to the text does not clarify the problem. It migh be a pedantic, but the terms "unit", "miniature", "weapon", "attack", "attack action", "attack sequence" and "attack pool" are defined in certain way, that is not at all consistent with your answer, with the exeption of your last sentence.

Fair enough I was responding from my phone and didn't have the RRG in front of me, and you are right in the way it is written leaves a little vague, which is quite amazing nobody seen this before.

It does say "To perform an attack, a player resolves the following steps:" and it doesn't say that step 3 declare additional defender is a separate attack and not part of the same Attack step. It actually reads as you pointed out that as part of step 3 it says redo step one and 2. That only leaves to question if the below rules apply. Is the unit doing the same action when you are rolling the dice or is as you pointed out the same attack according to the steps.

During a unit’s activation, it is possible for a unit to perform more than one attack through the use of card abilities or other game effects; however, that unit can only perform one attack action during a single activation, regardless of whether it is an attack action or a free attack action

A unit cannot perform the same action more than once during its activation, except the move action, which can be performed multiple times.

Its also interesting to note that Arsenal is still different in that you could still use X number of weapons in a single attack pool, there would still be a reason to include that as a different keyword

Arsenal X

When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack, each mini in a unit that has the arsenal x keyword can choose a number of its weapons equal to the value of x. Each chosen weapon contributes its dice and keywords to the attack pool.

• To use a weapon during an attack, the defender must be at or within any of the weapon’s ranges.

• A mini that has the arsenal x keyword can divide its weapons between any number of units, forming a separate dice pool for each weapon or combination of weapons

All that being said, I believe you to be technically correct as it is written, I don't believe that to be the intent but *shrug* I also think they could easily fix this with an update to what is an eligible mini, including something along the lines of If it hasn't already added a weapon to an attack pool

(Playing devil’s advocate for the fun of it. I agree each mini should only use 1 weapon total.)

34 minutes ago, Turan said:

“The  attacker can choose one weapon from each  eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool."  

I think the argument is that step 3 says to form an additional attack pool and step 2b says that each mini contributes 1 weapon to the attack pool.

4 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

(Playing devil’s advocate for the fun of it. I agree each mini should only use 1 weapon total.)

I think the argument is that step 3 says to form an additional attack pool and step 2b says that each mini contributes 1 weapon to the attack pool.

This is kinda entertaining, because i can argue that to, even though i don't believe it to be correct either, but its clearly written in a way that allows for that interpretation and actually leans that way. You are forming one attack pool at a time as part of the same "attack" which is made up of multiple steps. Step 3 has you redo step 1 and 2 and the only thing that makes them eligible is LoS, nothing about if the already contributed to an attack pool. In fact it actually really says exactly the opposite "If there are any weapons remaining that have not been added to the attack pool, the player may repeat steps 1–2, forming a separate attack pool with the new weapons. » An attack pool can consist of dice from different weapons, but all weapons with an identical name must contribute their dice to the same attack pool." it doesn't say if there are any minis that are remaining it specifically says weapons.

In most cases it doesn't matter because the unit has melee and ranged attack so you wouldn't do both, but for units with multiple of the same weapon type i can see how this could come up. Mind Blown

3 hours ago, Turan said:

I don't understand how this is unclear: Step 2b of attack, choose weapons, says very plainly "The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool."

When you get to forming another attack pool for a different target, you have already chosen one weapon from that mini.

What you say does not contradict anything I wrote. The problem is that Legion is supposed to be a tournament orientated game and the designers have made huge efforts to make the rules as unambigous as possible. They have done a good job. However, at this specific page of the rules reference there is a problem, because the intension of the designers is different to what is written there. Rules as intended and rules as written are two different things, and this is a huge deal in competetive tournament games.

In your second sentence, you are leaving out the second half of the statement that you are quoting in your first sentence. Steb 2b literally says that each eligible mini may contribute one weapon to this particular attack pool . It does not say each elibile mini can contribute one weapon to the attack. The way step 2b is written now, the limitation "one mini-one weapon" is explictly limited to the context building this particular attack pool in step 2b. It does not refer to the following steps and does not refer to other attack pools that are created during a possible repetition of step 2b.

You are assuming that the phrase " if there are any weapons remaining " in step 3 is still in the context of step 2b when you are forming the first attack pool. However, this step has allready been resolved at this point. The phrase " any weapons remaining " in step 3 says nothing more than is written there: any weapons remaining. It could mean that it refers to a set of weapons that belong to minis that could have contributed a weapon to the first attack pool during step 2b but did not. It could also just mean any remaining weapon of the unit. We are in the realm of "rules as intended", because we have to guess the intension of the designers. This is bad, because without the context of the demonstration games that are out there, we would have to stick to the text. And the text just says nothing more than "any weapons remaining".

What was the result of this discussion? I've seen a few references around the internet that claim speeder bikes can use both weapons in a single attack, in some cases, targeting multiple defenders. The rules clearly state that forming an attack pool only allows a single weapon. It's unclear, however, if a second attack pool is allowed, using the Speeder Bike's second weapon, targeting a new defender. Has there been any evidence lately that points one way or the other?

42 minutes ago, JoshuaBelden said:

What was the result of this discussion? I've seen a few references around the internet that claim speeder bikes can use both weapons in a single attack, in some cases, targeting multiple defenders. The rules clearly state that forming an attack pool only allows a single weapon. It's unclear, however, if a second attack pool is allowed, using the Speeder Bike's second weapon, targeting a new defender. Has there been any evidence lately that points one way or the other?

Unless it has Arsenal X, each mini can choose one weapon with which to attack. It's not even a question any more.

Thank you for the quick response. As much as I wanted my speeder bikes to attack twice, it's good news to me to know some rules ambiguity didn't create a loop hole. It makes no sense that they'd some how be able to use two weapons. I must have come across some very old and misinformed articles.