I went through all the red text, so you don't have to!

http://www.steelstrategy.com/2018/07/thats-no-faq-71618-legion-rules-update.html

Thanks for the article!

Sadly I think we still have to talk about this but: Are you sure about the suppression-standby interaction? There doesn't seem to have been any appreciable change in the text in this regard. Granted it's a bit unclear still, but it seems that a standby can be spent after the entire attack action is complete, whereas it's been clarified that suppression tokens are assigned after each pool is resolved. Therefore, suppression is applied before the opportunity to spend the standby.

The only hitch with that is the new text that says each pool is a separate attack for all effects and abilities. Does that mean that a standby can interrupt the attack action to perform an attack in between resolutions of pools? I somehow doubt that's what they mean, but it could be.

There's also the email from Alex that says suppression comes before standby...

19 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

The only hitch with that is the new text that says each pool is a separate attack for all effects and abilities. Does that mean that a standby can interrupt the attack action to perform an attack in between resolutions of pools? I somehow doubt that's what they mean, but it could be.

This is exactly what that rule means.

I agree. The new blurb in Attack says each pool is an attack for all effects, and Standby says it triggers after an enemy unit attacks. I think it's clear that you have the opportunity to Standby in between attack pools, which can make the order of resolution important.

However, I disagree with the article claiming that Standby activates before Suppression is gained - effectively saying that you can shoot at and hit a unit on Standby and it can shoot back. Placing the Suppression happens after each attack pool is resolved, and so is part of the steps for that attack pool. Standby also happens after the attack pool, but it wouldn't trigger while there are still steps to resolve within the attack portion of the rules. I don't see any wording in the rules to support another belief.

Yeah I’m on board with the interruption, having thought about it more. However:

52 minutes ago, Turan said:

Placing  the Suppression happens after each attack pool is resolved, and so is part of the steps for that attack pool. Standby also happens after the attack pool, but it wouldn't trigger while there are still steps to resolve within the attack portion of the rules. I don't see any wording in the rules to support another belief.  

This is my thinking as well. The email ruling before was that gaining the suppression was basically treated as part of the attack, even though it says “after”. It is not “after” in the sense of a triggered effect, the way that Standby is. And I don’t see a change in the wording of the rules that would subvert the ruling (i.e., the wording is the same now as it was before the email query). Unless they’ve decided to change their minds about how to interpret these passages, I think the suppression-standby interaction is the same. It may be redundant, but I submitted a query earlier today just to verify.

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you @BiggsIRL ? But:

I don't agree with your interpretation of Bounty. I don't think it has the potential to backfire. There is no text that defines any way for the player who is targeted by Bounty to gain the VP. Only text that defines how Boba Fett's player would gain it. These three conditions must be simultaneously true to gain the VP: 1) have Bounty 2) have the token 3) not be defeated at the end of the game.

Edit: ah, refreshing the page revealed the comments at the bottom ? . Carry on then...

7 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you @BiggsIRL ? But:

I don't agree with your interpretation of Bounty. I don't think it has the potential to backfire. There is no text that defines any way for the player who is targeted by Bounty to gain the VP. Only text that defines how Boba Fett's player would gain it. These three conditions must be simultaneously true to gain the VP: 1) have Bounty 2) have the token 3) not be defeated at the end of the game.

... Hot Fett on Fett action...

Just now, Drasnighta said:

... Hot Fett on Fett action...

Lol, yeah in that case it could backfire. Serves you right for trying to put a hit out on Fett!

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Lol, yeah in that case it could backfire. Serves you right for trying to put a hit out on Fett!

Here’s one...

Veers and Boba vs. Veers and Boba.

Blue Boba puts a bounty on Red Veers.

Red Boba puts a bounty on Blue Boba.

Blue Boba kills Red Veers. Bounty token transfers to Blue Boba.

Red Boba kills Blue Boba. Does Red Boba get both bounties and 2 VP?

48 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

Here’s one...

Veers and Boba vs. Veers and Boba.

Blue Boba puts a bounty on Red Veers.

Red Boba puts a bounty on Blue Boba.

Blue Boba kills Red Veers. Bounty token transfers to Blue Boba.

Red Boba kills Blue Boba. Does Red Boba get both bounties and 2 VP?

Looks legit to me. I think that’s going to be a good defensive play for red player in mirror matches.

Bounty poaching could be pretty hilarious.

17 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

Here’s one...

Veers and Boba vs. Veers and Boba.

Blue Boba puts a bounty on Red Veers.

Red Boba puts a bounty on Blue Boba.

Blue Boba kills Red Veers. Bounty token transfers to Blue Boba.

Red Boba kills Blue Boba. Does Red Boba get both bounties and 2 VP?

By RAW he doesn't get 2 VP.
Here's the extract from the RRG

"At the end of the game, if a player controls a unit that has the bounty keyword, has a victory token from defeating another unit, and has not been defeated itself, that player gains 1 victory token for each unit they control that meets these requirements. "

The rules says that the player gains 1 victory token per unit meeting the requirement, it doesn't matter if that unit has 1 or 5 victory tokens, in the end tha player only gets 1 VP

44 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

By RAW he doesn't get 2 VP.
Here's the extract from the RRG

"At the end of the game, if a player controls a unit that has the bounty keyword, has a victory token from defeating another unit, and has not been defeated itself, that player gains 1 victory token for each unit they control that meets these requirements. "

The rules says that the player gains 1 victory token per unit meeting the requirement, it doesn't matter if that unit has 1 or 5 victory tokens, in the end tha player only gets 1 VP

Hmm good spot. That answers my question!

Nice. Yeah, I missed that as well.

Just FYI, the FAQ thread was updated this morning to address the standby questions:

Suppression comes before standby.

You cannot interrupt attack pool resolutions to perform a standby. You must wait until all pools are resolved.

So, with that being the case...what is the point of the added language specifying each attack pool is considered its own attack? Abilities that the attacker might have that trigger after an attack, but A) that probably doesn't matter whether you resolve it after that pool or the entire attack, and B) given this precedent, I suspect the intent is that all "after attack" game text is supposed to trigger after the entire attack is finished.

So what am I missing?

I feel like they need to rewrite the suppression rule, again, because according to it, suppression comes after an attack action, and in the standby rule, standby may be used before results that come after an attack action

That is a dumb ruling, but can't argue something that is official.

18 minutes ago, DwightE1 said:

suppression comes after an attack action, and in the standby rule, standby may be used before results that come after an attack action

So? The only way that "needs rewriting" is if you have multiple units on standby that could trigger at once, and you get locked into an infinite loop in your own brain as to which one removes its standby token first. If that actually happens...you have bigger problems than this minute bit of wording...

20 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

That is a dumb ruling, but can't argue something that is official.

I don’t know, that standby text specifically references “triggered actions” like relentless. Suppression is clearly still part of resolving an attack, even though it happens after you roll the dice.

27 minutes ago, Turan said:

So, with that being the case...what is the point of the added language specifying each attack pool is considered its own attack? Abilities that the attacker might have that trigger after an attack, but A) that probably doesn't matter whether you resolve it after that pool or the entire attack, and B) given this precedent, I suspect the intent is that all "after attack" game text is supposed to trigger after the entire attack is finished.

So what am I missing?

The point of the attack pool wording changes is to address things like Han’s two pip, which has awkward language about how units must attack Han “if able.”

Suppose, for example, you have an AT-ST with a mortar launcher. Han is range 2 away from your AT-ST, and plays his Reckless Diversion. The wording changes just clarify that you must shoot Han with your main cannon, but you can use the mortar launcher in a separate attack pool against something else.

It also serves to clarify that when you split fire, you do in fact give each target a suppression token.

2 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

I don’t  know, that standby text specifically references “tri  ggered actions” like relentless. Suppression is clearly still part of resolving an attack, even th  ough it happens after you roll the dice.  

Eh, rulesclogic aside, I feel it’s dumb that my carefully positioned and pre planned standby action can be foiled by the people I’m watching shooting first.

I mean, who do they think they are? Han?

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Eh, rulesclogic aside, I feel it’s dumb that my carefully positioned and pre planned standby action can be foiled by the people I’m watching shooting first.

I mean, who do they think they are? Han?

Hahah. I sort of agree, but them’s the rub.

27 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

I don’t know, that standby text specifically references “triggered actions” like relentless. Suppression is clearly still part of resolving an attack, even though it happens after you roll the dice.

Yeah, this has been my reading as well. Their choice of words (specifically "after") is unfortunately confusing, but seems pretty clear to me that their intent is all about "triggered" effects and abilities. Which receiving suppression is not.

1 hour ago, Turan said:

So, with that being the case...what is the point of the added language specifying each attack pool is considered its own attack? Abilities that the attacker might have that trigger after an attack, but A) that probably doesn't matter whether you resolve it after that pool or the entire attack, and B) given this precedent, I suspect the intent is that all "after attack" game text is supposed to trigger after the entire attack is finished.

So what am I missing?

I think one of the take-aways here is that "during", "when", and "while" effects treat each attack pool as a separate trigger. But "after" effects must come after all attack pools.

Also, personally I'm glad they went this way regarding "after attack" triggers. Allowing abilities to interrupt attack pools would have needlessly introduced complication to a pretty streamlined game system. Especially down the road...

1 hour ago, Orkimedes said:

Han is range 2 away from your AT-ST, and plays his Reckless Diversion. The wording changes just clarify that you must shoot Han with your main cannon, but you can use the mortar launcher in a separate attack pool against something else.

I don't see how the new bullet point in the Attack article has any bearing on this. For one thing, it isn't necessarily true that you must shoot Han with anything, unless he's the only trooper unit target that hasn't already activated this turn.

Presuming that's true, the AT-ST is not able to target Han with the mortar, so it targets another trooper unit that hasn't activated, or if there are none it targets normally. How did adding the text that both the main cannon and mortar are treated as an attack affect that situation at all?

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

Allowing abilities to interrupt attack pools would have needlessly introduced complication to a pretty streamlined game system. Especially down the road...

I can understand that sentiment, but I appreciated the additional tactical elements that were briefly possible.