So, this die's special could technically be used to ready itself? Sure, it would slow you down a turn, but if you don't want to pitch to reroll, or can't, it would save give you a reroll.

No, because it fails the not a copy of this support test, after all it is a copy of that support.

Fair, but page 20 of rrg states,

"A copy of a card is defined by its title. Any other card that shares the same title is considered a copy, regardless of card type, text, artwork, or any other characteristic of the card."

Because the rrg states the "Any other card" part... if I am using a single N-1 Starfighter in my deck, it doesn't seem there is by definition, a copy of this card in play. Even using two of them, it sounds like I could use the special to reset itself, but not the other one in play.

I would tend to agree, it is not a copy, it is the original. You wouldn't make a copy of something then say the paper you used was a copy of it.

I don't see why you couldn't ready it then reroll it back in. It seems like a waste unless you are stalling for some reason.

that, or out of ways to reroll it and not concerned with claiming lol

...or perhaps you have a way of resolving the special without removing it from the pool.

That really is just a stupid condition. First, something can't be a copy of itself. If their intention was for no N-1 to be affected, then they could have just included "N-1" in the text. Even if they intended for you not to ready another N-1, since the original is not a copy, you can just ready itself.

In the case of Bib, it says copy of this support, not die, so even then it doesn't work, since that die isn't a copy of the support. They may have meant something along those lines, if a Hero will gain Bib's special ability.

This one just makes no sense.

With upgrades for supports, you may be gaining something by readying itself

Well, this is just a really, poorly worded effect. Specials are inherent to the dice....so does the dice count as a support? As the card?

As written, you can use the special associated with that card on itself. The wording prevents you from discarding or readying any other copy of the N1, but it is not, in fact, a copy of itself. It's the original.

"Any other card that shares the same title is a copy" doesn't actually preclude a given card being considered a copy of itself. It defines that other cards are copies, but that's not exhaustive.

The first sentence says simply that "copies" of cards are defined by their titles. Same card, same title, it's a copy.

There are plenty of other rules which at least imply this. For example:

A player can select only one copy of each unique (*) character,

So if the "copy" is only the one past the first, I can include two uniques?

A card cannot gain another copy of a keyword;

Again, very different rule from how we understand it if "copy" only applies to the second.

Second Chance is a replacement effect so if a character has two copies of Second Chance and would be defeated, only one copy resolves. The other one can no longer replace being defeated and stays attached to the character.

Again, if copies are past the first, then having two copies of Second Chance would mean 3 cards, which is impossible. Context here is pretty clearly two copies = two cards.

I'll grant it's an impressive bit of out-of-context rules lawyering, but I think the actual rules here are fairly clear, no?

If your opponent had an N-1 in play, wouldn't that be a copy as well?

19 minutes ago, Fizz said:

If your opponent had an N-1 in play, wouldn't that be a copy as well?

Yes, the N-1 wouldn't be able to target your opponent's N-1.

It feels like the issue here is that they are using 'copy' in the general sense (while it also randomly has a specific game definition). At the same time, it's blatently obvious what the intent is.

Rebel Grey does a fantastic video on "templating" the cards as to be consistent, easier to read and understand. With each set that is released we see a good number of cards that would benefit greatly from this.

12 hours ago, Abyss said:

It feels like the issue here is that they are using 'copy' in the general sense (while it also randomly has a specific game definition). At the same time, it's blatently obvious what the intent is.

The rule definition and how they're using it don't conflict. The idea that the rule somehow says only other instances of cards are copies is a misreading.

I'm not going to step up and defend FFG's templating - it's something they're awful at, and I call it out regularly myself. But this isn't really an instance of it.

Isn't this cards special primarily used for keeping your opponent in check? If you roll out first with a special, he is not going to want to roll out his vehicle as you will be able to discard it out of play?

On 7/25/2018 at 5:11 AM, Buhallin said:

But this isn't really an instance of it.

They could easily italice and bold the keyword, and give that meaning: Ready or discard and exhausted support that is not N-1 Starfighter.

54 minutes ago, Amanal said:

They could easily italice and bold the keyword, and give that meaning: Ready or discard and exhausted support that is not N-1 Starfighter.

How does that change anything? Is there actually some confusion that it's referring to the card title?

"More formatting" is not the same as "better templating".

5 hours ago, mjhan300 said:

Isn't this cards special primarily used for keeping your opponent in check? If you roll out first with a special, he is not going to want to roll out his vehicle as you will be able to discard it out of play?

That’s its use currently. The question arises, I think, from the new mod upgrades. If you could mod it up and ready itself, that could be pretty powerful.