1 hour ago, Freeptop said:

This will need to be clarified by FFG, because I'll guarantee that without official word, there are going to be arguments over this one.

Whichever camp you’re in this right here is a fact. I remember people vehemently arguing attack arcs spanned to board edge.

9 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:

From the card...

More correctly, the REBEL Han card. That's why I was unaware, i had only looked at SCUM Han.

49 minutes ago, KenYn said:

More correctly, the REBEL Han card. That's why I was unaware, i had only looked at SCUM Han.

Well, more accurately anyways.

Regardless, sorry for the confusion.

The devs stated in one of vids (I think with the Covenant boys) that they simplified a lot of the extra wording on the cards. This was meant to makes things more clear, but we're all so used to those extra words that this simplification has added confusion. I'd love for FFG to clarify this for all players, preferably before the actual game hits shelves so we can get into full swing with no hiccups.

I'm in the "do what the card says" camp, just to be clear. Yes, rebel Han shoots first (init 7), then whoever's flying shoots second (at that pilot's init), if that's an option. It seems they specifically use the word "bonus" in reference to any attack that takes place at the same initiative from the same ship (Vet turret Gunner, Cluster Missiles, etc).

On a related note, Cluster Missiles provide their two attacks with just one charge. It's not a double tap, but it's another case of "do what the card says" - overthinking it may make you think you have to spend another charge for the bonus attack, which it does not say to do.

13 hours ago, gadwag said:

Han does add an additional attack.

Heightened perception says: "...engage at initiative 7 instead of your standard initiative value this phase"
Rebel Han gunner says: "During the engagement phase, at initiative 7, you may perform a [turret] attack".

Rebel Han does not change when you engage. Thus, you do not engage at initiative 7, and any abilities that trigger off engaging will not occur. You merely perform a bonus attack at initiative 7 . Play then proceeds down the initiative chain until your initiative (4, in chewbacca's case), when you engage. Anything that triggers off engaging (such as scum han gunner or feedback array) occurs now, and as per the rulebook:

You thus perform your normal attack.

The difference in wording is because VTG adds a bonus attack immediately after you engage, while Han adds a bonus attack at i7. Thus, if you had Han gunner but Torkil Mux used his ability on you, you'd attack once at init7 and once at init0. If you had VTG, both your attacks would be at init0.

Nope. You don't merely perform a BONUS attack. "You may perform" an attack. You have the option not to. Hence "may" and "a".

What Han does, is give you essentially 2 Initiative values for the engagement phase. You MAY pick 7, or whatever your native skill would be. Then you can perform an attack. If you select Han's, your normal initiative doesn't allow you to attack another time, because you already attacked once, and you cannot do that. You don't activate twice.

The wording of a BONUS ATTACK exists solely to solve this problem. Every ship gets to make 1 attack. If you get more, you will get the BONUS ATTACK keyword. If you don't have that, you perform a normal attack. Even if it is granted by an ability.

You get 1 window of opportunity for attack, unless you have the bonus attack keyword.

Han is worded like this, so in the possible future, there might be some interaction between him and other cards. (Double gunner slot? maybe?)

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Nope. You don't merely perform a BONUS attack. "You may perform" an attack. You have the option not to. Hence "may" and "a".

What Han does, is give you essentially 2 Initiative values for the engagement phase. You MAY pick 7, or whatever your native skill would be. Then you can perform an attack. If you select Han's, your normal initiative doesn't allow you to attack another time, because you already attacked once, and you cannot do that. You don't activate twice.

The wording of a BONUS ATTACK exists solely to solve this problem. Every ship gets to make 1 attack. If you get more, you will get the BONUS ATTACK keyword. If you don't have that, you perform a normal attack. Even if it is granted by an ability.

You get 1 window of opportunity for attack, unless you have the bonus attack keyword.

Han is worded like this, so in the possible future, there might be some interaction between him and other cards. (Double gunner slot? maybe?)

No. Han gives you an extra attack at I7, the lack of the word "bonus" means that he doesn't shut down other bonus attacks, like from cluster missiles. At 12 points Han is expensive for giving you two attacks out of different arcs. If all he did was move your engagement to I7 (like Heightened Perception) he would be the most overpriced card in the game.

Why do turrets have to be so stupid? I see both sides of the discussion and haven’t made a choice which I believe but if double tap gunners work the way some of you say what was the point of making turrets mobile? Yeah you guys are justifying it with but you get double tap out of the front arc so it’s dodgeable. Ok fair. What stops these double turrets from always double attacking out 2 different sides if it works that way? Pretty much cutting their big huge restriction in half? Plus providing 2 attacks? Now single turrets are not a problem but I see stupid crap like the falcon just ruining everything that needs to arc dodge to survive. It will be 1.0 all over again with pwt. They need to ammend their mission statement to, Arcs matter! If you don’t face a turret.

8 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

Why do turrets have to be so stupid? I see both sides of the discussion and haven’t made a choice which I believe but if double tap gunners work the way some of you say what was the point of making turrets mobile? Yeah you guys are justifying it with but you get double tap out of the front arc so it’s dodgeable. Ok fair. What stops these double turrets from always double attacking out 2 different sides if it works that way? Pretty much cutting their big huge restriction in half? Plus providing 2 attacks? Now single turrets are not a problem but I see stupid crap like the falcon just ruining everything that needs to arc dodge to survive. It will be 1.0 all over again with pwt. They need to ammend their mission statement to, Arcs matter! If you don’t face a turret.

Because it’s hard getting two targets lined up on opposite sides of your ship and most likely you can only afford to mod one of the attacks anyways.

6 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Because it’s hard getting two targets lined up on opposite sides of your ship and most likely you can only afford to mod one of the attacks anyways.

I’m not saying it’s easy to line up 2 targets, I’m pretty much saying they are giving you the tools to a.cut your restriction in half b. Fire at init 7 out of your arc c. Depending on how they rule it, fire a double tap out the first arc or have the option to attack a second target if the opportunity provides. They wanted to **** all over turrets because many people hated them and then give them a tool box that makes them almost as bad. I’d honestly be fine with gunners working the way some of you say if they force single facing turrets. But otherwise just like 1.0 you can pretty much shelve half your collection.

3 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

I’m not saying it’s easy to line up 2 targets, I’m pretty much saying they are giving you the tools to a.cut your restriction in half b. Fire at init 7 out of your arc c. Depending on how they rule it, fire a double tap out the first arc or have the option to attack a second target if the opportunity provides. They wanted to **** all over turrets because many people hated them and then give them a tool box that makes them almost as bad. I’d honestly be fine with gunners working the way some of you say if they force single facing turrets. But otherwise just like 1.0 you can pretty much shelve half your collection.

Neither Han nor Vet Turret Gunner allow you to fire twice out of the same turret arc. Small ships like the Y-Wing and the Aggressor can double tap out the front, but they have to sink points into a turret and a gunner and their primaries are only two dice.

2 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Neither Han nor Vet Turret Gunner allow you to fire twice out of the same turret arc. Small ships like the Y-Wing and the Aggressor can double tap out the front, but they have to sink points into a turret and a gunner and their primaries are only two dice.

Ok I see the error in the double tap now, thanks sorcerer. I seriously hate the falcon and it’s because of this game. I’m so tired of fan favorites being op. Made me all kinds of giddy to see jumps and vcx gutted.

In all fairness, Bistan does permit firing out the same arc twice against different targets, but also requires a focus to do so (I believe). The double turret ships pay a premium for these abilities and gunners make them cost even more, so it really becomes a points issue. Dash with a gunner is over half your squad. SO, yes, turrets can be very potent, but they still require skill to use. I realized from day one that the Falcon can cover all of its arcs if it has missiles - only the rear arc is not covered. But that still means there's an arc not covered.

7 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

In all fairness, Bistan does permit firing out the same arc twice against different targets, but also requires a focus to do so (I believe). The double turret ships pay a premium for these abilities and gunners make them cost even more, so it really becomes a points issue. Dash with a gunner is over half your squad. SO, yes, turrets can be very potent, but they still require skill to use. I realized from day one that the Falcon can cover all of its arcs if it has missiles - only the rear arc is not covered. But that still means there's an arc not covered.

Not really trying to start debate but I am cautious about points being as effective deterrent that many think they will. Double jumps ruled for their time and that was pretty much 2 ships half your list each. Will it be the same in 2.0? I have no idea but just because something is expensive doesn’t define it’s worth. What it can do will. If I have a 2 ship list and I can almost gurantee that each ship is good for 2 kills and a possible 3rd, the fact it’s so expensive means little if all I need are those 2. Be interesting to see but already seeing mod gifters pop up and this is wave 1. Wave 1 wasn’t combo dominated in 1.0 either. So like I said, sorry to be johnny rain cloud, and I love the idea of 2.0, but my optimism has definately decreased the more I see. Still hopeful though.

4 hours ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

The devs stated in one of vids (I think with the Covenant boys) that they simplified a lot of the extra wording on the cards. This was meant to makes things more clear, but we're all so used to those extra words that this simplification has added confusion. I'd love for FFG to clarify this for all players, preferably before the actual game hits shelves so we can get into full swing with no hiccups.

I'm in the "do what the card says" camp, just to be clear. Yes, rebel Han shoots first (init 7), then whoever's flying shoots second (at that pilot's init), if that's an option. It seems they specifically use the word "bonus" in reference to any attack that takes place at the same initiative from the same ship (Vet turret Gunner, Cluster Missiles, etc).

On a related note, Cluster Missiles provide their two attacks with just one charge. It's not a double tap, but it's another case of "do what the card says" - overthinking it may make you think you have to spend another charge for the bonus attack, which it does not say to do.

No they don't. You have to spend the second charge, you don't need the lock for the second target.

From the Rules Reference pg. 6

BONUS ATTACK
If a card instructs a ship to perform a bonus attack, it performs an additional
attack during the Aftermath step.
• A few special weapons provide a bonus attack using the same weapon.
While performing this type of bonus attack, the same arc requirements,
range requirements, and cost requirements are followed unless stated
otherwise.
◊ For example, a ship that attacked with the Cluster Missiles card can
perform a bonus attack against another ship at range 1 of the defender
and ignore the ? requirement. The range (2–3), arc (?), and cost
(spending 1 ? charge) are maintained for the bonus attack.
• A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round.
• If both players have a bonus attack that triggers after an attack, the
defending player resolves their bonus attack first.

16 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

From the Rules Reference pg. 6

BONUS ATTACK
If a card instructs a ship to perform a bonus attack, it performs an additional
attack during the Aftermath step.
• A few special weapons provide a bonus attack using the same weapon.
While performing this type of bonus attack, the same arc requirements,
range requirements, and cost requirements are followed unless stated
otherwise.
◊ For example, a ship that attacked with the Cluster Missiles card can
perform a bonus attack against another ship at range 1 of the defender
and ignore the ? requirement. The range (2–3), arc (?), and cost
(spending 1 ? charge) are maintained for the bonus attack.
• A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round.
• If both players have a bonus attack that triggers after an attack, the
defending player resolves their bonus attack first.

Groovy - I missed that! Thanks for the clarification!

13 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Groovy - I missed that! Thanks for the clarification!

You're welcome.

15 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:

Do what the card says. Don’t do what the card doesn’t say to do. Han does not change when you engage. Han just adds a turret attack at I7. You’re reading too much into a simple card.

For corroborating evidence look at Hans cost. Heightened Perception is overpriced at three points, who would buy the same ability for twelve points when you can get Vet Turret Gunner for eight?

What the card says: "During the Engagement Phase, at initiative 7, you may perform a <turret arc> attack. You cannot attack from that <turret arc> again this round."

If I do what the card says, I get to perform a turret attack at initiative 7, and cannot attack from that arc again this round. The card doesn't say I get to perform another attack, so, as you say, "don't do what the card doesn't say to do."

In terms of consistency - every single other card that provides additional attacks explicitly references bonus attacks. Including Corran Horn, who provides a second attack at initiative 0:
"At initiative 0, you may perform a bonus primary attack against an enemy in your <bullseye arc>." Why is Rebel Gunner Han the lone exception here?

In terms of price - Veteran Instincts doesn't exist anymore. Heightened Perception can only go on pilots that already have extra cost built into them for being force users. Given the problems they ran into in 1.0 with such things, FFG seems to want to make initiative modification either costly or require annoying conditions (or both). And I can't blame them for that, since it makes balancing everything more annoying if just about any ship can cheaply and easily change its initiative rating. If the intention was that Rebel Han Gunner was an improved Vet Turret Gunner, then why doesn't he share similar wording? They could have written it this way to be consistent with other cards and be far more clear:

"During the Engagement Phase, at initiative 7, you may perform a <turret arc> attack. At your regular initiative you may perform a bonus attack from an arc you did not already attack from this round."

The rules are written like they expect there to be one attack per engagement phase, with the potential for one additional bonus attack. If your interpretation is correct, Rebel Gunner Han would potentially allow for three attacks in a single Engagement Phase: Han's attack at IN7, the pilot's attack at IN<whatever>, and a bonus attack provided by a card (say, Cluster Missiles, since the Falcon does have a missile slot). Do you really think FFG intended to allow a single ship to attack three times in a single round?

54 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

Do you really think FFG intended to allow a single ship to attack three times in a single round?

Yes, I think FFG is fine with Han firing at I7 followed up by Chewbacca firing a cluster missile at I4. Do you really think that is so abusive? Do you really think Han doesn't do that for 12 points?

Rules Reference citations:

Attack section, pg. 5:

“Each ship may perform one attack when it engages during the Engagement Phase.”

Bonus Attack section, pg. 6:

“A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round .”

Engagement Phase section, pg. 10:

“When a ship engages, it may perform an attack... Disarmed ships still engage even though they cannot perform attacks... Each ship engages only once during this phase.”

Han Solo Rebel Gunner card:

“During the Engagement Phase, at Initiative 7, you may perform a [mobile arc] attack ...”

Yes, lots of citations to build my case. But here it goes:

Han Solo Rebel Gunner card does not cause the host ship to ENGAGE at Initiative 7. It grants the host ship (“you”) a normal (not a Bonus) Attack. Nowhere in the Rules Reference are ships limited in how many Attacks they may make. They are limited to engage only once, they are limited to one attack when they engage, and they are limited to one Bonus Attack per round. Han dodges all of this by granting an attack at a set Initiative during the Engagement Phase. He doesn’t trigger Engagement (and wouldn’t manage to trigger any effects based on a ship Engaging) and he doesn’t use up the single Bonus Attack limit. And since Han doesn’t trigger Engagement, the host ship will still have its single Engagement trigger at the pilot’s Initiative.

That’s my best effort at figuring out the Rules As Written for this card. Hope this helps the discussion.

1 hour ago, J1mBob said:

It grants the host ship (“you”) a normal (not a Bonus) Attack.

I'm 99% certain that any attack other than the regular "you may perform one attack when you engage" is a bonus attack. In the case of Han it's probably an oversight that the word "bonus" is missing from his card

4 minutes ago, gadwag said:

I'm 99% certain that any attack other than the regular "you may perform one attack when you engage" is a bonus attack. In the case of Han it's probably an oversight that the word "bonus" is missing from his card

You may be right that not having “Bonus” in the wording was an oversight. But that’s conjecture. As written, and RAW was my focus, Rebel Han Gunner grants an attack, not a Bonus Attack. If it was oversight, they’ll have to errata it.

All right, so I'm converted. Now that I realized there's actually "bonus attack" references in the rules it seems that Han's attack is not a bonus attack. This is a case where rules lawyering has payed great dividends. I'm convinced, but I know the struggle will continue until FFG clarifies. Thanks for the great debate!

12 hours ago, J1mBob said:

Rules Reference citations:

Attack section, pg. 5:

“Each ship may perform one attack when it engages during the Engagement Phase.”

Bonus Attack section, pg. 6:

“A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round .”

Engagement Phase section, pg. 10:

“When a ship engages, it may perform an attack... Disarmed ships still engage even though they cannot perform attacks... Each ship engages only once during this phase.”

Han Solo Rebel Gunner card:

“During the Engagement Phase, at Initiative 7, you may perform a [mobile arc] attack ...”

Yes, lots of citations to build my case. But here it goes:

Han Solo Rebel Gunner card does not cause the host ship to ENGAGE at Initiative 7. It grants the host ship (“you”) a normal (not a Bonus) Attack. Nowhere in the Rules Reference are ships limited in how many Attacks they may make. They are limited to engage only once, they are limited to one attack when they engage, and they are limited to one Bonus Attack per round. Han dodges all of this by granting an attack at a set Initiative during the Engagement Phase. He doesn’t trigger Engagement (and wouldn’t manage to trigger any effects based on a ship Engaging) and he doesn’t use up the single Bonus Attack limit. And since Han doesn’t trigger Engagement, the host ship will still have its single Engagement trigger at the pilot’s Initiative.

That’s my best effort at figuring out the Rules As Written for this card. Hope this helps the discussion.

Sadly, I think this is correct, as written. I hope it's an oversight that gets errata'd, but until then, we're just going to have to live with turrets not being quite as nerfed as we'd hoped. ;_;

7 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Sadly, I think this is correct, as written. I hope it's an oversight that gets errata'd, but until then, we're just going to have to live with turrets not being quite as nerfed as we'd hoped. ;_;

No need to panic too much.

1. This is a unique gunner which means only one ship can do it.

2. The first shot blocks out one of the turret arcs for the follow up shot, no double tapping on a single target. No second shot at all for 270 degrees of the firing arc(depending on ship/secondary weapon loadout ofc). That's a lot of space to fit your ships into.

3. Having enough mods for two shots will be a struggle in the new world order of 2.0

Honestly this feels a bit like the Luke gunner hysteria that gripped the forums before its cost was revealed. Its one card with a powerful affect and enough drawbacks to counteract it.