3 minutes ago, kayarn said:

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.

Understood, but I'm not so much concerned about it being overpowered as I am just desiring to see turrets BURN .

How I feel when I see a turret in X-Wing:

23 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:

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?

Given that Corran Horn provides attacks at two different initiative values, and uses the bonus attack terminology, I don't think Han provides an additional attack.

I don't necessarily think it is "so abusive" to allow 3 attacks, but I do think that the 2.0 rules are attempting to make it so that each ship gets, at most, two attacks per round. I also find it inconsistent with every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks. When it comes to the price - 12 points to be able to increase your IN for attacks every round with no additional cost? I can see that. Heightened Senses requires a force-user as the pilot, and requires the use of a force token - so you are giving up the opportunity to use that token for other purposes. Gunner Han has no such restriction. The developers have been pretty clear (including statements made in Team Covenant videos) that they want to tone down initiative changing in 2.0. So, no, I don't think that unrestricted changing of the IN of a ship, even just for an attack, is going to be cheap.

Really, I don't understand why Rebel Gunner Han would be the only card that where you have to infer the second attack instead of explicitly providing it like every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks does. The card does not explicitly grant a second attack, so "doing what the card says, and not doing what the card doesn't say" would mean you that Han lets you shoot at I7, but doesn't provide a second attack.

In any case, it's pretty clear neither of us is going to convince the other at this point. We'll have to see how FFG rules on this.

4 hours ago, Freeptop said:

Given that Corran Horn provides attacks at two different initiative values, and uses the bonus attack terminology, I don't think Han provides an additional attack.

I don't necessarily think it is "so abusive" to allow 3 attacks, but I do think that the 2.0 rules are attempting to make it so that each ship gets, at most, two attacks per round. I also find it inconsistent with every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks. When it comes to the price - 12 points to be able to increase your IN for attacks every round with no additional cost? I can see that. Heightened Senses requires a force-user as the pilot, and requires the use of a force token - so you are giving up the opportunity to use that token for other purposes. Gunner Han has no such restriction. The developers have been pretty clear (including statements made in Team Covenant videos) that they want to tone down initiative changing in 2.0. So, no, I don't think that unrestricted changing of the IN of a ship, even just for an attack, is going to be cheap.

Really, I don't understand why Rebel Gunner Han would be the only card that where you have to infer the second attack instead of explicitly providing it like every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks does. The card does not explicitly grant a second attack, so "doing what the card says, and not doing what the card doesn't say" would mean you that Han lets you shoot at I7, but doesn't provide a second attack.

In any case, it's pretty clear neither of us is going to convince the other at this point. We'll have to see how FFG rules on this.

Up for a wager?

Ill bet you a Falcon expansion that FFG clarifies that Han is an extra attack at I7 in addition to your regular attack at normal initiative.

Food for thought: in the “Essence of the Rebellion” article, while they were going over the Rebel gunners, they said:

” Luke's ability is certainly powerful. However, it also comes with a hefty cost. Luke's ability is priced higher than those of Bistan, Ezra Bridger, and Han Solo—even though all those other pilots make it possible for their ships to fire twice in a round.”

Earlier I thought this was said of Han Solo, which is why I favored the single-attack interpretation. But between the cost and going back to review the article again, I’ve been sufficiently swayed. Han gives a bonus attack. I’m certain it will be errataed this way.

Naturally, I know the articles are wrong as often as not, but it’s still helpful to consult the only available sources.

13 hours ago, Freeptop said:

Given that Corran Horn provides attacks at two different initiative values, and uses the bonus attack terminology, I don't think Han provides an additional attack.

I don't necessarily think it is "so abusive" to allow 3 attacks, but I do think that the 2.0 rules are attempting to make it so that each ship gets, at most, two attacks per round. I also find it inconsistent with every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks. When it comes to the price - 12 points to be able to increase your IN for attacks every round with no additional cost? I can see that. Heightened Senses requires a force-user as the pilot, and requires the use of a force token - so you are giving up the opportunity to use that token for other purposes. Gunner Han has no such restriction. The developers have been pretty clear (including statements made in Team Covenant videos) that they want to tone down initiative changing in 2.0. So, no, I don't think that unrestricted changing of the IN of a ship, even just for an attack, is going to be cheap.

Really, I don't understand why Rebel Gunner Han would be the only card that where you have to infer the second attack instead of explicitly providing it like every single other card in 2.0 that provides additional attacks does. The card does not explicitly grant a second attack, so "doing what the card says, and not doing what the card doesn't say" would mean you that Han lets you shoot at I7, but doesn't provide a second attack.

In any case, it's pretty clear neither of us is going to convince the other at this point. We'll have to see how FFG rules on this.

This is exactly my take on it, especially the highlighted part.

The wording just seems so different from all the other multiple attack cards, and in the spirit of 'do what the cards say, don't do what the cards don't say' it really feels to me like Han just lets you make your attack at I7 rather than your usual initiative.

But then...

5 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Food for thought: in the “Essence of the Rebellion” article, while they were going over the Rebel gunners, they said:

” Luke's ability is certainly powerful. However, it also comes with a hefty cost. Luke's ability is priced higher than those of Bistan, Ezra Bridger, and Han Solo—even though all those other pilots make it possible for their ships to fire twice in a round.”

This is pretty persuasive the other way.

That does seem like an official comment saying he gets to attack twice.

As you said, though, the articles are often wrong about these things.

16 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:

Up for a wager?

Ill bet you a Falcon expansion that FFG clarifies that Han is an extra attack at I7 in addition to your regular attack at normal initiative.

I'm not willing to bet, because I have enough experience in life to know that nothing is guaranteed, and I'm not a gambling type of person, unlike, say, Han

Funny thing, though. The argument that says Gunner Han provides a second attack is based on the idea that he is _not_ providing an engagement, just an attack. But the only reason initiative matters during the Engagement phase is because it determines the order of engagements (Rules Reference, p10, "Engagement Phase"):

Quote

The Engagement Phase is the fourth phase of the round. During this phase, each ship engages, one at a time, starting with the ship with the highest initiative and continues in descending order.
When a ship engages, it may perform an attack.
...

* Each ship engages only once during this phase.

So, we have two possible situations:

1. Gunner Han alters the pilot's initiative for the Engagement Phase, so the pilot engages at I7, but doesn't get to engage again at their own initiative, since each ship engages only once.

2. Gunner Han provides an attack at Initiative 7 that isn't an engagement, which means... what, exactly? Why does the initiative value matter, then? In that phase, initiative is used to determine the order of engagements, not the order of attacks. The attacks happen as a result of the engagements. If this still somehow makes the attack work such that the attack occurs before engagements, it means that if Gunner Han does enough damage to destroy a ship, it isn't removed at I7, either, since ships are destroyed "after all ships of a given initiative have engaged." Since Han didn't engage, that ship wouldn't be destroyed until the I6 ships have all engaged. Technically, any rules or upgrades that operate based on a ship being engaged wouldn't be triggered by the Gunner Han attack, either. Man, this is getting complicated.

I will certainly admit I could be wrong. But it definitely needs to be clarified.

Huh. Yeah, FFG messed up in their rules and/or card wording somewhere, because Corran Horn's ability is a bit of a mess in 2.0, as the rules are written.

He's another case where he provides an attack at a different initiative, without any wording about engagements. Thing is, his text explicitly says he's granting a bonus attack. The Rules Reference says that bonus attacks happen during the aftermath step of the initial attack...

Technically, the Initiative 0 part doesn't actually do anything. Corran would simply attack a second time during the aftermath step of his initial attack. That's clearly not the intent, though, particularly taking 1.0 Corran's ability into account.

Seems like they actually intended to provide Corran with a second engagement at initiative 0, but as-written, that's not what happens. So, with Gunner Han, did they intend to give the ship an additional engagement at initiative 7, or did they mean to change it so the ship engages at initiative 7 when using a turret arc? There's no reference to providing additional anything, or bonus anything in his case, but I'll admit there's a chance they intended to make it an additional engagement.

Looks like they'll have to clarify two cards, then.

53 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

2. Gunner Han provides an attack at Initiative 7 that isn't an engagement, which means... what, exactly? Why does the initiative value matter, then? In that phase, initiative is used to determine the order of engagements, not the order of attacks. The attacks happen as a result of the engagements. If this still somehow makes the attack work such that the attack occurs before engagements, it means that if Gunner Han does enough damage to destroy a ship, it isn't removed at I7, either, since ships are destroyed "after all ships of a given initiative have engaged." Since Han didn't engage, that ship wouldn't be destroyed until the I6 ships have all engaged. Technically, any rules or upgrades that operate based on a ship being engaged wouldn't be triggered by the Gunner Han attack, either. Man, this is getting complicated.

I think this is mostly correct. I think a destroyed ship would be removed after I6 because there isn't another opportunity before then. I think Corran actually has some similar issues. I don't think Han or Corran need to say "bonus attack" because bonus attacks happen in the aftermath step of attacking. Neither Han nor Corran's ability can ever happen during the aftermath step because they are not triggered by attacking. Corran's ability destroying a ship won't have the simultaneous fire issue, thankfully, ships will just be removed during the end step if they have enough damage on them.

As written, I think Han actually provides an additional attack at I7 which is NOT a bonus attack, and if he was on a ship with a gunner that allowed a double-tap using a non-turret weapon, that ship would be able to attack AND bonus attack. Which is almost definitely not the intention.

16 minutes ago, Ixidor said:

I think this is mostly correct. I think a destroyed ship would be removed after I6 because there isn't another opportunity before then. I think Corran actually has some similar issues. I don't think Han or Corran need to say "bonus attack" because bonus attacks happen in the aftermath step of attacking. Neither Han nor Corran's ability can ever happen during the aftermath step because they are not triggered by attacking. Corran's ability destroying a ship won't have the simultaneous fire issue, thankfully, ships will just be removed during the end step if they have enough damage on them.

As written, I think Han actually provides an additional attack at I7 which is NOT a bonus attack, and if he was on a ship with a gunner that allowed a double-tap using a non-turret weapon, that ship would be able to attack AND bonus attack. Which is almost definitely not the intention.

Where do you get the additional part?

He gets an attack at I7. What makes you think this is separate from the normal attack?

57 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Where do you get the additional part?

He gets an attack at I7. What makes you think this is separate from the normal attack?

Because he's not engaging at I7, only attacking. You get one engagement during the engagement phase, and one attack during that engagement and then a possible bonus attack. You are not limited to one attack during the engagement phase or the turn. So he attacks at I7, then could potentially attack at the carrying ship's normal initiative if a target is available in an arc other than the one used at I7. If he should be engaging at I7, he should say that you may engage at I7 rather than saying that you may perform an attack at I7.

I do think that FFG absolutely needs to clarify this but I feel this way more because of the issues of when to clear destroyed ships (as abilities remain until the ship is removed).

I also think Corran should NOT say bonus attack, because bonus attacks happen during the aftermath of an attack, which is not possible at initiative 0. This is the same reason I do not believe Han should say bonus attack, as it would not be possible at I7.

I think most of this confusion comes from FFG deciding to use the word "bonus". In normal conversation "bonus" means "extra", implying that you get something additional. FFG is using the word "bonus" as a means of limiting additional attacks. The rules fully support unlimited extra attacks, as long as those attacks are not "bonus attacks", as you are only allowed one "bonus attack". Han lacks this bonus wording so as to not further restrict other bonus attacks that might happen that round, like Cluster Missiles. This has had the unintended side effect of confusing some players by thinking that because it is not a "bonus attack" that it merely replaces his normal attack.

The word "bonus" is only used as a restriction in SE, do not let it distract you.

Agree with sorcerer

Since Han occurs before normal engagement, it'd be really wonky to have him shut down stuff like Cluster Missiles for no discernable balance or thematic purpose (which he would, because you only get 1 Bonus Attack)

He is balanced out by disallowing attacks from the same turret arc

On 8/9/2018 at 4:49 PM, Ixidor said:

Because he's not engaging at I7, only attacking. You get one engagement during the engagement phase, and one attack during that engagement and then a possible bonus attack. You are not limited to one attack during the engagement phase or the turn. So he attacks at I7, then could potentially attack at the carrying ship's normal initiative if a target is available in an arc other than the one used at I7. If he should be engaging at I7, he should say that you may engage at I7 rather than saying that you may perform an attack at I7.

I do think that FFG absolutely needs to clarify this but I feel this way more because of the issues of when to clear destroyed ships (as abilities remain until the ship is removed).

I also think Corran should NOT say bonus attack, because bonus attacks happen during the aftermath of an attack, which is not possible at initiative 0. This is the same reason I do not believe Han should say bonus attack, as it would not be possible at I7.

If we're saying that engagements and attacks are separable things, you've got a problem. The rules say initiative determines the order of engagements. The rules don't directly link initiative to attacks at all. So what does "an attack at initiative 7" even mean if that doesn't supply an engagement? In your response, please support your claims with quotes from the Rules Reference or Rulebook that support your interpretation.

5 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

If we're saying that engagements and attacks are separable things, you've got a problem. The rules say initiative determines the order of engagements. The rules don't directly link initiative to attacks at all. So what does "an attack at initiative 7" even mean if that doesn't supply an engagement? In your response, please support your claims with quotes from the Rules Reference or Rulebook that support your interpretation.

I'm not going to do that nor am I going to keep on with this argument here or elsewhere.

Without knowing intent, we're just going to keep going in circles because the wording is bad and unclear.

FFG needs to clarify how Han works, how Corran works, and how engagement works.

Slight thread necromancy, but noticed a useful (other) rules precedent, who also pointedly lacks the 'bonus attack' phrase in his rule - Gamma Squadron's "Deathfire" McDibbs*

Now, obviously at initiative 2, he will in a lot of games get shot out of the sky before his initiative step, so the attack from his ability is the only one he gets in a turn.

But, assuming he's shot down by an academy pilot, if 'attack-that's-not-bonus' lets him shoot, he would get a revenge shot, even if he's already used a bonus attack (a TIE/sa bomber with cluster missiles is hardly unforeseeable, and probably a lot more likely than a YT-1300 so armed).

* Yes that's actually his canonical name. Stop sniggering at the back, there.