"While you perform an attack against a defender at attack range 2-3, you may spend 1 force to apply the range 1 bonus."

It is not entirely clear whether this cancels the range 3 defense bonus.

From the rules reference:

"Roll Attack Dice: The attacking player determines the number of attack dice to roll based on the chosen weapon’s attack value, range bonus, ..."

"Roll Defense Dice: The defending player determines a number of defense dice to rol based on the defender’s agility value, as range bonus, ..."

"RANGE BONUS During an attack, the attacker or defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range. For attack range 0–1, the attacker rolls one additional attack die during the Roll Attack Dice step. For attack range 3, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the Roll Defense Dice step."

The question is whether the attack can have both range 1 bonus and range 3 bonus. The range bonus explanation in the rules reference states "the attacker OR defender can roll additional dice" which indicates that if Grand Inquisitor uses his ability to apply the range 1 bonus it might negate the defenders range 3 bonus. I am uncertain how to interpret this, but feel as if the intention was that the defender would keep the range 3 bonus, it would simply have stated that the attack would get one additional attack dice.

Has anyone seen any clarification or ruling regarding this? It seems that the most common interpretation is that the defender also gets the range 3 bonus, but I find the wording not quite clear enough to be certain.

Nothing says the r3 bonus is negated so it isn't. Do what the card says, don't do what it doesn't say.

1 hour ago, haukurv said:

"While you perform an attack against a defender at attack range 2-3, you may spend 1 force to apply the range 1 bonus."

It is not entirely clear whether this cancels the range 3 defense bonus.

From the rules reference:

"Roll Attack Dice: The attacking player determines the number of attack dice to roll based on the chosen weapon’s attack value, range bonus, ..."

"Roll Defense Dice: The defending player determines a number of defense dice to rol based on the defender’s agility value, as range bonus, ..."

"RANGE BONUS During an attack, the attacker or defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range. For attack range 0–1, the attacker rolls one additional attack die during the Roll Attack Dice step. For attack range 3, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the Roll Defense Dice step."

The question is whether the attack can have both range 1 bonus and range 3 bonus. The range bonus explanation in the rules reference states "the attacker OR defender can roll additional dice" which indicates that if Grand Inquisitor uses his ability to apply the range 1 bonus it might negate the defenders range 3 bonus. I am uncertain how to interpret this, but feel as if the intention was that the defender would keep the range 3 bonus, it would simply have stated that the attack would get one additional attack dice.

Has anyone seen any clarification or ruling regarding this? It seems that the most common interpretation is that the defender also gets the range 3 bonus, but I find the wording not quite clear enough to be certain.

It's quite clear.

The attacking player determines the number of attack dice to roll. The attack is range 3, but GI's ability lets him roll the range 1 bonus die, so he rolls an extra die.

The defending player determines the number of defense dice to roll. The attack is range 3, and GI's ability does not change that, so he rolls the range 3 bonus die.

The rules do not preclude both bonuses from applying.

Yes, he is WAY LESS good then he was lol...

It also cost him his force modification for the turn... (I know he has two forces, but he can still only regen one)

Ability that cost force token are really overprice for the most part... they are priced like with the ability they give over the modification bonus, but you can't do the two at the same time...

The presence of that "OR" in the rules made me unsure:

"During an attack, the attacker OR defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range"

But I think your interpretation is most likely correct, although I would have preferred it a little more clearly worded.

And yea, he is probably not as good as he was, not quite the range 3 evading sniper he was in 1.0

1 hour ago, haukurv said:

The presence of that "OR" in the rules made me unsure:

"During an attack, the attacker OR defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range"

But I think your interpretation is most likely correct, although I would have preferred it a little more clearly worded.

And yea, he is probably not as good as he was, not quite the range 3 evading sniper he was in 1.0

It's not an XOR, clearly.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It's not an XOR, clearly.

Yes clearly: https://www.quora.com/Why-in-spoken-language-we-use-or-while-we-mean-logical-xor-and-we-use-and-or-when-we-mean-logical-or#

No wait....

2 hours ago, muribundi said:

Yes, he is WAY LESS good then he was lol...

True - but (a) autothrusters is gone - the real thing people used to like his ability for. A green die that doesn't have an automatic blank-to-evade modification is (a bit) less scary, plus his ability now has a second string - taking the range 1 bonus away from an opponent, which is very nice in a TIE/v1 with speed 1 blue turns which naturally wants to mix it up in close.

2 hours ago, haukurv said:

The presence of that "OR" in the rules made me unsure:

"During an attack, the attacker OR defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range"

But I think your interpretation is most likely correct, although I would have preferred it a little more clearly worded.

And yea, he is probably not as good as he was, not quite the range 3 evading sniper he was in 1.0

If the rule looked like that, I'd agree with you. But as it's written, without any overemphasis on the word 'or:'

"During an attack, the attacker or defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range"

The more reasonable read there is that both the attacker and defender can gain dice from attack range. Trying to extract 'range bonuses are necessarily exclusive' from that is being really narrow about what the rule means by "or." If a rule said "the attacker or defender may perform a focus action," would you assume that the defender may not perform a focus action if the attacker performs his first?

4 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

If the rule looked like that, I'd agree with you. But as it's written, without any overemphasis on the word 'or:'

"During an attack, the attacker or defender can roll additional dice depending on the attack range"

The more reasonable read there is that both the attacker and defender can gain dice from attack range. Trying to extract 'range bonuses are necessarily exclusive' from that is being really narrow about what the rule means by "or." If a rule said "the attacker or defender may perform a focus action," would you assume that the defender may not perform a focus action if the attacker performs his first?

I was merely pointing out that "or", no overemphasis, just making it more clearly visible.

The rule text is copied from the rule reference, so it is actually written exactly like this (surrounded by more text, sure, but that's not relevant to this discussion).

If it had been an "and", then it would have been no doubt that both bonuses could apply, an "xor" would have been funny but unambiguous too.

Sometimes "and/or" is used for clarification (see paragraph about exactly that in the rules reference).

If you look at "the attacker and defender may perform a focus action" vs "the attacker or defender may perform a focus action", which one would be more clear?

Don't get me wrong, I can very clearly see the how you see the logic there, but as I mentioned, the wording leaves room for interpretation. In such cases, official ruling makes sense, even if only to prevent debates happening at the table if the question arises there.

53 minutes ago, haukurv said:

I was merely pointing out that "or", no overemphasis, just making it more clearly visible.

The rule text is copied from the rule reference, so it is actually written exactly like this (surrounded by more text, sure, but that's not relevant to this discussion).

If it had been an "and", then it would have been no doubt that both bonuses could apply, an "xor" would have been funny but unambiguous too.

Sometimes "and/or" is used for clarification (see paragraph about exactly that in the rules reference).

If you look at "the attacker and defender may perform a focus action" vs "the attacker or defender may perform a focus action", which one would be more clear?

Don't get me wrong, I can very clearly see the how you see the logic there, but as I mentioned, the wording leaves room for interpretation. In such cases, official ruling makes sense, even if only to prevent debates happening at the table if the question arises there.

You're right that it could have been written more clearly, but my point is that that's not a good reason for an unintuitive ruling.

4 hours ago, muribundi said:

Yes, he is WAY LESS good then he was lol...

It also cost him his force modification for the turn... (I know he has two forces, but he can still only regen one)

Ability that cost force token are really overprice for the most part... they are priced like with the ability they give over the modification bonus, but you can't do the two at the same time...

At range 1 he is way better.

Also just having the force tokens is way better.

4 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

You're right that it could have been written more clearly, but my point is that that's not a good reason for an unintuitive ruling.

Fair enough. Guess that if anything appears if will just be a quick clarification.

44 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Also just having the force tokens is way better.

No, because just having the force token make him not have a 3 dice attack.

And all over, relative to other, he cost more then before.

I don't say the ship is bad, but he is way less powerfull in relation to what other can do now. Is it a good thing, yes, but most force user cost too much for the fact that it is a choice. They charge you double when they add an ability using the force token. Luke is good because his ability do not cost you the force token. Inquisitor are good because they only have the base force for not a lot more then the other PS 3 ship. Most force upgrade cost way too much for making you loose the force token. 12 points for adding a Boost or Roll but removing your possibility to mod your dice is a lot... it end up costing 18 on Inquisitor versus regular PS3 that could use Talent upgrade that cost less.

The base effect of Force are good for the cost, they added they can have on some ship or costing too much for now I think

yeah he kinda got neutered.

Not only has to spend a force to get auto R1, but its not "actually R1" anymore so R3 still applies.