Genius: After you fully execute a maneuver, if you have not dropped or launched a device this round , you may drop 1 bomb.

Edon Kappehl: After you fully execute a blue or white maneuver, if you have not dropped or launched a device this round, you may drop 1 device.

Paige Tico: After you perform a primary attack, you may drop 1 bomb or rotate your . After you are destroyed, you may drop 1 bomb.

Deathfire: After you are destroyed, before you are removed, you may perform an attack and drop or launch 1 device.

Rules Reference:

Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.

If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence.

Is the bold text on Genius and Edon Kappehl redundant and pointless? And if it's not redundant and actually has to be there to prevent Genius and Edon from dropping multiple devices in the same round, then does the absence of the bold text from Paige Tico's card (and Deathfire) mean that her ability can be used even if that ship has already dropped or launched a device in the same round?

Why would FFG reiterate the rules on one card but not the others if they were both intended to be restricted by the same already existing rule?

32 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Is the bold text on Genius and Edon Kappehl redundant and pointless?

Nope. They would conflict with the 1 per round limit without it.

32 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

And if it's not redundant and actually has to be there to prevent Genius and Edon from dropping multiple devices in the same round, then does the absence of the bold text from P aige Tico's card (and Deathfire) mean that her ability can be used even if that ship has already dropped or launched a device in the same round?

Yep, without the stipulation that FFG put on Genius's and Edon's cards, Paige and Deathfire conflict with the 1 per round limit and the card trumps the Rules Reference in those instances. Paige and Deathfire ignore the 1 deployed device per round limit.

Well alright then. The discussions that I've read so far seemed to be leaning towards Deathfire and Paige not being able to violate the 1-device-per-round rule, but then I noticed that there were several cards that had the restriction in the text so I wasn't sure if they were right.

45 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Nope. They would conflict with the 1 per round limit without it.

Yep, without the stipulation that FFG put on Genius's and Edon's cards, Paige and Deathfire conflict with the 1 per round limit and the card trumps the Rules Reference in those instances. Paige and Deathfire ignore the 1 deployed device per round limit.

Odd, my interpretation is the exact opposite of yours.

The bolded text on Genius and Edon's card is unnecessary as the rules already restrict the ship to dropping or launching one device per round. The fact that text is not found on Paige and Deathfire's cards does not mean they get to ignore that rule. If either of them said, "you may do this even if you have already dropped or launched a device this round", then you would be able to drop a second device that round, but since there is nothing on either of those two cards contracting the rules reference, the rules reference still applies.

6 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Odd, my interpretation is the exact opposite of yours.

The bolded text on Genius and Edon's card is unnecessary as the rules already restrict the ship to dropping or launching one device per round. The fact that text is not found on Paige and Deathfire's cards does not mean they get to ignore that rule. If either of them said, "you may do this even if you have already dropped or launched a device this round", then you would be able to drop a second device that round, but since there is nothing on either of those two cards contracting the rules reference, the rules reference still applies.

So you are of the opinion that FFG has made 2 cards in 2 different waves that have pointless rules text on them, in addition to making 2 other cards, also from 2 different waves, that lack said text but otherwise work exactly the same way?

1 minute ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Odd, my interpretation is the exact opposite of yours.

The bolded text on Genius and Edon's card is unnecessary as the rules already restrict the ship to dropping or launching one device per round. The fact that text is not found on Paige and Deathfire's cards does not mean they get to ignore that rule. If either of them said, "you may do this even if you have already dropped or launched a device this round", then you would be able to drop a second device that round, but since there is nothing on either of those two cards contracting the rules reference, the rules reference still applies.

The very presence of the stipulations on Genius (who was released concurrent with Deathfire in the first 3 conversion kits) and on Edon (who was released concurrent with Paige in the Resistance conversion kit) is a clear indication of the conflict with the Rules Reference if the stipulation wasn't there on their cards, as is the case with Paige Tico and Deathfire. Cards trump Rules Reference, Deathfire and Paige state they can, Genius and Edon state they adhere.

For reference:

I'm not seeing any text that conflicts with the Rules Reference on Paige's card or Deathfire's. The fact that they don't say, "if you have not dropped or launched a device this round" doesn't mean they can ignore the once per round restriction on dropping or launching devices any more than Deathfire can ignore the once per round restriction on bonus attacks since it doesn't say, "if you have not already performed a bonus attack this round".

Cards contain redundancies all the time. Look at Quickdraw's ability, which uses a charge even though, as a bonus attack, it could only ever be used once per turn anyway.

1 hour ago, Maui. said:

Cards contain redundancies all the time. Look at Quickdraw's ability, which uses a charge even though, as a bonus attack, it could only ever be used once per turn anyway.

In that case, though, the "redundancy" of the charge is to operate as a visual guide to determine whether or not the attack has been used. I can certainly see the arguments on both sides of the Bomber discussion.

32 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

In that case, though, the "redundancy" of the charge is to operate as a visual guide to determine whether or not the attack has been used. I can certainly see the arguments on both sides of the Bomber discussion.

While it isn't a bad visual guide, it is unnecessary and does not exist on Chewbacca or Jostero even though they are also limited to 1 bonus attack per round.

7 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Odd, my interpretation is the exact opposite of yours.

The bolded text on Genius and Edon's card is unnecessary as the rules already restrict the ship to dropping or launching one device per round. The fact that text is not found on Paige and Deathfire's cards does not mean they get to ignore that rule. If either of them said, "you may do this even if you have already dropped or launched a device this round", then you would be able to drop a second device that round, but since there is nothing on either of those two cards contracting the rules reference, the rules reference still applies.

Concur. Rules must be specifically excepted by text on cards to be excepted at all. Otherwise by this logic every ability that allows actions would work whilst stressed.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Concur. Rules must be specifically excepted by text on cards to be excepted at all. Otherwise by this logic every ability that allows actions would work whilst stressed.

The simple answer, and point, is that because the cards don't specify the restriction, they trump the RRG as the RRG itself specifies.

In short, because there are no restrictive qualifiers on Paige and "Deathfire" they are able to exceed the "one drop per round" limit.

21 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

The simple answer, and point, is that because the cards don't specify the restriction, they trump the RRG as the RRG itself specifies.

In short, because there are no restrictive qualifiers on Paige and "Deathfire" they are able to exceed the "one drop per round" limit.

So, why don't cards which allow people to take an action, override the rule that you can't do a given action more than once per round, or the rule that you can't do any actions whilst stressed?

Because they don't.

They would have to say 'even if you've already dropped a bomb or mine this round' to allow you to drop multiple.

Or at least, they should, if FFG were remotely consistent.

17 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

So, why don't cards which allow people to take an action, override the rule that you can't do a given action more than once per round, or the rule that you can't do any actions whilst stressed?

Because they don't.

They would have to say 'even if you've already dropped a bomb or mine this round' to allow you to drop multiple.

Or at least, they should, if FFG were remotely consistent.

By the same argument, why don't they contain the same exclusionary wording, if they don't overrule the RRG?

I know consistency and FFG are so alien to each other it's insane...

9 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:

By the same argument, why don't they contain the same exclusionary wording, if they don't overrule the RRG?

I know consistency and FFG are so alien to each other it's insane...

They don't contain the exclusionary wording because it's unnecessary.

A better argument is why the bothered to INCLUDE it on the ones that use it. Because it's just not needed.

But yeah. Consistency!

I really hope FFG don't rule these two to work even if you've done the thing already, because implications.

I'd like to point out there's a difference in RR clauses applicable that somehow distinct the action-while-stressed and drop-after-drop scenario:

RRp3 - Actions:

Quote

(...)

• A ship cannot perform actions while stressed.

(...)

RRp4 - Devices:

Quote

(...)

• Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.

(...)

While I wouldn't mark this difference as massive, we know for a fact that the word "cannot" is somehow superior while analysing in-game states (yet, per RRp1 - Golden Rules , it is so while it is a part of a card ability. Still...). Perhaps this difference in wording may be of importance in the manner under discussion, as a single ship is not forbidden from deploying two devices per round, but rather given just a single opportunity at doing so. This limit might have been set to flat out stop any discussion similar to 1E's Minefield Mapper + Extra Munition ambiguity, with 2E players trying to argue they may drop as many devices as they've chosen to upgrade within single system phase.

By the logic of permitting Paige and Deathfire to drop extra bombs, you would also argue that Jake Farrell can perform a focus action after performing a red boost action, because normally you can't perform actions while stressed but card abilities override rules in order to work.

But we know for certain that this doesn't work, per the ability queue example in the RRG. Stress stops actions; Jake's ability doesn't break that rule; therefore you don't break every rule necessary in order to make an ability work, only the ones that are specifically overridden by the card (e.g. Afterburners, which allows you to perform a boost while stressed).

This boils down to another example of Don't Do What The Card Doesn't Say.

9 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

In that case, though, the "redundancy" of the charge is to operate as a visual guide to determine whether or not the attack has been used.

I'd buy this if all the other bonus attack abilities in the game were being tracked by charges. Quickdraw's charge seems like an artifact from early design that was never removed, as does Dengar's.

2 hours ago, ryfterek said:

I'd like to point out there's a difference in RR clauses applicable that somehow distinct the action-while-stressed and drop-after-drop scenario:

RRp3 - Actions:

RRp4 - Devices:

While I wouldn't mark this difference as massive, we know for a fact that the word "cannot" is somehow superior while analysing in-game states (yet, per RRp1 - Golden Rules , it is so while it is a part of a card ability. Still...). Perhaps this difference in wording may be of importance in the manner under discussion, as a single ship is not forbidden from deploying two devices per round, but rather given just a single opportunity at doing so. This limit might have been set to flat out stop any discussion similar to 1E's Minefield Mapper + Extra Munition ambiguity, with 2E players trying to argue they may drop as many devices as they've chosen to upgrade within single system phase.

So by your logic, every card that grant a bonus attack bypass the rules: "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round." This is the exact same wording as the bomb and the card that grant a bonus attack use the same wording as the card that grant a bonus bomb...

So Deathfire could do an attack and drop a bomb according to you even when he already got a bonus attack with cluster missile and dropped a bomb this turn.

Guys stop taking your dream for reality... you can't drop more then one bomb exactly like you can't do more then one bonus attack

Edit: But at the same time reason were found for why action are not like bomb drop, I'm so curious to see the explanation that will be found for the bonus attack versus bomb...

10 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

While it isn't a bad visual guide, it is unnecessary and does not exist on Chewbacca or Jostero even though they are also limited to 1 bonus attack per round.

Because Chewbacca can still perform an action... ok, they could have said: Then you can spend a charge to perform a bonus attack

For Jostero... go figure..

It is not totally useless, there could be ability that want to use your pilote charge, like force, in the futur... Chew and Jostero will not be able to use them, but Quickdraw and Dengar will. This is "design" space... but I doubt they done it for this reason lol

1 hour ago, muribundi said:

So by   your logic,  

1 hour ago, muribundi said:

Guys   stop taking your dream for rea  l  i  ty  ..  . 

I have no emotional bias towards any of the cards in question. I'm just trying to point out a side of things that might have been overlooked at first in the ongoing discussion.

I've noticed an overwhelming tendency on this subforum at making these discussions go down the ad personam road. Personally, as a solely 100% Rebel player I don't even have an access to a single of these cards. I'm only looking forward to building documented conclusions regarding the rules all of the playerbase ought to follow.

I'm pretty sure anyone willing to break the meta with some rules abusive combination of cards wouldn't care to take their time participating in a discussion here. They'd push their agenda in the local community instead.

We're here to understand / explain the rules and interactions of the game, not push combos down each other throats. Sometimes we still read the cards the way we do even if it means they're going to hit us harder whenever we face them...

Digression aside, I concur to what you've pointed out - the wording for both the bonus attacks and device deployments match, so they ought to behave the same way.

The difference in wordings gathered by the OP is still interesting, but so it seems to be yet another inconsistency on FFG's side. Likely some designer(s) had something in mind writing it the way it's written, but yet again they've failed to keep their own rulebooks in mind. Shame?

28 minutes ago, ryfterek said:

I've noticed an overwhelming tendency on this subforum at making these discussions go down the ad personam road. Personally, as a solely 100% Rebel player I don't even have an access to a single of these cards. I'm only looking forward to building documented conclusions regarding the rules all of the playerbase ought to follow.

This is nothing personal, I did not attack any of your personal characteristic. But there is a huge tendency on these forum of people coming and just wanting something to be true, irrelevant of what the rules point out. And when we point to rule, they just randomly discard them... Taking dream for reality, is not a personal attack, it is just stating what the argument seems to suggest.

Edit: I also never said, the multi bomb is invalid because you take dream for reality... That would be ad personam. I given argument why it is not possible and then said that continuing the debate would show that some take dream as reality.

Side note myself:

I'm not overly bothered either way, Deathfire sits unplayed until a magical device appears that can be launched innately, due to some dumb ruling that, despite his ability, he can't seem to actually launch a device upon death.

That's totally different though. There are just plain better pilots at both higher and lower Initiative on the points scale.

I'm another who is interested in the lack of consistency, and, because the device drop/launch clause lacks the "cannot" even if I'm facing it, I'd still accept it because that's exactly what the card says, especially with cards containing the exclusion clause.

Know what I mean?

This is something which I think would benefit from clarification.

• The rules for the Perform Action step only instruct you to perform 1 action, but clearly you can link into another action.
• The rules for Attacking are pretty clear: you get 1 normal attack. If you have a source of bonus attacks, you can only get 1 bonus attack.

As I see it, things aren't completely clear that bomb drops work one way or the other, like Attacks, or like Actions.

Personally, I think there's enough room in current rules for an interpretation which allows Paige and Deathfire to get two drops off in a turn. I think the restrictions on Genius and Edon imply that Paige and Deathfire do not have the same restriction. Imply, not prove. But I think it's justice to allow them to drop a second device.

//

Deathfire's inability to currently launch isn't some "dumb ruling." I've always seen it as the plain way to interpret the text of the card. "Drop or Launch" is the generic term, like "Perform an Action" or "Perform an Attack." Being granted the ability to perform an action doesn't let you perform an action which isn't on your bar. Being granted the ability to perform an attack doesn't let you ignore the range and arc requirements. Being granted the ability to drop or launch doesn't let you toss any device anywhere--you still have to follow the rules for your devices. This isn't dumb. This is sane.

And I've seen a ship be killed by Deathfire dropping a Proximity Mine with 2-bank (Ship Ability plus Skilled Bombardier). Dude also still gets a bonus attack. As with any ship, it's always a choice whether someone wants the cheapness of a generic vs the effect of a limited ship, but it's clearly not just blank text. It does something, which may be of value. Even placing a Proton Bomb behind you has value. It blocks off space for an opponent. Maybe they can't safely K-Turn anymore, and you'll be able to use that to advantage.

4 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

This is something which I think would benefit from clarification.

• The rules for the Perform Action step only instruct you to perform 1 action, but clearly you can link into another action.
• The rules for Attacking are pretty clear: you get 1 normal attack. If you have a source of bonus attacks, you can only get 1 bonus attack.

As I see it, things aren't completely clear that bomb drops work one way or the other, like Attacks, or like Actions.

"Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round." vs "A ship can perform only one bonus attack per round."

How is one of those statements "pretty clear", and the other one not "completely clear"? It seems very cut and dry to me that a ship can only drop or launch one device per round, until there is an upgrade that explicitly allows a ship to drop or launch more than one device per round.