So, if I use a reconfigue card does that alter the main card text?

Pathfinders: A-300 Range 1-3; 2 white dice

If I take the 6 point upgrade I don't have that weapon at all, right? I just have the 1-4; 1 white and 1-2; 1 red options available.

Is that correct?

2 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

So, if I use a reconfigue card does that alter the main card text?

Pathfinders: A-300 Range 1-3; 2 white dice

If I take the 6 point upgrade I don't have that weapon at all, right? I just have the 1-4; 1 white and 1-2; 1 red options available.

Is that correct?

No, it is not correct. The Armament upgrade does not replace any of the weapons on the main card. It is an additional weapon the unit has access to, much like a grenade. You will still have the option of using the A-300 as presented on the card, or whatever side of the Armament upgrade is face up.

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

No, it is not correct. The Armament upgrade does not replace any of the weapons on the main card. It is an additional weapon the unit has access to, much like a grenade. You will still have the option of using the A-300 as presented on the card, or whatever side of the Armament upgrade is face up.

Is that covered anywhere?
I was trying to find a reference either way in the RRG but I could not.

42 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Is that covered anywhere?
I was trying to find a reference either way in the RRG but I could not.

It doesn't need to be covered. The weapons on the unit card don't disappear if you equip an upgrade that gives you another weapon, whether it's a Grenade or Armament or whatever.

After looking at the rules, I don't see it that clearly any more ...

It would seem so, since For Greanates and Hardpoint it is ruled explicitly

Quote

Some upgrade cards feature the hard point ( ) or grenade ( ) icons; these are weapon upgrades. These upgrades do not add any minis to a unit; instead, every mini in that unit may use that weapon when attacking the enemy.

But this paragraph is limited to only apply to hard point and grenades without leaving it open for Armament (for example "some upgrade cards _like_ hard point or grenade ..."). So one could argue that this is not true for Armament upgrades. The weapon even has the same name (A-300) which would suggest, that they only have one weapon in different modes. It would seem odd though, that you can't reconfigure to the original version again. And there is no rule stating you lose the original weapon either.

I would like to have a specific ruling for Armament, though I will most likely play it like grenades/hard points until stated otherwise.

Yes it is covered...

Page 60 of RR says about Upgrade Cards:

Quote

Some upgrade cards feature the hard point or grenade icons; these are weapon upgrades. These upgrades do not add any minis to a unit; instead, every mini in that unit may use that weapon when attacking the enemy.

While Page 32 of RR says about Dual Sided Cards, and Page 50 about Reconfigure (upgrade Keyword), or Weapons on Page 61-62.

4 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

After looking at the rules, I don't see it that clearly any more ...

It would seem so, since For Greanates and Hardpoint it is ruled explicitly

But this paragraph is limited to only apply to hard point and grenades without leaving it open for Armament (for example "some upgrade cards _like_ hard point or grenade ..."). So one could argue that this is not true for Armament upgrades. The weapon even has the same name (A-300) which would suggest, that they only have one weapon in different modes. It would seem odd though, that you can't reconfigure to the original version again. And there is no rule stating you lose the original weapon either.

I would like to have a specific ruling for Armament, though I will most likely play it like grenades/hard points until stated otherwise.

Why would you need a specific rule telling you that you can keep the weapon on the unit card when nothing tells you that you must ignore it?

I think the source of the question was based on confusion or not knowing the details of the card.

If you were specifically speaking about the rebel pathfinders Weapon upgrade A-300... either side, BOTH sides say Reconfigure. You may flip it upon using Reconfigure how it states to use it, however can only use the side that is face up as stated in Dual Weapons on page 32.

Additionally, yes it says some upgrades like hard point or grenades... meaning not limited to just those two. Its like saying I like veggies, like carrots or broccoli.. is those the only veggies in existence or is it I just didn't feel like saying... I like veggies, like Artichoke, Arugula, Asparagus, Bamboo shoots, Beans, Beets, Bok Choy, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cabbage, Carrot, Cauliflower, Celery, Collards, Cucumber, Edamame (Soybeans), Eggplant, Horseradish, Kale, Leeks, Lettuce, Onion, Peas, Pepper, Potato, Radishes, Snow Peas, Spaghetti Squash, Spinach, ..... you get the picture hopefully, that's just ridiculous to name off every single thing when you can use the process of elimination lol. Does it add a miniature, nope then it isn't a Heavy Weapon or Personnel. etc etc.

I do understand what you were saying, as yes it doesn't specifically say Armament. However, armament isn't listed beyond being newly added as a new upgrade keyword. It still is a weapon described on page 62.. having range, dice, potentially a keyword, etc.

Additionally, we would need specific rules telling us WHICH weapon Armament replaces if that were intended. We can also look at Jyn, who has only has a melee attack; if Armament replaces a weapon, does she then loose her melee attack in order to get a ranged attack?

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Additionally, we would need specific rules telling us WHICH weapon Armament replaces if that were intended. We can also look at Jyn, who has only has a melee attack; if Armament replaces a weapon, does she then loose her melee attack in order to get a ranged attack?

That doesn't follow for me. A ranged weapon is a completely different weapon on its face.
The A-300 card would appear to overrule the A-300 printed on the unit card. Also since the card it printed as "Rebel Pathfinders Only" it rules out in my mind that they are bringing a second A-300 on them in different configurations.

4 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

That doesn't follow for me. A ranged weapon is a completely different weapon on its face.
The A-300 card would appear to overrule the A-300 printed on the unit card. Also since the card it printed as "Rebel Pathfinders Only" it rules out in my mind that they are bringing a second A-300 on them in different configurations.

Except no game effect says that. Weapon disabled is able to affect the melee weapons on a vehicle, which in the case of the AT-RT is it's feet, but expert climber isn't affected, which is the intended use of Grappling Claws. And who says they are bringing a second A-300? Maybe the different modes don't stop it from firing in the normal configuration. Just because it has a longer barrel doesn't mean it can't be used to spray at a slighlty shorter ranger. And just because the barrel is shorter doesn't mean it can't still fire inaccurately at longer range. If it was supposed to be a replacement upgrade, then the Pathfinder should have been printed with no ranged weapon and two Armament upgrades: the Reconfigure upgrade and the A-300.

Also, this would imply that the Darksaber upgrade on Sabine replaces the Combat Expertise melee attack.

Maybe the Darksaber does?

The binary nature of reconfigue indicates to me that it operates as X or Y, not X, A or Y, A.

But we'll see what they say, right now it is ambiguous, maybe the sheet in the box will clarify it.

30 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Maybe the Darksaber does?

The binary nature of reconfigue indicates to me that it operates as X or Y, not X, A or Y, A.

But we'll see what they say, right now it is ambiguous, maybe the sheet in the box will clarify it.

It's not ambiguous. I don't mean to be rude with this comment, but it seems that you're trying to apply logic to "invent" a new rule for something that doesn't exist. Nothing on the rules or the Weapons upgrade card instructs you to replace any weapon on the unit's card, therefore, why would you even do that?

They’ve already released the new RRG, and it doesn’t say anything about an Armament upgrade replacing other weapons. Unless they just forgot to add it, but that’s doubtful because the card itself would ideally have some kind of text describing which weapon it replaces.

I understand the desire to have the config weapons replace the standard weapon (that was my prediction), but as of now there is nothing that says to do that.

29 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

It's not ambiguous. I don't mean to be rude with this comment, but it seems that you're trying to apply logic to "invent" a new rule for something that doesn't exist. Nothing on the rules or the Weapons upgrade card instructs you to replace any weapon on the unit's card, therefore, why would you even do that?

I'm not inventing a rule, I'm saying it's ambiguous. It's not like they haven't forgotten to address something before, not thought through the implications of things they have addressed or immediately reversed themselves when they made a very bad ruling (see overhang).

And yes, you are being quite rude and I'll thank you to not assign motive to me in this case.

So, by your logic then if I have the short configuration and I allowed to set separate dice pools? Half my squad can soot reds at these guys at 2 and the rest can shoot two whites at those guys at range 3?

@nashjaee it's quit possible you are right, however the rules team's recent history doesn't give me much trust in this.

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Maybe the Darksaber does?

The binary nature of reconfigue indicates to me that it operates as X or Y, not X, A or Y, A.

But we'll see what they say, right now it is ambiguous, maybe the sheet in the box will clarify it.

If that were the case, then I'd expect the Darksaber to have "Sidearm: Melee" rather than have two keywords/upgrades with the very similar effects.

The sheet in the box is NOT rules text and therefore does not matter what it says. In order for the Armament weapon to replace a weapon on the basic sheet, we would need a rule to that effect. We do not have one, so it does not replace. Again, if the intention was for th Armament to replace the base A-300, then I believe FFG would have made an Armament card for the A-300 and the Reconfigure card and not included a ranged weapon on the unit card.

According to your argument, right now the Armament rule does NOTHING. There is no rule in the RRG that tells us how to use the Armament upgrade, since it is not mentioned as an upgrade that adds a weapon, nor is it stated to replace a weapon, so by your arguments, it's a 6 point upgraded with no effect. Until we receive clarification from the "Official Rules" account, the likely best course of action is to apply it as if it were a grenade.

EDIT: I just submitted a question via the FFG Rules contact page , and was informed by Alex Davy that Armaments are Weapon Upgrades, and therefore work the same as grenades.

50 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

So, by your logic then if I have the short configuration and I allowed to set separate dice pools? Half my squad can soot reds at these guys at 2 and the rest can shoot two whites at those guys at range 3?

Yes, that's how it would work.

53 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I'm not inventing a rule, I'm saying it's ambiguous. It's not like they haven't forgotten to address something before, not thought through the implications of things they have addressed or immediately reversed themselves when they made a very bad ruling (see overhang).

And yes, you are being quite rude and I'll thank you to not assign motive to me in this case.

So, by your logic then if I have the short configuration and I allowed to set separate dice pools? Half my squad can soot reds at these guys at 2 and the rest can shoot two whites at those guys at range 3?

@nashjaee it's quit possible you are right, however the rules team's recent history doesn't give me much trust in this.

I apologize if you thought my comment was rude, it wasn't my intention at all. What I mean is that, maybe you're right that FFG might add later a rule that the weapon upgrade replaces some weapon on the unit's card, but for now with the rules we have it isn't the case. So in the example you make, you could choose for some of the pathfinders to attack one unit with the regular weapon and the others attack another unit with the face up configuration of your weapon upgrade

Alex Davy says Armament works just like grenades, and that e ach mini in the unit can choose to use a weapon on its unit card or to use its Armament weapon.

Pathfinders have 2 weapons:

· Unarmed - 1b - Melee
· A-300 Blaster Rifle - 2w - 1-3

If you add the dual sided A-300 config card you will have 3 weapons. If you would lose the "standard" A-300, then the armament card would use the SIDEARM keyword, and it doesn't.

So, either you have the short or the long range config equiped and face up, you ALWAYS can use the "medium" config.

Yet there is the main rule that all weapons in a unit which have the same name (in this casa A300) MUST shoot to the same target.

So you shouldn't be able to split fire.

They aren't the same name and are treated as technically 3 different weapons however only can use one side or the other of the config versions. There are 3 different names. A-300 Blaster Rifle (Default Weapon), then one side or the other of the upgrade card A-300 Short Range Config or A-300 Long Range Config . If have A-300 Short or Long Range Config face up, you may split fire using A-300 Blaster Rifle for one attack, then A-300 Short/Long Range Config for the other.

The rule you are right about yet wrong in this case is on page 50 of RR under Ranged Weapon:

Quote

If a unit has multiple minis each using a ranged weapon, each ranged weapon with the same name must be added to the same attack pool. Ranged weapons with different names may be added to different attack pools.

Since they are different names, which ever one is face up may be used in a different or same attack.

I know the rule. but the name of the weapon is A300. SO they have the same name.

1 minute ago, toffolone said:

I know the rule. but the name of the weapon is A300. SO they have the same name.

He told you what the names of the weapons were and you just said "no I'm going to reject reality." Please don't confuse other people here with your stubbornness.