I still say I love the concept of thinking out side the box, yet things that cannot be done just cannot be done.

Still waiting to here from Alex Davy, though...

When you watch FFGLive: Star Wars: Legion Live Play at 46:00 when the death troopers are attacking the pathfinders, if this so called being able to attack with multi weapons with a miniature without a card stating it may... then riddle me this lol ... In that attack pool they used everything except E11D Blaster Rifles (Range 1-3) which surely could reach one of the rebel trooper units... why not make another attack pool with 5 deathtroopers using that weapon!??? Giving mercy to Luke or only can attack with each miniature in a unit once like it indicates many times in different ways in the RR???

Point being using arsenal for example... I'm sure that makes a very special kind of sense to use a unit with arsenal then only use one attack, but next to no one uses less attacks than they may do. Same thing with units being able to some how (which yet has to be proved, where is it written!?) are able to make more than one attack with different weapons, yet then don't do so when in range to do so. Odd.

22 hours ago, Tokous said:

When you watch FFGLive: Star Wars: Legion Live Play at 46:00 when the death troopers are attacking the pathfinders, if this so called being able to attack with multi weapons with a miniature without a card stating it may... then riddle me this lol ... In that attack pool they used everything except E11D Blaster Rifles (Range 1-3) which surely could reach one of the rebel trooper units... why not make another attack pool with 5 deathtroopers using that weapon!??? Giving mercy to Luke or only can attack with each miniature in a unit once like it indicates many times in different ways in the RR???

We're not saying that a unit is supposed to use all of it's weapons, I think that we all understand by context that the rule as intended is that a mini can only use one weapon unless it has Arsenal X and play it that way. The only thing that we're saying is that it is not how it's written in the rules, as the rules makes you repeat steps 1-2 of the attacks for any different weapon without restricting you to not use a mini that already used another weapon.

On 3/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Derrault said:

Except for the caveat about being able to form a separate pool if there are any weapons unassigned.

Which is also consistent with the rules there being written as if talking about the pool being established.

Step 3 isn't repeated, only step 1 and 2, so I read it as only allowing for one additional pool as written. If step 3 were written to recursively call itself until all weapons are in a pool, then I would agree with what you are saying, but it is not. Steps 1-2 are repeated forming a new pool, that new pool does not then check for leftover weapons, since the check is executed on Step 3.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Step 3 isn't repeated, only step 1 and 2, so I read it as only allowing for one additional pool as written. If step 3 were written to recursively call itself until all weapons are in a pool, then I would agree with what you are saying, but it is not. Steps 1-2 are repeated forming a new pool, that new pool does not then check for leftover weapons, since the check is executed on Step 3.

That’s not required because step 3 doesn’t ‘have’ to be repeated for the additional attacker being chosen.

Otherwise it’d be self referential, which seems unnecessary to self best, since step three is asking you to repeat other steps as part of resolving it. (Ie you go back to step 3 automatically)

15 hours ago, Derrault said:

That’s not required because step 3 doesn’t ‘have’ to be repeated for the additional attacker being chosen.

Otherwise it’d be self referential, which seems unnecessary to self best, since step three is asking you to repeat other steps as part of resolving it. (Ie you go back to step 3 automatically)

Step 3 only has to be repeated for there to be more than one additional pool, not for there to be two pools at most.

By your logic, Step 3 just needed to say "Repeat step 1" to have the same meaning, since according to you, one must do the next step, which is not how executing steps of a procedure works. You only repeat the steps that have been told to repeat, then continue finishing step 3 from the point you left it, which is after checking for leftover weapons.

Finally got the email reply and surprise surprise...

"Hi Tokous,

You are correct, each miniature can use only a single weapon during an attack, unless it has Arsenal. We will look into making the language clearer in the next rules reference update.

Cheers,

Alex Davy"

9 hours ago, Tokous said:

Finally got the email reply and surprise surprise...

"Hi Tokous,

You are correct, each miniature can use only a single weapon during an attack, unless it has Arsenal. We will look into making the language clearer in the next rules reference update.

Cheers,

Alex Davy"

That doesn’t resolve Caimhuel’s idea however. Can the unit attack one enemy per weapon or is it limited to 2 max?

13 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Step 3 only has to be repeated for there to be more than one additional pool, not for there to be two pools at most.

By your logic, Step 3 just needed to say "Repeat step 1" to have the same meaning, since according to you, one must do the next step, which is not how executing steps of a procedure works. You only repeat the steps that have been told to repeat, then continue finishing step 3 from the point you left it, which is after checking for leftover weapons.

No, the recursion is within step 3; if you don’t specify 1-2 it would skip all the parts of step 2, which is pretty crucial in that it forms the attack pool.

5 minutes ago, Derrault said:

No, the recursion is within step 3; if you don’t specify 1-2 it would skip all the parts of step 2, which is pretty crucial in that it forms the attack pool.

Step 3 isn't recursively because recursion would require the step to call itself repeatedly. How Step 3 is written implies it is only executed once, which means 1 check for remaining weapons, and 1 additional pool formed that contains all those weapons. When you go back to step 3, you go back to it where you left it, after the check for additional weapons, and after the second call to Steps 1 & 2. You don't start Step 3 over at the beginning.

7 minutes ago, Derrault said:

That doesn’t resolve Caimhuel’s idea however. Can the unit attack one enemy per weapon or is it limited to 2 max?

It does. All the attack pools are formed during a single Attack, they are not each individual attacks.

44 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Step 3 isn't recursively because recursion would require the step to call itself repeatedly. How Step 3 is written implies it is only executed once, which means 1 check for remaining weapons, and 1 additional pool formed that contains all those weapons. When you go back to step 3, you go back to it where you left it, after the check for additional weapons, and after the second call to Steps 1 & 2. You don't start Step 3 over at the beginning.

It does. All the attack pools are formed during a single Attack, they are not each individual attacks.

And? That wasn’t in the answer, only the thing we all knew, that each mini selects a single weapon. It doesn’t speak to the number of targets whatsoever.

3 minutes ago, Derrault said:

And? That wasn’t in the answer, only the thing we all knew, that each mini selects a single weapon. It doesn’t speak to the number of targets whatsoever.

Ah, misunderstood since the original topic was concerning the number of legal weapons each mini was allowed to use, our side conversation about number of allowed pools is seperate, and would need a different question asked of FFG. I only saw that the rules as written indicate at most two pools while stepping through the attack action to see if any part of it restricted non-arsenal models to a single weapon per attack.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

That doesn’t resolve Caimhuel’s idea however. Can the unit attack one enemy per weapon or is it limited to 2 max?

I already covered it all in my question to FFG talking about number of attacks, attack pools, etc. when it comes down to it... it should be taken as, each miniature in it's unit may only use 1 weapon among any it has in only one attack pool among the one or more attack pools unit does. FFG will say it better im sure.

All that stuff should be in the new updated RR. Next topic.

5 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Step 3 isn't recursively because recursion would require the step to call itself repeatedly. How Step 3 is written implies it is only executed once, which means 1 check for remaining weapons, and 1 additional pool formed that contains all those weapons. When you go back to step 3, you go back to it where you left it, after the check for additional weapons, and after the second call to Steps 1 & 2. You don't start Step 3 over at the beginning.

It does. All the attack pools are formed during a single Attack, they are not each individual attacks.

I see your point but I think step 3 is not needed to be mentioned by itself.

You're at step 3 which requires you to repeat 1 and 2, after step 2, you're not at step 4 as you are technically resolving step 3. As the condition to repeat is still active -there are weapons to be shot left- you're trapped at that step (3), resolving its command (repeating 1 and 2) until the condition to move on is met.

4 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I see your point but I think step 3 is not needed to be mentioned by itself.

You're at step 3 which requires you to repeat 1 and 2, after step 2, you're not at step 4 as you are technically resolving step 3. As the condition to repeat is still active -there are weapons to be shot left- you're trapped at that step (3), resolving its command (repeating 1 and 2) until the condition to move on is met.

If Step 3 didn't specifically say "forming a separate attack pool with the new weapons" but instead said "forming attack pools with the new weapons" or "forming one or more additional attack pools with the new weapons" I would agree that Step 3 did not need to specify itself to be repeated. However, it seems to indicate that only one additional attack pool can be formed at Step 3. Step 3 is also titled "Declare additional Defender" not "Declare additional Defenders," indicating only one additional Defender (and therefore one additional attack pool) can be formed.

I'm not actually sure what the RAI are here, since it's possible units are supposed to be limited to at most two pools without the Arsenal X keyword, which specifically says "A mini that has the arsenal x keyword can divide its weapons between any number of units, forming a separate dice pool for each weapon or combination of weapons." This would overrule Step 3 adding only a single extra defender should Step 3 only be meant to allow for a single extra target per unit.

I have an email into FFG asking for clarification as to how many attack pools a Pathfinder unit with a Heavy, Grenade, and Arsenal upgrade can form, given enough miniatures in the Pathfinder unit, and enough legal targets. For the most part though, splitting a unit's fire up to the point of having a single weapon/die in an attack pool isn't the most effective use of that unit's attack, so I fully admit this is a complete corner case. As we get more accurate Arsenal upgrades though, it may be advantageous to have your first activations in a turn able to fairly reliably place Suppression on 3-4 units using various red or black dice weapons.