The phrasing "that ship can modify only 1 [focus] result" as written clearly states that the ship can NOT modify any results other than the single [focus] result. However, they've added in the parenthesis text stating that they can still modify their other non-[focus] results. Up until now I believe that all text in parenthesis has been intended as clarifying/reminder text but not actual rules. Is this the only case where without the "reminder" text the effect would entirely change?

IMO the text should have been "that ship may modify all of its non-[focus] results but can modify only 1 of its [focus] results".

I see the text in the parenthesis as clarifying text, since that is how I read her ability to begin with. The restriction is being placed only on focus results and not dice results in general. It is there for people that read the ability differently and thought it would restrict the ship from modifying any results except 1 focus result. It could definitely be clearer, but with the clarifying text I think it is clear enough.

.

It could be interpreted to mean that, but that would be an intentionally bad interpretation when the card offers clarification.

Actively trying to wreck the rules is unhelpful.

(As with most such things, it definitely COULD be clearer, but it's not, so let's agree to treat it as if it works in the non-broken way until they inevitably clarify that it in fact, does work in the non-broken way)

15 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It could be interpreted to mean that, but that would be an intentionally bad interpretation when the card offers clarification.

Actively trying to wreck the rules is unhelpful.

(As with most such things, it definitely COULD be clearer, but it's not, so let's agree to treat it as if it works in the non-broken way until they inevitably clarify that it in fact, does work in the non-broken way)

I apologize, I can see now that my post may have seemed like I was arguing that Padme's ability should work differently. I do agree that her ability is very clearly worded when you include the text in parentheses.

I'm just trying to point out that I feel like the text in parentheses is REQUIRED in order to arrive at the correct application of the ability. Normally (I believe all other cases) the text in parentheses is not required to interpret the ability correctly. The reason I believe that the text is required is demonstrated in the following situation:

Assuming the text in parenthesis had been omitted:

Player 1: Can I modify my blank results while attacking Padme?

Player 2: It says that you "can modify only 1 [focus] result" so no because a blank is not a [focus] result.

While this may not be how some people interpret the ability I would argue that it is still 1 of 2 correct interpretations due to the ambiguity of the language.

12 minutes ago, MadTownXWing said:

I apologize, I can see now that my post may have seemed like I was arguing that Padme's ability should work differently. I do agree that her ability is very clearly worded when you include the text in parentheses.

I'm just trying to point out that I feel like the text in parentheses is REQUIRED in order to arrive at the correct application of the ability. Normally (I believe all other cases) the text in parentheses is not required to interpret the ability correctly. The reason I believe that the text is required is demonstrated in the following situation:

Assuming the text in parenthesis had been omitted:

Player 1: Can I modify my blank results while attacking Padme?

Player 2: It says that you "can modify only 1 [focus] result" so no because a blank is not a [focus] result.

While this may not be how some people interpret the ability I would argue that it is still 1 of 2 correct interpretations due to the ambiguity of the language.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the problem. FFG found the language to be ambiguous, so they clarified it, right there on the card where everyone can see it, before it was even released. It's 100% clear how the ability works. There are two ways to interpret the language, and the parenthetical tells you which one is right. How is this an issue?

FFG isn't perfect and ambiguously phrased abilities are a time-honored tradition in X-wing. As someone who frequents this board, I can assure you that having the clarification on the card before release is a vast improvement over previous rules ambiguities, many of which are still awaiting clarification.

31 minutes ago, MadTownXWing said:

I apologize, I can see now that my post may have seemed like I was arguing that Padme's ability should work differently. I do agree that her ability is very clearly worded when you include the text in parentheses.

I'm just trying to point out that I feel like the text in parentheses is REQUIRED in order to arrive at the correct application of the ability. Normally (I believe all other cases) the text in parentheses is not required to interpret the ability correctly. The reason I believe that the text is required is demonstrated in the following situation:

Assuming the text in parenthesis had been omitted:

Player 1: Can I modify my blank results while attacking Padme?

Player 2: It says that you "can modify only 1 [focus] result" so no because a blank is not a [focus] result.

While this may not be how some people interpret the ability I would argue that it is still 1 of 2 correct interpretations due to the ambiguity of the language.

Does it matter? The text is clear even if it needed an on card clarification to be so.

So why post asking?

I think the position of the word "only" is very precisely placed, in her pilot ability. Consider the differences in these iterations:

• as written: ...that ship can modify only 1 [FOCUS] result...
  • In this case, the "only" refers to focus results. As such, given an attack roll of (for example) blank-blank-focus-focus, they could spend a target lock to reroll blank-blank-focus, but the last focus would be, in effect, a dead die.
• suggested by top post: ...that ship can only modify 1 [FOCUS] result...
  • Here, the "only" restriction refers to the whole modification step... one focus can be altered, the rest are all unchangeable.

One interesting observation... since it sets restrictions on one ship modifying dice, but not other ships, does this mean Juke Padme is potentially a thing?

6 hours ago, MadTownXWing said:

I'm just trying to point out that I feel like the text in parentheses is REQUIRED in order to arrive at the correct application of the ability. Normally (I believe all other cases) the text in parentheses is not required to interpret the ability correctly.

I don't understand the point of this distinction.

FFG has a much complained over history of inconsistent formatting on X-wing cards. @emeraldbeacon laid out a reasonable example of why it is consistent as reminder text, but even if it is a new arrangement of necessary info that's hardly reason for concern.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I think the position of the word "only" is very precisely placed, in her pilot ability. Consider the differences in these iterations:

• as written: ...that ship can modify only 1 [FOCUS] result...
  • In this case, the "only" refers to focus results. As such, given an attack roll of (for example) blank-blank-focus-focus, they could spend a target lock to reroll blank-blank-focus, but the last focus would be, in effect, a dead die.
• suggested by top post: ...that ship can only modify 1 [FOCUS] result...
  • Here, the "only" restriction refers to the whole modification step... one focus can be altered, the rest are all unchangeable.

One interesting observation... since it sets restrictions on one ship modifying dice, but not other ships, does this mean Juke Padme is potentially a thing?

I assumed Juke was a given. If the enemy ship rolls a focus and an evade (Luke perhaps), juke means he only gets 1 evade no matter the force count.