If I choose the Mercenary affiliation and include Temporary Alliance and the Elite Jawa Scavenger in my list can I now include 3 rebel droids in my list e.g. MHD-19, Chopper and R2-D2 AND C3-PO and Gideon?
Can I include 6 droids from other affiliations if I have 2 Elite Jawa Scavengers?
3 hours ago, mischraum.de said:If I choose the Mercenary affiliation and include Temporary Alliance and the Elite Jawa Scavenger in my list can I now include 3 rebel droids in my list e.g. MHD-19, Chopper and R2-D2 AND C3-PO and Gideon?
Can I include 6 droids from other affiliations if I have 2 Elite Jawa Scavengers?
Yes and yes. I think the latter was specifically mentioned in one of the Team Covenant interviews about the wave.
This was done a few times in an effort to have R2-D2, C-3PO and BT-1 brought in by a Jawa, then have Gideon and Hera brought in through Temporary Alliance.
You are allowed up to 3 droids from any faction, so you can take anything from 0 to 3 droids with the Jawa,
On 6/22/2019 at 7:09 AM, a1bert said:Yes and yes. I think the latter was specifically mentioned in one of the Team Covenant interviews about the wave.
By a strict reading of the words on the card I would argue it isn't clear that this is the case...
I fully understand that its the intention of the card, but the wordings do not preclude the cards also counting for the other.
I.e. If you have C-3PO and R2-D2 brought in with the Jawa, they could also conceivably be counted as two Rebel cards for Temporary Alliance.
Its clear the abilities should be cumulative, but I'm not sure how else they could be worded to make it unequivocally clear.
Another Jawa Scavenger is another source for Scavenged Stock and there is no "limit once per army".
Starting around 31 minutes.
Oh, I agree. But you could read it literally as; your cap for non scum droids is now 3. Nothing clarifies it’s cumulative.
we all know it is though.
just pointing out there is an absence in the wordage...
Like in these situations in general, people can fall back to the "litmus test" of how would it be worded if it were not cumulative ? Would it still be worded the same way?
1 hour ago, a1bert said:Like in these situations in general, people can fall back to the "litmus test" of how would it be worded if it were not cumulative ? Would it still be worded the same way?
Sadly it could be worded the same way. I asked this question because having played other games from FFG there were situations when one card said reduce by x to a minimum of 1 and another card said reduce by y without a restriction. The minimum of 1 was regarded as absolute. And so „you may include up to 2 rebel Deployment cards“ could also impose an absolute maximum. Good to know how it works in this game but it always depends on the wording the designers have established for „their“ game.
11 hours ago, a1bert said:Like in these situations in general, people can fall back to the "litmus test" of how would it be worded if it were not cumulative ? Would it still be worded the same way?
it's certainly a difficult wording to put into practise without creating this grey area.
I think it's important to note also that players should not have to think about all the other ways the cards could be written. It should really be clear from just reading the cards...
(I know how the card is supposed to work, but someone with a poorer understanding of English, or even a poor translation into another language, could easily make this a hotly debated topic during a game)
On 6/25/2019 at 2:17 PM, mischraum.de said:Sadly it could be worded the same way. I asked this question because having played other games from FFG there were situations when one card said reduce by x to a minimum of 1 and another card said reduce by y without a restriction. The minimum of 1 was regarded as absolute. And so „you may include up to 2 rebel Deployment cards“ could also impose an absolute maximum. Good to know how it works in this game but it always depends on the wording the designers have established for „their“ game.
This was actually also a key factor with the Jawa's Take Cover ability. It has the wording that says you may apply +1 block and -1 surge cancel to the defense results. For a while there was an argument that said that you could only apply the +1 block if you had a surge cancel to remove (in other words, if you couldn't pay for it, you couldn't take it).
However this was clarified to say that you can apply the +1block regardless, and would only remove a surge cancel if you had 1 to cancel.
The reasoning was that it did not say you can convert 1 to the other, so you only do as much as you can. A similar rule was brought into X-Wing, and people argued for months on it, before it was confirmed to use the same methodology.
If Take Cover was meant to convert evade into a block, it would have been written so. (See Combat Coat.)
You literally add a block and a negative version of an evade to the results. Negative symbols have been in the game since the core, although very discreetly (in a few mission rules) - the rules do not mention them, but they don't have any effect other than annihilate their positive version if there is one. The resolution order and steps of an attack depends on this. You can add negative symbols when there are not positive versions at the time. We have gotten an abundance of negative symbols later, starting with Weakened.
I wrote an entry to the Consolidate Imperial Assault Rules:
Negative Symbols
Attribute tests and attacks can gain negative versions of symbols for example from mission rules, weapons and
modifications, or conditions such as Weakened (-1
evade
while defending and -1
surge
while attacking). If a positive
and negative version of the same symbol exist in the attribute test results or in the attack/defense results, they
eliminate each other immediately. A negative version of a symbol doesn't have any other effect.