CONFIRMED CANNOT BE USED TOGETHER




For reference:



ARSENAL X (UNIT KEYWORD)
When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack, each mini in a unit that has the arsenal x keyword can choose a number of its weapons equal to the value of x. Each chosen weapon contributes its dice and keywords to the attack pool.

• To use a weapon during an attack, the defender must be at or within any of the weapon’s ranges.

• 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.
» A unit that has the arsenal x keyword is not required to add weapons with the same name to the same attack pool; it can add weapons with the same name to separate attack pools.


The question:

During each of the attacks granted by "Trained in the Jedi arts" Can General Grievous add one of the Trophy Lightsabers (for unit's in melee) or the DT-57 to the pool?

I don't see why he wouldn't be able to add arsenal to that attack. Seems worded to where that works and nothing seems to stop arsenal from triggering. If the developers had wanted to prevent arsenal from being used they could've worded it to where that doesn't work so I guess it does. However, that seems so crazy powerful that I may be wrong...if its too good to be true, it prolly is

using the following weapon indicates to me its just that weapon and also how they played it on the livestream rules as written would indicate Arsenal 2 though. I think this does need a clarification since it is currently ambiguous

We had this same discusion some time ago. Arsenal works "when choosing weapons" but the effect of "Trained in your Jedi arts" is choosing the weapon for you, you don't get to choose. Because of that I'd say that it makes you skip that step so no Arsenal

Right, the weapon on the card is the only one Grievous has access to for this ability.

The card would be unbelievably overpowered otherwise.

14 hours ago, bllaw said:

I don't see why he wouldn't be able to add arsenal to that attack. Seems worded to where that works and nothing seems to stop arsenal from triggering. If the developers had wanted to prevent arsenal from being used they could've worded it to where that doesn't work so I guess it does. However, that seems so crazy powerful that I may be wrong...if its too good to be true, it prolly is

11 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

We had this same discusion some time ago. Arsenal works "when choosing weapons" but the effect of "Trained in your Jedi arts" is choosing the weapon for you, you don't get to choose. Because of that I'd say that it makes you skip that step so no Arsenal

11 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Right, the weapon on the card is the only one Grievous has access to for this ability.

The card would be unbelievably overpowered otherwise.

So I guess the follow up, seeing as the majority seem to think it will not apply here, would the Jedi Hunter Keyword be excluded too?

16 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

So I guess the follow up, seeing as the majority seem to think it will not apply here, would the Jedi Hunter Keyword be excluded too?

Why would it?

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

Why would it?

I couldn't say, but I also didn't see why Arsenal would be excluded here either. That's why I'm asking.

No, I'd say Jedi hunter works, as its timing/conditions for use are different. Combining Arsenal would be more than a little ridiculous as it could potentially trigger several times, and (because of how arsenal works) be targeting at the same unit every time.

4 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

So I guess the follow up, seeing as the majority seem to think it will not apply here, would the Jedi Hunter Keyword be excluded too?

Jedi Hunter would still work. I see nothing that prevents it.

The card also states that he gets to attack with the following weapon, unlike boba’s two and three pips, which state he can choose it as one of his weapons for an attack.

4 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

The card also states that he gets to attack with the following weapon, unlike boba’s two and three pips, which state he can choose it as one of his weapons for an attack.

It is a specific mention of the attack on the command card he doesn't get access to that weapon outside the command card . Ultimately it's him spinning with his trophy lightsaber and attacking everything within range 1 of him with them . (Note it's the same attack pool) that doesn't mean to say he can use that weapon during his attack phase even on the same round, that particular iteration is not an upgrade or a weapon he holds. By your logic veers or leias one pip would be the same.

8 hours ago, syrath said:

It is a specific mention of the attack on the command card he doesn't get access to that weapon outside the command card . Ultimately it's him spinning with his trophy lightsaber and attacking everything within range 1 of him with them . (Note it's the same attack pool) that doesn't mean to say he can use that weapon during his attack phase even on the same round, that particular iteration is not an upgrade or a weapon he holds. By your logic veers or leias one pip would be the same.

I’m pretty sure you read that wrong. I’m agreeing with you, and arguing that arsenal doesn’t kick in.

No arsenal, jedi hunter, and any upgrades like hunter will work

4 minutes ago, TheHoosh said:

No arsenal, jedi hunter, and any upgrades like hunter will work

That phrasing is a little confusing. You're saying the first one does not work, but the other two do work, right?

3 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

I’m pretty sure you read that wrong. I’m agreeing with you, and arguing that arsenal doesn’t kick in.

Okay, misread sorry

2 hours ago, nashjaee said:

That phrasing is a little confusing. You're saying the first one does not work, but the other two do work, right?

Yes sorry arsenal does not work,

non weapon specific upgrades will still work as this is an attack such as Jedi Hunter and Hunter or Tenacity

Okay, this question was posed to FB as well, and I've seen some interesting discussion about it. I tried to get a solid Yes or No from the AMA today, but there were more important questions i guess.

Here's the leading argument in the favor of "yes, arsenal could be used" as paraphrased from the discussion:



"This is my understanding of how doing an end of activation attack works based on the RRG"

Step 1: Declare Defender:
The attacking player chooses one enemy unit to attack; this enemy unit is now the defender...

Step 2: Form Attack Pool:
The attack pool consists of all the dice the attacker will roll against this defender. When forming the attack pool, players follow these substeps in order:

Step 2 a: Determine Eligible Minis ...

Step 2 b: Choose Weapons:
The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool. To choose a weapon, the attacker must meet all requirements indicated by that weapon’s keywords, and that weapon’s range must include the range of the attack, as determined from the attacker’s unit leader to the closest mini of the defender

**This is the point in question**

Step 2 d: Gather Dice:
For each eligible mini that chose a weapon, the attacker gathers the number and type of dice depicted on that weapon and places them on the battlefield near the defender.

Arsenal: When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack, each mini in a unit that has the arsenal x keyword can choose a number of its weapons equal to the value of x.

** You don't skip steps 2b just because the card specifies which weapon to include in the attack pool . It constrains your choices in that you're required to use THAT weapon in the pool for each attack. The card doesn't say to skip a step, or ignore a step, and therefore you're required to go through all the steps, even if they're very simple or obvious. So when you get to "Form an Attack pool" Arsenal kicks in and players may augment with appropriate additional weapons. I'll grant this will most likely be errata'd to limit it in the future... but for now RAW it's good to go.

5 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Okay, this question was posed to FB as well, and I've seen some interesting discussion about it. I tried to get a solid Yes or No from the AMA today, but there were more important questions i guess.

Here's the leading argument in the favor of "yes, arsenal could be used" as paraphrased from the discussion:



"This is my understanding of how doing an end of activation attack works based on the RRG"

Step 1: Declare Defender:
The attacking player chooses one enemy unit to attack; this enemy unit is now the defender...

Step 2: Form Attack Pool:
The attack pool consists of all the dice the attacker will roll against this defender. When forming the attack pool, players follow these substeps in order:

Step 2 a: Determine Eligible Minis ...

Step 2 b: Choose Weapons:
The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool. To choose a weapon, the attacker must meet all requirements indicated by that weapon’s keywords, and that weapon’s range must include the range of the attack, as determined from the attacker’s unit leader to the closest mini of the defender

**This is the point in question**

Step 2 d: Gather Dice:
For each eligible mini that chose a weapon, the attacker gathers the number and type of dice depicted on that weapon and places them on the battlefield near the defender.

Arsenal: When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack, each mini in a unit that has the arsenal x keyword can choose a number of its weapons equal to the value of x.

** You don't skip steps 2b just because the card specifies which weapon to include in the attack pool . It constrains your choices in that you're required to use THAT weapon in the pool for each attack. The card doesn't say to skip a step, or ignore a step, and therefore you're required to go through all the steps, even if they're very simple or obvious. So when you get to "Form an Attack pool" Arsenal kicks in and players may augment with appropriate additional weapons. I'll grant this will most likely be errata'd to limit it in the future... but for now RAW it's good to go.

However the command card specifies you perform an attack using the following weapon, and then goes on to specify the weapon you have to use on the card. If it had said you perform another attack at the end of your activation, then you would have a choice, but since the weapon is specified for you, you don't get the choice of adding another. So even if Arsenal is allowed as a keyword the card doesn't allow the use of another weapon with its wording and since you cannot use Arsenal to attack with the same weapon twice you are locked in not being able to take advantage of Arsenal (unless Arsenal is changed to allow two attacks with the same weapon during an attack)

10 hours ago, syrath said:

However the command card specifies you perform an attack using the following weapon, and then goes on to specify the weapon you have to use on the card. If it had said you perform another attack at the end of your activation, then you would have a choice, but since the weapon is specified for you, you don't get the choice of adding another. So even if Arsenal is allowed as a keyword the card doesn't allow the use of another weapon with its wording and since you cannot use Arsenal to attack with the same weapon twice you are locked in not being able to take advantage of Arsenal (unless Arsenal is changed to allow two attacks with the same weapon during an attack)

It's an argument that comes up often. Essentially, the counter has been the lack of the word "only". "You may perform an attack with the following weapon" doesn't actually exclude other weapons. It merely dictates that the weapon provided must be in the attack.

You also have to consider what this means for the rules. There is no precedent for "skipping" the "choose a weapon" substep of an attack.


I don't particularly have a horse here, but I do believe it needs some clarification.

9 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

It's an argument that comes up often. Essentially, the counter has been the lack of the word "only". "You may perform an attack with the following weapon" doesn't actually exclude other weapons. It merely dictates that the weapon provided must be in the attack.

You also have to consider what this means for the rules. There is no precedent for "skipping" the "choose a weapon" substep of an attack.


I don't particularly have a horse here, but I do believe it needs some clarification.

it is actually the contrary. It doesn't automatically allow everything that isn't explicitly forbidden. It isn't written there explicitly that you can't use the weapon of the target of the attack and still I see no argumet for it. In legal terms this is called exhaustive enumeration. The card allows you to do an attack using the weapon stated on the card. I see no room for interpretation why any other weapon should be allowed on top. If they intended arsenal to work, the text would be different, explicitly allowing to do so.

13 minutes ago, SailorMeni said:

It doesn't automatically allow everything that isn't explicitly forbidden.

Nobody said it does, this case has to do with the attack steps and the lack of precedent for the "choose a weapon" steps....

see:

25 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

You also have to consider what this means for the rules. There is no precedent for "skipping" the "choose a weapon" substep of an attack.

17 minutes ago, SailorMeni said:

he card allows you to do an attack using the weapon stated on the card. I see no room for interpretation why any other weapon should be allowed on top.

Because of the way the attack steps are designed, how they're followed, and how both the card and Arsenal are worded.

18 minutes ago, SailorMeni said:

If they intended arsenal to work, the text would be different, explicitly allowing to do so.

The opposite could also be true. Had they intended Arsenal not to work they would have stated it explicitly.

8 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Because of the way the attack steps are designed, how they're followed

With your logic, I can also argue that I can use veers or leias standard weapons for their 1-pip attacks. When I'm at the choose weapon step - which isn't skipped at their cards either - I choose to not use the bombardment and instead roll my 3 black dice at three targets at range 2 with leia. Same phrasing on the cards, same attack steps used.

Looking at Boba cards, where a weapon is added to his weapon options is clearly meant to be functioning with arsenal. If it was really intended to allow to add the standard weapons for the free attack (which would totally break the game btw., multiple 8 dice pierce attacks in one activation, this is simply ridiculous, just think about it ...), they would have phrased it more like those cards.

11 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

It's an argument that comes up often. Essentially, the counter has been the lack of the word "only". "You may perform an attack with the following weapon" doesn't actually exclude other weapons. It merely dictates that the weapon provided must be in the attack.

You also have to consider what this means for the rules. There is no precedent for "skipping" the "choose a weapon" substep of an attack.


I don't particularly have a horse here, but I do believe it needs some clarification.

Actually it does

The wording is he may perform an attack with weapon X.

I does not say he may perform an attack (which would allow any weapon)

The other option is that you can choose not to attack with weapon X at then end of your activation at all.

Essentially what you suggest ignores the qualifier that it specifies the weapon you can choose to use, as it is fixed and if you think about it logically and grammatically what happens if you choose not to attack with weapon X. .... The result is nothing. There are similar wordings elsewhere like you may gain a dodge token (or you can choose not to), this doesn't mean you can choose to have a standby or an aim instead. (Edit I'm not sure if there is a wording anywhere that has that exact wording but there are abilities that do have the option that "you may")

14 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

With your logic, I can also argue that I can use veers or leias standard weapons for their 1-pip attacks.

You'd be wrong, Leia and Veers lack the keyword that's causing the conflict.

Three things have to be present for this conflict to happen:

1.) The rules for attack steps.
2.) A command card that uses the phrase, "you may perform an attack with the following weapon"
3.) Arsenal X

If all three conditions aren't there, there's no conflict. For instance having conditions 1 and 2, like Leia and Veers, presents no conflict because the keyword Arsenal isn't there to provide an extra choice during the choose weapons step that therefore creates conflict. Same goes for Boba who has conditions 1 and 3, but uses command cards that state, "during his activation he gains the following weapon" therefore avoiding the conflict by using different wording on the command card.

14 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

If it was really intended to allow to add the standard weapons for the free attack (which would totally break the game btw., multiple 8 dice pierce attacks in one activation, this is simply ridiculous, just think about it ...), they would have phrased it more like those cards.

I'm not here to discuss RAI (rules as intended), I'm here to determine RAW (rules as written), and as I've stated above, according to the rules as written there's a conflict. Everyone is aware that they didn't intend for Grievous to be this OP, but the rules determine how the game is played. As a judge, making as RAI ruling is HIGH risk, because I wasn't there for the development, therefore I can't state with certainty what was actually intended.

12 hours ago, syrath said:

Actually it does

The wording is he may perform an attack with weapon X.

I does not say he may perform an attack (which would allow any weapon)

The other option is that you can choose not to attack with weapon X at then end of your activation at all.

Essentially what you suggest ignores the qualifier that it specifies the weapon you can choose to use , as it is fixed and if you think about it logically and grammatically what happens if you choose not to attack with weapon X. .... The result is nothing. There are similar wordings elsewhere like you may gain a dodge token (or you can choose not to), this doesn't mean you can choose to have a standby or an aim instead. (Edit I'm not sure if there is a wording anywhere that has that exact wording but there are abilities that do have the option that "you may")

The fault with this logic is that it doesn't ignore the qualifier.

1.) you may perform an attack with the following weapon

2.) Start attack steps

3.) Get to the choose weapon step

4.) Arsenal kicks in immediately allowing for the addition of a number of weapons equal to X (2 in this case).

5.) Pre chosen weapon included immediately as a prerequisite for one of the choices (the attack cannot be performed without it because of the command card)

6.) Arsenal allows a second weapon to be added because the command card doesn't specifically state that "the following weapon" is the only weapon. Merely that the attack must be made with that weapon.

7.) Jank ensues.

12 hours ago, syrath said:

There are similar wordings elsewhere like you may gain a dodge token (or you can choose not to), this doesn't mean you can choose to have a standby or an aim instead

The fault with the logic here is that you're ignoring a keyword that specifically states they can add additional weapons. If there was a keyword that states when get an aim token you may gain an additional token on that card, you'd have an argument but this example is kinda baseless without it. (I'd see the discussion above in this post about the 3 conditions necessary to create the conflict I'm discussing)



I appreciate the input both of you are giving me.