I really don't see how this is an issue. It specifically spells out what weapon is eligible for the attack on the card. It doesn't say you can include others, nor does it say you can take arsenal into account. This isn't an action, so the normal list of eligible weapons doesn't apply, only the one on the card does. "You can do X with Y" doesn't leave room for doing X with Z, or adding Z in as well.

14 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I really don't see how this is an issue. It specifically spells out what weapon is eligible for the attack on the card. It doesn't say you can include others, nor does it say you can take arsenal into account. This isn't an action, so the normal list of eligible weapons doesn't apply, only the one on the card does. "You can do X with Y" doesn't leave room for doing X with Z, or adding Z in as well.

It does not have to say you can use Arsenal, just like how Leia's card does not have to say you can use Sharpshooter. The steps listed above are not only for actions, but for an attack, which is what's happening here.

4 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

No worries

You do not need the word ONLY on the command card.

The Arsenal keyword IMO still applies for attacking, it is just that the command card doesn't allow you to use another weapon

Remember the card wording trumps that of the RRG, and the wording of that card allows you to make attacks at range 1 using the " the following weapon" and the second you try to factor in Arsenal you are no longer attacking with "the following weapon" you are now making attacks with that weapon plus another.

18 minutes ago, syrath said:

No worries

You do not need the word ONLY on the command card.

The Arsenal keyword IMO still applies for attacking, it is just that the command card doesn't allow you to use another weapon

Remember the card wording trumps that of the RRG, and the wording of that card allows you to make attacks at range 1 using the " the following weapon" and the second you try to factor in Arsenal you are no longer attacking with "the following weapon" you are now making attacks with that weapon plus another.

Maybe, that's super grey to me. Anyway they cut it, I want a clarification. I remember some issues like this in Armada that one of the TOs took a ton of crap for making a RAI judgement before an event. I'm hosting the Primes in NE Ohio. I don't want any surprises.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Maybe, that's super grey to me. Anyway they cut it, I want a clarification. I remember some issues like this in Armada that one of the TOs took a ton of crap for making a RAI judgement before an event. I'm hosting the Primes in NE Ohio. I don't want any surprises.

If we don't get an official ruling from the devs in time for your event, you could point to the live stream that they did as a precedent of how it's supposed to work. If Grievous is supposed to be able to use multiple weapons on these attacks, then Alex Davy for sure would have done so. That should be all you need to avoid any flack for making a potential grey-area call.

Also, I think it would be wildly overpowered to allow Grievous to have an 8-die, Pierce 1, Suppressive attack against every unit at range 1.

10 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

If we don't get an official ruling from the devs in time for your event, you could point to the live stream that they did as a precedent of how it's supposed to work. If Grievous is supposed to be able to use multiple weapons on these attacks, then Alex Davy for sure would have done so. That should be all you need to avoid any flack for making a potential grey-area call.

Also, I think it would be wildly overpowered to allow Grievous to have an 8-die, Pierce 1, Suppressive attack against every unit at range 1.

yeah, I may have to do this. Mr. Davy has been fairly swift about answering Legion questions in the past, I have 'til December. I hope there's something more substantial I can lean on by then.

I agree. If it was allowed Grievous goes from Dave Filoni Clone Wars to Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars REAL QUICK .

I insist that to me the main point is that you're not choosing the weapon with that command card which is the trigger of 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 . Each chosen weapon contributes its dice and keywords to the attack pool."

In this case the card is choosing weapons for you. This doesn't mean that you skip the step, it means that you have no control over it.

At least is the way I interpret it.

11 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

I insist that to me the main point is that you're not choosing the weapon with that command card which is the trigger of Arsenal.

Maybe, the way the rules are written I don't know that's how they work.


• To perform an attack, a player resolves the following steps:

1. Declare Defender: The attacking player chooses one enemy unit to attack; this enemy unit is now the defender. Then, the attacking player measures the range from the attacker’s unit leader to the closest miniature of the defender to determine the attack’s range.

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:

a. Determine Eligible Minis : Each mini in the attacker is eligible to contribute to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the defender.

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.

c. 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.

' When choosing weapons during the “Form Attack Pool” step of an attack' is step 2b, as soon as that step starts Arsenal kicks in, therefore allowing for a choice.


This is a tricky interaction. It needs to be clarified.

I would argue that Arsenal works off a logic gate that triggers at the start of step 2b, it triggers at 2b during every attack. Even if the weapon is predetermined by a command card.

It's really tough for me to say.

Personally, the argument for RAW functionality makes perfect sense, logically. The counters always seem to bypass parts of the attack steps.

18 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Personally, the argument for RAW functionality makes perfect sense, logically. The counters always seem to bypass parts of the attack steps.

The “skip one of the steps” argument doesn’t make sense to me either, and I don’t think that’s the argument most people are making.

Really, the implication of the text on the card is that this weapon is the only one Grievous has access to during this ability. It’s not about the attack sequence at all.

Just now, nashjaee said:

The “skip one of the steps” argument doesn’t make sense to me either, and I don’t think that’s the argument most people are making.

Really, the implication of the text on the card is that this weapon is the only one Grievous has access to during this ability. It’s not about the attack sequence at all.

Just takes me back to the 3 conditions that cause this conflict. It's not one individual thing that causes the problem. The implication of the card allowing "only" one weapon, plus arsenal and how it works in the attack steps . Without an actual precedence that clarifies this interaction.... who can say?

CONFIRMED IT DOES NOT ALLOW ARSENAL!

Big thanks to @TalkPolite !

Appreciate the shout out. Luke is one of the FFG employees who hangs out on the discord - occasionally he clarifies things for the masses!

25 minutes ago, TalkPolite said:

Appreciate the shout out. Luke is one of the FFG employees who hangs out on the discord - occasionally he clarifies things for the masses!

It's very appreciated. I was getting a little frustrated after posing the question during the AMA and not hearing back from the "rules questions" form from FFG. Glad it got heard and sorted before the event.