6 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Notable for all the Temmin Wexley + Composure fans out there... the combo doesn't work anymore. Composure has been errata'd to prevent further actions in the round, so you can't move, fail the free boost for a focus, then lock for double mods without stress.

I think this was mainly for vonreg future proofing

Rules ref:

"ATTACKS
Q: If a C-ROC Cruiser is equipped with IG-88D (󲁒), Corsair Refit (󲈡), and Heavy Laser Cannon (󲁍) and a friendly
IG-88B is in play, how many times can the C-ROC fire its Heavy Laser Cannon (󲁍) per round?

A: Per Attacks on page 35, a huge ship can choose a special attack (such as the one on Heavy Laser Cannon) for the attack it performs when it
engages. Per the same page, it can perform up to 1 bonus attack granted to it for a given special attack with an “Attack:” header per round."

I agree with their rule (because it was kinda broken, and I say that as a Scum player).

I absolutely disagree with their reasoning, which is why this was an issue to begin with.

Urgh, sorry, really bad color cause I had to reduce size. (BTW, how do I get more attachment space??)

Thank you @Hiemfire *(Note to self, use wiki for future, much better)

Point is, IG-88B does NOT have an Attack: or Bonus Attack: header. It just grants a bonus attack on missing. So the rule they quote still doesn't solve the "i can infinitely get bonus attacks from every shot that misses".

Bah!!!

DOUBLE POST, oops

10 minutes ago, Bort said:

Point is, IG-88B does NOT have an Attack: or Bonus Attack: header. It just grants a bonus attack on missing. So the rule they quote still doesn't solve the "i can infinitely get bonus attacks from every shot that misses".

A reasonable point to keep in mind if they ever release a huge ship with multiple cannon slots, it could theoretically trigger a bonus attack with each cannon and IG-B's ability for each missed attack of any kind.

15 minutes ago, Bort said:

(BTW, how do I get more attachment space??)

Don't attach. Link to (or "copy/paste") an existing image from either the App or the Wiki.

This one is from the App

This one is from the Wiki: https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/X-Wing_Miniatures:_Second_Edition_Wiki

It's written down there that you still have just one bonus attack per turn.

9 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

On the whole, I'm very pleased at the Composure errata. It was designed as a card to cushion the blow of the new action failure rules, but wound up being a test of how to come up with creative ways to fail actions, to get token stacks that you couldn't normally get. Upgrades which encourage rules exploits like that... kinda send off some bad vibes, IMHO.

I agree to an extent. I personally think the "for the round" was a bit too extreme of a limitation. "For the activation" i think would have been enough. For the round effectively disables abilities like Turr Phennir and others that can perform actions outside of the activation phase if they used composure beforehand.

6 hours ago, Bort said:

Point is, IG-88B does NOT have an Attack: or Bonus Attack: header. It just grants a bonus attack on missing. So the rule they quote still doesn't solve the "i can infinitely get bonus attacks from every shot that misses".

Why doesn't it? Each cannon weapon has an "Attack:" header on it. IG-88B grants a bonus attack to that header. They limit how many bonus attacks that header can make to one. Once you perfrom a bonus attack on that cannon's Attack: header, that's it. Its done.

I don't see the confusion here.

13 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Why doesn't it? Each cannon weapon has an "Attack:" header on it. IG-88B grants a bonus attack to that header. They limit how many bonus attacks that header can make to one. Once you perfrom a bonus attack on that cannon's Attack: header, that's it. Its done.

I don't see the confusion here.

Just playing devils advocate (because ultimately if you go search for the threads I have been arguing against this working from day one AND I'm happy with the new ruling implications)

Nah... what it says is: perform a bonus attack from a cannon. So since you don't have any cannons with a "Bonus Attack:" header it does nothing at all.

I guess my point is that the wording on 88B was better in V1.0

The new wording, combined with general rule that you can only have 1 bonus attack per turn, combined with huge ships that can perform multiple bonus attacks, combined with no you can only perform one "bonus attack" header attack peer turn, combined with a new FAQ clarification stating that no really, the cannon can only shoot one bonus attack has evolved into a huge pile of poo.

*Edit So basically to understand the rule I have to read the ship card, and about 5 different obscure rule sections. And the further we go into the game the more cases we have of this. Making it really hard for casual players to play the game correctly, if at all.

@Bort

So what you are getting at, is "A huge ship may perform any number of bonus attacks each round." should actually read "A huge ship may use any number of "Bonus Attack:" headers each round."?

Even that isnt super solid to what they want to convey, but i get what you're trying to say. I guess i just know what their intent is and im not too worried about it.

15 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

@Bort

So what you are getting at, is "A huge ship may perform any number of bonus attacks each round." should actually read "A huge ship may use any number of "Bonus Attack:" headers each round."?

Even that isnt super solid to what they want to convey, but i get what you're trying to say. I guess i just know what their intent is and im not too worried about it.

How you state it there looks closer to what they want it to be.

hehe, tbh I have no idea what I'm actually trying to say. So thanks for humoring me.

But I guess overall I just hate it when rules get to the point where I have to look up several definitions, of which some can be vague or open to interpretation, and also very technical on some points. Well no, I don't really mind having to look at multiple places, but I hate it when there are inconsistent wording and hidden technicalities leading to multiple interpretations. Especially when intent is rather clear. This is one of those cases.... the intent is clear only because the clear wording on the V1.0 card. Using my non ffg technical words: Once per round, after missing, shoot again using a cannon. But to get to that we have to wade through multiple connected rule bits. The problem is when people miss one or two of the bits along the way interpretations become varied. Its a side effect of a complex game, I get that. It just feels avoidable in some cases.

7 hours ago, Bort said:

The new wording, combined with general rule that you can only have 1 bonus attack per turn, combined with huge ships that can perform multiple bonus attacks, combined with no you can only perform one "bonus attack" header attack peer turn, combined with a new FAQ clarification stating that no really, the cannon can only shoot one bonus attack has evolved into a huge pile of poo.

It also breaks the Bonus Attack from Cluster Missiles if you fire them as Bonus Attack in the first place (Ordnance Tubes or Corsair Refit).

Edit: I should really read the FAQ more carefully 😅

Edit 2:

FAQ, page 39 (highlighting by me):

Quote

[...] the C-ROC could choose Cluster Missiles for its standard attack and then fire one subsequent bonus attack using Cluster Missiles if there was an eligible target,

or it could chose it for its attack when it engages and also use Corsair Reft and spend 1 [charge] to fire Cluster Missiles for a bonus attack against any ship in range and arc,

but it cannot do both during the same round.

2 hours ago, Singulativ said:

It also breaks the Bonus Attack from Cluster Missiles if you fire them as Bonus Attack in the first place (Ordnance Tubes or Corsair Refit).

No it doesnt. The Bonus Attack: from both of those cards is a separate, independent header from the Attack: headers they are letting you perform. So you can still use the bonus attack from Cluster Missiles ability when you fire though one of those upgrades.

My bad.

54 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

No it doesnt. The Bonus Attack: from both of those cards is a separate, independent header from the Attack: headers they are letting you perform. So you can still use the bonus attack from Cluster Missiles ability when you fire though one of those upgrades.

No you can't because you can only use the Attack: header on Cluster Missiles once for a bonus attack. Whether that bonus attack is provided by the Corsair Refit or the Cluster Missiles upgrade, you are still using that Attack: header limiting you to one bonus attack with it.

On 1/9/2020 at 2:53 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

Notable for all the Temmin Wexley + Composure fans out there... the combo doesn't work anymore. Composure has been errata'd to prevent further actions in the round, so you can't move, fail the free boost for a focus, then lock for double mods without stress.

Preventing further actions for the whole round seems excessively harsh.

During the ships activation, as per Advanced Sensors, I could understand, but this appears to lock a ship that has used Composure out of being coordinated or granted actions by other effects until the following turn!

Double post...

On 1/11/2020 at 10:35 AM, DexterOnone said:

Preventing further actions for the whole round seems excessively harsh.

During the ships activation, as per Advanced Sensors, I could understand, but this appears to lock a ship that has used Composure out of being coordinated or granted actions by other effects until the following turn!

It's almost as if it's a cheap training wheels card designed to help out new players but not be efficient...

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

It's almost as if it's a cheap training wheels card designed to help out new players but not be efficient...

The way it’s been errata’d is clunky, and means you have to keep track of whether or not Composure has been triggered for the rest of the round... which isn’t particularly friendly to new players.

A far more elegant solution would have been to make it only apply to actions failed as part of the perform action step, and then prevent further actions during the ships activation.

1 hour ago, DexterOnone said:

The way it’s been errata’d is clunky, and means you have to keep track of whether or not Composure has been triggered for the rest of the round... which isn’t particularly friendly to new players.

A far more elegant solution would have been to make it only apply to actions failed as part of the perform action step, and then prevent further actions during the ships activation.

Except they didn't want to do that, since several abilities enable post-activation actions. Your solution is entirely different in application than theirs with frankly no added elegance. That doesn't make your suggestion bad, but it accomplishes different goals.

53 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Except they didn't want to do that, since several abilities enable post-activation actions. Your solution is entirely different in application than theirs with frankly no added elegance. That doesn't make your suggestion bad, but it accomplishes different goals.

The purpose of my suggestion was to bring it back more in line with the basic ‘training wheels’ upgrade you’d referred to it being, by only triggering off actions failed in the standard perform action step.

Having it interact with post-activation abilities adds complexity and nuance that new players may not grasp.

I agree there are different approaches, but the one they’ve gone for doesn’t feel intuitive and adds a state that needs to be tracked without a mechanism for doing so (i.e. a recurring charge).