@Khobai Well, the way I see it is this:

"During the Command Phase, a unit can be issued an order only once, even if a game effect causes that order to be removed or issued to another unit instead ."

directly ties into this:

Authoritative: "When you would be issued an order, you may issue an order to a friendly unit at range 1-2 instead. "

Emphasis mine. To me, it looks like Authoritative directly ties into the rules of not being able to be given another command when you've issued your order to another unit instead. As other posters have noted, I doubt this would allow the tank to double up on aims since it doesn't count as a trooper for her 2 Pip, and she never had possession of the order she is passing along.

A side note, the author of the article has even admitted it was a mistake to claim the tank could get two aims. The article was written back when Padme was first teased apparently.

2 hours ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

@Khobai
Ya that’s not how this works.

- When a unit is issued an order, a player places an order token that matches the faction and rank of the unit receiving the orders near that unit on the battlefield; the player places the order token so its rank is faceup.

- Orders are issued one at a time, in an order chosen by the player who controls the unit that is issuing the orders. Any game effects that triggers when or after an order is issued are resolved one at a time, when or after that order is issued, and before any other orders are issued.

- During the Command Phase, a unit can be issued an order only once, even if a game effect causes that order to be removed or issued to another unit instead.

A unit is determined to have been issued an order when it is given a face up order token. For this specific scenario, you attempt to issue an order to Padmé, you allow authoritative to trigger instead issuing the order to the saber tank. Then you go to issue your second order, you have already attempted to issue and order to Padmé, therefore she is no longer a viable target to issue further orders to in this command phase.

Also authoritative works EXACTLY like comms relay.

So youre saying padme is being issued an order? if thats the case then her command card would trigger and give her a token as soon as shes issued the order but before the order passes from her to the tank. because thats exactly how comm relay works.

authoritative either issues her an order or it doesnt.

if it issues her an order then it triggers her command card before the order passes from her to the to the tank and she gets a free aim token from her command card triggering.

and if it doesnt issue her an order then she shouldnt be prevented from receiving another order. because the rule that says you cant issue an order twice to the same unit doesnt apply to her if she wasnt issued an order in the first place.

Quote

Emphasis mine. To me, it looks like Authoritative directly ties into the rules of not being able to be given another command when you've issued your order to another unit instead. As other posters have noted, I doubt this would allow the tank to double up on aims since it doesn't count as a trooper for her 2 Pip, and she never had possession of the order she is passing along.

if she never had possession of the order she was passing along, then she was never issued an order, so the rule that says a unit cant be issued an order twice wouldnt apply to her. Which means she can still issue herself an order.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

A side note, the author of the article has even admitted it was a mistake to claim the tank could get two aims. The article was written back when Padme was first teased apparently.

I dont see why it wouldnt work.

If people are claiming shes being issued an order, and her command card says when shes issued an order she gets a token, then why wouldnt she get a token?

padme isnt shroedingers cat she cant both be getting issued an order and not be getting issued an order at the same time.

she cant be in both states simultaneously. so which is it? because it seems like everyone else is just as confused as I am.

29 minutes ago, Khobai said:

So youre saying padme is being issued an order? if thats the case then her command card would trigger and give her a token as soon as shes issued the order but before the order passes from her to the tank. because thats exactly how comm relay works.

authoritative either issues her an order or it doesnt.

if it issues her an order then it triggers her command card before the order passes from her to the to the tank and she gets a free aim token from her command card triggering.

and if it doesnt issue her an order then she shouldnt be prevented from receiving another order. because the rule that says you cant issue an order twice to the same unit doesnt apply to her if she wasnt issued an order in the first place.

if she never had possession of the order she was passing along, then she was never issued an order, so the rule that says a unit cant be issued an order twice wouldnt apply to her. Which means she can still issue herself an order.

I dont see why it wouldnt work.

If people are claiming shes being issued an order, and her command card says when shes issued an order she gets a token, then why wouldnt she get a token?

padme isnt shroedingers cat she cant both be getting issued an order and not be getting issued an order at the same time.

she cant be in both states simultaneously.

A unit is determined to have been issued an order when it has a face up order token given to it in the command phase. Authoritative takes her order token, before it is on the field and instead gives it to another friendly unit. However she is then no longer eligible to receive an order.

If it worked they way you are arguing it you can use authoritative an unlimited number of times.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you. For someone who has been complaining for that last 3 weeks that GAR is op, your trying really hard to argue to make them even more powerful.

7 hours ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

A unit is determined to have been issued an order when it has a face up order token given to it in the command phase. Authoritative takes her order token, before it is on the field and instead gives it to another friendly unit. However she is then no longer eligible to receive an order.

If it worked they way you are arguing it you can use authoritative an unlimited number of times.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you. For someone who has been complaining for that last 3 weeks that GAR is op, your trying really hard to argue to make them even more powerful.

What rule makes her ineligible to receive an order?

The rule people keep quoting specifically says a unit cant be issued an order a second time if the first order issued gets removed or transferred to another unit. But you just said shes not being issued an order. If shes not being issued an order then the rule that says she cant be issued an order twice doesnt apply to her because she was never issued an order in the first place. She has to be issued an order for that rule to apply to her; the rule makes it very clear that being issued an order is the criteria for being ineligible for being issued another order. If padme is not issued an order that criteria has not been met.

People are arguing that shes both being issued an order and not being issued an order at the same time. There is a severe contradiction there.

Im not trying to make GAR more powerful im trying to make sense of the rules. I cannot reconcile in my head that padme can both be issued an order and not be issued an order at the same time.

Quote

If it worked they way you are arguing it you can use authoritative an unlimited number of times.

the rules specifically say you can only use authoritative once. so you cant use it an unlimited number of times.

why would the rules emphatically state that you can only use authoritative once unless it was possible to use it more than once? which seems to support my argument that padme could use authoritative multiple times if authoritative wasnt specifically restricted to one use per turn.

if what youre saying was true and authoritative makes her ineligible to be issued another order then theres absolutely no way authoritative could ever be used more than once so they wouldnt need to state it couldnt be used more than once.

15 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I find this amusing, and a continuation of the articles being written during playtesting:

Either that or the Sabre tank is becoming a Trooper unit in the next update 😛 .

Saber tank Megazord, confirmed.

Though, I guess that would be a droid trooper..... hmm....

11 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Now you aren't even reading the RRG entries I'm suggesting to you. I give up, arguing with you is so incredibly exhausting and so incredibly not worth it.

Best suggestion is to add him to your block list. Discussions with him go nowhere, he never will admit he's wrong even when the clear text of the RRG or even the author of the article admits they messed up. Enough of us do that, like every troll he'll go away.

8 hours ago, Khobai said:

People are arguing that shes both being issued an order and not being issued an order at the same time. There is a severe contradiction there.

I guess I'll try wording it in another way then. In English, the wording is very particular, which is why the rule interaction works the way others here have interpreted it.

Padme would be issued an order. She uses Authoritative to pass the order to another unit, in this case the tank. The specific wording on Authoritative indicates this order was passed to the tank "instead of" to Padme. Specifically in English, the "instead of" here indicates that Padme never received any order, she elected another unit to receive it in her place.

The specific quote from the RRG notes that when an order is passed to another unit "instead of" the original recipient, the original recipient is no longer eligible to receive orders that round. Padme has done the exact action the rule is excluding, so despite her never having received an order, she still cannot receive any more orders.

It's not a contradiction, it's just the way the rule was written to work. Padme receives no order, but elects another unit to receive that order. The rules indicate that when a unit does this, they can't be given another order that round.

It is also worthwhile to note that the Issuing orders section of the rulebook was updated in one of the earlier RRG updates, but Comms Relay was only updated to current wording when the "non-Emplacement Troopers" line of rules text was added to the card. Even before the errata to Comms Relay, it did not allow for the unit with the upgrade to pass an order and then be issued yet another order.

On 9/15/2020 at 3:53 PM, Khobai said:

But I think the whole token sharing game mechanic is proving itself to be ill-conceived. And it will only get worse with time.

Still on you’re anti-clone kick? Did the tactics I suggested not help at all?
Without token sharing the Republic faction would lose consistently. As Luke Eddy and Alex Davy mentioned, they need token sharing to keep up with the other factions. My offer still stands to help create a thread that lists tactics that can be used against clones.

As far as Padme goes, she’s far too expensive for a token sharing unit that doesn’t do much else. For 13 less points you can have a token sharing unit that can also move to the front line when (not if) you lose all your other front line units. And using her command cards means fewer Surge tokens because Rex or Obi (who usually have Aggressive Tactics on them) are not issuing that card’s orders.

Please don’t get me wrong and dump hate my way. I’m not saying she’s a bad unit. I think Padme is an awesome unit, but in a point starved faction that can have only a few front line troops, she just ends up being an extravagance that makes it better to take a simple utilitarian unit like a Phase 1 with a Z-6 (77 points), so you can token share with clones and move to the front line after your P2s with Overwatch have fallen. Just an opinion.

Clones aren't "starved for points" any more that other factions.

2 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Still on you’re anti-clone kick? Did the tactics I suggested not help at all?
Without token sharing the Republic faction would lose consistently. As Luke Eddy and Alex Davy mentioned, they need token sharing to keep up with the other factions. My offer still stands to help create a thread that lists tactics that can be used against clones.

As far as Padme goes, she’s far too expensive for a token sharing unit that doesn’t do much else. For 13 less points you can have a token sharing unit that can also move to the front line when (not if) you lose all your other front line units. And using her command cards means fewer Surge tokens because Rex or Obi (who usually have Aggressive Tactics on them) are not issuing that card’s orders.

Please don’t get me wrong and dump hate my way. I’m not saying she’s a bad unit. I think Padme is an awesome unit, but in a point starved faction that can have only a few front line troops, she just ends up being an extravagance that makes it better to take a simple utilitarian unit like a Phase 1 with a Z-6 (77 points), so you can token share with clones and move to the front line after your P2s with Overwatch have fallen. Just an opinion.

Clones are not point starved lmao.

You know whos actually point starved? Imperials. Because they pay the same points as clones for WORSE units.

shoretroopers are basically clonetrooper phase 1s without firesupport or token sharing for the same cost of 13 points a model.

they pay the same points for their at-st as clones do for their saber tank when the at-st is way worse.

So yeah if im on an anti-clone kick is because im sick about hearing how clones are the victims all the time when Imperials are the worst faction in the game.

7 hours ago, Khobai said:

Clones are not point starved lmao.

You know whos actually point starved? Imperials. Because they pay the same points as clones for WORSE units.

shoretroopers are basically clonetrooper phase 1s without firesupport or token sharing for the same cost of 13 points a model.

they pay the same points for their at-st as clones do for their saber tank when the at-st is way worse.

So yeah if im on an anti-clone kick is because im sick about hearing how clones are the victims all the time when Imperials are the worst faction in the game.

Maybe I missed something, when did different become worse? You are absolutely right the shoretroopers don’t have fire support and cost the same as a phase 1 clone trooper. What they do have is coordinate emplacement trooper, target 1 and a training slot.

Ya the atst sucks when going against the tanks. It’s a walker which was used as a shock and awe weapon against light vehicles and personnel. The tanks where meant to go against heavy vehicles and reinforced positions.

Youve got to remember, the empire and gar are 2 different factions, they use different tactics, and they have different units. If you keep trying to play empire like you play gar, all your going to get is a lot of fail.

On 9/16/2020 at 8:35 AM, Kirjath08 said:

I guess I'll try wording it in another way then. In English, the wording is very particular, which is why the rule interaction works the way others here have interpreted it.

Padme would be issued an order. She uses Authoritative to pass the order to another unit, in this case the tank. The specific wording on Authoritative indicates this order was passed to the tank "instead of" to Padme. Specifically in English, the "instead of" here indicates that Padme never received any order, she elected another unit to receive it in her place.

The specific quote from the RRG notes that when an order is passed to another unit "instead of" the original recipient, the original recipient is no longer eligible to receive orders that round. Padme has done the exact action the rule is excluding, so despite her never having received an order, she still cannot receive any more orders.

It's not a contradiction, it's just the way the rule was written to work. Padme receives no order, but elects another unit to receive that order. The rules indicate that when a unit does this, they can't be given another order that round.

This exactly. This is exactly how it works. Padme is never issued an order so she doesnt get the benefits of the command card but she is still ineligible to be issued an order.

11 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

My offer still stands to help create a thread that lists tactics that can be used against clones.

i think this is a great idea. Potentially even a thread for each faction and tactics u can use against said faction.

1 hour ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

Maybe I missed something, when did different become worse? You are absolutely right the shoretroopers don’t have fire support and cost the same as a phase 1 clone trooper. What they do have is coordinate emplacement trooper, target 1 and a training slot.

Ya the atst sucks when going against the tanks. It’s a walker which was used as a shock and awe weapon against light vehicles and personnel. The tanks where meant to go against heavy vehicles and reinforced positions.

Youve got to remember, the empire and gar are 2 different factions, they use different tactics, and they have different units. If you keep trying to play empire like you play gar, all your going to get is a lot of fail.

In-universe fluff is hardly an explanation. It's the rules that matter, and they make the AT-ST an antitank unit much more than an antipersonnel one. In fact, it is better in this role than the occupier.

16 minutes ago, costi said:

In-universe fluff is hardly an explanation. It's the rules that matter, and they make the AT-ST an antitank unit much more than an antipersonnel one. In fact, it is better in this role than the occupier.

The in universe fluff is what they used to design the unit, and when they released it they were just in the process of starting to design the clone war factions. As for the occupier you are absolutely right it is better for anti personnel. The occupier is also a tank in name only, it’s really an APC (armored personnel carrier). Why Star Wars called it a tank, I’ll never know.

Im curious why you think the rules make the AT-ST better at anti-armor than anti-personnel?

The AT-ST is better at killing clonetroopers with its grenade launcher than it is at damaging the saber tank with its twin blaster.

The AT-ST is actually pretty bad at anti-armor and it could use a buff. Im not saying the AT-ST should beat the saber tank 1v1. But the fact it struggles so hard to even wound the saber tank isnt right.

I wouldnt mind seeing critical 1 on the twin blaster. I also think the AT-ST should get Arsenal 3 innately. And Weiss should be changed to give Barrage instead of Arsenal 2. Then the AT-ST would be a whole lot scarier like it rightfully should be.

The Occupier tank also needs an ordnance slot. An ordnance slot is the missing piece to make the Occupier tank more versatile and interesting.

Quote

Ya the atst sucks when going against the tanks. It’s a walker which was used as a shock and awe weapon against light vehicles and personnel. The tanks where meant to go against heavy vehicles and reinforced positions.

Except its not even good at that. Empire has way better things it can take for killing personnel for 200 points.

The AT-ST and Occupier Tank both really struggle to find a role in the army. Anti-armor is the role Empire needs because its almost impossible for Empire to kill a saber tank.

You literally have to ignore the thing because its not even worth trying to kill it with anything other than Vader and it will just drive away from Vader while laughing at him so thats pointless too.

Quote

My offer still stands to help create a thread that lists tactics that can be used against clones.

The best tactic is crying until they get nerfed.

Impact 3 (with option of Impact 4) on the main weapon and no antipersonnel keywords outside of extra weapons with very limited range bands.

blast isnt an antipersonnel keyword? blast is easily the best antipersonnel keyword in the game. Blast is the only reason for even taking the AT-ST.

and I can tell you from firsthand experience that impact 3-4 will barely even hurt a saber tank. you are wasting your time even putting the twin blaster on the at-st because its not killing a saber tank. And any light vehicles can easilly be killed with the main guns+grenade launcher anyway. So the twin blaster is a total waste of a weapon slot. the twin blaster is also massively overcosted.

meanwhile that saber tank is hitting your at-st back with 3 red, 4 black, 2 white, impact 5, critical 1 with its main guns and anti-armor rockets. The AT-ST dies in about two turns. Maybe three if youre lucky.

I still think the AT-ST needs arsenal 3. even with arsenal 3 its anti-armor damage output is still worse than the saber tank's. but at least then it has a chance of hurting the saber tank.

Quote

Youve got to remember, the empire and gar are 2 different factions, they use different tactics, and they have different units. If you keep trying to play empire like you play gar, all your going to get is a lot of fail.

If you play empire at all, all youre going to get is a lot of fail. Its the weakest faction in the game right now. And that has been consistently backed up by tournament results where empire struggles to even get into the semifinals.

The only reason the AT-ST is weaker is because its an older vehicle and older vehicles arnt as good as the newer ones. Its because people complained vehicles were weak, so they jacked up the newer vehicles to be much better. But they never went back and fixed the old vehicles properly they just gave them a lazy points slash that fixed none of their core issues. *coughs*airspeeder*coughs*

If the AT-ST was released yesterday I have no doubt it would be every bit as powerful as the saber tank. The Occupier tank would likely be much better too and would probably at least have an ordnance slot.

Its not because of the dumb reason youre giving that the AT-ST is supposed to be played completely differently because "different factions are different". The actual reason is that "older vehicles are weaker".

20 hours ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

The in universe fluff is what they used to design the unit, and when they released it they were just in the process of starting to design the clone war factions. As for the occupier you are absolutely right it is better for anti personnel. The occupier is also a tank in name only, it’s really an APC (armored personnel carrier). Why Star Wars called it a tank, I’ll never know.

Probably for all the water tanks it carries on desert planets 😛

21 hours ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

Why Star Wars called it a tank, I’ll never know.

Clearly it was a code name because they didn't want the Germa..... I mean, Rebels, to know what its true purpose was.

I use my occupier all the time and I've never had problems taking out other vehicles, in fact my occupier has consistently out preformed my death troopers against all types of targets. Not every saber brings anti tank rockets, mine almost always uses tlt as its only upgrade to keep the cost down. I'm trying to learn to use the at-st as i do have a hard time justifying taking it over my occupier so I wouldn't object to both vehicles getting a buff.

52 minutes ago, Khobai said:

The Occupier tank would likely be much better too and would probably at least have an ordnance slot.

Really doubt they will ever gove the GAV ordnance since in lore it there is no version of it with any sort of ordinance and since we know they have to get everthing approved by LFL really doubt this would happen

3 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

Really doubt they will ever gove the GAV ordnance since in lore it there is no version of it with any sort of ordinance and since we know they have to get everthing approved by LFL really doubt this would happen

Yeah, the only way I could see it would be if ffg made some new missile launcher upgrade for it that bolted to the bed of the tank. Its not impossible, they have been allowed to create things before, just highly unlikely.

3 hours ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

I use my occupier all the time and I've never had problems taking out other vehicles, in fact my occupier has consistently out preformed my death troopers against all types of targets. Not every saber brings anti tank rockets, mine almost always uses tlt as its only upgrade to keep the cost down. I'm trying to learn to use the at-st as i do have a hard time justifying taking it over my occupier so I wouldn't object to both vehicles getting a buff.

you can take out saber tanks with your occupier? that defies all laws of probability...

and yeah i realize not every saber tank brings rockets, but when it does, it murders at-sts and occupiers in a way thats almost unfair.

conversely, neither empire nor rebels have anything that can reasonably destroy a saber tank within 2-3 turns. even the weapons that are supposed to be good against heavy vehicles arnt good against saber tanks.

empire and rebels both need better anti-armor weapons and better heavy vehicles. And regardless of whether its canon or not the occupier tank needs an ordnance slot to compete with all the other tanks that have ordnance slots. Otherwise its just the odd crappy tank out that doesnt have ordnance.

It would be cool if there was a heavy vehicle upgrade pack for imperials that came with new weapon bits for both the occupier and at-st as well as new upgrade cards for both. They could do the same thing for the airspeeder/landspeeder. At this point I would pay money for them to fix the older units...

41 minutes ago, Khobai said:

And regardless of whether its canon or not the occupier tank needs an ordnance slot to compete with all the other tanks that have ordnance slots.

Yea but thats the problem it doesnt matter how much help the occupier needs or how much FFG wants to put ordnance slots on the occupier it still needs to be approved by LFL which I feel is very unlikely to approve such a thing.

Im not saying it wouldnt be nice to have ordnance on my occupier, I would love that but I just feel its very very unlikely that it will ever happen. So why not put your effort to brainstorming another solution/buff to the occupier rather then repeatedly say it needs X thing that it's very unlikely to ever get.