ArcticSnake said:
Also, by disregarding page 28, I think you are committing a logical fallacy.. like begging the question or something..
Who's disregarding it? But it's a Quick Reference aid. It's not meant to get into the details of the rules, just something to remind players of the more common rules.
Budgernaut said:
Okay, I used to be staunchly on the only-one-barrel-roll-per-round-whether-it's-Expert-Handling-or-not team, but my faith has been shaken as I considered "Dutch" Vander's ability. His ability states,
"After acquiring a target lock, choose another friendly ship at Range 1-2. The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock."
Although "acquire a target lock" is an action (as listed in the rules), I do not believe that the ally ship in this case is performing an "acquire a target lock" action. He simply gets the benefit of that action. This has caused me to believe that you can, indeed barrel roll and then use Expert Handling to barrel roll again.
(If you disagree about "Dutch", I'm sure that's been brought up in another thread and we can discuss that there.)
In your example, the target ship is not performing the action. It is receiving the benefits of the action (a target lock) that someone else is performing.
For Expert Handling, the active ship is performing the action and also gaining the benefit, so it is doing it twice and running into the rule.
For example, if Expert Handling said something like
Action: An allied ship in range 1 may make a barrel roll
Then I would agree that the target ship could conceivably barrel roll twice in a turn. Once on its own turn (as its own action) and once as a benefit from someone else's action.
It comes down to that during the active ship's movement/action phase it cannot perform the same action twice. Expert Handling executes a Barrel Roll and is done to the active ship during the active ship's movement/action phase. Thus, it cannot gain the barrel roll action from both the regular action and the Expert Handling action. Nothing prevents a ship from getting the benefits of the same action more than once in a turn, such as having two focus tokens or two evade tokens, etc. The rules prevent an active ship from performing the same action twice during its turn .
I think that is probably the key.
But the entire action provided by Expert Handling is not the same as the entire action of barrel rolling. That's why I think they're different actions, because they're different.
dvang said:
In your example, the target ship is not performing the action. It is receiving the benefits of the action (a target lock) that someone else is performing.
For Expert Handling, the active ship is performing the action and also gaining the benefit, so it is doing it twice and running into the rule.
For example, if Expert Handling said something like
Action: An allied ship in range 1 may make a barrel roll
Then I would agree that the target ship could conceivably barrel roll twice in a turn. Once on its own turn (as its own action) and once as a benefit from someone else's action.
It comes down to that during the active ship's movement/action phase it cannot perform the same action twice. Expert Handling executes a Barrel Roll and is done to the active ship during the active ship's movement/action phase. Thus, it cannot gain the barrel roll action from both the regular action and the Expert Handling action. Nothing prevents a ship from getting the benefits of the same action more than once in a turn, such as having two focus tokens or two evade tokens, etc. The rules prevent an active ship from performing the same action twice during its turn .
I think that is probably the key.
You're wrong at the end. The rules prevent a ship from performing any action more than once during the ROUND, not a ship's turn. There's no such thing as a ship's turn within the context of the game. There's the round, and each round has four phases. Ships perform during each phase in a certain order as determined by pilot skill. Actions normally occur in the Activation phase, but the rules don't say they can't happen at other times as well.
kingbobb said:
dvang said:
In your example, the target ship is not performing the action. It is receiving the benefits of the action (a target lock) that someone else is performing.
For Expert Handling, the active ship is performing the action and also gaining the benefit, so it is doing it twice and running into the rule.
For example, if Expert Handling said something like
Action: An allied ship in range 1 may make a barrel roll
Then I would agree that the target ship could conceivably barrel roll twice in a turn. Once on its own turn (as its own action) and once as a benefit from someone else's action.
It comes down to that during the active ship's movement/action phase it cannot perform the same action twice. Expert Handling executes a Barrel Roll and is done to the active ship during the active ship's movement/action phase. Thus, it cannot gain the barrel roll action from both the regular action and the Expert Handling action. Nothing prevents a ship from getting the benefits of the same action more than once in a turn, such as having two focus tokens or two evade tokens, etc. The rules prevent an active ship from performing the same action twice during its turn .
I think that is probably the key.
You're wrong at the end. The rules prevent a ship from performing any action more than once during the ROUND, not a ship's turn. There's no such thing as a ship's turn within the context of the game. There's the round, and each round has four phases. Ships perform during each phase in a certain order as determined by pilot skill. Actions normally occur in the Activation phase, but the rules don't say they can't happen at other times as well.
Just to clarify, EH takes place in the Activation Phase.
kingbobb said:
Page 28 is a Quick Reference tool, and not something I would look to for a deeper explanation of how the rules and card abilities interact.
So saying it's not something you would look to is not the same as disregarding it? I may need to review my grasp of the English language.
dbmeboy said:
But the entire action provided by Expert Handling is not the same as the entire action of barrel rolling. That's why I think they're different actions, because they're different.
When you are proven right, don't forget to collect your smug. I personally will have a ton of smug coming in from the Marksmanship/Cluster combo but haven't invested much in this issue because I don't want to hog all of it.
dbmeboy said:
I don't think anyone is disregarding page 28, we're just saying that Expert Handling provides an action that is different than a barrel roll. And there's no real application of the transitive property that you attempted to invoke in your previous post, but if you want to use math-like equations:
Let Barrel Roll = A
Let Expert Handling's action = B
B = A + C (where C is the other stuff Expert Handling's action lets you do)
Let's assume A = B --> A = A+C --> C= 0
However, C =/= 0, therefore assumption A = B is false.
I understand that what you're saying is that Expert Handling provides an action that is different from a barrel roll, but what I'm saying is that Expert Handling includes an action that is a barrel roll.
I am not disputing that the expert handling action is different from the barrel roll action, my point is that in the process of performing the expert handling action, you also did perform a barrel roll action. That is what has to be clarified in the FAQ. Is Expert Handling more than the sum of its parts? Or is Expert Handling just three actions sewn together where each action is an action?
Lets continue your equation: B = A + C, where A = Barrel Roll and B = Expert handling. So what you are saying is:
Expert Handling = Barrel Roll + C
But C is two actions so C = X + Y
Action(Expert Handling) = Action(barrel roll + X + Y)
Action(Expert Handling) = Action(barrel roll) + Action(X) + Action(Y)
Do I see a barrel roll action included in the expert handling action? I think I do.
tldr:
That is what has to be clarified in the FAQ. Is Expert Handling more than the sum of its parts? Or is the use of the defined term "barrel roll" makes "perform a barrel roll" an action that could not be performed twice?
@the Dutch argument:
Expert Handling is not the same as the Dutch ability because Expert Handling has a card ability with an "Action:" header
"Card abilities without the “Action:” header may be resolved when specified on the card and do not count as the ship’s action."
So the "Perform a barrel roll" in expert handling would count as the ship's action if FFG defines it to be.
@ShadowJak
Hehehe, you are right, this seems to be another thread where there is a lot of smug to collect.
I think our difference is really in the definition of the term "action." I don't think that individual parts of actions are in and of themselves actions. That's why I don't think Expert Handling counts as performing a barrel roll. I personally see nothing in the rules that would indicate subactions (if I can call them that) count as a full action for the determining if an action has already been taken.
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
TrueFiction said:
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
Agreed.
TrueFiction said:
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
Pretty unambiguous indeed.
TrueFiction said:
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
I disagree. In the terms of the game, there is the Action (Barrel Roll), and then there's the act of performing a barrel roll. Action (Barrel Roll) results in the ship performing a barrel roll. But there's nothing in the rules that says that the ONLY way to perform a barrel roll is to use the Action (Barrel Roll). Expert Handling is a different Action. In game terms, it would look like:
Action (Expert Handling): perform a barrel roll+ (other stuff).
Contrasted with
Action (Barrel Roll): perform a barrel roll.
If the act created by the Action is itself an Action, then the rules also say that placing a Target Lock/Focus token is an action. Yet I see no one saying that Dutch's ability to allow a nearby ally to make a Target Lock would prevent that ally later in the turn from taking a Target Lock action. Nor do I see anyone claiming that Garven's ability to give his Focus token to an ally in any way conflicts with the Focus action. If the acts created by the Actions themselves are Actions, then it would hold true that a recipient of Dutch/Gavren's ability would not be able to take the representative action during their own Activation Phase or any other time during the round.
Major Mishap said:
TrueFiction said:
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
Agreed.
Disagree. I don't think you can pick out a small piece of an action and call it an entire action. The rules prevent repeated actions, not repeated action pieces. Still, I don't think this is going to go anywhere… back to waiting for the FAQ?
dbmeboy said:
We've been talking in circles for weeks. I think waiting for the FAQ is the best course of action.
The more I think about this card, the more I think the wording is sloppy but the intent was to not enable more than one barrel roll type action during a single round.
kingbobb said:
TrueFiction said:
I would argue the matter is resolved by the first period(.) in Expert Handling's text.
Action: Perform a barrel roll. …
Before anything else can even be considered, you must perform a barrel roll, which is an action defined on pg 8. And that action can only be performed once per turn regardless of which card the action originated from.
I disagree. In the terms of the game, there is the Action (Barrel Roll), and then there's the act of performing a barrel roll. Action (Barrel Roll) results in the ship performing a barrel roll. But there's nothing in the rules that says that the ONLY way to perform a barrel roll is to use the Action (Barrel Roll). Expert Handling is a different Action. In game terms, it would look like:
Action (Expert Handling): perform a barrel roll+ (other stuff).
Contrasted with
Action (Barrel Roll): perform a barrel roll.
If the act created by the Action is itself an Action, then the rules also say that placing a Target Lock/Focus token is an action. Yet I see no one saying that Dutch's ability to allow a nearby ally to make a Target Lock would prevent that ally later in the turn from taking a Target Lock action. Nor do I see anyone claiming that Garven's ability to give his Focus token to an ally in any way conflicts with the Focus action. If the acts created by the Actions themselves are Actions, then it would hold true that a recipient of Dutch/Gavren's ability would not be able to take the representative action during their own Activation Phase or any other time during the round.
Good argument.
Well written, bu not really a good argument.
They are not even closely similar examples. Those things are not only taking place in a different ship's maneuver/action phase, but also are generated by a different ship entirely.
For example, if Expert Handling said something like,
Action: Allow an ally within range 1 to perform a Barrel Roll.
I would say that this then could be used on a ship that had already performed a barrel roll, and would not prevent that ship from (if he had not gone yet) perform a barrel roll in his own turn.
Again, the difference is those other points (giving a Target Lock or giving a Focus) are NOT:
- Actions performed by the target ship
- Done during the target ship's turn
So, those have no conflict with the "cannot perform the same action twice" rule. Ships perform their actions during their own phase, right after they move. Anything that occurs outside of that, is not something that the ship is "performing" that would conflict.
Unfortunately, Expert Handling does do both:
- It affects the active ship
- It is performed by the active ship
Hence, it violates the "cannot perform the same action twice" rule, as it is doing two barrel rolls during the phase when it is the active ship and performing actions.
dvang said:
Sorry for the snip, but this I think is important to focus on, and I don't think it detracts from the rest of your post
While I don't dispute that ships get to perform their one Action of choice…either from the icon on their ship card, or from upgrade cards…during that part of the Activation phase when that ship's pilot skill dictates if gets to do so…there's nothing in the rules that says that ships can ONLY take an action during their slot in the Activation phase. Most ships will take only a single action during their part of the Activation phase, but the rules I think allow for actions to be taken outside of that order, and in fact outside of the Activation phase completely.
Also a note on terminology: There is only one Activation phase. Each ship activates in turn during the Activation phase, but there is no such thing as a single ship's Activation phase.
Bear in mind that the rule limit on Actions is that no ship may perform the same action more than once within a single game Round. The Round consists of four Phases: Planning, Activation, Combat, and End. While I don't know of any abilities at the moment that allow a ship to take an Action in a phase outside of the Activation phase, I fully expect that we'll soon see an upgrade or even Pilot ability that does allow this.
My opinion is NO vader cannot use the card for an additional barrel Roll.
This card is similar to Marksmanship, essentially an upgraded action with added benefits. It uses the standard terminology and icons for the barrel roll action, just like marksmenship.
Also vader with double barrel roll is insane, he moves last and can basically say outside of target unless stressed/IONed of course.
With action cards, there seems to be 2 distinct types, updated action cards (examples mentioned above) and unique actions (squad leader). I suppose the whole double barrel roll argument comes down to if all cards are considered unique actions or just upgrades to current action classes. Makes sense that this would be missed since only vader can make 2 action selections.
It seems to me that through-out the rules they make it very clear that only 1 action can be selected a round, and cards with action header is considered an action. My opinion they stress this a lot for a reason… Otherwise vader can always use 2 evades or 2 focus etc etc etc, 1 each seems way more in-line with other uber pilots ability.
dandirk said:
My opinion is NO vader cannot use the card for an additional barrel Roll.
This card is similar to Marksmanship, essentially an upgraded action with added benefits. It uses the standard terminology and icons for the barrel roll action, just like marksmenship.
Also vader with double barrel roll is insane, he moves last and can basically say outside of target unless stressed/IONed of course.
With action cards, there seems to be 2 distinct types, updated action cards (examples mentioned above) and unique actions (squad leader). I suppose the whole double barrel roll argument comes down to if all cards are considered unique actions or just upgrades to current action classes. Makes sense that this would be missed since only vader can make 2 action selections.
It seems to me that through-out the rules they make it very clear that only 1 action can be selected a round, and cards with action header is considered an action. My opinion they stress this a lot for a reason… Otherwise vader can always use 2 evades or 2 focus etc etc etc, 1 each seems way more in-line with other uber pilots ability.
I'm not sure I understand your comparison to Marksmanship. Vader certainly can use it and Focus in the same round…
dbmeboy said:
I'm not sure I understand your comparison to Marksmanship. Vader certainly can use it and Focus in the same round…
If I wouldn't allow double barrel rolls, I wouldn't allow double focus either, cause that is essentially what marksmanship is, just limited to attacks. I do see the water gets muddied even more because marksmanship does not say "focus" specifically unlike the Expert Handling.
I will also admit that as the water is muddled further, it actually creates a better argument that action cards are unique and different actions, thus allowing vader double barrel rolls. The fact that this issue only applies to vader, it just seems like a very broad over-look given how much they stress one action per round, which seems more targeted to these cards then vader.
Personally I don't care what they eventually say in faq, I would play with house rules of one action type per round. Exception given if you are given an action by someone else. Vader still gets a hell of a bonus that rivals any other 8-9 skilled pilots.
dandirk said:
It's your game, do what you want, but some of us want to make sure we're playing the same game as other players.
And who decides which actions are of which "type"? "Oh, this doesn't use the word focus, but it lets me reroll dice, so it's a focus" sounds pretty fuzzy to me.
radiskull said:
And who decides which actions are of which "type"? "Oh, this doesn't use the word focus, but it lets me reroll dice, so it's a focus" sounds pretty fuzzy to me.
oh I agree, I said in another thread if they meant certain action cards to be "advanced" standard actions, it would have been nice to have an icon. I look at it and it "seems" obvious, the action cards seem to be just upgraded versions of standard actions, except ones like squad leader which do something completely different… those are almost like pilot special skills.
Heck maybe action cards are supposed to be unique actions… Just confusing where the barrel roll card says barrel roll and the focus one doesn't.
dandirk said:
oh I agree, I said in another thread if they meant certain action cards to be "advanced" standard actions, it would have been nice to have an icon. I look at it and it "seems" obvious, the action cards seem to be just upgraded versions of standard actions, except ones like squad leader which do something completely different… those are almost like pilot special skills.
Heck maybe action cards are supposed to be unique actions… Just confusing where the barrel roll card says barrel roll and the focus one doesn't.
It says barrel roll because it would take too much space on the card to list all the steps you take when you perform a barrel roll. For Marksmanship, they could fit all the steps you take on the card.
I really don't buy that this was something that was overlooked. FFG is notorious for missing rules like this, and in a game that's going to get the exposure that something with Star Wars pasted on it, I think they should have spent a little more time working on wording and clarifications. The "let the chance polyhedrons decide" catch all in the rules is a cop out. FFG has years of experience with card games and the problems that interactions between cards creates. For them to miss some pretty big issues…Biggs and the Ion Cannon, Vadar and Expert Handling…that threaten to stop games while players discuss the rules is a pretty big fail imho. And yes, I know people can agree amongst themselves what the rule is, but this is a tournament game, with events happening all over right now. To let this issue languish like this is starting to reflect poorly on FFG. Players want to know NOW, not right before FFG's events next month.