Marksmanship: When attacking this round you may change 1 or your (Eye) for a (Crit) result and all of your other (Eye) for (Hit) result.

Cluster Missile: spend your target lock to perform this attack twice.

So lets assume I aquired a target lock the previous turn, the following turn I decide to use Marksmanship as my action. An enemy Xwing is range 2 in my front arc and I use my cluster missiles.

Lets say I roll all eyes for both attacks. Does it turn into 1 crit and 2 hits and then 1 crit and 2 hits or is it 1 crit and 2 hits and then 3 hits, or is it 1 crit and 2 hits and then 3 eyes which turn into blanks.

Cluster Missiles: "Attack [Target Lock]: Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack twice .

Marksmanship: "Action: When attacking this round, you may change 1 of your [Focus] results to a [Critical] result and all of your other [Focus] results to [Hit] results.

Cluster missiles counts as 2 attacks performed in 1 round.

Marksmanship says "when attacking this round … change one focus to a crit and all the rest to hits.

In your example of rolling 3 focus results followed by 3 more focus results: you would get 1 crit and 2 hits, and then 3 more hits.

In this ROUND you got 6 dice from two different attacks. So you can change one to a crit and the rest to hits, just like Marksmanship says.

I could be wrong.

I am assuming " round" means "this round of initiative" or "this shooting phase"

I assume round does not mean "this dice roll" or "this attack"

What do you think?

a round is the 4 phases (planning, activation, combat and end)

I think you are right though. Another thing, I assumed you needed to use the crit effect as your first effect, but after rereading the card I think you can use it to replace any of the focus results. So in the first volley you can take down shields with basic hits, and then throw a crit in the second volley if you get a focus there.

I think you're right about choosing your crit.

Remember, when you roll your first 3 dice, you'll have to decide then and there whether to use the Marksmanship crit. Then your opponent rolls his defense dice and you calculate hits against shields and hull. THEN you roll the next three and hope that you get at least one focus result so that you don't miss your opportunity to take the crit.

We have been playing it as two seperate attacks where marksmanship kicks in 2 seperate times, but now I can certainly see it being the other way, with you only getting the crit once. We might just start playing it the other way from now on with the single crit as there is a certain logic to playing it that way after reading this discussion. I think this might actually be one of the first real cases where a clarification may be needed…. many of the others people have brought up are nonsense and the intent is very clear, this one is just a tad wishy washy since I could potentially see them saying in an FAQ that you could get 2 crits… but who knows how/if they will rule on it…. But seeing this discussion has certainly given me pause as to how we have played it thus far.

I think the intention of Marksmanship is that it should fully apply to each attack you make that turn.

I say that because attacks are resolved one at a time. You shouldn't be rolling 6 dice for 2 attacks and then deciding afterward which ones get converted into hits or crits. Resolve each attack one at a time, using Marksmanship's ability each time.

Nice combo.

DagobahDave said:

was devastating for me with vader last night

had a Y wing with shields down and a damge card, Vader swooped in behind, target lock, marksmanship and cluster missiles led to very dead Y wing.

Good question on how to resolve cluster and marksmanship togther. I agree that you roll the 3 attacks seperately, but don't think you should get more than one focus swicthed to a crit because both attacks occur in a single round.

DagobahDave said:

You are correct. The attacks are resolved one at a time. Roll 3 dice, apply marksmanship, then roll 3 dice and apply marksmanship. However, Marksmanship's text is very clear about changing only one focus result to a crit result this round.

I think it's air tight language. It's not ambiguous at all, it's actually written very clearly and can only be interpreted one way (unless you can change the meaning of "round.")

Try reading marksmanship again like a robot, with your own desire for its meaning aside.

If you take "When attacking this round" robotically, you somehow have to be able to attack this round. So we have to use common sense here.

I think Marksmanship means "This round, when you make an attack…" Another way to say that is, "When attacking this round…"

The first attack is an attack. The second attack is a different attack. Resolve each attack individually, applying Marksmanship both times. It's easy, it works, and does not create any weird special cases.

What if you fired at two different targets? If you think the wording is ambiguous, then the procedure for resolving this combo is anyone's guess in that situation. It's a total jumble, no one knows how it should work.

So I'm going to use the common-sense reading that actually works, and wait for the FAQ.

DagobahDave said:

Read: anyone who reads this differently than I do is not applying common-sense and is therefore stupid.

I'm gonna side with DagobahDave on this one. Why doesn't "When attacking this round" equal "Every time you attack this round"? Okay, it's this round, and I'm making two attacks. I'm attacking and roll 3 dice for Cluster Missiles. That attack resolves and I turn one [eye] into a crit. I'm attacking again, so we reiterate the ability of "When attacking this round, turn one of your [eye] results . . .".

So the question is where the 1 crit comes in. Is it when attacking? Or is it this round? I can't find anything in the rules to clarify whether attacking lasts for a single attack, or during a single activation.

Read: anyone who reads this differently than I do is not applying common-sense and is therefore stupid.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Fair enough, but do you accept that charaterizing your position as common-sense and other positions as nonsensical is fallacious and self-serving?

Budgernaut said:

Aww Budger, we usually agree mate! Oh well, I gotta support the counter point of view on this one.

Marksmanship is perfectly clear: You get to change 1 focus result to a crit this ROUND .

Usually 1 round (ie "phase" or "turn") is going to mean 1 attack, but in the case of Cluster Missiles you get two attacks this round.

Marksmanship doesn't say "you may change 1 focus to a crit this ATTACK ."

I get that you want it to mean that you can get two crits. I do too. I get that it might make more sense to all of us if it did give two crits. However, it clearly does not. From a game balance perspective I think the authors wrote Marksmanship this way on purpose.

Read both cards again carefully. I posted the text for each above.

What Daveydavedave said.

You only get to change one focus to a crit per round even if you attack twice. The round does not end at the end of each attack, it ends after cleanup and the End Phase.

First off, I'm primarily a Rebel player, so it's in my best interest for this combo to not allow two crits. Let's forget I said anything about taking sides. I want to explain the way I see it and why both interpretations make sense.

The overwhelming thought on this combo is that you only get one crit. For these people, the main phrase they are focusing on is "this round" meaning "this round you can change one focus result to a crit result on the die. So if "this round" is the main component of Marksmanship, why even say "when attacking"? The reason is because you may also need to roll attack dice to cancel critical hit cards, and if it didn't say "when attacking" then you'd be able to use Marksmanship to turn a focus result to a crit result when trying to repair your damaged weapons systems, for instance. So "when attacking" becomes necessary. So the effect is basically that once per round you can change one focus to a crit but only when attacking.

Now most of you see it that way, but there is a different way to interpret it. Instead of concentrating on "this round", you start by taking "when attacking". So when attacking -- as in, whenever you attack -- you get to turn one focus result into a crit. So why then even include "this round"? The intent may not have been to say that "this round you may change 1 focus result to a crit result", rather, "this round" was meant to clarify that the ability triggered by taking the Marksmanship action ends at the end of the round. So each attack (when attacking) you get to turn 1 focus result to a crit result so long as you do it within the round you used the Marksmanship action.

Are you guys getting the subtle nuances that alter people's interpretations of this combo? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to say that the confusion here is valid and not contrived. I honestly believe that you can't settle this dispute without a ruling, and I, for one, will not be surprised at either of the above rulings being the official interpretation. They both make a lot of sense to me.

DagobahDave said:

You can't fire at 2 different targets since you need to use target lock to fire.

They have to specify "when attacking" because there are times when you can roll the dice outside of the attack phase. They have to specify this round because if they didn't, you would be able to turn up to two focus to crits.

ArcticSnake said:

Yep. Good point.

"Attacking" is never used in the rules to mean "Everything you do during your Combat Phase, even if you take more than one attack."

Since "attacking" is never used to mean your entire Combat Phase , the only thing it could be referring to is making an attack . The way the Combat Phase is set up, you make one attack and resolve it.

But look here, Cluster Missiles let you perform the same attack twice. When does Marksmanship apply? "When attacking this round." I'm attacking (making an attack), and it's still the same round as when I activated Marksmanship.

Clearly, Marksmanship applies to the second attack as well.

If Marksmanship's conditions were "During your Combat Phase, regardless of the number of attacks made" instead of "When attacking this round" then you would get the weaker reading of the combo.

DagobahDave said:

Of course Marksmanship applies to both attacks. The crit only applies once per round.

Daveydavedave said:

Maybe, but I don't think giving the Imperials a little extra help would hurt the game (and, in fact, it might balance it out a bit more). So, I hope it counts on both attacks. Eagerly awaiting the FAQ.

Marksmanship reads the following:

"Action: When attacking this round, you may change 1 of your (focus) results to a (critical hit) result and all your other (focus) results into (hit) results."

By dissecting the phrase in question, we see the following;

"Action: When attacking this round" (The phrase "this round" is an adverb phrase subject to the verb "to attack")

When discerning technical language, it's common practice to remove modifiers from a sentence to distill the nature of the statement, and find the basic meaning. Without the modifier in question, the sentence reads as follows;

"Action: When attacking, you may change 1 of your (focus) results to a (critical hit) result and all of your other (focus) results into (hit) results."

This statement sets no time limit, and would make the ability usable for the remainder of the game without requiring an action each turn. An example of a card affecting another like this for the remainder of the game would be Damaged Cockpit, which reads "After the round in which you recieve this card, treat your pilot skill value as "0." The game uses these adverb phrases plentifully to indicate criteria that must be met for a special ability to apply, such as the following examples;

Backstabber: When attacking from outside the defender's firing arc

Maulter Mithel: When attacking at range 1- specifies the range must be 1

Winged Gundark: When attacking at range 1- specifies the range must be 1

Horton Salm: When attacking at range 2-3- specifies the attack must be at range 2-3

In all these instances the adverb phrase is subject to the verb "to attack" and set specifications for when the ability applies. Meanwhile when a card modifies the rules for a set time frame, that specific quality is mentioned. Examples include;

R2-F2: Action: Increase your agility value by 1 until the end of this game round.

Swarm Tactics: Until the end of this phase, treat the chosen ship as if its pilot skill were equal to your pilot skill.

Card text which applies without exceptions does not state it always applies, it just omits the exceptions. Examples include Wedge Antilles, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader and Dark Curse. It would be a very difficult sell to claim the ability of Dark Curse only comes into play for one attack in a given combat phase but not another. By combining basic rules of grammar and the linguistic conceits of the game, the most logical conclusion states when using Marksmanship to fire Cluster Missiles, both attacks can use the focus to critical hit dice modification. If it was the other way around and only one of the two attacks could be modified, it would more likely read as such;

"Action: Once this round when attacking, you may change 1 of your (focus) results into a (critical hit result) and all your other (focus) results into (hit) results."

Because it does not specify this happens once this round the ability applies for the entire round. I understand picking apart language in this manner is a very tedious process and this particular wording can be problematic. The mistake is an easy one to make, similar to omitting serial commas. We'll need an FAQ document to be clear on the designer's intent, but the card text as stated allows the full ability to be used on every attack made during the round in which the action is taken.

Resource for how adverb phrases modify speech, and what verb they are subject to: javascript:void(0);/*1348457600503*/

ArcticSnake said:

What do you say about this, then? I think the idea in the quoted sentence above is very cogent.