Daveydavedave said:

Because were it not for the phrase "this round" then the ability would continue round after round without requiring an action to renew. As it stands the ability modifies the process denoted by the verb "to attack" rather than dice rolls over the course of the combat phase. Because each attack is completely resolved before the next attack is made, each attack is a separate process being taken by the players. By having Marksmanship only fully apply to one of the two attacks made the game introduces an element of awkward bookkeeping with no components to back it up. Every other dice modification in the game that is consumed after being used includes a corresponding component to maintain simple bookkeeping. Making the ability of Marksmanship apply fully to every attack made follows the design conceits, reduced efficacy across multiple attacks does not.

In summary with my previous post, the following support my argument that the focus to critical hit modification applies to both Cluster Missile attacks when using Marksmanship;

1. The linguistic structure of verb phrases.

2. The linguistic conceits of the game.

3. The component conceits of the game.

Now, what about the statement you are referring to sounds cogent? I would like to see your reasoning.

Whoopsie on the double post.

Mojo,

I understand what you are saying. I still think one crit per turn is the far better reading of marksmanship.

"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."

Actions are effective for one round. There are no actions which persist round after round .

There is no reason to modify the phrase "when attacking" with the qualifier "this round" in order to make sure a player doesn't say "I already did the marksmanship action last turn, so I get it every turn now for free." The dude who tried to say that would have a hard time finding anyone to play with.

Try it my way: When attacking this round you may change 1 of your focus to a crit and the rest to hits. This means for the entire round of shooting you can change one focus to a crit and the rest to hits .

As far as Marksmanship + Missiles - "When attacking this round" means "when attacking once this round" or "when attacking twice this round" or "when attacking with green eggs and ham this round." As long as you are attacking, you get exactly what Marksmanship says: 1 crit and the rest hits per round .

Bold text is purely for emphasis to help you read through the wall of text. No shouting is implied. :-)

There's nothing in the rulebook that says the effects of actions are cancelled at the end of a round (or ever). Acquire a Target Lock is an example of an action that has an effect that can persist from one round to the next.

If Marksmanship didn't include the time limit term "this round," it would read as a persistent power. It'd be silly, since you'd only have to activate it once, but that's how the card would read and there is no rule to prevent that.

So It seems clear to me that "this round" is nothing more than a time limit, and doesn't carry any additional meaning in this context. It tells you when the effect ends, that's all. We can now remove the words "this round" from the card texts, since we know when the effect ends. Now we just have to worry about this part:

"When attacking," do this that and the other when determining damage.

I believe "attacking" is synonymous with "making an attack" every time it appears in this game. If my ship is attacking your ship, in technical game terminology that means my ship is making an attack.

In casual language, "attacking" could refer to all attacks within a certain timeframe, but could also refer to a single attack. So the casual term is not specific enough to be useful here (we could just as easily choose the casual definition that means "to strike a [single] blow"). Besides that, we have every reason to assume that technical terms are being used here, since that's the kind of language used on all of the card abilities.

Since we can reasonably rule out the casual definition as ambiguous, and because the term "attacking" is synonymous with "making an attack" in game terms, we can read the card this way:

"When making an attack, do this that and the other. This effect lasts until the end of the round."

This creates no conflict or confusion when using Cluster Missiles, which leads me to believe that the stronger reading is the correct one. The weaker one is full of problems.

DagobahDave said:

DagobahDave,

While target lock gives you a token which lasts from turn to turn until used, it does not automatically give you a new target lock every single round. You must still perform an action to lock another target. So when I said above that actions are not persistent, I meant that activating once does not automatically give you the benefit of that action for the next turn and the one after until the end of the game. Instead actions provide a benefit for the turn they are used. Target locks tokens do persist, but the action of locking target doesn't make your next target lock a free action. You see the difference?

And yes, "this round" is nothing more than a limit. That's my point.

IF the card said: "When attacking," do this that and the other when determining damage then I would apply all of "this, that, and the other" to any and all attacks.

IN FACT the card says: "When attacking THIS ROUND ," do this that and the other when determining damage.

Remember, what you call "this that and the other" is actually "change one focus to a crit and the rest to hits."

When attacking this round = "during the combat phase"

So during the entire combat phase, you get to change one focus to a crit and unlimited foci to hits.

When this issue first came up, I wolud have agreed that Marksmanship lets you get only one crit, but after a lenghty debate with my co-players I've got convinced.

Think of it that way: "When attacking this round" part is a condition you have to fullfill to get the benefit of Marksmanship. You fire Cluster Missiles.

A) You get your first attack.

B) You're attacking, and this is the round you used Marksmanship. You get to change your Focus rolls to one Crit and Hits.

C) You get your second attack.

D) You're attacking again, and this is the round you used Marksmanship. You get to change your Focus rolls to one Crit and Hits.

Since Marksmanship card does not mention anything about attacking more then once, you should apply its full effect every time the condition is fullfilled.

Daveydavedave wrote: When attacking this round = "during the combat phase

I have to ask: If a ship is in its Combat Phase but does not make any attacks, is it still "attacking", in game terms? Can a ship be said to be "attacking" if it is not making an attack?

I'll save you the trouble.

"Attacking" is a specific thing, because you could be in the Combat Phase and not be attacking. So "When attacking this round" doesn't mean "During the Combat Phase."

Attacking is a specific act that occurs during the Combat Phase, but is not the Combat Phase as a whole. If you were in the Combat Phase and said to be "attacking", that would mean that you are making an attack -- 1 attack.

"When attacking" must mean "When making 1 attack" in game terms.

So let's say it's the Combat Phase and it's your turn. You decide that you will indeed be "attacking" this round, which means that you will be making an attack -- your 1 attack. You decide to use your Cluster Missiles. After going through all of the card's rules, you resolve the first attack. Marksmanship's effect kicks in when it comes to damage, because you are attacking during this round . After resolving the damage from your 1 attack, Cluster Missiles gives you another 1 attack. For a brief moment between resolving one attack and starting the next, you are not attacking, except in the casual sense where you consider all of the individual blows of an assault to be "an attack" -- but that's not the definition the game rules use for "attacking".

With the Cluster Missiles, when you've completed 1 attack with them you start another 1 attack. You were "attacking" before, and you're "attacking" again. Marksmanship's effect triggers specifically when attacking, not simply during your Combat Phase. Although you probably will be in the Combat Phase when attacking, Marksmanship doesn't care because it doesn't trigger on the Combat Phase. Potentially, it could be used for a special attack made during the Activation or End phase, as long as you made that attack after activating Marksmanship and before the end of the round.

Daveydavedave wrote: Remember, what you call "this that and the other" is actually "change one focus to a crit and the rest to hits."

That has nothing to do with Marksmanship's trigger or timing, which is why I'm not discussing it. The trigger is "when attacking". The time limit is "this round." What happens after you get the timing and trigger right should just flow from the cards.

Shanturin said:

No no no, after much deliberation I think we are all getting it wrong. You cannot use Markmanship on an enemy ship at all because you have to attack the round.

If it said "when attacking" or "when attacking this enemy ship" you would be able to use Markmanship, but it says "When attacking this round" - you have to declare that you are attacking the round itself. Since card text overrides the rulebook, Markmanship is obviously broken.

Now let's just think about what cluster missiles are. You fire your missile at your enemy. The missile blows up with several smaller missiles/explosions that harass your target. Marksmanship allows the pilot to aim really well (which helps you get a critical hit). The second attack has nothing to do with the pilot's marksmanship because it's an artifact of the weapon's multiple explosions. When I think about it this way, I am in the camp of, "One focus changes to a critical hit and the other focus results turn to hits, even results on the second roll."

It seems like people are trying to make "When attacking this round…" into "When attacking… this round…"

Full card text:

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

That is very different than:

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

The action gives a condition, and a result. The condition: "When attacking this round." The result: Changing one focus to crit and the rest to hits.

For the first attack with cluster missiles, you check - is the condition met? Yes. You are attacking and it is presumably the round you used the action.

For the second attack with cluster missiles, you check - is the condition met? Yes. You are attacking and it is still the round you used the action.

Nowhere on the card does it say anything about limiting the critical to once per round, just once per "when attacking this round," which happens twice with cluster missiles.

How about this: the real thing we should be arguing about is what "when attacking" means. If "when attacking" means it is the entire combat phase of a ship, then you should only get one critical from Marksmanship and Cluster Missiles. If "when attacking" means "each time you make an attack" then you should get two criticals from Marksmanship and Cluster Missiles. "When attacking" is never defined in the rule book, although it is used. Defining this term would go a long way toward clarifying our situation.

Parakitor said:

Why are you looking at the effects of Cluster Missiles and then deciding if Marksmanship is being applied legally? Forget Cluster Missiles and its effects at this point, because they don't come into play until you make an attack . Look at Marksmanship and figure out if that card's conditions are being met when you decide to attack. Marksmanship comes first.

The conditions for using Marksmanship's ability are "When attacking" and "this round."

Did you activate Marksmanship this round? If yes, are you attacking, that is -- are you making an attack? If yes, then Marksmanship works for that attack.

Once you have met those conditions, for the rest of the attack you can ignore the words "When attacking this round" because that part of the card text has been resolved. Those words have no further use or influence for this attack. Just do whatever the card says to do from then on, which is to adjust how damage is dealt.

Then you can worry about what Cluster Missiles do, if that is the attack you choose to make, and then you can apply Marksmanship's rules to your Cluster Missiles attack. Remember, "When attacking this round" doesn't mean "All of the attacks made during the Combat Phase" or any other casual usage of "attacking this round." The rules never use "attacking" in that way, as far as I can tell.

"Attacking" in this sense always means "making 1 attack."

You can get any result you want if you change the game's definition of "attacking" and assume that "attacking this round" actually refers to the whole of the Combat Phase without being able to cite a rule that says this is so. You can invent a rule that actions cancel at the end of the round. I mean, you can get whatever result you want if your concern is that Cluster Missiles are too darn powerful when combined with Marksmanship.

My concern is whether Marksmanship's very simple "When attacking this round" means what it simply says, or if it means something conceptually very different, and not very easy to define. We know "when attacking" doesn't mean "during the Combat Phase". We know that "this round" is a timing effect. We have no reason to assume that these conditions have a second and simultaneous meaning which is something like "Every and all attacks made between the time Marksmanship is activated and the end of the round, f or which certain damage affects from certain cards are to be shared."

I don't know where you got that definition from reading the rulebook. Do you?

Budgernaut said:

It's not explicitly defined, but you can search the rulebook PDF for every mention of "attack" or "attacking" or "attacker" or even "defender." I just did.

In every case, "attack" or "attacking" refers to the specific act of making 1 attack. Therefore, "When attacking" = "Making 1 attack."

"Defend" or "defender" also refers to the specific act of defending against 1 attack.

Example from page 8 (this is the closest thing to a borderline case): "The player can spend the focus token later during the Combat phase to increase its chances of hitting when attacking or decrease its chances of getting hit when defending…"

That of usage of "when attacking" is consistent with "making 1 attack" because spending a focus token to increase chances of hitting affects a single attack.

Let's say that another way: When can I spend a focus token? When you are attacking. When am I "attacking"? When you are making 1 attack. If I make a second attack, do I still get the benefits of spending a focus token on the first attack? No. That was a different attack. If I attack a second time in a round using something like Cluster Missiles, does that change the definition of "attacking"? Does "attacking" now refer to all of the attacks I might make until the end of the round? There's no reason to assume that, since that concept doesn't appear anywhere in the rules, and we only have examples of "attacking" referring to the act of making 1 attack.

DagobahDave said:

Yes, but the rules also state that you cannot make more than one attack in a round, so why would the rulings in the book be designed to apply to multiple attacks? They wouldn't. You can't use the rules to explain whether "when attacking" is for singular or multiple attacks.

Okay, let's look at Mauler Mithel, whose pilot ability is: "When attacking at Range 1, roll 1 additional attack die."

We've seen different interpretations of "When attacking this round." Let's look at how "when attacking" is being used in "When attacking at Range 1."

Let's assume that Mithel is somehow given a second attack (through some upgrade card or pilot ability that has not yet been released).

Using the "weak combo" reading, if both of his targets are within Range 1, he would have to choose which of his attacks to apply the additional attack die to, just like we have to choose which attack we use Marksmanship's critical swap with.

The "strong combo" reading: "When making an attack at Range 1, roll 1 additional attack die."

Mauler Mithel's ability is minor compared to Marksmanship + Cluster Missiles, but the phrasing is the same. If you didn't know anything about Cluster Missiles, would you still apply the weak combo reading to Mauler if he was able to make 2 attacks?

But Mauler Mithel does not mention "this round" which is what would limit it to 1 attack. Without the phrase, there's no reason to limit that ability to once per round.

Budgernaut said:

That's because Mithel isn't an action that only applies during the round it's activated, but a "static" ability (to borrow a term from other games). With cluster missiles, both attacks are indeed "this round" so both get the full benefit. Marksmanship doesn't say "change one focus to crit this round."

Budgernaut said:

"This round" is a time limit. It does not modify the term "when attacking."

"This round" does not change the meaning of "when attacking".

"When attacking" means "when making 1 attack," just as it does every time we see those words in the rulebook.

The game terminology "when attacking this round" does not refer to the concept of "all of the attacks you make in this turn, as a whole." There would be another term for that concept to keep them distinct.

We should rely on the meanings of the terms that the rulebook does use, rather than trying to find examples of that same terminology that is used outside of the game for other purposes.

The fact that there are no clarifications about how to handle effects that might apply to the concept of "all attacks you might make in a given timeframe, as a whole" suggests that this concept doesn't exist in the game.

So attacking = making 1 attack. "When attacking" = "when making an attack."

Cluster Missiles lets you make a certain kind of attack twice . One attack, followed by one attack. They are not treated as "multiple attacks" for rules purposes, where certain abilities are stretched, divided or shared among because they are multiple. There is no such concept in this game, and certainly no mention or rules for them.

Therefore, by applying Occam's Razor (that the simplest explanation is probably correct), and seeking to find a ruling that does not force us to invent new meanings for specific game terms, we arrive at the strong combo.

Budgernaut said:

Budgernaut said:

EXACTLY. No other card that I can think of specifies "this round."

There are two interpretations of marksmanship: "Action: when attacking this round…"

1. it limits the ability of the pilot to perform the action once and benefit for the rest of the game from marksmanship (without having to take another marksmanship action).

-or-

2. It limits the ability for marksmanship to trigger 2 or more critical effects in one round.

Option 1 is unacceptable because there is no case where actions can be interpreted as continuing indefinitely once performed. There is no precedence for understanding actions as continual once performed, so there is no reason to limit this one. The text for marksmanship could simply omit "this round" to achieve this meaning.

Option 2 is acceptable because it limits how powerful marksmanship + any multiple shot per round weapon would become.

Imagine if the Falcon and Slave one have multiple shots per round and they use marksmanship. The chances of one shotting their target goes through the roof. This would make Marksmanship worth a lot more than 3 points.

"when attacking" without specifying "this round" would mean "for each attack" - 1 crit per attack interpretation

"When attacking this round" can be interpreted: "if you shoot once or more during this round" - 1 crit per round interpretation

Conclusion: I think Marksmanship is limited to 1 crit per round purposefully for game balance reasons. Either way I think the language as written is strongly in favor of 1 crit per round.

sure would be nice if this was being looked at by the designers themselves. How soon for a FAQ?

Look, I'm not concerned about this combo being overly powerful. There are only two pilots (both unique) that can equip both Marksmanship and Cluster Missiles: Darth Vader and Maarek Steele. So at max, you will see this combo executed twice in one game. That's not a game-changer. I don't think we can base any of our arguments on balance.

bullyboy said:

I know Parakitor and I have each sent in rules clarification requests, so I'm sure it's on their list of things to address. As to how soon for a FAQ, it may be 6 months or more before we see a FAQ, based on my experience with other FFG games.

Budgernaut said:

I suspect marksmanship is limited to once per round for balance reasons, but that's not the reason I am interpreting it to mean 1 crit per round.

I think the card language is clearly defining the action to give just one crit per round.

I'd like to hear an alternative reading that makes any sense. So far the only one I have heard is the phrase "this round" prevents you from taking one action early in the game and continuing to benefit from marksmanship the rest of the game without performing the action again. Can we all agree that is just ludicrous? There is no precedent for an actions effect to continue indefinitely.

Think about Marksmanship + Cluster Missiles visually:

[------------------Round--------------------] "when attacking this round…" change 1 focus to a crit

{------attack------} + {------attack------} cluster missiles = attack twice

There could be 3 or 5 or infinite attacks per round and you would still get one crit per round.

Daveydavedave said:

Except for Target Lock. But yes, I interpret it how you do. Doesn't mean it's right, but I agree with you, for what it's worth. I can't wait to get FFG's reply to this question, but I just barely sent it in yesterday. I'm sure others will hear back first.

Daveydavedave said:

I don't think it's ludicrous. Look at R2-F2.

Action: Increase your agility by 1 until the end of the game round.

You're arguing that we can just chop off the "until the end of the game round" and it should be completely understood that it only lasts this round. That's ludicrous. The only reason we have a precedent that no actions last for multiple rounds is because any card that could otherwise be interpreted that way specifically mentions the round. R5-D8 has an Action ability, but his has one clear result that ends. It does not provide an ongoing effect that needs to be ended. R2-F2 and Marksmanship do have ongoing effects that need to be ended so they have a phrase restricting it for the round.

Now, if Marksmanship said, "The next time you attack this round", that'd be different.

EDIT: And I must add that I am enjoying this conversation greatly! I'm not angry or upset, just trying to add emphasis.