Daveydavedave said:

Daveydavedave said:

I tried to post that alternative reading earlier, but I guess I didn't quite word it well. I'll try again:

First, the actual wording:

"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."

The action give a condition (when attacking this round) and a result (changing one focus to crit, and the rest to hit). Alternatively, it gives a condition (when attacking), a duration (this round) and a result. Let's look at the first case first.

If the condition is met, the results happen. First attack with cluster missiles, is the condition met? Let's see… is the pilot attacking? Yes. Is it this round? Yes. Therefore the results happen. Second attack with cluster missile: is the condition met? Yes. Therefore the results happen on that attack too (one focus to crit, the rest to hits).

Second case: Does the first attack meet the conditions (attacking)? Yes. Does it meet the duration (this round)? Yes. Therefore results happen. Second attack: does it meat the conditions? Yes. Does it meet the duration? Yes, it is still "this round." Therefore the results happen.

To use your "visual" example:

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

{--------------------attack----------------------} + {---------------------attack---------------------} Cluster missiles attacks twice

{marksmanship applies to this attack} + {marksmanship applies to this attack} Markmanship applies to each attack

Your visual looks perfect to me.

Again, I am agreeing with you in arguing that marksmanship's focus --> hit text applies to any and all attacks this round

However, I think the 1 focus --> 1 crit text applies once per round. This is what I see in your visual example.

I even agree with most of your post in general, your logic is sound, its only your final conclusion that I disagree with and don't see enough support for when you make the leap to applying all of marksmanship for each attack. That's not what Marksmanship says.

Your visual should look like this:

[----------------------------------------Round-------------------------------------------]

{-attack (1 focus is crit, rest hits) -} + {-attack(1 focus is crit, rest hits) -}

Mine looks like this:

[-------------------------------Round (1 focus = crit) ---------------------------------]

{------attack (all focus = hits) ------} + {------attack (all focus = hits) ------}

Budgernaut said:

Good shot with R2-F2. I see your point. This card IS clearly written to avoid an interpretation where you get to keep the 1 agility point permanently and stack them indefinitely. I am corrected.

It may be subtle, but I think this is different than marksmanship because the "this round" qualifier comes at the end of the card text. With marksmanship its tied to "when attacking." Hence the comma: "when attacking this round , "

So you really think that the phrase "this round" in Marksmanships text is to limit the player from performing one action and getting to keep the effect indefinitely?

I think this could have been accomplished by omitting the phrase "this round" altogether and it would have been clearer.

"Action: When attacking {remove "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."

Expert Handling, for example, doesn't have any round limiting language on it, but we understand that the action only buys you a one turn barrel roll, not free barrel rolls every turn thereafter.

See what I mean?

Ya, this is fun! Have at you, sir!

Yeah, it gets complicated. The thing with Expert Handling is that you execute the barrel roll and remove the target lock (and maybe take the stress token) immediately after taking the Expert Handling action. With Marksmanship, you declare that during your action step, but its effect cannot take place until later, so it inherently lasts longer than you're average action, which either moves you or gives you a token. Because this one does neither, but does last longer than the action phase, they have to specify when it terminates.

It seems to me that limiting marksmanship to the first attack is taking a card that says "When attacking this round, do A and B," and interpreting it as "When attacking this round, do A (limit once per round) and B."

Budgernaut said:

Budgernaut said:

I can't deny that logic. I'm with you on the Expert Handling taking place immediately and thus not needing a "this round only" modifier.

In fact, to further sink my own ship: ALL of the upgrade cards either have a time limitation built into their text or are clearly intended to last turn after turn.

examples: Determination = all the time, no action required because its intended to be persistant. Squad Leader = effect happens immediately, no reason to believe the action gets you anything on subsequent turns without actually paying a new action for it.

I'm starting to see both arguments are possibly valid. I just don't like the wording of this card if the 1 crit per attack interpretation is correct.

Is it possible then that "this round" in Marksmanship means both interpretations? 1. limited to this round, and 2. allows only one crit per round

I'd like to think that the game doesn't actually need an errata if you read the cards and rules carefully, however this might be the first card that I need to see an FAQ to be sure of its exact meaning.

Lastly, IF the correct interpretation is 1 crit per attack, I think this would make marksmanship + cluster missiles (and any other future multiple attack per turn weapons) more powerful than intended. As I said above, this makes your missiles have a better than not chance of one shotting an x-wing. On average you'll get 2 hits and 2 crits with your 6 dice and he will get 2 evades with his 4 dice, on average. If either crit draws a double damage effect, BOOM goes 20+ points and 1/4 (or more likely 1/3) of the rebel squadron. Which probably means GG.

In fact, if this is the case with marksmanship then I dont think any list would stand a chance against an all advanced tie list with multiple copies of marksmanship and cluster missiles.

Daveydavedave said:

Only more powerful than intended if that's not how they intended it to work. As far as the average results go, I think that even with the double damage the X-Wing survives easily. Of course, that's splitting the averages evenly over the two attacks, but we're already averaging dice rolls to start with. Each attack will have 1 crit and 1 normal hit against 1 evade. The first attack takes down one of the shields. The second takes out the other shield. (I am assuming your numbers are correct for expected results).

Good point, shields would ignore crits. However this damage estimate is just from a single ship firing. It would be easy enough to concentrate fire from another tie or two to ratchet up the odds of a one shot kill.

I think at this point I am undecided on the meaning of Marksmanship. I'm glad we argued it out to this point, a lot of ideas were covered.

I can see both interpretations, I just have a much easier time reading 1 crit per round based on the wording.

Daveydavedave said:

Whereas I see 1 crit/attack as more fitting the wording. Yet another rule we'll need a clarification on… I'm not silly enough to think I can't be wrong. I hope they answer this one and the Expert Handling/Barrel Roll on Vader question soon.

Daveydavedave said:

But remember that the only TIE Advanced pilots that can take both of these upgrades are Maarek Stele and Darth Vader. So you're gonna see this combo a max of 2 times in one game. Is it still powerful? Yes! Especially since Vader can combo this with Target Lock, allowing him to acquire a lock and use Marksmanship in one turn! The thing that would make this combo deadly is if the player knocks down some shields before launching the Cluster Missiles. Then the shields won't block the crits.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. We still don't know which interpretation is the correct one. We'll have to wait and see how it gets ruled.

dbmeboy said:

Actually, changing one focus to a crit is not limited to the first attack. The wording of the card includes the word "may" - see the rulebook regarding card abilities with the word "may" - which means you may change one focus to a crit on the second attack if you did not do so on the first attack.

Heck, you may even choose not to change one of the focus to a crit and just have all your focus change to hits.

ArcticSnake said:

Fine… I should have said "one attack" instead of "first attack." My point is unchanged…

Is it possible that the phrase "this round" in the Marksmanship card text means both of the following are true?

1. changing focus to hits is limited to this round (does not persist to next turn without paying another action)

2. only one focus can be changed to a crit per round

It is possible. I do not think that's what it means, but I could be wrong. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

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.

Since this is all one sentence, shouldn't you have to turn one into a crit for the others to be hits?

That is if you want to use Marksmanship.

Daroe said:

Yes, you get to turn one into a crit when attacking this round. However, you are attacking this round two different times so you get to do it twice. Or at least that's one interpretation, no official word yet from FFG on how it was supposed to work.

That's what I mean. If the Marksmanship is usable on both attacks you should turn one focus into a crit on both attacks. (ie no saving your crit for the second attack.)

Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, to use marksmanship you have to take it as a package deal… no choosing to not take your crit. Which would mean that if it was indeed limited to one critical per round, you'd have to take it on the first attack with cluster missiles if you wanted to turn any of the focus icons to hits at all. Personally, I think it means you get one focus-to-crit with each attack as it is written though, which would make "saving" it a moot point.

dbmeboy said:

I agree with this. If this is not the case, could you also argue that spending a focus on the first attack would carry over to the second?

Daroe said:

I think that's a completely different question. Spending a focus token has a much more limited effect: it changes all dice currently showing as focus icons to hit/evade icons. It does nothing to future dice rolls.

dbmeboy said:

So let's clarify which interpretation we're talking about. So assuming that you get one crit in each attack, you can't carry your first crit over to your second attack to get two crits in that one attack.

If you are assuming you only get one crit for the whole round, you can choose to do that one crit in either your first or second attack.

Because of the word "may" in Marksmanship, I think you can choose not to turn any focus icons for crits and turn them all to hits instead. This is advantageous if, for instance, your target is equipped with Determination, so you'd rather just give them the hit to kill them.

Budgernaut said:

I actually disagree with that interpretation. It does say you may, but that is then followed by changing 1 focus into crit and all other focus into hit. As I read it, that allows you to choose to use it or not, but if you choose to use it you get the 1 crit and all the rest hits. Again, not exactly an example of air-tight english on FFG's part and on this one I'd say the wording is fairly ambiguous so I wouldn't be surprised at all if I was wrong on this one.

dbmeboy said:

I'm on dbmeboy's side on this one.

By the way, I, too have received a response from FFG: "To ensure accurate and complete information, we are spending time collecting questions and compiling answers for this brand new game. Once this process is complete, we will answer your question in a timely manner." I'm excited for the FAQ to be released!