I'm flattered that you'd quote me, but you're rather dramatically taking me out of context. There is no real rules question here - it's as clear as just about anything can be in the game these days. You can't actually articulate any rules-based reasons for it to work the way you want it to - you're using a combination of fluff, power, and "I want" arguments, none of which actually have any bearing on the rules.

Don't go all victim-card because everyone's being mean to you. If you can actually argue the rules, do it. If you can't, fine - but you're well outside the lines here, and nobody's breaking Wheaton's Law by calling you on it.

I'm flattered that you'd quote me, but you're rather dramatically taking me out of context. There is no real rules question here - it's as clear as just about anything can be in the game these days. You can't actually articulate any rules-based reasons for it to work the way you want it to - you're using a combination of fluff, power, and "I want" arguments, none of which actually have any bearing on the rules.

Don't go all victim-card because everyone's being mean to you. If you can actually argue the rules, do it. If you can't, fine - but you're well outside the lines here, and nobody's breaking Wheaton's Law by calling you on it.

Ohh my "dearest" Buhallin, I am just fine and find it almost cute that you think I am feeling victimized. Let me put your mind at ease and let you know that I am not (just as I'm sure you're not either) loosing any slep over this. I have repeatedly, and will do so again, written that I am fine especially if it will be FAQ'ed. The fact that someone (other than me) have felt the need to make this hread in the first place does indicate (at some level) that not everyone posses the same superior intellect and understanding of the rules as you and a couple of other people have.

And stating that I wish it "to work the I want to" is your choice/opinion. I participate in these discussions to

1. Put in my points/view (just like you)
2. To see and learn what other people think
3. To hopefully become wizer or at least more clear on the issues

I do believe that is also your mission with your blog, and if not then please let me know, okay?

I think the issue here is one of timing.

Cluster missile "perform this attack twice". This is important. It's not "perform a second attack", but "perform this attack twice" (emphasis mine). The second is effectively a "clone" of the first. In theory if someone was stupid enough to use cluster missile while suffering the crit that makes your next attack a 0 die roll it could be argued that neither attack had any dice. They are two attacks, but going off the same set of conditions and modifiers.

Granted I'd be willing to admit I was wrong in my reading or that it was clumsy wording and not what they wanted but that's just my reading of it.

Edit: Also Jan does not modify dice, she modifys the dice pool .

The difference being that Buhalin tends tends to base his discussion in rules and precedent and considered, reasoned argument and not "la la la la is so is so not listening." Like he said, if you have an actual argument here, terrific. Nobody has a personal stake in Cluster NOT working with Jan - if it did, great. I don't have any reason to *want* it not to.

But so far the only argument I've heard is the same hair-splitting "this attack twice is somehow not the same as making two attacks" deal, but twice as ridiculous now that the FAQ has clearly and unequivocally stated it is two distinct attacks and that you resolve attack 1 in its entirety before moving on to attack two. How that's now a question, AGAIN all of a sudden is beyond me.

I have yet to hear a single reasoned argument to support any logic being Jan being able to lend a boost die to TWO attacks in one turn, beyond "but I want her to."

You fire CM. You make a attack 1. You use Jan to add an attack die. She takes a stress. You resolve the rest of the attack. You make the second attack using CM. You check to see if Jan can help. She now has a stress token, kicking in the 'if she does not have a stress token' bit. You resolve the rest of attack 2 without her.

If you have a way using the rules to resolve 'two distinct attacks' with Jan taking a stress on the first one, hit us. If not, you should acknowledge that you're just rehashing the same wishful thinking that was soundly struck down by the rulings on the interaction with Gunner. Are the exact card resolutions different? Of course. Does that change the basic definition of how CM works, as defined and clarified in the FAQ? No.

I think the issue here is one of timing.

Cluster missile "perform this attack twice". This is important. It's not "perform a second attack", but "perform this attack twice" (emphasis mine). The second is effectively a "clone" of the first. In theory if someone was stupid enough to use cluster missile while suffering the crit that makes your next attack a 0 die roll it could be argued that neither attack had any dice. They are two attacks, but going off the same set of conditions and modifiers.

Granted I'd be willing to admit I was wrong in my reading or that it was clumsy wording and not what they wanted but that's just my reading of it.

Edit: Also Jan does not modify dice, she modifys the dice pool .

The reason they worded it as such is that it's shorthand to indicate both attacks are on the same target. It's two distinct, separate attacks - they clarified that - but you're not allowed to pick a different target for the second attack. They hammer that point home repeatedly. If CM attack 1 kills the target, attack 2 is forfeited. If attack 1 misses, and you use Gunner to make a primary weapon attack, CM 2 is forfeited. Because Gunnef says "no further attacks is round." It's two attacks, start to finish, but each locked in to the same target. If there was some grey area in 'this attack twice' not being two attacks, some interaction would exist to let you resolve that second attack. Nothing they've ruled on does.

You raise a good example, but every discussion I've seen has indicated that if a Blinded pilot fired Cluster, he would indeed roll 0 dice on the first attack and roll normally on e second. Which is actually a great way to shake BP if you think about it.

The point of 'this attack twice' is that you're not allowed to declare a new target with the second attack. Every other step of the attack - gathering the dice pool, rolling them, modifying them etc is its own beast. If the defender spent an Evade token on the first attack, it wouldn't carry over to the second attack. If the attacker misses and uses Gunner he doesn't get to make the second attack. They've made it quite clear the attacks are distinct, to the point of stating flat out "the attacks are distinct." Nothing but the choice of target automatically carries from one to the next.

The FAQ, page 4 states also that a Focus token spent to boost CM only "modifies a single attack," and does not affect both rolls. So that to me is even less reason to assume Jan's ability would somehow carry over. Like I said - these hairs have all already been split, and already clarified pretty clearly.

I see your point. I think there is a grey area though on if Jan is adding a die to an attack, or if she is effectivly raiseing the number on card. If she is modifying an individual attack then you are correct, if it's the card though that's another matter.

Actually I just took the five seconds to look up her card's exact wording, She adds a single attack die to an attack. In fact I'd say the wording on her card alone makes the whole argument moot. She is literally adding one attack die, not raiseing the weapon's attack. So either it's two completly seperate attacks and only one is effected... Or it's a linked attack and only gets one die bonus.

Amazing the things you figure out when you take to seconds to refresh your memory.

Edit: Just to clarify, I know they said "two distinct attacks" in the FAQ. I'm just saying the even if they didn't she wouldn't be able to edit both.

The FAQ, page 4 states also that a Focus token spent to boost CM only "modifies a single attack," and does not affect both rolls. So that to me is even less reason to assume Jan's ability would somehow carry over. Like I said - these hairs have all already been split, and already clarified pretty clearly.

While I agree you're right on this, I don't see how focus matters. Changing the dice pool and the dice results are two seperate, if related, things, and a ruling on one does not automaticly effect the others.

It's all academic of course since you were correct about this.

Count me on the '1 dice for 1 single attack' wagon.

The rules are clear and there is no room for interpretation. Each attack on cluster missile is clearly treated -in the FAQ- as a separate attack. Jan can only buff a single attack before stressing herself. Unless an ability allows to 'buff' any attacks made in a round (like for example Marksmanship), each attack on Cluster Missile 'consumes' its own resources, and you have to buff each one separately.

I see your point. I think there is a grey area though on if Jan is adding a die to an attack, or if she is effectivly raiseing the number on card. If she is modifying an individual attack then you are correct, if it's the card though that's another matter.

Actually I just took the five seconds to look up her card's exact wording, She adds a single attack die to an attack. In fact I'd say the wording on her card alone makes the whole argument moot. She is literally adding one attack die, not raiseing the weapon's attack. So either it's two completly seperate attacks and only one is effected... Or it's a linked attack and only gets one die bonus.

Amazing the things you figure out when you take to seconds to refresh your memory.

Edit: Just to clarify, I know they said "two distinct attacks" in the FAQ. I'm just saying the even if they didn't she wouldn't be able to edit both.

The FAQ, page 4 states also that a Focus token spent to boost CM only "modifies a single attack," and does not affect both rolls. So that to me is even less reason to assume Jan's ability would somehow carry over. Like I said - these hairs have all already been split, and already clarified pretty clearly.

While I agree you're right on this, I don't see how focus matters. Changing the dice pool and the dice results are two seperate, if related, things, and a ruling on one does not automaticly effect the others.

It's all academic of course since you were correct about this.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to confuse the issue with Focus, I was just throwing it out as one more example of a rule explicitly splitting Cluster into two attacks that simply target the same ship, where the effect was yet another one that could affect one attack or the other but not both.

The only argument I could see being made in favor of Jan was something like a linked attack, as you said, and I was just trying to point out more evidence in favor of anything affecting one attack NOT carrying over and automatically affecting e second. Jan to me seemed, as you found, pretty clearly worded to avoid exactly this kind of confusion.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. EVEN IF we go with the idea that you are modifying a single attack then performing THAT single attack two times (as opposed to two distinct attacks), this does not change the fact that you can still only add one die. You can pick which of the two "parts" you want to add the die to, but you only get to add it to one or the other, not both.

If you go with what the FAQ says and treat them as two distinct attacks, then Jan is perfectly capable of modifying both attacks by adding one die to each. Practically this will be difficult because she gains a stress the first time she does it, but if you were to find a way overcome that issue then she could indeed perform her action twice.

It should be a moot point as far as Jan is concerned, regardless of how we look at the underlying issues.

To CW and Buhallin: Kindly abstain from telling me what my grounds for debating this is. I will just assure you that it isn't "that I want her to!!"

Ohh, I don't think I have ANY, not even the remotest of hopes that I will make you change your mind, Buhallin, on this matter (or any other now that we are at it. I know that I am dealing with a man writing a blog where you go through the points where you describe an explain in great depths how, why and where FFG are wrong in their rules and FAQ's. Apparently am "splitting hairs" when I try to represent what I believe (not want) to be Play As Intended while I do see you as a Class A example of a Play As Written kind of guy.

Allow me to quote from your blog:

Proximity Mine: When a ship executes a maneuver, if its base or maneuver template overlaps this token, the token detonates.

Q: If a ship barrel rolls or boosts onto a proximity mine token, does the token detonate?

A: Yes

I think the problem with the ruling here is pretty obvious. Boost and Barrel Roll are not maneuvers; they do not trigger effects which depend on maneuvers. But in this case, they do. The ruling pretty directly contradicts the rules and card text as printed.

How To Play It

Let’s get the important thing out of the way first: this is the right way to play it. Whether we like it or not, whether it follows the rules or not, the FAQ tells us how to play this particular interaction. It is a binding rules document, and I expect that no TO in the world would find you very persuasive if you tried to argue that it should be played otherwise. If you want to argue it, it’s always your prerogative – but don’t credit me when you do

- See more at: http://teamcovenant.com/buhallin/2013/07/29/when-devs-break-their-own-rules/#sthash.gkgJMucI.dpuf

My view on that matter (Prox Mine) was always that a mine (IRL) wouldn't care HOW you got close to it, but only THAT you got close to it. And yes, they wrote it bad on the mine card, but it goes to show that even the best are mistaken.

Too tired for further comments ATM.

Actually I think you kind of made his point. Until they overruled it directly in the FAQ, playing that boost or barrel roll didn't detonate a prox mine absolutely WAS the correct way to play it, whether it seemed wrong or not. Now that the FAQ has overruled it, I suspect with an eventual errata to follow, having those actions detonate the mine is correct.

Of course the problem is, the rules for Jan clearly support the idea that she adds a single die and can't do so on back to back attacks like CM, and there hasn't been a shred of real evidence to support playing it any other way. Every time you're pressed for a solid argument to support it you sidetrack into unrelated topics like the above prox mine detour that has zero relevance to the topic at hand.

I think there is a grey area though on if Jan is adding a die to an attack, or if she is effectivly raiseing the number on card.

There's actually a good precedent for knowing which of these Jan does, and that is Wedge. Wedge doesn't reduce the number of dice rolled, he actively reduces the stat. I don't think it would actually change the outcome here, since Jan would (hypothetically) increase the stat for the duration of one attack, and then the ability would end before the next attack began... but for this specific question, we do have another example of an ability that actually does change a stat, so we know what it would look like.

The rest of this discussion is becoming downright Twilight Zone. Since the actual rules issue seems to be settled for those who actually care about the rules, I'm going to bow out.

And I'm not sure that's a grey area at ALL.

Jan says "allow that ship to roll one extra attack die."

Wedge says "reduce the defender's agility value by 1."

Those are pretty clearly not the same thing. She adds a die, he affects the stat itself.

If that's a grey area to you, as far as which she's doing, it's no wonder there's a failure to communicate.

That grey area was created by me not haveing read the card in a while and not remembering the wording on what would, in most cases, be the exact same effect. But yes I think the matter is pretty much settled.

Ah I didn't realize that was you he was quoting, sorry.

I think there is a grey area though on if Jan is adding a die to an attack, or if she is effectivly raiseing the number on card.

There's actually a good precedent for knowing which of these Jan does, and that is Wedge. Wedge doesn't reduce the number of dice rolled, he actively reduces the stat. I don't think it would actually change the outcome here, since Jan would (hypothetically) increase the stat for the duration of one attack, and then the ability would end before the next attack began... but for this specific question, we do have another example of an ability that actually does change a stat, so we know what it would look like.

The rest of this discussion is becoming downright Twilight Zone. Since the actual rules issue seems to be settled for those who actually care about the rules, I'm going to bow out.

Please don't bow out. I am not asking you to read the rules another way than you do; you have continously excelled in reading rules as written with an added ability of disregarding anyone or anything that indicate that there is such a thing as "rules as intended". The last thing is a thing that FFG does quite a lot. This doesn't seem to be a way/form that you care for in any way, but correct me if I am wrong.

And I'm not sure that's a grey area at ALL.

Jan says "allow that ship to roll one extra attack die."

Wedge says "reduce the defender's agility value by 1."

Those are pretty clearly not the same thing. She adds a die, he affects the stat itself.

If that's a grey area to you, as far as which she's doing, it's no wonder there's a failure to communicate.

My "friend, you're right, those are not "the same thing". If they had worded Jan's ability similar to Wedge's then her ability would only be able to affect the attacking ships Primary Weapon . And thereby we wouldn't need to debate CM and Jan EVER but then what would we have used all this time for instead ??

Wedge's ability has absolutely nothing to do with his primary weapon. Once again you're off on a weird and incorrect tangent.

I'm in the 'One dice, one attack' camp. For me the only outstanding issue with Jan is when it triggers, if it's step 2 of the attack ( the bonus primary die for range 1 is added here), then you roll all of the dice together. If it's step 3 (where dice results can apparently be added to as well as modified and re-rolled) then you would get to see the results on the other dice before committing to stressing Jan for the extra die. That would make her ability much more powerful but to the best of my knowledge it would be the first effect to add dice to a roll outside of Step 2.

On re-reading p.11 of the rulebook I'm leaning towards Step 2, as someone who wants to run a competitive Jan squad I'm hoping for Step 3!

I think there is a grey area though on if Jan is adding a die to an attack, or if she is effectivly raiseing the number on card.

There's actually a good precedent for knowing which of these Jan does, and that is Wedge. Wedge doesn't reduce the number of dice rolled, he actively reduces the stat. I don't think it would actually change the outcome here, since Jan would (hypothetically) increase the stat for the duration of one attack, and then the ability would end before the next attack began... but for this specific question, we do have another example of an ability that actually does change a stat, so we know what it would look like.

The rest of this discussion is becoming downright Twilight Zone. Since the actual rules issue seems to be settled for those who actually care about the rules, I'm going to bow out.

Please don't bow out. I am not asking you to read the rules another way than you do; you have continously excelled in reading rules as written with an added ability of disregarding anyone or anything that indicate that there is such a thing as "rules as intended". The last thing is a thing that FFG does quite a lot. This doesn't seem to be a way/form that you care for in any way, but correct me if I am wrong.

And I'm not sure that's a grey area at ALL.

Jan says "allow that ship to roll one extra attack die."

Wedge says "reduce the defender's agility value by 1."

Those are pretty clearly not the same thing. She adds a die, he affects the stat itself.

If that's a grey area to you, as far as which she's doing, it's no wonder there's a failure to communicate.

My "friend, you're right, those are not "the same thing". If they had worded Jan's ability similar to Wedge's then her ability would only be able to affect the attacking ships Primary Weapon . And thereby we wouldn't need to debate CM and Jan EVER but then what would we have used all this time for instead ??

Wedge's ability has absolutely nothing to do with his primary weapon. Once again you're off on a weird and incorrect tangent.

I didn't say that. If it is not too much to ask for, I would kindly ask you to read what I wrote, you seem to be able to do so in general but apparently not grasping the meaning of it, so allow me to explain:

IF Jan Ors ability stated that "...increase the attacking ships Primary Wepon value by 1..." THEN it would be (more) analogue to Wedge's ability (both could be said to influence the stats (Attack and Defense respectively)), and THEREBY it would prevent in confusion (even on my part) whether or not Ors ability could ever influence CM or any Secondary Weapon for that matter.

Are we clear now on that point?? We were actually agreeing on something (WOOP WOOP), that there is a difference, and it (almost) saddens me that this point of agreement was wasted on you.

Alas, as previously stated I do not retain any hope (or desire/need) to reach agreement with you or Buhallin; it is obvious that we do not think alike: when I read some rules that seems confusing or right out conflicting I use these discussions to air my views, see what comes back in response, test if I agree or find it still unsettled and then repeat the process several times. I find some of the ways a couple of you guys see it is sooooo different (I am NOT saying wrong) than the way I see it, but when you encounter an opposing view/thought you (IMO)

1. Read the rules to the letter (according to your view)
2. Are able to see a clear distinction between "splitting hairs" or "wanting something to work in our favor" when others say something, but when you interpret something "then it is so!!"
3. At times when 1 and/or 2 fails then you twist other peoples argument by inseting false claims on our part in order to make the input ridiculous/stupid.

Yes, and if Emperor Palpatine was riding Rainbow Dash into battle he wouldn't need a shuttle.

If you raised points that were actually relevant to the discussion at hand and weren't more random wishful thinking, it would probably ALSO create a lot less confusion.

If her ability worked like Wedge's does....is completely irrelevant. It doesn't. And if it was meant to, they'd have worded it that way. Once again you've thrown out tangential wishful thinking and not put forth any real argument for the case you claim to be trying to make.

Seriously - it's clear how you WANT Jan to work. You've been given about eighteen pieces of evidence indicating that's NOT how she's meant to work. Yet after all this time I have literally no idea what your case is as far as supporting your point of view. Every other ability you've brought up in support really argues against you, and it seems to boil down to "we'll they might tell us it works that way in the FAQ update."

Yes, they might. Weirder things have happened. But until then, the rules seem pretty clearly in favor of Jan adding a die to one or the other but not both cluster missile attacks, and if you have an actual logical argument in favor of her adding a die to each, I've yet to hear it.

At one point you dragged Howlrunner in as an example, I pointed out two reasons why she was a terrible example, and you basically said "we'll she's different - what are you dragging her into this for?" You did. You did that. It's like arguing with a schizophrenic.

Yes, and if Emperor Palpatine was riding Rainbow Dash into battle he wouldn't need a shuttle.

If you raised points that were actually relevant to the discussion at hand and weren't more random wishful thinking, it would probably ALSO create a lot less confusion.

If her ability worked like Wedge's does....is completely irrelevant. It doesn't. And if it was meant to, they'd have worded it that way. Once again you've thrown out tangential wishful thinking and not put forth any real argument for the case you claim to be trying to make.

A couple of things:

1) First of all I wasn't the one bringing Wedge into the discussion, I did however follow up on a comment on it. So once again you are assigning things to me that aren't true.

2) It is you saying (again) that it is "wishful thinking" on my part. I have repeatedly said I have no particular plan or desire to play Jan and a CM carrying ship. So you're still wrong on that point (surprise!!)

3) If, as you indirectly are saying now, FFG always got it right first time around, why do they put out any FAQ's at all??

4) Stop playing "reductio ad absurdum" with me, you can take your emperor & the Rainbow Dash and put it where the sun don't shine

Ohh, and BTW; actually found/find it amusing that you were been snide when I quoted from Buhallin's blog until you learned that it was from him. I know he didn't agree with the way the quote was presented, but still it gave a good chuckle here in Denmark

I wish you the very best of luck in what I can only imagine to be a bright and promising future where your open mind and bright cheerful demeanor will do wonders for you. Go make me proud!!

I didn't say they got it right the first time, what I said was "like if or not, until something is addressed in an FAQ, the way it is written is the legal and therefore correct way of playing it." Nothing in there says they can't revise, clarify, or flat out change the way rules are written. Wrong is still right until they state outright it was wrong.

And yes, if I learn something was misattributed and the person in question is actually a sane, rational human being and not you, I'm more than willing to apologize to them for my tone. =^D

And I would point out AGAIN, for the sixteenth time, you've still yet to put forth an actual, you know, CASE for what you're saying. Just more sarcasm and snark and changes of topic.