Forensicus -

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I understand your assertion and would like to paraphrase it just to make sure that we are all actually debating the correct point.

You are saying that Jan Ors adds a single die to the attack, and that this is done at the very beginning of the sequence. Therefore, when we reach the point where we "perform this attack twice", THIS ATTACK would already have the extra die. Doing it twice would entail performing an attack (with an extra die), then doing that same attack (still with the extra die) a second time.

I believe your interpretation is completely consistent with the text on Jan Ors' card, and the text on the Cluster Missile card. If that were the end, I would endorse your point of view. However, in what is unfortunately a fairly common event FFG has confused the issue with its FAQ. When you read the rulings on Cluster Missiles that are in the FAQ, you find out that FFG wants us to treat the two Cluster Missile attacks as being completely separate in all ways. This is self-contradictory even within the FAQ because they ALSO want us to treat it as a single attack when it comes to weapon selection (Cluster Missile for both), Target Lock use, and target selection. The FAQ ruling comes out something like "The two attacks are completely separate, totally unrelated attacks. Except where they aren't." With no further explanation, this is certainly unsatisfying. I believe our only option is to just take it at face value without trying to make sense of it. Cluster Missiles are the "same attack" when it comes to Target Lock requirements and use, and for target selection. Otherwise, we treat them as completely separate attacks in all ways, regardless of the actual wording on the Cluster Missile card.

Therefore, because the FAQ instructs us to treat the two Cluster Missile attacks as being completely separate attacks we must treat them as completely unrelated to one another when applying Jan Ors' ability, despite the fact that this is inconsistent with the wording on the Cluster Missile card and inconsistent with some of the Cluster Missile mechanisms as detailed in the FAQ. Like the ruling on Proximity Mines and Boost, we are going to do it this way "just because", and trying to make more sense out of it than that is just a path to frustration.

I will forever agree FFG could work on their clear, consistent wording, or perpetual lack thereof.

It seems from the FAQ their intention was something along the lines of "spend a target lock and discard this card in order two perform steps 2-7 of this attack twice" or something. That would tell you it's entirely distinct aside from target selection, which seems to be their intent. Although I'm sure we could find a way as a community to muddle that wording up as well.

I can at least understand Kinetic's presentation of the argument, but I still think that's clearly not the case given the FAQ, and was even a bit of a stretch of logic pre-FAQ. If the intent wasn't to limit Jan to chipping in more than a single attack die per round, they could have worded her to allow for her to do so much more simply.

It feels like rather than just looking at how her ability reads, a number of people have decided to find a loophole that would allow her to do more than she's meant to, and are trying to twist everyone else to make her fit. If the Rebels had someone who could eat stress for you, as the Imps now do, sure. As it stands I can't believe it's an accident she works this way. The rules gymnastics required to ignore at stress token by the time the second CM attack rolls around makes it hard to swallow it is how she should work.

The thing is, HOWEVER we interpret 'this attack twice,' the twice bit says we need to walk through the attack steps as defined in the FAQ, twice. Which is where if would be nice if it just told you to do 2-7 the second time, but it is what it is. There are still a few basic facts here though.

1. The agreement seems to be Jan adding dice in step 2, since you roll them with your attack, and they're not a modification of your existing dice.

2. Step 1 is moot since the FAQ makes if clear you get the one target, so you can either ignore it the second time, or hit step 1 with the caveat the target has to be the same one each time.

3, if we can agree doing the attack twice means walking through the steps, twice, there is absolutely no way Jan is not stressed on the second attack.

You have to pick a target - it's just decided for you on the second attack. You have to assemble your attack and defense dice. If Jan adds one here, she takes a stress. You have to roll the dice, modify the dice, compare results, calculate damage, all the steps. Then you do them again. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate Jan's attack die carries over without requiring her stress check on the second attack.

Every other thing in the game BUT the muddled wording of Cluster Missiles, goes against this. And even that wording they effectively overruled in the FAQ. So I've yet to hear anything put forth to indicate Jan should be the exception. Every similar ability either lacks a restriction, specifies it lasts all round, or doesn't affect secondary weapons at all. The fact hers has a big restriction speaks volumes.

If you walk the attack steps twice, there is no way her extra die gets to carry over and not require her to check for stress on the second attack.

I mean the problem as I see it is that the only way to make Jan work the was that's being suggested is to ignore all of the FAQ clarifications on Cluster Missile and go back to a whole debate over the wording of 'this attack twice.' The problem being, we already HAD that debate, the answer was already given to us, and there's no reason to believe the definition we were given is going to be different for Jan than it was regarding Gunner, or a Focus, or your target dying on the first attack, or wanting to change targets for the second attack, or any other interaction they've ruled on.

I mean the problem as I see it is that the only way to make Jan work the was that's being suggested is to ignore all of the FAQ clarifications on Cluster Missile and go back to a whole debate over the wording of 'this attack twice.' The problem being, we already HAD that debate, the answer was already given to us, and there's no reason to believe the definition we were given is going to be different for Jan than it was regarding Gunner, or a Focus, or your target dying on the first attack, or wanting to change targets for the second attack, or any other interaction they've ruled on.

I am less confident and a bit more humble than you when it comes to this point. Apparently (IMO) it seems like you and some other people have a very high level of confidence in the scope of the current FAQ's ability to address and clarify all issues that might arise in the upcoming Wave 3's upgrade cards, pilots etc.

I base my lower level of confidence on the fact that at least one FAQ was needed when Wave 2 came out and got into play, where upon it became obvious that many wordings and situations arising from the new ships and upgrades needed clarification.

But that's just me....

At some point it would be BRILLIANT if they (or someone else) would compile it all into a re-edited Expanded Rulebook

ROFL. Please don't confuse my statement of point and explanations for confidence. FFG's rulings have seemed fairly consistent to me, but there have been enough "just because" rulings that the only thing I am confident of is that I will be incorrect again at some point.

It really doesn't matter what the intent might be.

Can we say with 100% confidence that FFG won't blindside us with something in the future? Of course not. They've proven that they're willing to flatly contradict their own rules.

But what we CAN do with high confidence is make some determinations based on the rules we currently have. If you want to argue that FFG might change it in the future, you're exactly right. They could. But until they do, these are the rules we have to play with, and the precedent we have to play with, and we have to make our reads based on that.

And I'm sorry to be blunt, but "I think they meant it like this even though the rules don't actually work that way and they may change it to the way I like it some time in the future" is NOT a compelling rules argument. If or when FFG changes it, we'll all play it the way they change it. Until then, we play it as it is - which is Jan only buffing one attack.

It really doesn't matter what the intent might be.

Can we say with 100% confidence that FFG won't blindside us with something in the future? Of course not. They've proven that they're willing to flatly contradict their own rules.

But what we CAN do with high confidence is make some determinations based on the rules we currently have. If you want to argue that FFG might change it in the future, you're exactly right. They could. But until they do, these are the rules we have to play with, and the precedent we have to play with, and we have to make our reads based on that.

And I'm sorry to be blunt, but "I think they meant it like this even though the rules don't actually work that way and they may change it to the way I like it some time in the future" is NOT a compelling rules argument. If or when FFG changes it, we'll all play it the way they change it. Until then, we play it as it is - which is Jan only buffing one attack.

Once again, quit saying/writing "the way I like". I will certainly own up and stand by that part of my "stand" on this issue could be said to be based on what "I think" though I prefer to say that is based on me interpreting some points in the rules that appear unclear to me since the new ships/pilots/abilities seems to be in a sort of conflict with the current rules and FAQ.

I do find it amusing that whenever FFG makes a FAQ ruling that's not the way you think it should work, then they "flatly contradict their own rules"

And now I wish to finish this comment by saying that at some point it seems that you finally acknowledge one thing: that we (you and I) obviously see things from two very different points. I quess (hope?) that it is just showing that we are 2 very different persons with a common passion for this game. Can we shake virtual hands on that at least??

Take care

I do find it amusing that whenever FFG makes a FAQ ruling that's not the way you think it should work, then they "flatly contradict their own rules"

What else would you call something like the Boost/Proximity Mine ruling which you so helpfully quoted above? The rules issue is about as cut and dry as you could get, and their ruling directly contradicts those rules and cards. I'm not sure why such an obvious statement of fact would be amusing, or how you go from a statement that this occurs (which it clearly does) to some broad-based application of my motivation.

I do find it amusing that whenever FFG makes a FAQ ruling that's not the way you think it should work, then they "flatly contradict their own rules"

What else would you call something like the Boost/Proximity Mine ruling which you so helpfully quoted above? The rules issue is about as cut and dry as you could get, and their ruling directly contradicts those rules and cards. I'm not sure why such an obvious statement of fact would be amusing, or how you go from a statement that this occurs (which it clearly does) to some broad-based application of my motivation.

I am capable to find it amusing because I have enough empathy within me (not just in X.Wing or other games but also IRL) to see when there are situations where there either is or could be a discrepancy between what is written and the underlying (abstract) intended meaning.

I know, due to my medical training through med school and subsequent 10 years of working as an MD) that there are personality traits that makes this hard to comprehend and accept.

As usual (and previously stated SOOOO many times), i WILL and always has played by the rules as written and any decision made by a TO in competitive games and will continue to do so. I will however also continue to discuss both hee and in our gaming group when there are issues that I or we are unsure of or find strange. And I sincerely hope (actually I'm sure) that you will feel free to do so too.

(Disclaimer: I am not diagnosing anyone here, especially not after having been "diagnosed" as a schizophrenic ome way further up in this thread )

Actually I said it was LIKE talking to a schizophrenic. It's called an analogy, not a medical diagnosis. Of course I'd think a MENSA medical doctor would appreciate a subtle distinction like that.

And would have thought that you noticed the quotation marks AND the smiley, both included in the sentence that you refer to. But I will dispense with the counterproductive name calling , okay?

Fair enough.