Fun with Twin Attack

I now think I have enough ammo to wage this war:
It is my belief that twin attack does not always go off when you make an attack.

I will give you some references:
rulebook wrote:
Attacks of Opportunity
One Per Turn: There is no limit to the number of attacks of opportunity a character can make in a round, but it can make only one during a given character’s turn.

(if a strafer ever had it)
Strafe Attack: … This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn using Strafe Attack…

There are a couple of other scenarios that are more iffy then those two, but if you read LS Sweep, it mentions making *one* attack to each adjacent character. Yet twin explicitly mentions Sweep in the definition. Immediate Attack type situations also specify making a single attack. So, are there cases when Twin Attack should not come into play? Or is it always going to happen?
Well, you make good points.
And I believe you are supposed to take the most restrictive option.

Flurry Attack (When this character scores a critical hit, he may make 1 immediate extra attack)

Lightsaber Sweep (Force 1, replaces attacks: Can attack each adjacent enemy once)

Blaster Barrage (Force 1; replaces attacks: Can attack each legal target once)


Still think you're beating a dead Bantha with this one though :D
you left out the definition of twin

Twin Attack: This character makes a single extra attack whenever it makes an attack. This extra attack must be made against the same target as the original attack; if the original target was defeated by the first attack, this character cannot attack it again. Twin Attack even affects multiple attacks granted by special abilities and Force powers; for example, if Lord Vader uses his Lightsaber Sweep power, he can attack every adjacent target twice! However, the extra attack from Twin Attack does not stack with itself; that is, a character doesn’t get another attack after making the extra attack from Twin Attack.

by the definition of twin from the rule book you make another attack against the same target for every attack. the only exception is listed in the definition.
However, the extra attack from Twin Attack does not stack with itself; that is, a character doesn’t get another attack after making the extra attack from Twin Attack

also, take a look at the faq and twin:

Twin Attack

Q: Does Twin Attack stack with Double Attack, giving four attacks, or two attacks against two different targets?

A: Yes.



Q: If Prince Xizor uses Pheromones to cancel the first attack, can the second still be made against him?

A: Yes.



Q: If a follower with Twin Attack is in the same squad with Mon Mothma, and is defeated, can it use Twin Attack on the free attack granted by Mon Mothma's commander effect?

A: Yes. But only the first attack gets the +10 Damage.



Q: If you combine fire with the first attack of a Twin Attack do you also get the +4 on the second attack?

A: No, but a different character could potentially combine fire on the second attack.



Q: If you defeat the target with the first attack, can you choose a different target for the second attack?

A: No, the second attack is lost.



Q: Can you use Twin Attack on an attack of opportunity, immediate attack granted by a commander like the Imperial Officer, or Extra Attack granted by a Gonk Droid or General Windu?

A: Yes.



Q: Can a character with Twin Attack and Flamethrower make two attacks with the Flamethrower?

A: Flamethrower is a special ability that deals direct damage; it is not an attack at all and cannot be used with Twin Attack.

There remains a simple answer to this: The faq is wrong!
And the definition of the ability is wrong since it explicitly mentions LS Sweep which is the precedent for all the other interactions?
I have this funny feeling that emr is just looking to start a spirited discussion of the rules.
And the definition of the ability is wrong since it explicitly mentions LS Sweep which is the precedent for all the other interactions?

Exactly. Hrmmmm, we have seen this before, where an example was listed that just does not fit the rule in which it was placed. Oh yeah, the original wording of disintegrate.
True. But that was just a casual vs terminology wording oversight.

This one is pretty clear that Rob wanted Lord Vader attacking every character twice when you use Sweep.

If there's an argument that the wording pre-example doesn't effectively support the example, I'm all ears for alternatives in case we get another shot at revising a future rulebook.

If the contention is that Rob's clear intent should be ignored due to an arguable wording issue, er, enjoy the intellectual exercise... :P

(I think we've covered before that I'm not really a fan of how Twin Attack affects the game, but it's working as intended regardless of what could have been...)
True. But that was just a casual vs terminology wording oversight.

See, here is the interesting point. How are anyone out of the loop supposed to know that? And furthermore, how are people supposed to assume this is the case this time?

This one is pretty clear that Rob wanted Lord Vader attacking every character twice when you use Sweep.

Intent arguments, impossible to 1) deny or 2) prove.
See, here is the interesting point. How are anyone out of the loop supposed to know that? And furthermore, how are people supposed to assume this is the case this time?

FAQ.
This is entertaining. :D
I now think I have enough ammo to wage this war...

Nah. No you don't.
FAQ.

I don't get it. On one case, disintegrate, you claim that it was just a casual v. technical wording error. The same exact case can be made for LS Sweep being limited to one and only one attack but somehow it is included in the definition. By it being included in the definition, it is further explained what happens to other one and only one situations in the FAQ. However, if the definition is worded wrong, then the FAQ is also incorrect.

If your only defense is that this is what the intent is, then I can not continue this logical argument as intent is not something publicly known (unless Rob decided to pop in and say yep, that's how it works). (ir)Regardless*, even if that is how Rob wants it to interact, I still think some sort of rewording has to be done on a host of abilities as we absolutely know that the precedent is you are left with the most restricted option. Alternately, some sort of list could be made, similar to Living, on what Twin Attack can work on, and what it can't (or if it is blanketly working on everything, then just say as much in the errata).

Nah. No you don't.

Feel free to join the discussion, but if you have nothing to add other then some sort of comments from the peanut gallery, how about reading and not posting?

*Sorry Boris, I couldn't resist.
Fair Enough.

Have you considered that this wording of "one attack" on LS Sweep, etc is meant to restrict the use of extra attacks such as Double, Triple, Extra? I see where you're coming from, but I think that the wording of Twin Attack is quite clear. It says "whenever this character attacks". I know that you're no stranger to the rules, and you know many rules are stated that are overridden by others. I thinks it obvious that the "one attack" rule of LS Sweep is a standard, but does have exceptions (in this case, Twin Attack)

I see where you're coming from, I just think that you're coming from the wrong angle. Keep in mind that rules of the game also say that a character can move and attack on their same turn. This is limited to one attack, but there are cases now where you can move and make more than one attack (Greater Mobile, Twin).

I might agree with you on the Twin/Strafe Attack issue. Only because it says specifically that you can't attack the same character twice, and this sounds like a counter to Twin.
Strafe Attack: … This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn using Strafe Attack…

You're still only attacking them once with strafe. The second attack on each target is an involuntary second attack caused by the Twin Attack SA. The twin isn't a strafe attack.

I think this bit of nit-picky logic can be applied to any other Twin situation whether the original attack is a normal attack, caused by an SA, or a FP, or something else.
The same exact case can be made for LS Sweep being limited to one and only one attack but somehow it is included in the definition.

You're misunderstanding my position, I think.

I'm saying that that Sweep IS limited to one attack and its definition is correct as is. However, Twin specifically says it overrides the one attack limit even in the case of special abilities that make attacks.

And then, SAs by their nature can override the general rules so AOOs aren't a signficant issue as compared to Double/Triple/Extra Attack, immediate attacks, Sweep, or Strafe.
There remains a simple answer to this: The faq is wrong!

How immature. Why ask if you dispute all advice that will help you? If you want to ignore rules and abilities that benefit you, then fine, but stop bothering everyone else. Frankly, it's getting quite annoying, and I've only been reading this thread for like 5 minutes.
How immature. Why ask if you dispute all advice that will help you? If you want to ignore rules and abilities that benefit you, then fine, but stop bothering everyone else. Frankly, it's getting quite annoying, and I've only been reading this thread for like 5 minutes.

You completely misunderstand his motivation. He's not bothering me. If this kind of thread isn't your cup of tea, that's cool and you can freely avoid it, but it's welcome here.
Oh. But can you disagree with the first bit?
Not sure which "first bit" you're referring to, yours or his. But his comment about the FAQ is mostly in jest. He'll play by the rules as explained whether he agrees that the wording matches the explanation or not.

As a newer member, the intellectual sparring over rules issues between emr131 and I may appear a lot less friendly than it truly is. We go back a ways and his comments have led to a lot of subtle improvements in the wording of many rules whether they end up matching how he thinks they should be or not.
Ah. Kinda confusing to an outside viewer. I was talking about the "Immature" thing i said. I see that i should not butt in where unnesessary.
Have you considered that this wording of "one attack" on LS Sweep, etc is meant to restrict the use of extra attacks such as Double, Triple, Extra?

No, the Replaces Attacks part of that makes sure the interaction of Extra Attacks is not possible.

It says "whenever this character attacks". I know that you're no stranger to the rules, and you know many rules are stated that are overridden by others. I thinks it obvious that the "one attack" rule of LS Sweep is a standard, but does have exceptions (in this case, Twin Attack)

I will give you another example where it was ruled Sweep can not hit the same target twice: If you are using Leia RH with a sweep character and move throughout the sweep, you can not attack the same character twice even if the character becomes non-adjacent and then re-adjacent.

You're still only attacking them once with strafe. The second attack on each target is an involuntary second attack caused by the Twin Attack SA. The twin isn't a strafe attack.

It might not be an attack caused by Strafe Attack, but it is a second attack during the same turn on which a character is using Strafe Attack.

Not sure which "first bit" you're referring to, yours or his. But his comment about the FAQ is mostly in jest. He'll play by the rules as explained whether he agrees that the wording matches the explanation or not.

Quite right. I might not agree with the rules, but I will abide by them... of course if I cause you to rewrite the rules, then that is just icing on the cake (I am awaiting some hidden reference to me in the rules where my character's are automatically defeated).

As a newer member, the intellectual sparring over rules issues between emr131 and I may appear a lot less friendly than it truly is. We go back a ways and his comments have led to a lot of subtle improvements in the wording of many rules whether they end up matching how he thinks they should be or not.

Muahahaha, I have convinced Nickname that my goals are positive and not meant to make him prematurely bald... don't worry, if we meet at GenCon again I will make scientific measurements on just how much hair you have lost in the past year and... being your main stressor (how can anything else be as stressing as trying to argue with me!?), I can take full credit for the hair loss.
It might not be an attack caused by Strafe Attack, but it is a second attack during the same turn on which a character is using Strafe Attack.

But the ability to make 2 attacks against the same enemy by a character already has a precedent. Normal attack then Strafe.
It might not be an attack caused by Strafe Attack, but it is a second attack during the same turn on which a character is using Strafe Attack.

Yes. Strafe was already reworded once to make sure this situation (which has always been allowed--move 6 strafe, then standard attack on same character) was reflected in the wording. Attacks using Strafe are different from standard attacks or twin attacks.
Yes. Strafe was already reworded once to make sure this situation (which has always been allowed--move 6 strafe, then standard attack on same character) was reflected in the wording. Attacks using Strafe are different from standard attacks or twin attacks.

You know, I can make a host of arguments on just how ambiguous Strafe Attack is written in that regard (your FAQ addresses this but it is one very specific opinion and my interpretation is AT LEAST as reasonable as your ruling).

If I were to read the rule as written in the glossary then my answer would be that the normal attack must be on a character that was not strafed.
It might not be an attack caused by Strafe Attack, but it is a second attack during the same turn on which a character is using Strafe Attack.

Doesn't matter. It only says you can only attack an enemy once per turn using strafe, not the enemy can only be attacked once per turn.
You know, I can make a host of arguments on just how ambiguous Strafe Attack is written in that regard (your FAQ addresses this but it is one very specific opinion and my interpretation is AT LEAST as reasonable as your ruling).

If I were to read the rule as written in the glossary then my answer would be that the normal attack must be on a character that was not strafed.

It's a fair criticism. There was time pressure, a desire not to write anything directly contradictory to what's on the card, and a desire to change as little as possible about the existing wording while still making the correct interpretation possible. Sometimes these other factors inhibit going for pure simplicity.
Doesn't matter. It only says you can only attack an enemy once per turn using strafe, not the enemy can only be attacked once per turn.

...This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn using Strafe Attack, and it cannot move directly back into a space it has just left. A character with Strafe Attack can still make a normal attack on the turn it moves, as long as it moves its speed or less...

This is the part of strafe attack that is a problem.

So, analyze the first sentence. Is it the same turn using Strafe Attack (which is a declarable ability). Is the BARC strafing, yes. Then it can not attack the same character twice that entire turn. The second sentence just enforces that if the BARC moves slow enough, then it can still make its normal attack. It is in the hot list that the second sentence is ruled that you can make the attack against the same character.

IF the wording was 'during Strafe Attack, this character can not attack the same character twice' then I would understand the point (of course, Twin should still not work). But, do you see the difference in the written rules?
Of course, another interpretation of that sentence is "you cannot attack an enemy twice in the same turn WITH Strafe Attack". As you said, you do have a point, but it can just as easily be read as how it is currently ruled.
Yup. Either interpretation is legitimate in English (de)construction. That's what the FAQ is for, and it makes it clear which is correct. (I think. :D I don't know for sure this exact question is in the FAQ or just on the boards.)
Of course, another interpretation of that sentence is "you cannot attack an enemy twice in the same turn WITH Strafe Attack". As you said, you do have a point, but it can just as easily be read as how it is currently ruled.

The turn part is the problem. It is superfluous in that interpretation. Compare it to the wording of LS Sweep. It is worded differently and thus should react differently.
I think that the wording of twin attack and all the abilities it can interact with have been sufficiently explained. If the intent of Sweep/AoO/Strafe was to not interact with Twin, then the language would be even move restrictive then it is. Like it would read:

Make one and only only attack. This supersedes all other Special Abilities that may modify the number attacks a character can make while performing this action.

I find it interesting that you bring up the interaction of twin attack and things like sweep and AoOs. I would imagine that if such abilities/actions were further limited to such away that Twin Attack no longer applied, wouldn't characters with twin attack loose some of their playability?

In other words, isn't it good enough the way it is? :P

On a side note, I was about to post a question, but checked the FAQ and found the answer myself.. aren't I a good little boy
Really I see the argument is not so much as a Twin Attack issue but more one of when do you apply the Most Restrictive rules.
I think the key to Strafe Attack is the word "using".

From the rulebook: "This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn using Strafe Attack."

It does NOT say: "This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn that has been attacked by Strafe Attack."
or: "This character using Strafe Attack cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn."
or: "This character cannot attack any enemy twice if Strafe Attack was used."

There are tons of other ways it could be rewritten, but the point is that the wording is limiting the use of Strafe Attack only. Just as it says you "cannot move directly back into a space it has just left". This is just limiting the power of Strafe.

The extra attack from Twin Attack is just that, an extra attack from another ability. NOT from the Strafe Attack ability. Therefore, with the wording of "using Strafe Attack." you can use Twin and Strafe by the rules as they stand.
I understand where you are coming from emr, but this game is filled with SA's and FP interactions that occur outside the normal 'flow' of the game. Intuition, Surprise Move being examples.

Twin Attack is like Mobile Attack in that it modifies a rule of the game. Normally, a character can only move up to its speed and attack, attack and move up to it's speed, move double speed without attacking, or not do anything at all. Mobile Attack modifies this interaction by saying that characters with this ability can now move both before and after the attack portion of the turn.

Twin Attack, essentially does the same thing. It interrupts the normal pattern of events and injects a second attack against the same target. Period. It has no further interaction in the game other than making a second attack against the same target, if possible.

So, under normal circumstances, abilities like Strafe Attack and LS Sweep allow a character to attack another character(s) once, but, Twin Attack specifically states "This character makes a single extra attack whenever it makes an attack." You can't get any more simple than that. If you attack once, for any reason, Twin Attack says you attack it again.

The only restriction to Twin Attack is "However, the extra attack does not stack with itself; that is, a character doesn't get another attack after making the extra attack from Twin Attack." This does not mention anything about catering to any other SA or FP, only that it cannot use the extra attack granted by Twin as an excuse to attack the same target again.

Does any of that make sense?

As for Strafe Attack, normally, I'd say it does the same thing to a character that Mobile Attack or Accurate Shot do (permanent mod of character interaction with general rules- something that is 'always on') if it weren't for the BARC and Accelerate (which is kind of a trace buster-buster-buster ;) ). The wording there doesn't say you can't attack a character you attacked while taking advantage of Strafe Attack with your normal 'attack', so... what can you do? Other than ask for further clarification that is...
I think emr is pretty well aware of why the rules work as they do. The issue that I believe he's disputing is the wording of the rules (that the way the rules actually work conflicts with the way they're worded). This is probably an argument with no real solution, since wording can be a matter of personal perception and its already been shown above that there is more than one way a person could interpret the wording of the rule.
I think emr is pretty well aware of why the rules work as they do. The issue that I believe he's disputing is the wording of the rules (that the way the rules actually work conflicts with the way they're worded). This is probably an argument with no real solution, since wording can be a matter of personal perception and its already been shown above that there is more than one way a person could interpret the wording of the rule.

Could you elaborate on the bolded sentence please? I don't get the confusion.
Could you elaborate on the bolded sentence please? I don't get the confusion.

For example, he understands that according to the rules you can attack each enemy twice using Twin Attack with Lightsaber Sweep, but he's saying (if I understand him correctly) that Lightsaber Sweep is worded in a way that contradicts this (e.g. make "one" attack against each adjacent enemy). That what I mean when I say that his point is more about the wording of the rules not matching the way they work.
I think emr is pretty well aware of why the rules work as they do. The issue that I believe he's disputing is the wording of the rules (that the way the rules actually work conflicts with the way they're worded). This is probably an argument with no real solution, since wording can be a matter of personal perception and its already been shown above that there is more than one way a person could interpret the wording of the rule.

You will find a lot of my arguments are specifically about this. When posted rulings are contrary to how I think the wording demands the rules should be made, I normally post.

But, I think this one has run its course. Unless I find some other new information, I think I have failed to persuade Nickname that certain definitions need to be reworded to allow Twin Attack to work.
You've convinced me the core Twin sentence could be read 2 possible ways, which I hadn't really noticed before.

You haven't convinced me that the rest of the Twin definition, supported by the example, don't lead to the only possible correct intepretation (which is then backed up by the FAQ.)
I was going through the FAQ, and I thought the wording on this Answer was interesting in light of Twin Attack.


Q: If a character has Double Attack, can it combine fire twice with another character?

A: No. Double Attack (and similar multiple-attack abilities) can be used only on the attacking character's turn. Combined fire is a special action that a character takes instead of taking its own turn. So a given character can combine fire to help another character only once during the entire round.


Because Twin Attack is not limited to the attacking character's turn like Double Attack is, can a character with Twin Attack combine fire on two attacks during a round? The rest of the answer would seem to negate that possibility. But the first sentence sounds like it leaves the door open...