Yes.

You are correct, Tim. Stifling Attack does stop the opponent from using Damage Reduction, VCA, Beskar'gam, Shields, etc. "Respond to its attacks" is an umbrella term that includes reducing damage from attacks as well as preventing all damage or attacking back.

Would that include Sith Reflexes?

after some additional consideration, I am not as sure as I was.

I posted this for the rules committee to take a look at

Stifling Attack was superbly designed by two brilliant designers, and it might be okay to make it stronger.

However, it was ruled only for SA "responding to attacks" and we have been playing it that way for 6 or 7 years.
Unless it's a serious problem, I'd prefer the ruling not be changed until the end of the season. (after vassal-con)

I did not co-create Stifling Attack on v-set 14 with the intent of preventing the use of ALL Special Abilities.
I didn't realize we were putting Ampistaff on Jacen Solo in Ampistaff Armor for purely thematic reasons.

My impression was that Stifling would be doing exactly what it said, preventing SA like SSM, Parry, or Lightsaber Defense that respond to attacks . . . not prevent the use SA such as DR 10 or Lightsaber Protection!

When card text says, "respond to its attacks" . . . to me it means exactly that, "respond to its attacks."
It's the glossary entry of abilities like Suppressive Fire and Brutal Strike which prevents the use of other abilities.



Rereading our old 2016 forum, I think I misunderstood Tim to be saying shutting down stuff like SSM would be the extent of a Stifling Attack. It's too bad we didn't hammer that one down and create a glossary entry.

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:34 pm
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:58 am
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:44 pm
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:48 pm

I didn't realize stifling attack counters SAs that respond to damage, but after reading wotc's final glossary term for attack, it does make sense;




The attack's damage is part of the "attack" key word, and while it's not immediately obvious without the glossary term, id vote stifling should prevent abilities that respond to an attack's damage, RAW. Other wise, stifling should be rewritten to specify its intent to prevent abilities that respond to a character's "attack roll".

We all know that TOs and other rules-people are not computers with perfect access to every bit of information about the game, we regularly get things wrong and abilities are ruled incorrectly at tournaments or on the forums. I think I played Sith Reflexes vs Stifling Attack wrong myself when it came up in a game.

Yes, it is odd in the case of Suppressive Fire that the card and glossary text contradict each other. I think a good rule of thumb is to prefer whichever one is more specific, since sometimes one or the other is abbreviated; for example the glossary for Suppressive Fire also does not say that it only works on the character's turn, while the card does. Sithborg and swinefeld made the call back in 2013 (shortly after the ability debuted) that for Suppressive Fire, the glossary omitting things that are on the card and contradicting it was a mistake, and that the card text overrides it. The bloomilk glossary entry should have been updated to reflect that, because as you say it is important that the rules are clearly stated and accessible to players. I will get onto that with the collaboration of the RC.

Suppressive Fire vs Avoid Defeat came up in the final of VassalCon last year between myself and Jason. On that occasion I was confused about the wording, as I was reading the glossary text and thought that it overrode the card, but Jason knew the correct ruling since he's been around for a lot longer than me. I mention this to reinforce that a) people have played this ruling correctly as it has been ruled from the start, b) no one gets every rule right, and c) it's very important that rules information is up to date.

(Given the above) Stifling Attack by definition works the same way as Suppressive Fire, since it uses exactly the same wording on the card, albeit not including Force powers: "cannot use special abilities that respond to its attacks" compared to "cannot use special abilities or Force powers that respond to this character's attacks". Amphistaff on Jacen is not redundant because, as above, neither Stifling nor Suppressive counters Avoid Defeat, Self-Destruct, Noble Sacrifice, or any other ability triggered by defeat. They both only affect the target's ability to respond to attacks and damage from attacks.

Do I understand correctly that your intent for Sith Reflexes was for it to work vs. Stifling Attack, but not vs. Suppressive Fire? If so, I don't think there's a way to square that circle without changing Stifling Attack, not Sith Reflexes, because Stifling and Suppressive Fire do the same thing. I assume you didn't intend for Sith Reflexes to work against Suppressive Fire, because of the interpretation of its glossary. But either way, the timeless maxim of the 2016 animated martial arts movie holds true: kung fu cannot stop something that stops kung fu.

And Gandalf is right. No one can remember every ability and every interaction. And it is made more difficult at times because more and more abilities keep coming out

And I also know I have made incorrect rulings before (maybe even in this thread) and then was reminded why it was incorrect. Even people who are good at the rules occasionally make mistakes

Apologies for any confusion caused; It seems I misinterpreted the card text and relied on an incorrect glossary entry.
I was unaware that responding to taking damage also meant responding to attacks.
During the debut of Suppressive Fire, I was going through a divorce and wasn’t paying attention to overruled glossary entries. I now understand why so many others have made the same mistake.

Regarding Sith Reflexes, I didn't expect it to work against Suppressive Fire, as I believed it would shut off all abilities. Similarly, I didn't think Stifling Attack would interact with Sith Reflexes since I saw it as only responding to attacks, not to taking damage.

My concern is if abilities that respond to taking damage trigger when attacked, could lead to situations where characters like Tulak are hit by an attack, use Sith Reflexes to Teleport away, and then make their SSM save. That contradicts the intended function of Sith Reflexes, which should only trigger "after" actual damage has been taken.

I want to clarify that my mistake was not intentional; I merely seek comprehensive and comprehensible rules. We are a small community of very passionate players, and these rules issues cause unwanted friction among friends. It's essential we have accurate glossary entries to resolve these matters correctly. A heartfelt thank you to the RC for their dedication to making that possible.

Adding on to this but trying to get some clarification on Force Immunity with sith reflexes. Can you use Teleport to move and make an attack against someone with force immunity? Sith reflexes is what is responding to the attack, but is the force power being used also responding to the attack? This adds on to the debate of what is responding to a characters attacks debate going on... To be a little more clear, in force immunity it says you "cannot spend force points to respond to this characters attacks or abilities". Confused if this interferes with spending a force point from sith reflexes.