Parravon

Members
  • Content count

    5,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Parravon

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/02/1965

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hastings, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

1,316 profile views
  1. I think this is just a case of wishful thinking.
  2. It means you can include Maul in a Rebel squad as long as you have Ezra Bridger in the squad. Otherwise, he's Scum only. And it's the "Scum only" restriction that you would ignore.
  3. You use the straight-1 template. The title only triggers when the StarViper performs a barrel roll action.
  4. A ship doesn't need to have the associated action icon in it's action bar to perform a free action that's specified in an ability's text. For example, Jake Farrell may perform a free boost or barrel roll after performing a focus action, yet an A-wing isn't able to perform a barrel roll normally. The ability text overrides this, and allows him to do it.
  5. Yeah, you're quite right. Not sure where I got the 4 from? All the cards are dealt in case the ship remains in play due to the Simultaneous Attack rule.
  6. Page 9 of the Rulebook under Damage: The A-wing is still dealt 6 damage cards even though only 4 are needed to destroy it.
  7. Or dodge out of someone else's range or arc.
  8. I think you've hit the nail on the head, @Stoneface.
  9. I'll second that!!
  10. If you have shields remaining, and have an uncancelled crit result, then you would suffer critical damage, and therefore it would trigger ISYTDS, which would deal it's damage card instead of removing a shield token. It's a bit like Proton Bombs, in that shields offer no defence to it.
  11. And I will continue to also point out that this particular point is not in dispute at all. And everyone else in this thread has (repeatedly) stated that we agree with that. But there is no mechanic within the game, or language in the FAQ that supports delaying or deferring any stress from a red SLAM until after any AEM or AA triggers provided by that SLAM. And this seems to be the one thing you're clinging to. No one has said that "you're too stupid", but it's also clear from your first three posts in this thread that you didn't clearly understand the interaction of all the factors involved with the red SLAM/EI/PtL scenario or nested actions, that we've now been discussing for three pages. We've illustrated it so many times now, that there should be absolutely no doubt to ANYONE reading this thread as to how they work. I think the main problem is that although you've said you agree with our point of view, you've also continued to say selected texts in the FAQ allow it to work otherwise. So let's eliminate some of that language. A SLAM Action includes a maneuver and will trigger any effect that occurs after executing a manuever or any effect after performing an action. Everyone here agrees with that, so it now no longer needs to be stated as an argument point because no one is arguing against that. It seems to be the stress that is creating the issue, so: Does a stress-inducing SLAM action alter or affect those trigger points at all? No, it does not. They are still trigger points. Does a stress-inducing SLAM action allow any actions provided by those trigger points? No, because although you may be able to trigger something like EI or PtL, you still can't perform any actions while you are stressed. Does a stress-inducing SLAM action allow any non-action abilities provided by those triggers? Yes, it does, as long as those actions meet their requirements. eg. Outlaw Tech triggers after executing a red maneuver. Can the stress from a stress-inducing SLAM action be delayed due to any nested effects? No, because there are no trigger points within the SLAM action or it's maneuver sequence that allow something else to occur and interrupt. Experimental Interface FAQ Entry. The first thing it says is "See Push the Limit", which is a space-saver so they didn't have to repeat themselves. But I think the should have actually repeated themselves because the cards are nearly identical in their wording and mechanical application. End result: Non-argument. The next paragraph tells you that you can use EI and PtL together to perform two additional free actions (which is correct because you can), then receive 2 stress tokens (which is the end result of the sequence). But at no point in this entry, does it explain exactly how this is done, or offer any example of the correct sequence. If you read just this entry, you could conceivably (and incorrectly) conclude that there is no interrupt happening anywhere and Experimental Interface and Push the Limit are sequential and stack their stress until after their granted actions. But when you read the Push the Limit entry (as instructed), it would seem to offer a different, but much more detailed mechanic entirely. End result: Ambiguous entry. The last paragraph refers to possible misprinted cards. End result: Non-argument. Push the Limit FAQ Entry. The text in the first paragraph is unchanged from FAQ 2.2 and reiterates that performing a free action can be a trigger for PtL. It also provides an example of how an action can be interrupted part way through because a trigger condition has been met (barrel roll action from Expert handling as a trigger for PtL). This is the first official example of what the players now refer to as "nesting" which is still an unofficial, but widely accepted term. The second paragraph continues by explaining that the free action granted by PtL can itself trigger other abilities (TIE/v1, EI, etc). It also provides another example of how an action can be interrupted part way through because a trigger condition has been met (TIE/v1 evade). Does it state anywhere that when beginning your action sequence, any stress incurred is delayed or deferred until the very end? No, it does not. Does it imply that? No, it does not. Does it clearly illustrate that Push the Limit is a two-step sequence. Yes, it does, by the example of the free TIE/v1 evade action occurs before the Push the Limit stress is received. Does it clearly illustrate that a card that has a two-step or multi-step sequence may be interrupted before it is fully resolved? Yes, it does with the Expert Handling example. The last paragraph states that if you can't use the free action from PtL then you can perform a different action, or decide not use PtL at all. End result: Non-argument. So this is the guts of the "language" that you have been quoting since your first post in this thread, but I've noticed that you've only applied certain entries when and if they might vaguely apply to support your argument and pretty much excluded the possibility that the other entries could prove you wrong. For example, you're clutching onto "the FAQ states you can trigger EI or PtL after a SLAM", which hasn't ever been in question. Everyone agrees with you on that, so why do you keep stating it? Is there something else in the SLAM Timing entry that we're all missing? I don't think so. The fact that you can trigger any effect after a SLAM action's maneuver is fine. Whether or not you can utilize that effect is still governed by the rules. Just because there is a trigger point for EI or Ptl after a red SLAM does not automatically mean that they will be able fully resolve. It never has and there's nothing in the FAQ that changes that. CONCLUSION: The language in the SLAM Timing entry is clear and undisputed. The language in the Experimental Interface entry is unclear, lacks examples, and leaves questions, but it does list the only similar card (PtL). The language in the Push the Limit entry is clear and has two examples of how the mechanic works, and the only similar card is also listed (EI). And has been UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by a world-wide player base for over three years. Neither EI or PtL have any mechanical similarity to how a SLAM action works, and therefore can offer NO PRECEDENT WHATSOEVER.
  12. There is no limit to the number of stress tokens you can accumulate on a ship. But all that stress does generally come at a cost, and that being you can't perform any actions while you have a stress token, and each time you perform a green maneuver, you will only remove one stress token - not multiple tokens.
  13. And what WE'RE all pointing out is that there is NO LOOP HOLE. Nesting is not problematic, it follows a very logical, mechanical sequence, and it's remained unchanged since Wave 2, so it obviously works perfectly fine. But I don't think you have a complete grasp of exactly what a "nested action" is, because you seem to see problems there that aren't actually there. In your first example, the only nested action is the Gonk action provided by EI, which is nested within the PtL and triggered by performing the Focus action before the PtL stress is received. There's nothing else nested there at all. Certainly nothing associated with the SLAM. PtL and EI trigger after, so they're not nesting with the SLAM action in any way. And if the SLAM was white or green, then your first example would be absolutely correct with the net result of 2 stress (from EI then PtL). But your second example is nowhere near close to "the proper sequence" you think it should be. It's more wrong than correct. And definitely NOT how nested actions work. Let's take another look at your quote from the FAQ: "If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action." Any effect that triggers after an action or maneuver, can both trigger after you've performed a SLAM action. Note it says "after" the SLAM, not "during the SLAM", not "part way through the SLAM just before you receive any stress". It says AFTER. Which means only one thing - perform a red SLAM and you are stressed. No one has yet disputed that performing a SLAM action, regardless of maneuver colour, is a trigger for any ability occurring "after performing an action..." or "after executing a maneuver...". There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It does not matter if the SLAM was red, the trigger is still there. What we ARE disputing is that there is no language within the FAQ entries you have quoted, that allow you to perform an action when you have a stress token. And in both of your examples above, you've correctly identified exactly where the red SLAM stress is received. But now that you have received that stress token, just how are you able to perform the free actions that EI or PtL grant after performing the stress-inducing SLAM action? Because the rulebook states in six different locations that "a ship cannot perform actions while stressed". And you, yourself, have identified that you would now be stressed after the SLAM.
  14. Also, with the card text as written, you reveal a red 4 straight, play Adrenaline Rush and treat the dial maneuver only as white. There is no way we can be 100% certain what "that" is actually referring to; the dial or any repeat of it. Personally, considering the age of the card and the hamfisted wording that was prevalent back in those early X-wing days, I would say it's intention was for only one maneuver use, not multiple maneuvers. You can still read it either way. But it's also such a niche occurrence, that FFG aren't likely to take any action on it.
  15. I can see that. I'm just thinking it's gonna turn out to be just the single revealed maneuver, not every maneuver after that happens to be the same as the first.