1. Perform base action.

2. Both EI and PtL have a chance to trigger. Activate EI ONLY.

3. Perform upgrade action via EI.

4. Trigger PtL from action in #3.

5. Perform PtL action

6. Gain PtL stress

7. Gain EI stress.

That order is certainly legal.

This is way down in the weeds of timing that FFG just never bothers to explain ...

FFG never explained timing. Because of that and the player chooses order of simultaneous effects ruling, other orders might be legal as well.

No it isn't legal (unless Tycho) when you choose to activate an effect (as in you choose to use PTL 1st) you must resolve that effect fully before moving onto another one. You can't say fire a PS 4 Red at a Tie roll your attack dice, and then roll your PS 4 Dagger's Attack at the same TIE before you choose if you want to spend your Red's focus they all happen at the "same time" but you still have to finish resolving the attack before starting another.

I know what you guys will say "Attacks and preforming actions are different, just because that it is spelled out for attacks and not for actions/EPT effects means you can do it when you preform an action/EPT" Remember 2 things A) PTL/EI didn't exist when the core rules were written and thus it hasn't been addressed yet in the FAQs (sorta like the large ship barrel roll thing) B) I have never known a rule system that follows a basic concept of resolving one effect completely before moving onto another for one phase and then completely ignore it for the others

Finally when all else fails it is probably the safer option to err on the side of limiting something until it is FAQed than allowing it because if you assume you can do something that then becomes illegal you will have (unintentionally) cheated your opponent, if you hold back and it turns out it does become legal well then you just made your game a little more challenging.

No it isn't legal (unless Tycho) when you choose to activate an effect (as in you choose to use PTL 1st) you must resolve that effect fully before moving onto another one.

I know what you guys will say "Attacks and preforming actions are different, just because that it is spelled out for attacks and not for actions/EPT effects means you can do it when you preform an action/EPT"

Well, no... I wouldn't actually say that, because it would be a pretty weak argument, and I try to avoid those.

It has nothing to do with attacks and actions being different - when considering them as triggers, they're not. They're just an event which some other game effect is watching for.

The problem is that your first statement (that I bolded) is not true. If resolving an effect creates an event which matches another trigger, you go and do that thing, then pick up where you left off. We do actually have several examples which disprove your statement. Cluster Missiles is the most glaring example. You trigger Cluster Missiles - were your assertion true, nothing could go off between the two attacks, they'd have to wait for Cluster Missiles to resolve both attacks fully. But we know very directly that the Darth Vader crew can trigger after the first attack.

Honestly, any missile secondary all by itself is a good counterexample. They all say "Discard to perform an attack". If nothing else could trigger until the attack was complete.

A great many abilities in the game last for a duration - "When attacking", "When defending", etc. I don't know how those would fit into your "must finish before the next one goes off" model. If I start an attack with Wedge, your agility is reduced as long as I'm attacking. Wouldn't that mean no other abilities could activate for that entire attack?

The obstacle rules also interrupt and even rewrite the rules in progress when you overlap an obstacle. This is why R2-D2 is timed differently when you hit an obstacle vs. a proximity mine.

It's not spelled out in the rules (sadly) but we do have several rulings which require a subroutine-style handling to function. There is nothing, as far as I can think of, that requires your rule in order to function. If you've got an example I've missed, please share, because I've got nothing. The counterexamples do most of the heavy lifting, but when I try and create an execution model based on what you're suggesting it just doesn't seem to work.

Accuracy corrector dice cancelling is before defence dice rolls, ion dice result cancelling is after defence dice rolls. They don't conflict.

In practice it means your opponent will need to roll at least 2 evades to avoid the ion. It's not a bad combo because it means you don't have to ever worry about using focus while shooting with the ion. You are guaranteed to make them roll dice to avoid it.

canceling is different from modifying. Modify means you change the results such as focus to evade or hit to critical hit. Canceling is straight up removing any results. Accuracy corrector is designed to do 1 thing give you 2 guaranteed hits. Not critical hits, not hits plus focus, you get 2 hits that is it. Which is great for fighters with only firepower 2 or against ships with only 1 evade.

Ion Cannon is meant to do one thing, 1 damage + an Ion token no matter how many hits. The only Ion weapon that can do more than 1 damage is the Ion Torpedo. All others clearly state cancel all dice results and add 1 damage and 1 Ion Token to defender (2 Ion Tokens or Ion Pulse Missile).

Quit trying to rule lawyer the words and use the cards as they have been intended. 1 gives you 2 automatic hits (no more and no less) and the other cancels all but 1 damage for use of an Ion token.

Accuracy corrector dice cancelling is before defence dice rolls, ion dice result cancelling is after defence dice rolls. They don't conflict.

In practice it means your opponent will need to roll at least 2 evades to avoid the ion. It's not a bad combo because it means you don't have to ever worry about using focus while shooting with the ion. You are guaranteed to make them roll dice to avoid it.

canceling is different from modifying. Modify means you change the results such as focus to evade or hit to critical hit. Canceling is straight up removing any results. Accuracy corrector is designed to do 1 thing give you 2 guaranteed hits. Not critical hits, not hits plus focus, you get 2 hits that is it. Which is great for fighters with only firepower 2 or against ships with only 1 evade.

Ion Cannon is meant to do one thing, 1 damage + an Ion token no matter how many hits. The only Ion weapon that can do more than 1 damage is the Ion Torpedo. All others clearly state cancel all dice results and add 1 damage and 1 Ion Token to defender (2 Ion Tokens or Ion Pulse Missile).

Quit trying to rule lawyer the words and use the cards as they have been intended. 1 gives you 2 automatic hits (no more and no less) and the other cancels all but 1 damage for use of an Ion token.

I'm not sure you actually disagree with the person you quoted.

Finally when all else fails it is probably the safer option to err on the side of limiting something until it is FAQed than allowing it because if you assume you can do something that then becomes illegal you will have (unintentionally) cheated your opponent, if you hold back and it turns out it does become legal well then you just made your game a little more challenging.

So then if your opponent was playing it, you'd let the chain work?

Because if it's about whether you're cheating your opponent, telling them they can't do something they should be able to is just as bad as telling them you can do something you shouldn't be able to. "Err to limiting" isn't inherently a generous answer.

The right answer is to take everything we know for the current rules and apply them to come to a conclusion on how the card works. There is plenty of precedent that points to this being the timing for PtL and EI going off together. So that's how it should be played unless someone has a compelling rules argument for why it shouldn't be played that way.

No it isn't legal (unless Tycho) when you choose to activate an effect (as in you choose to use PTL 1st) you must resolve that effect fully before moving onto another one.

I'd like to see a citation (rulebook? FAQ?) for that.

No it isn't legal (unless Tycho) when you choose to activate an effect (as in you choose to use PTL 1st) you must resolve that effect fully before moving onto another one.

I know what you guys will say "Attacks and preforming actions are different, just because that it is spelled out for attacks and not for actions/EPT effects means you can do it when you preform an action/EPT"

It has nothing to do with attacks and actions being different - when considering them as triggers, they're not. They're just an event which some other game effect is watching for.

The problem is that your first statement (that I bolded) is not true. If resolving an effect creates an event which matches another trigger, you go and do that thing, then pick up where you left off. We do actually have several examples which disprove your statement. Cluster Missiles is the most glaring example. You trigger Cluster Missiles - were your assertion true, nothing could go off between the two attacks, they'd have to wait for Cluster Missiles to resolve both attacks fully. But we know very directly that the Darth Vader crew can trigger after the first attack.

Honestly, any missile secondary all by itself is a good counterexample. They all say "Discard to perform an attack". If nothing else could trigger until the attack was complete.

A great many abilities in the game last for a duration - "When attacking", "When defending", etc. I don't know how those would fit into your "must finish before the next one goes off" model. If I start an attack with Wedge, your agility is reduced as long as I'm attacking. Wouldn't that mean no other abilities could activate for that entire attack?

Let's say Wedge is using his ability and Predator firing a Proton Torpedo. The Torpedo (and any ordinance) does resolve your attack any differently than a primary attack. It has prerequisites, but the actual stages of the attack go in the same order. Wedge's ability would resolve as soon as the attack is declared and is not a 2 part effect like PTL would be, and predator has a set step in the attack order (modifiy dice step). I'll go back to my attack parallel it would be similar to having Wedge attack a ship to lower the targets agility but before you resolve his attack shooting Han (or any other PS 9) at the same target so their agility would be reduced. We can all agree that that would not be legal, I view this PTL+EI chain as a similar effect.

Finally when all else fails it is probably the safer option to err on the side of limiting something until it is FAQed than allowing it because if you assume you can do something that then becomes illegal you will have (unintentionally) cheated your opponent, if you hold back and it turns out it does become legal well then you just made your game a little more challenging.

So then if your opponent was playing it, you'd let the chain work?

Because if it's about whether you're cheating your opponent, telling them they can't do something they should be able to is just as bad as telling them you can do something you shouldn't be able to. "Err to limiting" isn't inherently a generous answer.

The right answer is to take everything we know for the current rules and apply them to come to a conclusion on how the card works. There is plenty of precedent that points to this being the timing for PtL and EI going off together. So that's how it should be played unless someone has a compelling rules argument for why it shouldn't be played that way.

I would hope my opponent would have the same feeling I do and after presenting my case politely if he still disagrees, I would say fine and just move on, realistically in a small "casual" tournament or friendly game it won't matter(personally I think trying for 3 actions in a turn at the cost of your next turn or two's actions isn't a very reliable strategy and wasting game time arguing at a "casual" event really doesn't seem casual does it?) and in a "competitive" tournament there will be a judge to make a ruling and it will be out of my hands either way.

There would also be Precedent for not allowing the "chain" (I am thinking the Adv Sensors and not being able to cloak+decloak and the cluster missiles and gunner ruling, and the cluster missile plus munitions failsafe) I believe FFG tends to err on the limiting side for most things (Damaged Engines overriding R2s as one example)