With both Experimental Interface and Push the Limit you receive the stress after the second action, so if that second action also gives you a stress, it stands to reason that you receive two stress tokens. There's nothing nested there, but I'll admit I did have to think about Frank's response for more than a minute.

There's nothing nested there, but I'll admit I did have to think about Frank's response for more than a minute.

The very nature of both and Dauntless are nested. You have an effect that lets you preform an action in the middle of that effect, and then finish processing the effect when you're done.

Also Experimental Interface and Push the Limit are not Actions, they're effects. So there is no second action, there is only the action they allow you to preform, at a "cost" of receiving one stress.

Again, any time you preform an action, no matter where that action comes from, it's subject to the normal rules for Actions. Part of that includes being a trigger for things like PtL.

So if you use Dauntless to preform an action, that action is a trigger for PtL/EI, either of which can trigger the other one. Once you complete all those free actions you'd end up with stress for each effect that allowed you to preform a free action.

I'm still scratching my head over this one myself. Do we chalk it up as a negligent response, or assume that FFG's intent is to not be able to nest actions/triggers?

I think this one warrants sending back a follow up for exactly what you were asking about on the Expert Handling + PtL interaction as he didn't address it at all. Negligent vs didn't understand the question... hard to say.

The very nature of both and Dauntless are nested. You have an effect that lets you preform an action in the middle of that effect, and then finish processing the effect when you're done.

Also Experimental Interface and Push the Limit are not Actions, they're effects. So there is no second action, there is only the action they allow you to preform, at a "cost" of receiving one stress.

Again, any time you preform an action, no matter where that action comes from, it's subject to the normal rules for Actions. Part of that includes being a trigger for things like PtL.

So if you use Dauntless to preform an action, that action is a trigger for PtL/EI, either of which can trigger the other one. Once you complete all those free actions you'd end up with stress for each effect that allowed you to preform a free action.

I don't think we're quite ready to get back around to the original question, unless we want to interpret Frank's response as "you can't do that." The part regarding taking Expert Handling as a second action is fairly self-explanatory, and really doesn't have any bearing on the conversation vis-à-vis nested triggers (since there are none).

I think this one warrants sending back a follow up for exactly what you were asking about on the Expert Handling + PtL interaction as he didn't address it at all. Negligent vs didn't understand the question... hard to say.

I really should, but then he did quote me. I can only assume that means he read my very specific question, and chose to answer it in a particularly confusing way for some inexplicable reason.

I think this one warrants sending back a follow up for exactly what you were asking about on the Expert Handling + PtL interaction as he didn't address it at all. Negligent vs didn't understand the question... hard to say.

I really should, but then he did quote me. I can only assume that means he read my very specific question, and chose to answer it in a particularly confusing way for some inexplicable reason.

Nah, quoting you doesn't mean he understood the subtlety you were asking about. After all, we've all had our moments of completely misunderstanding what somebody was asking/saying here on the forums.

If I do a follow-up, it'll probably be later tonight. Give people some time to comment on the first email, and maybe it'll bring up more things to ask about.

As it stands, we almost seem to have another ad hoc ruling. Frank's intent appears to be that you can't Push the Limit off of Expert Handling, so his choice of words (or in this case, just word) might prove to be completely arbitrary. If you read that as "you cannot perform Push the Limit off of an action/effect that gives you a stress," then it does actually answer the question, albeit in a very confusing manner. That would then also serve as a basis for resolving the Dauntless + EI question.

With both Experimental Interface and Push the Limit you receive the stress after the second action, so if that second action also gives you a stress, it stands to reason that you receive two stress tokens. There's nothing nested there, but I'll admit I did have to think about Frank's response for more than a minute.

After thinking about this one, I've come to the same conclusion. I have to admit, Frank's response did make me think for a bit as well. But looking at the EI ad PtL cards, they both state you may perform one free action, then get the stress. And that's where any further chain effect is stopped - after that one free action. So it doesn't nest at all. You take an action, which triggers EI or PtL, which give you one free, stressful action. End of actions.

The only other option or conclusion that I could come to is: Frank just broke the game.

But looking at the EI ad PtL cards, they both state you may perform one free action, then get the stress. And that's where any further chain effect is stopped - after that one free action.

That logic means two Merc Copilots only allow you to convert one die. Because each one says one. We know you can only have one effect per opportunity, but each action has to be considered a new opportunity or else the rules truly start to fall apart.

It's not like Gunner which states clearly that you can't preform any additional attacks. It simply means that you can preform one free action per opportunity, but that does not mean that it cancels out all further opportunities.

The only way Frank's answer on Expert Handling and PtL make any sense as he worded it... Is if the sub action of the barrel roll, doesn't actually count as an action. So the action is the EH and the barrel roll action isn't really an action.

But then if that were true, then you could use EH and Barrel Roll to preform the same maneuver twice, because the EH barrel roll isn't a barrel roll action, even though it was errata'ed to be one.

Push the Limit doesn't have to tell you that you can't perform any other actions; the stress does that on its own.

That logic means two Merc Copilots only allow you to convert one die.

But this is the argument is question. Does one effect fully resolve before triggering the next?

Merc copilot doesn't have a stress inducing condition or restriction, so if you've got two, then each one would trigger and convert one die each.

I think the concept is that the free action that's granted by PtL or EI is going to give you stress, and it's the stress stopping the chain or nest effect.

I just thought of a way that Franks answer makes sense, but does nothing to further this discussion. But I think he's making a mistake in his thinking others do as well.

Consider a A-Wing with PtL and EH, because it has the title.

You take a Focus action, you then use PtL to preform a Expert Handling action. Only you know you can't because PtL only lets you preform actions on your action bar, which doesn't include EPT's. So the first case he lists isn't actually correct... But for the sake argument lets say you can. Then the rest follows you end up with 2 stress.

You have also actually preformed 2 Actions, not 1, the Expert Handling action and the Barrel Roll action.

Second case, you use your action to preform Expert Handling, do the barrel roll, and get a stress. Now of course at that point you can't use PtL with Expert Handling as the trigger, because you have stress.

But you can use the Barrel Roll action that's part of EH as the trigger for PtL. So I can see where he came up with that answer, but I think he's forgetting that EH has you preform an action as part of the EH action.

Again if the barrel roll isn't a real action then you have a whole lot of other issues going on.

and it's the stress stopping the chain or nest effect.

But again, the stress doesn't come until after you preform an action, which again is the trigger for PtL or EI, so for it to work like you're saying, you're having to skip over the opportunity to trigger PtL/EI because you will get stress at some point in the future. There is nothing in the rules that say "if X is going to happen, you have to skip over Y right now."

Worse case is, you have two simultaneous events, the trigger for PtL/EI and the stress, which means you get to decide what order to preform them in.

Either Frank wasn't paying attention, or Frank means that you can't use Expert Handling to get a barrel roll and then take another action with Push the Limit. It's ambiguous enough that it could go either way.

In the first scenario, we can at least figure out how Experimental Interface is going to work with Expert Handling, so that's something worthwhile to know.

But again, the stress doesn't come until after you preform an action, which again is the trigger for PtL or EI, so for it to work like you're saying, you're having to skip over the opportunity to trigger PtL/EI because you will get stress at some point in the future. There is nothing in the rules that say "if X is going to happen, you have to skip over Y right now."

Worse case is, you have two simultaneous events, the trigger for PtL/EI and the stress, which means you get to decide what order to preform them in.

I read Frank's answer to mean that you performed an action, which could trigger PtL/EI, which would give you one stress inducing action. Which would equate to two actions only. It doesn't matter what the action is, you're still going to get a stress token for it at some stage.

With his Expert Handling example, he's saying that you choose Expert Handling as your action, do the roll, remove the target lock, receive the stress token, action complete. PtL can't trigger as you now have stress. It seems he considers the barrel roll in the middle to not be a separate action for the sake of creating a trigger opportunity, but rather a mechanic of the Expert Handling action. I know they've used " free barrel roll action " on the card, but you're performing an Expert Handling action, not a barrel roll action. A barrel roll on it's own is a different story - no stress, PtL can trigger.

I know most have played it that you trigger things off the barrel roll part of Expert Handling, but this is where the "nesting" actions start coming in. And his answer seems to indicate that it doesn't work that way. I could be wrong. How does the timing work if you can trigger a new effect/action off an action's mechanism? Where does it end? What's the limit?

It seems to me that using PtL/EI gives you one action only at the cost of a stress token. And as soon as you've done that action, you are stressed and any further freebies aren't possible.

Quote Frank: "Alternatively, if a ship uses the Expert Handling action, that ship will be stressed and cannot use Push the Limit to perform another action."

Relating this to the OP's question: "Alternatively, if a ship uses the Dauntless free action, that ship will be stressed and cannot use Experimental Interface to perform another action."

There is no nesting. It's a sequential order.

Seems that way to me too.

Quote Frank: "Alternatively, if a ship uses the Expert Handling action, that ship will be stressed and cannot use Push the Limit to perform another action."

Relating this to the OP's question: "Alternatively, if a ship uses the Dauntless free action, that ship will be stressed and cannot use Experimental Interface to perform another action."

There is no nesting. It's a sequential order.

Not necessarily.

There's a difference between triggering PtL after Expert Handling and triggering it after the barrel roll you do as part of Expert Handling. Frank's answer seems, IMHO, to cover what happens if you trigger it from Expert Handling itself. In which case, it's exactly right - Expert Handling has fully completed, including the stress you get, THEN PtL triggers.

But the response doesn't even mention the barrel roll at all, so I think it's unclear which case he was addressing specifically.

Edit: And rereading that, there's some very creative rewording going on in there. Dauntless is not an action as Expert Handling is. Trying to replace them in the sentence (and call them equivalent) like that is pulling out an apple and putting in a car.

But this is the argument is question. Does one effect fully resolve before triggering the next?

We know that they don't have to fully resolve. We have examples on both sides - effects that we know go off in the middle of other effects, and effects that we know can trigger other things in the middle.

I don't find the "take one action" argument terribly compelling either. Effects only ever relate to what they themselves do, they don't inherently restrict any other ability from functioning. Wedge says he reduces the agility by one, does that mean no other effect can reduce the agility because then it wouldn't be reduced by 1 any more?

It seems he considers the barrel roll in the middle to not be a separate action for the sake of creating a trigger opportunity, but rather a mechanic of the Expert Handling action. I know they've used " free barrel roll action " on the card, but you're performing an Expert Handling action, not a barrel roll action.

You are performing a barrel roll action. That means it should trigger all the rules that relate to it - we know for a fact that it triggers the "no duplicate" rule, why wouldn't it trigger any other rule relating to actions?

I think this is a really dangerous road to go down, too. It's convenient to say that the barrel roll in Expert Handling or the free action from PtL aren't really actions because you don't want to chain them... but what about an ability which punishes actions? Would using PtL for focus bypass Jax because it's not a "real" action?

This is also a pretty big departure from the current understanding of most players, because there are a number of nested action assumptions which already exist. Using a passed action from Lando or Squad Leader to trigger PtL, or Turr pulling a double action via PtL.

A lot of people seem to really feel like this level of action chaining is out of bounds, and is trying to find a way to justify the way they want it to work, but I'm not sure they've really thought through the implications.

I think we need to be careful about casually throwing the word "trigger" around; not everything that goes on in the game is actually a trigger. The rule preventing players from taking the same action twice is in no way a trigger, nor is it a continuous effect for that matter. It is simply a rule that prevents you from doing something. If that thing somehow manages to happen anyways, the players have negligently permitted an illegal game state that the TO will have to rectify outside of whatever perceivable timing windows X-Wing does have.

To clarify in a broader sense: "things happening because of things" does not automatically make something a trigger. If it did, you could break a card down into its component effects and declare all of them triggers.

I know they've used " free barrel roll action " on the card, but you're performing an Expert Handling action, not a barrel roll action. A barrel roll on it's own is a different story - no stress, PtL can trigger.

The rules just don't work that way. An action is an action is an action. If the barrel roll isn't a real action then you should be able to use both expert handling and barrel roll in the same turn. In fact that is the whole reason they errata the card in the first place and made it an action.

If the BR part is not a action in every way an action is defined as then there is a massive hole in the rules. Because now you have actions that are actions but aren't really actions...

I think we need to be careful about casually throwing the word "trigger" around; not everything that goes on in the game is actually a trigger.

When something says "when x then" it's pretty safe to say x is a trigger. In this case the trigger for PTL and EI both is preforming an action.

I think we need to be careful about casually throwing the word "trigger" around; not everything that goes on in the game is actually a trigger.

When something says "when x then" it's pretty safe to say x is a trigger. In this case the trigger for PTL and EI both is preforming an action.

I agree in a general sense, but if you go back a page or two you'll see where I clarified that use of the word "when" does not always denote a trigger in this game. And that's unfortunate, because it makes it all the more difficult to decipher what's actually going on when you start to combine interactions like this. There are simply too many instances of conflicting phraseology for us to be able to say that "when" definitively means a trigger is taking place.

Sure, but there's no other way to look at how PTL works. Either it's trigger or opertunity is when an action is preformed or it's not.

That said FFG could say actions that are part of another action like Expert Handling, do not count as a trigger for something like PTL. But that would require a rule from them because there is nothing in the rules that say such a thing.

Right now an action, any action creates an opertunity to use PTL. There just isn't any other interpretation that fits the rules we have.

That said FFG could say actions that are part of another action like Expert Handling, do not count as a trigger for something like PTL. But that would require a rule from them because there is nothing in the rules that say such a thing.

Hence the debate. Either Frank royally messed up with this most recent email, or that's pretty much what he meant.

I know they've used " free barrel roll action " on the card, but you're performing an Expert Handling action, not a barrel roll action. A barrel roll on it's own is a different story - no stress, PtL can trigger.

The rules just don't work that way. An action is an action is an action. If the barrel roll isn't a real action then you should be able to use both expert handling and barrel roll in the same turn. In fact that is the whole reason they errata the card in the first place and made it an action.

If the BR part is not a action in every way an action is defined as then there is a massive hole in the rules. Because now you have actions that are actions but aren't really actions...

I think you're misinterpreting my reasoning here, Vanor. I'm not saying the EH barrel roll isn't an action. The action you declare is Expert Handling, which has a fully enclosed barrel roll action as part of the mechanic. Yes, it counts as an action so you can't do two of them, but I'm now wondering if it's sufficient to trigger another action/event. The early version of the card didn't have it described as a free action, so it was clearly part of the mechanic of the EH action. But it was also one of the first cards to get it's own errata entry in a FAQ.

It appears Frank's answer has raised more questions than it's answered. I can see his reasoning behind it, but I can also see the problems it now creates.