Because Yorr's ability uses the word "instead," and that's what instead means. Replacement effects are continuous, and do not interrupt the flow of the game with a trigger. Read Yorr's FAQ entry, and you can see where it specifically mentions Fel. Why do you think Fel doesn't get to use his ability if Yorr gets the stress, if not because Fel never received it in the first place?

Nobody's arguing that Fel doesn't get the stress at all. The point at hand is how Yorr does that.

Yorr's ability is still triggered: "When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 would receive a stress token, ..., you may..." It's not an always-on effect, any more than any (every) ability in X-wing is always on. "Replacement effect" is an undefined distinction in X-wing, either in rules or rulings. Maybe there is such a distinction, but at the moment the logic for handling them differently is rather circular - Yorr isn't an example for interrupting abilities because he's a replacement effect, and we know he's a replacement effect because otherwise he'd be interrupting abilities.

This also doesn't cover the other half of what we've got, which is abilities which we know for a fact can be interrupted (Cluster Missiles), and I still have yet to see any rulings which rely on this uninterruptable structure to function.

Yorr says both "when" and "instead," so I can see where you would be confused. FFG's poor phraseology notwithstanding, it is still a continuous effect. If something never happens in the first place - something I'm sure we can agree on, since you said as much on the previous page - then how was anything interrupted?

If we're going to talk about "undefined distinctions" in X-Wing, you'd better be prepared to defend all of your posts. Nowhere in the rules are we given permission to execute nested triggers, nor a method of resolving them. The only thing amounting to circular logic would be mixing semantic distinctions ("interrupt") with mechanical ones, and I'm certainly not the one doing that.

Again, it's not about which abilities "rely on this uninterruptible structure to function," it's about what the rules actually say. The rules don't say anything about nested triggers or a stack-like mechanic, and the amount of rulings we have are so diverse at this point that to cry "precedent! precedent!" is all but meaningless. The FAQ tells us how to handle Cluster Missiles, so that's how we handle it.

Nowhere in the rules are we given permission to execute nested triggers, nor a method of resolving them.

And no where in the rules are does the term replacement abilities exist. We know what Yorr does, what we don't have is any rule that says how or why it does like it does. This of course being due to how FFG tends to make rules based on how something should work rather then making rules that apply in all cases.

Either way I don't think EL or PtL interrupts dauntless, because it triggers on the completion of an action, not the action happening itself. Both say After not When, so to me the timing is clear, PtL or EL go off after the action, which means you complete the whole action, rather then inserting PtL/EL in the middle somewhere.

And no where in the rules are does the term replacement abilities exist. We know what Yorr does, what we don't have is any rule that says how or why it does like it does. This of course being due to how FFG tends to make rules based on how something should work rather then making rules that apply in all cases.

While we may not have explicitly defined rules for replacement effects (or much else, for that matter), we nevertheless do have cards that make use of such effects. Instead still means instead, and we still have Yorr's FAQ entry to go by.

If my own choice of keywords is an issue, I'm more than willing to consider alternatives. Yorr has a continuous effect that replaces "stress" with "no stress." How else would you prefer to describe this particular scenario?

How Yorr works doesn't really matter in this case, IMO anyway. Because as I said above, I don't think EL/PtL would be able to insert themselves in this case in the first place.

Any one of them, including Dauntless would cause the ship to get a stress and then be unable to perform further actions.

I don't disagree with that.

Yorr says both "when" and "instead," so I can see where you would be confused. FFG's poor phraseology notwithstanding, it is still a continuous effect. If something never happens in the first place - something I'm sure we can agree on, since you said as much on the previous page - then how was anything interrupted?

I'll be the first to agree that FFG's phrasing is poor, but I really don't see any problem with Yorr. We have a trigger condition, we have what to do when that trigger occurs. In this case it's not the stress (or ability that results from stress) that's being interrupted, it's whatever ability is generating it.

Consider Opportunist. You gain a stress to get the bonus attack die. That happens in the middle of the effect. If you pull the stress with Yorr, you don't get the bonus attack die. The trigger for Yorr's ability (another ship receiving stress) occurs in the middle of Opportunist, and you pause Opportunist to resolve Yorr.

Nowhere in the rules are we given permission to execute nested triggers, nor a method of resolving them.

Actually, we do have that permission. We have one simple rule for effect triggering in X-wing: When a condition is met, you execute the ability. That's it. This leads to a natural LIFO (Last-In-First-Out) structure, which I'm going to stop calling a stack because I think a lot of people put too much baggage on the term. But that's what we have, and that's what develops - when a condition for an ability is met, you resolve that ability.

What we don't have is anything that protects the currently-executing ability from being interrupted. The LIFO structure respects the rules we do have; the idea of uninterruptable or protected ability execution doesn't.

the amount of rulings we have are so diverse at this point that to cry "precedent! precedent!" is all but meaningless. The FAQ tells us how to handle Cluster Missiles, so that's how we handle it.

I'm fully aware of the contradictory nature of the rulings, but there's still a weight of numbers issue that's going on. Especially if there's that much diversity in the rulings, surely you can cite something that relies on your interpretation to function?

I'll be the first to agree that FFG's phrasing is poor, but I really don't see any problem with Yorr. We have a trigger condition, we have what to do when that trigger occurs. In this case it's not the stress (or ability that results from stress) that's being interrupted, it's whatever ability is generating it.

Consider Opportunist. You gain a stress to get the bonus attack die. That happens in the middle of the effect. If you pull the stress with Yorr, you don't get the bonus attack die. The trigger for Yorr's ability (another ship receiving stress) occurs in the middle of Opportunist, and you pause Opportunist to resolve Yorr.

Sorry, but no such thing is actually occurring. Yorr replaces the "stress" with "no stress," resulting in a modified event for the card in question. In no way is a trigger involved in that particular scenario, and there's certainly no such thing as a "pause." You can keep using the word "interrupt" if you like, but that's not what's happening from a mechanical perspective.

Actually, we do have that permission. We have one simple rule for effect triggering in X-wing: When a condition is met, you execute the ability. That's it. This leads to a natural LIFO (Last-In-First-Out) structure, which I'm going to stop calling a stack because I think a lot of people put too much baggage on the term. But that's what we have, and that's what develops - when a condition for an ability is met, you resolve that ability.

What we don't have is anything that protects the currently-executing ability from being interrupted. The LIFO structure respects the rules we do have; the idea of uninterruptible or protected ability execution doesn't.

Now you're inventing a stack out of whole cloth, regardless of what you want to call it. The FAQ tells us that simultaneous effects occur in whatever order the active player wants, but makes no distinction between game effects and card effects, or whether or not we're supposed to separate the whole card from its components. Nevertheless, executing effects in whatever order you want completely and naturally contradicts your "LIFO" assumption.

As for protecting the rules, that's a dubious sentiment at best. Half the entries in the FAQ don't protect the rules, so why should we concern ourselves with that? Especially over an upgrade that hasn't even been released yet, much less addressed by a ruling. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I assume that FFG is going to issue yet another ad hoc ruling for this scenario, one that doesn't meet with your expectations of interruptability. Natural or otherwise, the most practical thing to do is resolve one ability at a time, just as I said on the first page of this thread. That seems to be the only discernible trend amongst all of FFG's rulings to date.

...surely you can cite something that relies on your interpretation to function?

My superior logic, of course. I'm certainly not about to respect precedents in a game that doesn't respect them itself. Now, if you want me to cite games that actually make good use of keywords and timing windows, I can certainly do that.

Sorry, but no such thing is actually occurring. Yorr replaces the "stress" with "no stress," resulting in a modified event for the card in question. In no way is a trigger involved in that particular scenario, and there's certainly no such thing as a "pause." You can keep using the word "interrupt" if you like, but that's not what's happening from a mechanical perspective.

Why is "When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 would receive a stress token" not a trigger? It matches the phrasing and structure of pretty much every other triggered ability in the game.

Now you're inventing a stack out of whole cloth, regardless of what you want to call it. The FAQ tells us that simultaneous effects occur in whatever order the active player wants, but makes no distinction between game effects and card effects, or whether or not we're supposed to separate the whole card from its components. Nevertheless, executing effects in whatever order you want completely and naturally contradicts your "LIFO" assumption.

The LIFO structure doesn't attempt to say anything about simultaneous effects. Again, the timing rules are simple (although I'll expand them): When a condition is met, execute the ability. If multiple abilities trigger simultaneously, resolve them in initiative/preference order. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Dauntless triggers, you perform an action. When you perform an action, PtL and EI will both trigger, and you can resolve them in the order you wish. Or, alternately, you can choose to resolve PtL, which performs an action, which meets the conditions for EI to trigger.

There's nothing contradictory about that. You just handle simultaneous triggers specifically.

My superior logic, of course. I'm certainly not about to respect precedents in a game that doesn't respect them itself. Now, if you want me to cite games that actually make good use of keywords and timing windows, I can certainly do that.

So you're not really discussing X-wing's rules here. You're discussing your version of them based on other games? That explains a lot, actually. Thanks for clearing that up.

Why is "When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 would receive a stress token" not a trigger? It matches the phrasing and structure of pretty much every other triggered ability in the game.

Because without explicitly defined keywords, the use of "when" is completely arbitrary. I said this before: sometimes "when" means immediately (i.e. a trigger), and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's a duration (continuous effect), and sometimes it doesn't matter at all. Even if the complete phraseology of Yorr matched every other use of the word "when," the effects themselves don't align perfectly. If there's any kind of precedent at all based on "when" alone, it's an incomplete and poor one. Add to that the recent confusion over "must" and "may," and you can see where depending on a single word without any context becomes extremely problematic.

In this particular instance you may as well substitute "when" for "if," and then your concerns about it being a trigger completely disappear. In fact, the only word in all of Yorr's text that matters is "instead," just like I've been saying all along. "If you would do X, do Y instead " is almost the exact definition of a replacement effect in other games, complete with keyword and all. And what do you know, that's almost exactly how Yorr is worded as well. If you can accept borrowing things like triggers and the stack from such games, then why can't you accept replacement effects as well?

The LIFO structure doesn't attempt to say anything about simultaneous effects. Again, the timing rules are simple (although I'll expand them): When a condition is met, execute the ability. If multiple abilities trigger simultaneously, resolve them in initiative/preference order. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If Dauntless triggers, you perform an action. When you perform an action, PtL and EI will both trigger, and you can resolve them in the order you wish. Or, alternately, you can choose to resolve PtL, which performs an action, which meets the conditions for EI to trigger.

There's nothing contradictory about that. You just handle simultaneous triggers specifically.

This LIFO construct of yours doesn't "say" anything at all, because it isn't in the rules. That's an inference you're making, and while I don't necessarily disagree that it makes sense, it's also not an explicit aspect of the rules. What we do have in the rules is a system for executing simultaneous effects, so if you're really hung up on precedents, that's about as close as you're going to get. If the effects of a single card are separable for the sake of interruptibility, what's to stop them from being executed in any order the active player wants?

And, as I mentioned before, the only true precedent is that FFG likes to issue rulings that reflect the intent of the card, not the rules or their choice of words. If I had to bet money, I would say that they're not going to allow this particular combination to work, if for no other reason than because it opens the door to even more complex interactions, ones that the rules are in no way prepared to handle at present. If FFG specifically rules against this combination, will you concede that no such stack-like mechanic exists?

So you're not really discussing X-wing's rules here. You're discussing your version of them based on other games? That explains a lot, actually. Thanks for clearing that up.

You thought we were discussing rules? That's strange, I don't recall seeing a lot of rules text cited in support of your position. All I see is a bunch of nonsensical assumption that you like to call "interpretation," all based on a system you admit to being so poorly executed that everyone else has to cite some precedent in order for it to be credible in your eyes. That certainly does explain a lot, doesn't it?

Let me clue you in: logic doesn't constrain itself to one game or another. If you're going to make assumptions about how cards should work without relevance to the rules, you really don't get to point the finger at other people for doing the same. Between you and me, it would seem only one of us has experience with a functional game that doesn't require a FAQ to explain the massive shortcomings of its rule set. So, to what do you credit your interpretive expertise? I know you're not about to say "the rules of X-wing."

I'm really not doing this with you any more.

I'm really not doing this with you any more.

You're not very good at it, so you probably shouldn't. Do you know what your problem is, Buhallin? I mean besides your penchant for hammering square blocks through round holes, even when you know the system is rigged. Your problem is that you think you're entitled to making snarky comments without having to receive them. If you want to talk about the rules (or lack thereof), let's do that. No good has ever come of you copping a bad attitude with me.

Your problem is that you think you're entitled to making snarky comments without having to receive them. If you want to talk about the rules, let's do that.

There was no snark there. I meant that truly and honestly.

This is a forum about X-wing's rules. We (meaning the general community here) are here to discuss X-wing's rules. Yes, it's a frustrating, frequently inconsistent pursuit, but we try and do the best we can.

If you're not here to discuss X-wing's rules, but rather your personal rule set derived from personal belief and other games, that's honestly a very good thing to know. You're in a completely different frame of reference, and it's really no wonder we talk past each other on rules issues.

The rest of it I'm just tired of. I really don't care about the justifications, and I'm not going to get into "He started it!" with you. I try over and over and over to have a reasonable discussion with you, and it always devolves into these personal attacks. I don't even care why, I'm just exhausted with it. So no more.

There was no snark there. I meant that truly and honestly.

...

The rest of it I'm just tired of. I really don't care about the justifications, and I'm not going to get into "He started it!" with you. I try over and over and over to have a reasonable discussion with you, and it always devolves into these personal attacks. I don't even care why, I'm just exhausted with it. So no more.

If you don't understand how your comments can be easily misconstrued - especially given your history of posting - then of course you don't care why . The reason why it devolved is because you came off like an ass, whether you intended to or not. I'd probably be pretty quick to ignore that too, if I were in your shoes. That having been said, I have a very hard time believing that you don't already know the basis for my expertise when it comes to interpreting the rules, especially since a) we've been over this very same subject before, and b) the last time we did you threw an enormous tantrum about how Magic has ruined the gaming world forever. That makes your previous comment more than a little suspect in my eyes, so I really don't buy the feigned innocence routine.

To be perfectly honest, I'm quite tickled that you think my expertise with a more complex rule set somehow diminishes my interpretation of X-Wing's comparatively simplistic interactions. I'm even more tickled that you think your personal rule set is any more legitimate than my own. It's because I don't have a blog, isn't it? It must be the blog.

If you really want to ignore every salient point I've made because you chose to make things personal, go right ahead. Trust me, it's no party trying to get through to you either. However, should you decide to maintain some modicum of credibility in the face of your apparent cop out, feel free to respond (again) to post #35. I've edited it to reflect those parts of your own post that weren't outright dismissive, and I assure you that my comments are no more derived from personal belief than your own.

Back on topic.

I just submitted a rules query through the website regarding Expert Handling and Push the Limit, which is close enough to the situation presently being discussed that we might be able to resolve this with an official ruling. If anyone knows a better way of contacting the powers that be (emailing Frank directly?), please let me know. Otherwise I'll keep you posted. Whether or not they'll respond I have no idea, since that combination won't technically be legal for another day or two.

If you use the "Customer Service" --> "Rules Questions" and submit through that link you should get a response from Frank.

That is the M.O. I use for all of my rule question submissions.

It helps to be as concise as possible. Frank will answer your question, but he will probably raise a couple more in the process.

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, so we'll see. I wasn't particularly concise, though. I want to know how the whole system works, dammit!

I'm pretty sure not even FFG themselves know how the whole system works...

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, so we'll see. I wasn't particularly concise, though. I want to know how the whole system works, dammit!

So do we all.

which is close enough to the situation presently being discussed that we might be able to resolve this with an official ruling.

I'd be interested in seeing the answer. But it's not the same thing, as Expert Handling is an Action, but PtL, Experimental Interface and Dauntless are not Actions. None of those 3 upgrades have the Action: header on them. So they wouldn't behave the same way.

Once my mistake in thinking of them as Actions was pointed out, then yes you could in fact chain all 3 together.

We know that PtL can trigger any time you preform an Action, and an Action is clearly defined in the rules, that's why they had to errata Expert Handling, originally you could do 2 barrel roles if you had it, because one was an action but EH only said "preform a barrel role maneuver" not an action .

So you use Dauntless, and you preform an free Action with it, preforming that action is the trigger for PtL. The opportunity to use PtL is before you gain the stress, so you could use PtL or EI, in fact you could use both because the free action from PtL will trigger EI.

At that point you end up with 3 stress.

As you point out about the errata of Expert Handling thy changed the text so the Barrel Role is a free action.

And thus you can Trigger PtL off of the free barrel role action rather than the Expert Handling action.

And this is the exact same as Dauntless. Trigger of the free action, before the stress.

And I bet this is what was posed as the question to FFG.

So I indeed look forward to Franks Answer.

So, I asked two different questions that I thought would be at least semi-relevant to our conversation here, in the hopes of gaining some insight into the timing aspect of the game. This is the response I received:

"Hello Michael,

In response to your rules questions:

In the example of Push the Limit and Expert Handling, a ship can perform an action and then use Push the Limit in order to perform a free action, such as the Expert Handling action. (This would resolve with a ship receiving 2 stress tokens afterwards.) Alternatively, if a ship uses the Expert Handling action, that ship will be stressed and cannot use Push the Limit to perform another action.

Sounds like he completely missed the "trigger it off the barrel roll" part.

Sounds like he completely missed the "trigger it off the barrel roll" part.

And the fact that you can't actually use Expert Handling off of Push the Limit, since the former isn't on your action bar (nor will it be, for the one ship that can use two EPTs). At least we know that you'll be able to use it with Experimental Interface...

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 feel like there's some redeeming value in the Porkins response, at least.

Do we chalk it up as a negligent response, or assume that FFG's intent is to not be able to nest actions/triggers?

Well the fact that you can use a PtL like effect to trigger Expert Handling and then get 2 stress seems to mean there are nested effects. Because the process would be...

Preform an action - Which triggers Exp Interface - Preform EH, which gives you a stress, then resolve EI's effect gaining a 2nd stress. As Frank said, if the action gave you a stress, then you couldn't preform any further actions. That means the Expert Handling action has to fully process between Experimental Interface triggering but before it ends giving you a stress.

But it does seem like they either don't have more precise rules, or perhaps don't want to be tied down by them. The current state of the rules does let them do things and rule "This is how we want them to work" even if it doesn't completely work with in the rules.