...but I'm now wondering if it's sufficient to trigger another action/event.

Are you performing an action when you perform that barrel roll? If so, then yes, it is sufficient to trigger another event that looks for an action being performed.

It's a yes or no proposition; either it's an action or it's not.

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.

We know why Expert Handling got the errata: Just like target lock vs. target lock action, when it lacked the "action" tag it wasn't subject to the once-per-turn limitation. You could combine the Expert Handling action and the Barrel Roll action to get two barrel rolls in a turn. They've been pretty consistent with this - free target lock is almost never an action, because multiples generally just let you switch targets. Focus assignment goes either way. Movement actions like boost and barrel roll are always actions.

The problem with this idea is that lacking clear definition otherwise, a particular game event should mean the same thing to all possible observers. Doing otherwise - the action counts as an action for this rule but not that rule - is problematic at best. It gets even worse when you start trying to draw those lines. What counts as this and what counts as that ? Is it ability vs. base rule? Triggered ability vs. constantly-on ability? Friendly ability vs. enemy? "You" abilities vs. anything from another ship? If you're going to start drawing those lines you need to account for everything .

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.

It only creates problems is you're unwilling to consider that he misread the question. Again, at no point does he ever even mention the barrel roll, and his answer is perfectly consistent with our understanding of what would happen if you triggered PtL from the Expert Handling action, not the internal barrel roll.

Alright, the second message is away. We'll see what the morning brings.

The wording PTL it self seems to kind of indicate that nested triggers/effects/<what ever you want to call it> are possible. It starts with "Once per round", if the entirety of PTL had to be compleated before any on action trigger could happen, the ship would have a stress and so could not use PTL to perform an action again, so the "once per round" would be unneccessary. I've seen it said many times specificaly that "once per round" is there to prevent PTL from triggering of it self. Ofcource, not from official sources so it's not like prof or any thing.

Allso, there is the posibility that "once per round" is only there to stop Tycho from using PTL over and over.

So mabye this realy doesn't add anything to any side of the argument, but at least I killed so time

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:

I have two questions, both of which have arisen out of this thread:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/122112-experimental-interface-q/

I understand that FFG will not issue rulings based upon unreleased content, but there are some questions regarding the underlying rules of X-Wing that have given us pause. I think some of these questions can be answered by observing the interactions of already released content, so I will attempt to do that here in a way that is both meaningful and pertinent.

1) If Jek Porkins is equipped with the Opportunist elite pilot talent, does he resolve his ability before or after the completion of the Opportunist effect? Opportunist merely reads "when attacking," so if Porkins' ability resolves before the attack is concluded, he might kill himself and not finish the attack he began. If, on the other hand, a card ability is resolved in its entirely before any subsequent triggers, that would mean Porkins survives at least long enough to finish the attack, and rolls for the stress afterward.

The timing “when attacking” keys players into the timing but it covers many steps during the Combat phase. Rhymer’s “when attacking” occurs during the “Declare Target” step, Krassis Trelix’s happens during the “Modify Attack Dice” step, Wedge Antilles’s happens during the "Roll Defense Dice” step, Kath Scarlet’s is during the “Compare Results” step. Opportunist resolves during the “Roll Attack Dice” step (which is when card abilities that allow the attacker to roll additional (or fewer) dice).

The effect of Opportunist allows the attacker to receive 1 stress token to roll 1 additional attack die (when he attacks). So, if Jek Porkins uses Opportunist, after he receives the stress token, he can choose to use his ability to remove the stress token. If he suffers damage and is destroyed, this would occur during the “Roll Attack Dice” step meaning he is removed and therefore the attack fails.

Thanks for playing!

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games"

The bigger response for me here is the Porkins one. We now have 2 different rules for damage received during the attack phase by the attacker. With the Vader/Gunner ruling you get to perform the second attack even if using Vader after the first destroyed you. But now for Porkins they are saying removing the stress and taking the damage ends you right there and you don't even complete the current attack. Surely the two situations must be considered similar...

Seems to me they have their wires a little crossed in this case, so I may just ignore this particular response from them until such time as we get a new FAQ.

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.

I get that, and as I said I could see FFG making some sort of rule that would make it work that way. But I just don't see how it can work that way with the rules as written.

I'm going to create a new term, just for the sake of discussion. I'm calling it a sub-action, that is any action that is part of a different effect or action. So that means the action from PtL, EI, Dauntless, Squad Leader, ect...

If FFG does rule that way then it throws a whole lot of things out the window. Sub-Actions from Squad Leader, Lando, Airen, ect... No longer can trigger PtL. Turr can no longer use PtL when he takes the boost or barrel roll action. All things that we currently have allowing you to use PtL.

The fact that some actions like Expert Handling causes stress can not be treated as a different case from other actions that allow a sub-action, with the RAW, because there can not be a difference rules wise between two actions just because they have two different effects.

The bigger response for me here is the Porkins one. We now have 2 different rules for damage received during the attack phase by the attacker. With the Vader/Gunner ruling you get to perform the second attack even if using Vader after the first destroyed you. But now for Porkins they are saying removing the stress and taking the damage ends you right there and you don't even complete the current attack. Surely the two situations must be considered similar...

Seems to me they have their wires a little crossed in this case, so I may just ignore this particular response from them until such time as we get a new FAQ.

I don't actually think this is inconsistent with the Simultaneous/Vader/Gunner ruling. What I had taken away from that one is that an effect, once triggered, will resolve, even if it has to keep the ship around longer in order to do it. That means Vader gets to finish crushing the other guy even if he destroys himself in the process, and Gunner, having triggered, will resolve the extra attack.

Frank doesn't say anything specifically about Opportunist finishing or not in this case, because it's not relevant, but it's not unreasonable to think that Opportunist does finish, and does actually modify the attack dice. Porkins is just removed before he gets to roll them. No outstanding effects, no keeping the ship around until they finish.

I don't actually think this is inconsistent with the Simultaneous/Vader/Gunner ruling. What I had taken away from that one is that an effect, once triggered, will resolve, even if it has to keep the ship around longer in order to do it. That means Vader gets to finish crushing the other guy even if he destroys himself in the process, and Gunner, having triggered, will resolve the extra attack.

To add to this, Fel's wrath gets destroyed by Corran in the end phase and will continue to exist until the end of the next round.

To add to this, Fel's wrath gets destroyed by Corran in the end phase and will continue to exist until the end of the next round.

Fel's Wrath is a slightly different case because his ability explicitly overrides the destruction/removal rules.

The others are more a matter of what the basic structure is for resolving abilities around ship destruction when the abilities don't actually change the destruction/removal rules.

Well, here we go:

"Hello Michael,

In response to your rules question:

it almost seems as if he actually read through this thread. Or parts of it, at least.

Yeah that is interesting that he used an example that is pretty much exactly what started this all in the first place, but no one actually brought up to him.

Yeah that is interesting that he used an example that is pretty much exactly what started this all in the first place, but no one actually brought up to him.

He also uses the term "interrupt," complete with quotation marks and all, and basically validates Buhallin's LIFO assertion as well. Regardless of our respective viewpoints on the issue, I think we can all agree that this response was a good one, and Frank went into more detail than we had cause to hope for. He also commented on technically unreleased content, so... precedent? Precedent!

I think we can all agree that this response was a good one, and Frank went into more detail than we had cause to hope for.

Yeah that's as clear and detailed of an answer as we could hope for, and actually advances our understanding of the rules in a meaningful way.

Thanks for sending it in and keeping up with it so we got a clear answer

No problem. Again, regardless of our respective viewpoints, it behooves us all to gain as clear an understanding of the underlying principles of the game as possible. I'm all too happy to be the catalyzing factor, even if it means proving myself wrong on occasion.

even if it means proving myself wrong on occasion.

Well I started off with the same opinion that you did, so I was both right and wrong.

Now lets discuss just how much it would suck to have 4 stress on the Decimator... 11 points for those upgrades, so you can gain a focus, TL and give 2 other friendly ships a focus.

It is a remarkably clear, thorough, and concise answer. Good way to end the week

Now lets discuss just how much it would suck to have 4 stress on the Decimator... 11 points for those upgrades, so you can gain a focus, TL and give 2 other friendly ships a focus.

Yeah, you'd be extremely lucky to do that full combo more than once per game. Imagine if there was an upgrade card that prevented all stress for a turn. Kind of like Leia, only not useless. Or maybe even a reverse R4-D6.

WW thanks for following up with FF on the question.

Watershed moment...

Now lets discuss just how much it would suck to have 4 stress on the Decimator... 11 points for those upgrades, so you can gain a focus, TL and give 2 other friendly ships a focus.

Yeah, you'd be extremely lucky to do that full combo more than once per game. Imagine if there was an upgrade card that prevented all stress for a turn. Kind of like Leia, only not useless. Or maybe even a reverse R4-D6.

Here you go:

Captain Oicunn (42) + Push the Limit (3) + Experimental Interface (3) + Fleet Officer (3) + Dauntless (2) + Experimental Interface (3) - 53

Saber Squadron Pilot (21) + Wingman (2) - 23

Saber Squadron Pilot (21) + Wingman (2) - 23

Total: 99

Not really many options for that last point (and you don't want to have initiative when you want to run into things)... Give Oicunn and Intel Agent just to not have initiative?

Could also drop down to a pair of Black Squadron pilots with Wingman (still don't have enough points to get a 3rd in) and use the saved 14 points to bring Night Beast (no Intel Agent to free up the 15th point) or make Oicunn even more ridiculous :-)

So Experimental Interface says:

Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action from an equipped Upgrade card with the " Action: " header. Then receive 1 stress token.

My question is combining this card with Dauntless (although I suppose PTL is relevant as well)

Dauntless says:

After you execute a maneuver that causes you to overlap another ship, you may perform one free action. Then receive 1 stress t.

...

1. Overlap ship

2. Dauntless kicks in you get a free action.

3. Experimental Interface kicks in and gives you a free action

4. Experimental Interface gives you stress.

5. Dauntless gives you stress.

Which one is right?

The tricky part is the actions are within actions and you don't earn stress until those sub-actions are completed, otherwise the cards are useless. Your second one (quoted above) is right, but should be clarified as you get an action from an elite pilot skill card via experimental interface. So Dauntless kicks in and grants Experimental Interface which then triggers your elite pilot skill action. You then receive a stress from Experimental Interface and then from Dauntless. If you have Push the Limit, then I could see 3 stresses since you choose when to resolve that ability.

Mathmaticaly = (Dauntless(Experimental Interface(Elite Pilot Skill Action(if Push the Limit then additional action)))) then take your stresses as required. Fun logic.

Looking at the FAQ, ( I took screenshots but I can't actually post them on mobile) experimental interface says "see push the limits." Push the limits lists an example using expert handling. It says "free actions, such as the action granted by squad leader can trigger push the limit. This can result in an action interrupting another effect, causing that effect to finish resolving later. For example if a ship performs a free barrel roll action granted by expert handling, it could use that action to trigger push the limit. After push the limit resolves expert handling finishes resolving."

Seems like you can, in fact, use dauntless to trigger EI and do aother action then receive 2 stress tokens.