Good point on EH. I tend to think the first one just didn't count

Although on (yet another) tangent, I've never really understood the utility of "free" actions. It would probably work just fine if an action were an action, and you just got one action during your Perform Action step.

I think the utility is more in player understanding of what it is and preventing confusion than a mechanic utility. Free implies that normally they cost something, which would be the one action you get to take a turn. Also somewhere it might say "a ship may only take one action per turn" or whatever and free actions let them get around that.

That may be the case, but from what I've seen here, it has actualy caused a lot of confusion instead. Free seems to have some belive it can be done when ever and not count as an action at all. F.ex. I've seen people thinking they can do Expert Handeling AND an action from their action bar in the activation phase becouse EH has the word "free" some where on it...

Oh well, with the huge ships rules it sudenly seems to have goten a use as huge ships can not perform "free actions".

Oh well, with the huge ships rules it sudenly seems to have goten a use as huge ships can not perform "free actions".

Still not really a necessary term though. The huge ship rules could easily say "Huge ships may perform one action for each section (blah blah). Huge ships may never take any other actions."

<shrug> I suspect Atilla is correct as to the reasoning, but I don't see it providing any meaningful distinction. And at the very least, I'd be willing to bet real money that nobody said "You know, if we do extra-large ships a few years from now we're going to need some way to limit their acitons..." back during Wave 1

le sigh...Still painting me as the villain. Even a stab at making me out to be a non casual flier. Oh well, I guess your minds are made up then haha...ha..crap.

@Atilla: The point of it having the clause "You may not perform any additional attacks this round" would be the CR-90 with it's main gun. Since the banning of gunners on the 'vette was recently lifted, you could in certain instances fire it's main gun up to four times if it weren't for that clause. Which would be really bad as you likely could imagine if there was a Decimator in range. Also for future problems. For instance a future card that allows Corran to carry a crew. Or a form of Airen Cracken that grants attacks instead of actions. And it's actually a hindrance to the A-wings if EH has to be the last action you perform. Then it won't have the ability to maneuver head on to an asteroid, barrel roll around first then boost around. Not a big issue but it steps on the comboiness A-wing test pilot wants to do with that exact card. But fortunately The action granted is the first instruction and so can be triggered as your second of three actions with EI/PTL, you just have to remember that you use EI for it, then PTL out of the barrel roll for your last action. So it doesn't have to be last after all.

@Parravon. When I read that part of the Gunner FAQ it implied to me only count Clusters, Corran, and CR-90's. Which had honest to god additional attacks. If there was a future droid carrying missile carrier that could equip Clusters and R3-A2 that would have been weird. For clarity sake I feel the errata should reword the gunner to say you may perform an additional attack immediately. Or just throw Luke and Gunner in with the Cluster example. That was too much heartache to track down one freaking word. Also it occurred to me the CR-90 does have three crew slots if the Tantive Title is taken. Not that it could take two Lukes still but we found a ship that can have three Gunners! For absolutely no reason, as we assumed all along but now have the why of it. This is the strongest hard reason I've seen to explain it anyway.

Firstly, no one is painting you as a villain. It's just you keep flogging a dead horse and seem incapable of hearing what others are trying to tell you.

Secondly, the reason for the mention of Cluster Missiles in the FAQ entry was if you decided to activate Gunner after the first (of two) Cluster Missile attacks, and because it's a primary weapon attack you're now making. That's why you forfeit additional attacks. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Corran. Oh, and good luck waiting for a future card that gives him a crew slot - not going to happen.

For clarity sake I feel the errata should reword the gunner to say you may perform an additional attack immediately.

Why would the card need an errata reworded when the card itself says "you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack"? And I seriously doubt the last line on the Gunner card is in reference to the CR-90, when Gunner came out over a year before the CR-90 did. It's pretty darned clear it's in reference to the ship the Gunner is on, and only that ship.

Even a stab at making me out to be a non casual flier.

You suggested that you'd take a bit of casual wording from someone and deny them an action because of an obscure detail in the timing. If that's flying casual to you, you have a very different definition than, well, everyone else. And I'm wiling to call that a villain

If it seems people's minds are made up, it's because you have yet to provide anything compelling. The way the rules work is perfectly clear, but you didn't know it. You've tried to paint that as somehow insufficient, for really no apparent good reason. You've missed numerous rulings and elements of the FAQ. You've ignored ways that things can be read which are largely consistent, and tried to tie Gunner's wording to epic ships that were probably not even hypothetical when it was designed, while completely ignoring interactions with the YT-1300, which it came with in the first place.

<shrug> Your entire stance here looks like you just didn't know the rules, and are trying to break things to convince everyone that it should be the way you thought it was. It's not convincing.

What it looks like is someone pointing out what they think is an interesting loophole in the wording of a card that nobody cares about because it doesn't matter. Everyone knows the way it works. Trying to scrape together contradictions and garbage is a waste of everyone's time. At this point it's not a valid rules question and, in my opinion, never was in the first place.

And the response of oh, well it's important to point these things out even if it is obvious so that we can have an air-tight rules system doesn't apply to this. It's a waste of time and effort and benefitting nobody. Not to sound too harsh, but the idea of doing a service to a game by drumming up controversy where there is none and shouldn't be any isn't helping anyone.

Lol, I wasn't beating the dead horse, it was a crime scene investigation to find out why it died! We all were in agreement from the beginning that it didn't work but until I had a solid answer as to why of course I'm going to pursue the truth as to how it worked in it's inner workings figured out.

Just for common wording thing. It wouldn't be a bad move or stream line it necessarily, but giving attacks basically the sub-type 'additional' would be a potential route to go to always have as a reference. And yes, we know that entry in the FAQ was in reference to Clusters specifically for a reason which is why I pointed out the Cluster/A2 interaction as a problem if it weren't stopped by it. Currently nothing could have done it anyway. I should have gone with the more appropriate time framed example to the errata which would be the Falcon/Clusters. Which combines elements of the CR-90 example with Han. That errata at the time as I remember was to prevent you from dusting two ships at a time with Han rerolling one of the clusters to miss, or just missing and primary something with the turret behind him, then come back and finish clusters into his first target heaven forbid miss again, and primary into yet a third target. Would have been a nightmare these days if you had three ties, in his front arc at range 2, and his load out was something today like Han+Gunner/Tactician/Clusters. Further they have said their design schedule was some 18 months out so they in all realism did likely know of the potential pitfalls of gunners when they made that errata as they had the CR-90 up their sleeve. But by any chance, do you work on the design team? I don't know how else any of us could know what is or is not coming with such strong certainty. There is the potential scenario they reprint Corran as an X-wing pilot with the same ability, and make the X-wing Tandem modification a thing. I never said anything to likelihood. Would be a very interesting ship I think, Corran/Gunner.

Wow, two other replies went up while I was typing. Man I'm slow lol.

Part of the beauty of X-Wing is the simplicity of it. A person can basically learn everything they need to know to play the game effectively (and beat an experienced player) in an hour. Adding additional rules and subtypes because of a single card where it isn't necessary hurts that part of the game. It's not necessary, they won't do it, and it's a pointless discussion.

People can learn most games basic component rules in an hour, from Warhammer to Yu-gi-oh, though I doubt that gives them very much chance to beat an experienced player haha. I rarely see a demo of X-wing not go to the veteran player providing the demo, but it has happened your right. But as they expand and evolve those games, or as a player gets deeper into a highly expanded games content, something has to give eventually. I disagree that it's pointless to discuss evolving wording. Sometimes it even opens up that concept known as design space when you define more interact-able components out of the existing structure. For example if we were to thought experiment out with 'additional attack' being a type. You could have a interceptor class pilot whose ability is 'Can't be the target of additional attacks'. At first appearance it would be like a Fel's wrath kind of choice but in reality it would interact then with Gunner/Luke, Clusters, Epic ships, and Corran. Which would be very interesting if you ask me since three of those four see a ton of play. As long as those cards are errata'd to all say they are additional type you have those new players take one read through of the errata and see exactly where those additional attacks come from. Truly necessary? Not as much. But makes for very transparent wording.

Ooh, would be a very scummy Z-95 pilot that had 'When performing an additional attack, you may add 1 [hit] to your roll'. Clusters would be auto-take but if there was an aforementioned attack version of Cracken in the same faction that would be a very interesting pair. Or a pilot that had something like Corran's ability but triggered at a different time like 'Immediately before you reveal your dial, you may perform one additional attack, and perform no attacks next round.' Which would go back to the Interceptor that can't be the target of additional ones! That was interesting. I guess it would kind of like the sub-typing of free actions. Which as discussed worked out great with Leebo's design on the 'Vette.