Was playing a skirmish game. I had initiave. My opponent played Take Initiave. He did it and took initiave. I responded by playing the same card in kind. End result - I have initiave and we both have exhausted one card. My opponent tried to argue that my play was invalid as I "passed" my action so he played his and that I had no ability to respond because he passed.

Same issue occured in a game against my opponent. We ruled that the two cancelled each other out. However, I am also curious as to what people who have scoured the rules in and out think.

All start of round effects or abilities are resolved prior to unit activation in the Activation Phase.

So him saying you passed your turn is incorrect.

I would adopt the "Consecutive Pass" method that most games use, for future resolutions. Mission effects would have to fit in that order as well. Ex. All beginning of round effects from mission, then Initiative holder, then next player, repeat, etc until both players consecutively pass. Then on to first activation by In it holder.

It states in "Timing" page 2 of Rules Reference

Timing

Numerous game effects have the possibility of triggering at the same time. If this occurs, use the following to determine the order in which these effects are resolved:

In a campaign, resolve mission rules first, followed by effects triggered by the Imperial player, then effects triggered by Rebel players.

In a skirmish, resolve mission rules first, followed by effects triggered by the player with initiative, then effects triggered by his opponent.

Reading the skirmish section I would say that your opponents argument was correct and it was also that way we played it when it came up in one of our skirmish: First the player with Intiative has a chance to play any "At the start" cards if he chooses. Then it is the opponent's turn. Nowhere does it state that we pass back and forth (like the Edge Battle or action windows in Star Wars LCG. But maybe it'll be faq'ed

But when the opponent takes initiative, you become the "opponent of the one with initiative" so I guess you get to play effects again.

But when the opponent takes initiative, you become the "opponent of the one with initiative" so I guess you get to play effects again.

Maybe in that single instance, but I am not sure. However in (all??) other cases I would still say that first it's the Initiative player's turn/chance, then the opponent's and that's the end or chances

I agree with you on all other instances.

But I think with the initiative changing that it allow the one losing the initiative to retaliate with a card.

I agree with you on all other instances.

But I think with the initiative changing that it allow the one losing the initiative to retaliate with a card.

Possibly we will see it FAQ'ed. I see your point, but then it is (purely) because the Initiative switched hands. However I am still somewhat doubtful

Yep, this is only my point of view and because the initiative changes hand.

I won't say it is the absolute truth but IMHO it makes sense.

Page 9 Conflicts in a skirmish.