Do you have any actual reasoning for why the ruling might be different?

Because if there's some actual point we can address, we'll be happy to do so. But I can't see any reason why there would be a difference between the upgrade itself being an action or not. The effect is the same.

For the record, the FAQ really isn't that specific. We often have to take specific rulings for a specific card and extrapolate it to others. If you don't think it's going to apply for some reason, again, please state that. If it's just "It says action for this one but Isard isn't" then there's nothing anyone here can do to answer that for you, so just send it to FFG.

my thought would be that with an action header, its actually a separate action regarding the crit. Like expert handling is it's own action that allows you to barrel roll and remove a target lock. Same with r7-t1. They are their own actions separate from the action bar. Isaard and Jake on the other hand are conditions that when met may let you perform an action, but arnt actions themselves. (I think it could get sent for clarification, or my understanding of the cards are wrong. Could be that)

I believe that upgrade card caveat in the FAQ was put in there to distinguish between upgrades that directly gave free actions and upgrades that only add actions to your action bar such as engine upgrade and targeting computer. The crit prevents you from using the latter cards but allows the use of other upgrade cards that don't mention the action bar.

my thought would be that with an action header, its actually a separate action regarding the crit. Like expert handling is it's own action that allows you to barrel roll and remove a target lock. Same with r7-t1. They are their own actions separate from the action bar. Isaard and Jake on the other hand are conditions that when met may let you perform an action, but arnt actions themselves. (I think it could get sent for clarification, or my understanding of the cards are wrong. Could be that)

This is half right... Actions like Expert Handling are indeed their own actions, but if they grant actions as part of the effect, THOSE are actions as well. So the Expert Handling action grants a Barrel Roll action.

Any number of abilities provide extra actions. There isn't anything to suggest that the way you get the action matters in how you handle it... we know that things like triggering other effects, being subject to the once-per-turn rule, not being able to be performed while stressed, Tycho being able to perform it while stressed... In every way in the rules, actions are treated the same whether they come directly from an ability like Isard or Turr, or they're "embedded" in an "Action:" upgrade. I don't see any reason to think this one piece is handled differently.

As for why it's worded the way it is, I believe Atilla has it correct - it's meant to distinguish between upgrades like Engine Upgrade, that adds an action to the bar, and ones like Expert Handling which trigger another action directly. It's not worded the best, but it does make the most sense.

Another instance, not really mentioned:

ACD on a Phantom. If you can't perform the actions listed in your action bar, can you still cloak after making an attack?

Granted, it's pretty hard to get a crit that's 2/33 and only have 1 opportunity to get a crit that isn't fatal damage... but still.

my thought would be that with an action header, its actually a separate action regarding the crit. Like expert handling is it's own action that allows you to barrel roll and remove a target lock. Same with r7-t1. They are their own actions separate from the action bar. Isaard and Jake on the other hand are conditions that when met may let you perform an action, but arnt actions themselves. (I think it could get sent for clarification, or my understanding of the cards are wrong. Could be that)

This is half right... Actions like Expert Handling are indeed their own actions, but if they grant actions as part of the effect, THOSE are actions as well. So the Expert Handling action grants a Barrel Roll action.

Any number of abilities provide extra actions. There isn't anything to suggest that the way you get the action matters in how you handle it... we know that things like triggering other effects, being subject to the once-per-turn rule, not being able to be performed while stressed, Tycho being able to perform it while stressed... In every way in the rules, actions are treated the same whether they come directly from an ability like Isard or Turr, or they're "embedded" in an "Action:" upgrade. I don't see any reason to think this one piece is handled differently.

As for why it's worded the way it is, I believe Atilla has it correct - it's meant to distinguish between upgrades like Engine Upgrade, that adds an action to the bar, and ones like Expert Handling which trigger another action directly. It's not worded the best, but it does make the most sense.

yeah, that's what I think too. It could be worded better for sure, but I think that's a wave 1 FAQ too, so it was worded perfectly back then. Now it should say that it doesn't stop you from taking free actions granted by upgrades. (so lando and cracken still don't count)

My interpretation is that you CANNOT take the free evade action. But before I give my reasoning, ponder on this for a minute.

If (for whatever reason) a ship has EH and BR natively and draws the DSA crit, he can still perform the EH action (though he cannot do the BR action). Should he get stressed from it? Seeing as DSA says you cannot perform the actions in your action bar, and that there's nothing that says "your action bar is considered void of all actions," then it would seem to me that one would not get stressed from EH even when the person has DSA. So, that would confirm that the action remains in your action bar.

Clearly people can do actions from text that are not on their action bar, such as acquiring a TL (via FCS on the Phantom) or an Evade (via Isard on the Decimator/Shuttle). So that's not an issue.

So, the issue is taking a free action that is on your bar. Note that Ysard herself is NOT an action in the same manner that EH or Expose are. So you are not performing the Ysard action, and receiving a free evade action/token from it. Furthermore, if the Firespray performed an evade action, it would not be able to activate Ysard. So, that means to me that Ysard is indeed the same as the evade action... And the Firespray cannot do the evade action with the DSA crit. Ergo, Ysard cannot activate on a Firespray (or Phantom) with the DSA crit.

My interpretation is that you CANNOT take the free evade action. But before I give my reasoning, ponder on this for a minute.

If (for whatever reason) a ship has EH and BR natively and draws the DSA crit, he can still perform the EH action (though he cannot do the BR action). Should he get stressed from it? Seeing as DSA says you cannot perform the actions in your action bar, and that there's nothing that says "your action bar is considered void of all actions," then it would seem to me that one would not get stressed from EH even when the person has DSA. So, that would confirm that the action remains in your action bar.

Clearly people can do actions from text that are not on their action bar, such as acquiring a TL (via FCS on the Phantom) or an Evade (via Isard on the Decimator/Shuttle). So that's not an issue.

So, the issue is taking a free action that is on your bar. Note that Ysard herself is NOT an action in the same manner that EH or Expose are. So you are not performing the Ysard action, and receiving a free evade action/token from it. Furthermore, if the Firespray performed an evade action, it would not be able to activate Ysard. So, that means to me that Ysard is indeed the same as the evade action... And the Firespray cannot do the evade action with the DSA crit. Ergo, Ysard cannot activate on a Firespray (or Phantom) with the DSA crit.

the FAQ actually says you can barrel roll from expert handling. Which would mean you can still perform free actions from a card that instructed you too, you just can't perform those actions as your action in the activation phase. As buhalin said, there isn't much reason to say that expert handling telling you to barrel roll for free is any different than isaard telling you to evade for free. The only real argument being that isaard isn't an action herself, but a triggered event much like acd or jakes ability.

ACD on a Phantom. If you can't perform the actions listed in your action bar, can you still cloak after making an attack?

Same situation, same result: Damaged Sensor Array only stops you taking the actions from your action bar. If another ability lets you take the action, that still works fine.

My interpretation is that you CANNOT take the free evade action. But before I give my reasoning, ponder on this for a minute.

If (for whatever reason) a ship has EH and BR natively and draws the DSA crit, he can still perform the EH action (though he cannot do the BR action).

The FAQ actually addresses this specific case, and answers it to the opposite of what you say here.

Furthermore, if the Firespray performed an evade action, it would not be able to activate Ysard. So, that means to me that Ysard is indeed the same as the evade action...

This is incorrect. Isard is NOT the same as an evade action. It is an ability which grants an evade action, and those are very different things. A Firespray which took Evade as its normal action CAN activate Ysard - it just couldn't get anything out of it, because it's prohibited from taking the Evade action again. Any other effects of the ability would still apply. Consider R7-T1. If it's on a ship that boosts and then tries to use R7-T1, the droid still activates. Isard is the same. The conditions are met, the ability triggers, but does nothing once it does.

I thought anyway that Ysanne didnt add evades to the action bar just gave a free action? Sort of like R7-T1 on a ywing doesnt add boost to the action bar

This is exactly my point. It SHOULD apply, but it doesn't say that, and the FAQ is very specific. I am not saying that is not the intent of the card, but it deserves at least some ruling from FFG

Rules as written

Do you have any actual reasoning for why the ruling might be different?

Because if there's some actual point we can address, we'll be happy to do so. But I can't see any reason why there would be a difference between the upgrade itself being an action or not. The effect is the same.

For the record, the FAQ really isn't that specific. We often have to take specific rulings for a specific card and extrapolate it to others. If you don't think it's going to apply for some reason, again, please state that. If it's just "It says action for this one but Isard isn't" then there's nothing anyone here can do to answer that for you, so just send it to FFG.

Rules as intended?

What about this?

Q: When is the only time you need the Action bar to define your actions?

A: During you Perform Action step, or when using Push the Limit.

So the action in question is clearly defined as a "free action", so wouldn't the following rule (p.8) apply to it?

If an ability allows a ship to perform a “free action,” this action does not count as the one action allowed during the “Perform Action” step.

If Isard were on a Shuttle, she would be able to perform the free evade action without a problem, because it's a "free action". I can't see why being on a Firespray suddenly renders her useless with the Damaged Sensor Array. You can't do an evade action as your "Perform Action" step action, but you can do a "free action" any other time (without stress of course) and that should include Isard's free evade.

This is exactly my point. It SHOULD apply, but it doesn't say that, and the FAQ is very specific. I am not saying that is not the intent of the card, but it deserves at least some ruling from FFG

Rules as written

Do you have any actual reasoning for why the ruling might be different?

Because if there's some actual point we can address, we'll be happy to do so. But I can't see any reason why there would be a difference between the upgrade itself being an action or not. The effect is the same.

For the record, the FAQ really isn't that specific. We often have to take specific rulings for a specific card and extrapolate it to others. If you don't think it's going to apply for some reason, again, please state that. If it's just "It says action for this one but Isard isn't" then there's nothing anyone here can do to answer that for you, so just send it to FFG.

Rules as intended?

Not really a RAW/RAI thing. Extending the Damaged Sensor Array ruling to apply to all action-granting abilities whether they are themselves actions is not claiming "RAI" - it's not contradicting anything, which is the usual hallmark of RAI claims. Instead, we're using one situation as a precedent for one which is nearly identical.

That's why I asked what he saw the difference as. If there's some reason we shouldn't be able to apply this as precedent, that can easily be discussed.

What about this?

Q: When is the only time you need the Action bar to define your actions?

A: During you Perform Action step, or when using Push the Limit.

So the action in question is clearly defined as a "free action", so wouldn't the following rule (p.8) apply to it?

If an ability allows a ship to perform a “free action,” this action does not count as the one action allowed during the “Perform Action” step.

If Isard were on a Shuttle, she would be able to perform the free evade action without a problem, because it's a "free action". I can't see why being on a Firespray suddenly renders her useless with the Damaged Sensor Array. You can't do an evade action as your "Perform Action" step action, but you can do a "free action" any other time (without stress of course) and that should include Isard's free evade.

This isn't the only time you need the action bar, though. Any time you're given a free action without other limits, you choose from what's on the bar. So this would also include things like Advanced Sensors, Squad Leader, Airen and Lando, etc.

They could definitely reword it to make it clearer, but I don't think it's that simple. There's no solid structure that covers a "chosen" action vs. a "specified" action, and having abilities that give you a choice of specified actions (like Turr) makes any wording very tricky.

Not really a RAW/RAI thing. Extending the Damaged Sensor Array ruling to apply to all action-granting abilities whether they are themselves actions is not claiming "RAI" - it's not contradicting anything, which is the usual hallmark of RAI claims. Instead, we're using one situation as a precedent for one which is nearly identical.

That's why I asked what he saw the difference as. If there's some reason we shouldn't be able to apply this as precedent, that can easily be discussed.

Well it is. You are taking a ruling that doesn't apply to this specific instance and claiming that it applies in order to prevent a rules loophole. That's pretty much the definition of RAI.

I happen to agree with you that it is how it should work (as others have said), but calling it RAW is wrong. It needs a ruling, because as the rules are written, silly things happen.

EH says

"Perform a free barrel roll action."

FAQ says

You can do the barrel roll action from expert handling.

Isard says

"Perform a free evade action."

Not really a ruling that should be confusing to anyone not trying to totally game an opponent, and RAW would be that you can do the evade because you can do the barrel roll in the example and they are worded the same.

EH says

"Perform a free barrel roll action."

FAQ says

You can do the barrel roll action from expert handling.

Isard says

"Perform a free evade action."

Not really a ruling that should be confusing to anyone not trying to totally game an opponent, and RAW would be that you can do the evade because you can do the barrel roll in the example and they are worded the same.

Way to leave out a word

EH says

"Action: Perform a free BR action"

FAQ says

"If a card says 'Action: perform and action', you can still do it even with that damage card

Isaard says

"Perform a free evade action" without the "Action:" header the faq says is necessary.

Like almost everyone else, I agree that you CAN use Isaard even when you have this crit, but blatantly misrepresenting the evidence does not help our case.

And it is a RAW/RAI. The clarifications in the FAQ are just telling us what was intended. The RAW is really pretty straight forward. Is evade in your action bar? Then you cannot perform an evade action. That isn't how the designers intended it to work though so they had to clarify their intentions in the FAQ.

It's more a matter of appreciating what RAW means for X-wing. We don't get general rulings, we get examples. Do the rulings for Backstabber and Outmaneuver apply to Kavil? Or do we know how Kavil should work from those examples, even though they specifically say "Backstabber" and "Outmaneuver"?

If you want to phrase this as "intent" then that's a personal matter, but that's not how I'm approaching it. At no point am I (or anyone, really) guessing what the devs wanted to happen. I'm looking at the example we've got, and just like Backstabber/Kavil, evaluating whether we have a specific example that applies only in that situation, or a precedent-setting example that can be extrapolated for other situations.

Like it or not, that's pretty much what RAW means for X-wing. And claiming "RAW" without doing that analysis - which is what I've been trying to get at - is just as invalid as guessing what the devs wanted an ability to do.

Damage Sensor Array says that you cannot perform the actions LISTED in your action bar. It does not care what the source of the action is. It does not say that you cannot use your action bar. The key word here is "listed". The only exception is cards with "ACTION:" at the beginning of their text.

The 1st and 3rd paragraphs explaining Damaged Sensor Array both explicitly state that you may only perform actions or free actions from cards that have the ACTION header. Advance Cloaking Device gives you a free action after shooting, but does not have the ACTION header.

Damaged Sensor Array on a Phantom does not allow you to perform Focus, Evade, Cloak, or Barrel Roll as an action (or free action). You can however use an upgrade card that has the bolded ACTION word at the top of the card(or try and fix the crit).

Since the Firespray would have Evade on the list of actions not allowed, then Ysanne would fail to work.

Since the Decimators only illegal actions would be focus and target lock, then Ysanne would be permitted to work.

The FFG wording and intent on this is clear.

um, really? It was already hashed out. You can use free action abilities, even if it was on your action bar.

The FFG wording and intent on this is clear.

So would you care to explain the intent (since you've obviously had deep discussions with the devs) on this? What is the intent and logic behind allowing the same card to function on one ship with the crit, but not another ship with the same crit?

Also, if you are going to get 'literal', it says actions, as in those performed during the perform action step, and does not say 'free actions'.

Also, if you are going to get 'literal', it says actions, as in those performed during the perform action step, and does not say 'free actions'.

Actions are actions. A free action is just an action that you can perform outside of the perform action step.

The FFG wording and intent on this is clear.

So would you care to explain the intent (since you've obviously had deep discussions with the devs) on this? What is the intent and logic behind allowing the same card to function on one ship with the crit, but not another ship with the same crit?

The intent is something we can only guess at.

I still maintain that the wording is clear, however stupid and wrong-headed it appears to be.

The way the cards interact as currently worded is not something I would enforce on my opponent. But were my opponent to want me to play it as the cards state, I would abide by the rules as they are written. If I am using this combination, it's something I will bring up with my opponent before the game to ensure that we were both clear & ask my opponent how they would like it to be played - an FAQ is something that removes that ambiguity from the process, and any onus from my opponent (who likely wouldn't want to be 'that guy').

The intent is something we can only guess at.

I still maintain that the wording is clear, however stupid and wrong-headed it appears to be.

Well, FNG seems quite certain that the "intent" backs him up. I'm just curious what his view of that might be.

And again, it's not a matter of the wording being clear - it's a matter of whether that wording is limiting to that one specific case. It may be, but that's just not how the X-wing rules (and FAQ) are written. Which nobody seems to actually dispute - those hanging on "This is the RAW!" don't want to address that at all.

Like it or not, our understanding of the X-wing rules is driven almost entirely by precedent. If you don't think this particular ruling holds value as precedent, there's a certain burden to explain why that is. "It says ACTION: so it doesn't apply" doesn't really hold water in this environment, any more than "Backstabber's entry says it's only for Backstabber, so it doesn't apply to Kavil" does.