I agree with Buhallin. You resolve the effect each time you do step 4 in combat. It clearly states you calculate the number of defense dice by taking the ships base agility and resolving all card abilities that modify it, and then add an extra die for primary weapons at range 3. So you resolve the abilities every time.
And as stated earlier if initiative and/or chosen order of resolving is in play here we will get very inconsistent results.
Agility value not base agility
But love how under the interpretation that I'm seeing by some is that it seems I can have initiative and say you stealth device doesn't work.
But love how under the interpretation that I'm seeing by some is that it seems I can have initiative and say you stealth device doesn't work.
Uhm... I don't think anyone has said that.
There's a question of order of operations. Is it:
(Base 2 + Stealth 1 = 3) * Turbolaser 2 = 6
or
(Base 2 * Turbolaser 2) + Stealth 1 = 5
There's no question the Stealth device applies. The question is whether it gets added before or after the turbolaser doubling effect.
I think we can all agree that the rules do not specifically address this, and specifically how Intimidation functions. Mechanically, it is a continuous state based effect without a "trigger" per se. I imagine we'll see it clarified in an FAQ.
More importantly, how should this resolve? I think, and I believe most people are with me on this, that since Intimidation's effect starts earlier STL doubles agility after Intimidation reduces it.
The main argument I see against it is people grasping at straws trying to say that continuous, state based effects like with Intimidation, "continuously trigger," which is needlessly complicates things and dirties up the rule set for no good reason.
The main argument I see against it is people grasping at straws trying to say that continuous, state based effects like with Intimidation, "continuously trigger," which is needlessly complicates things and dirties up the rule set for no good reason.
I'm not sure why you think anyone is grasping at straws - that would seem to imply an agenda, and given that this is something that may cut both ways regardless of the outcome, I just don't see that.
Trying to base a rules outcome on "needlessly complicating" things doesn't really hold water, unfortunately. Take a look at the R2-D2 timing ruling for a very good example of that.
It also really isn't all that complicated, honestly. A number of other games use similar mechanisms, because it leads to consistent results. I don't think that means that X-wing does work this way (I stick to the rulings we have to reach that conclusion) but it is a solid system.
Trying to resolve it chronologically is easy in this case, because one of the two effects in question is very short-lived. What happens if they're two longer-running proximity effects? The result become dependent on who got there first, which gets ugly fast. At the very least, the outcome varies based on activation order (pilot skill in question, possibly initiative). That means that even in the same game, the two abilities could combine for a different result. What happens if a ship leaves the range of an effect, but then barrel rolls back in? Does it count as leaving the effect so your chronological order changes? There's a reason games typically have defined resolution orders for effects, rather than using order of incidence. You may think it simplifies this case to use chronological ordering, and it does - but as a general means of resolving effects, it sucks.
Again, not that I think it has specific bearing on the answer here, but here's how Conquest handles this sort of thing. It's clean, it's reliable, and it means that any two effects interacting will always have the same outcome: