Greetings,

TL:DR "Is it possible for a figure to Executive Order itself with Field General? If so, does Field General allow a figure to attack more than once?"

In our playthrough of the Twin Shadows expansion, our Imperial player has been using the new Imperial deck that came with it (I know not its name). In that deck is an attachment "Field General" which essentially gives a unit the same ability as the Red Imperial Officer: Executive Order. However, we have run into a couple of conflicts about the use of this ability.

One: Executive Order on the Imp Officer reads "... another friendly figure within two spaces...", while on Field General it omits 'another,' "...a friendly figure within two spaces..." Our Imperial player believes that this means a figure can command itself to either move or attack. Also, a figure is friendly to itself, and is within two spaces of itself, so the argument goes.

Two: With the assumption that a figure can order itself using Field General, our Imperial player believes that a figure can attack, and then order itself to attack again. Furthermore, he gained a new card (I don't know the name)** that states something to the effect of "... After a figure resolves Executive Order using Field General, it may move or attack."** Therefore, if a figure attacks, then orders itself to attack, it may attack for a third time. This is the crux of the conflict, and our Imperial player applies the "Golden rule: Cards trump rules" to this situation -- That because the figure may attack, it therefore can attack, regardless of the normal rules.

I am certain that Field General does not supersede the One Attack rule:

"Unlike heroes, a figure that has a Deployment card can use only one of its actions to attack per activation. This includes using special actions that involve performing one or more attacks (such as the Nexu’s “Pounce” or Darth Vader’s “Brutality”)."

Meaning that even if a figure were able to use Executive Order on itself to attack, it would still count towards the one attack limit (as a "Special Action"). The reason I say this is because of the conditional "May" in the description: "... May move or attack," and that the wording on this card does not necessitate the overwriting of the One Attack rule.

I have written to FFG on this, and will post the response when it comes. However, I was hoping some of the community members here would share their thoughts and bring clarity to this problem. I will be happy to answer any questions that there might be on this situation. Thank you for any help you can give.

**Update**:The card is Lead by Example: "After a figure resolves Order, it may perform a move. After a figure resolves Executive Order, it may perform a move or attack"

I think you are on the right track that the one attack rule prohibits this from being used to grant a second attack, as for using it to get a move, well, you trade an action to get a move action or use a move action to, you know...seems redundant.

Whether or not the IP should be allowed to then play a card that triggers off Field General, I'll leave to more savvy players to address. I'd probably allow it, since if he uses it on himself, he's still prohibited from attacking, unless he uses another command card. So it would only grant him another move, and that can be useful, but it's no triple attacking rebel-stopping machine.

IMHO: I would think that the omission of "another" is simply that, an omission and will be FAQ'd. The intention of Field General is to grant orders to other figures, not order themselves around the battlefield.

That said, assuming the figure *could* command itself, if it were to use this command to attack, this would hold against the single attack rule, since the attack granted is during that figure's activation. (Remember that the attacks granted outside of a figure's activation do not count against the single attack rule). Subsequent cards or abilities that grant extra attacks that include the word "may" could not be legally used. Furthermore, when a card has a choice of options with "or" in the wording, only legal actions can be chosen. Without the precise wording, it would be difficult to make a judgement on the upgrade card, but I will read a bunch of those cards to give a definitive answer.

In the meantime, I will add this to shed some light on the one attack rule:

It has been ruled (see the To the Limit + Pounce thread), that "may attack" is not mandatory, and if the attack is not performed, then no attack has occurred to trigger the single attack rule.

Thank you folks, I'll talk to him later and see if there are any further questions. I'll also try to find out the name of the other card he is using, and update accordingly.

I'd also like to add, in addition to the extra information in the To The Limit + Pounce thread, I found the Leia Single Purpose and Rules Lawyering thread also helpful

Leaving out "another" definitely seems like an omission. I expect that should be FAQ'd and fixed.

If it's not an omission, however, then I think he's right to say that a figure can use Executive Order on itself, and you're right to cite the "only one attack" during your activation rule.

In regards to the card that allows you (the activating figure) to move or attack after using Execute Order, the same rules apply. If the figure uses Executive Order on itself to move, it COULD then use the card to attack. If it used Executive Order on itself to to attack, however, then you could only use that card to move, not attack, as that violates the "one attack" rule.

TL:DR,
The ability to use Executive Order is either a typo, or it's a useless redundancy because other rules prevent the activating figure from attacking more than once.

Update:

First, the name of the unknown card is Lead by Example:

"After a figure resolves Order, it may perform a move. After a figure resolves Executive Order, it may perform a move or attack."

Second, unbeknownst to myself, our Imperial player opened a topic on this issue on a different website. Here is the link.

Third, in that discussion, a member had apparently already inquired FFG of the omission of "another," and confirmed that it does not mean a figure can Order itself. I don't have the text of the offical ruling, so far as that goes, but I'm farily confident in it.

Finally, with regards to Lead by Example, the other thread had (more or less) concluded (and also claimed a ruling from FFG) that the optional attack gained by Lead by Example does not count toward the total Attack count, as it is not an action. The RRG specifically states that only one action can be used to attack, even if it is an attack through a special move. However, given that the attack or move would be gained after Executive Order is resolved, not during, I think that the "free attack" would logically follow. What are your thoughts?

I agree that it's almost certainly a misprint (not a lot of room for 'another' on the card). But I think that, if it could target yourself, it would go past the one attack restriction.

My ruling (for what little it matters) would be:

• The one attack rule only stops using an action to perform an attack.
• XO says "May interrupt to..."
• Therefore the XO doesn't count as using an action to perform an attack and nor does the attack itself since it's an interrupt.
• So it works (or would if you could XO yourself).

Of course this is moot since Field general should say another. The same logic allows you to attack twice using Lead by Example.

I agree that it's almost certainly a misprint (not a lot of room for 'another' on the card). But I think that, if it could target yourself, it would go past the one attack restriction.

My ruling (for what little it matters) would be:

• The one attack rule only stops using an action to perform an attack.
• XO says "May interrupt to..."
• Therefore the XO doesn't count as using an action to perform an attack and nor does the attack itself since it's an interrupt.
• So it works (or would if you could XO yourself).

Of course this is moot since Field general should say another. The same logic allows you to attack twice using Lead by Example.

But wouldn't it still fall into the category of a Special Action attack? Executive Order is a special action, and it optionally includes an attack.

That does bring up a good question though. When an interrupt occurs and is instigated by the activated figure, do all things that happen during that interrupt occur separately from/external to the figure's activation, where rules like the One-Attack rule don't apply?

I agree that it's almost certainly a misprint (not a lot of room for 'another' on the card). But I think that, if it could target yourself, it would go past the one attack restriction.

My ruling (for what little it matters) would be:

• The one attack rule only stops using an action to perform an attack.
• XO says "May interrupt to..."
• Therefore the XO doesn't count as using an action to perform an attack and nor does the attack itself since it's an interrupt.
• So it works (or would if you could XO yourself).

Of course this is moot since Field general should say another. The same logic allows you to attack twice using Lead by Example.

But wouldn't it still fall into the category of a Special Action attack? Executive Order is a special action, and it optionally includes an attack.

I don't think so. The effect of XO is to give an interrupt. The attack is part of the interrupt, not the action. Of course it's better to email and see if the answer a hypothetical than take my word.

Remember, this whole thing is a moot point once confirmed that a figure cannot order itself. Attacks granted outside of activation do not count against the single attack rule, and that's fairly cut and dry in the community.

Also, on an odd note, my signature has been like this for a month and is related. HEH.

I am certain that Field General does not supersede the One Attack rule.

Correct.

Remember, this whole thing is a moot point once confirmed that a figure cannot order itself. Attacks granted outside of activation do not count against the single attack rule, and that's fairly cut and dry in the community.

Also, on an odd note, my signature has been like this for a month and is related. HEH.

It's worth pointing out that, even if he could order himself (which he can't), the interrupt attack from XO still happens during his own activation.

Officer Activates;

1st action: Attacks

2nd action: Uses Order to give himself the interrupt attack

Interrupt: Attack

Officer ends Activation

Interrupt actions in another figures activation don't trigger the "one attack per activation" rule.

But would interrupt actions during your own activation trigger the rule or not?

Are interrupt actions still actions for the purpose of "one action that causes an attack"?

Interrupt actions in another figures activation don't trigger the "one attack per activation" rule.

But would interrupt actions during your own activation trigger the rule or not?

Are interrupt actions still actions for the purpose of "one action that causes an attack"?

My feeling is interrupts aren't actions at all.

Interrupts are not actions, nor do they change which figure currently is "activated". When we are talking about attacks granted outside of activation, what we mean is if figure A is currently activated and grants figure B an attack. Figure B is gaining an attack outside of activation, this has no effect on figure A's attack count.

If figure A were to interrupt itself (which, yes, you can interrupt your own activation), to give itself an attack, this attack is during the figure's activation and as such, is subject to the single attack rule.

Interrupts are not actions, nor do they change which figure currently is "activated". When we are talking about attacks granted outside of activation, what we mean is if figure A is currently activated and grants figure B an attack. Figure B is gaining an attack outside of activation, this has no effect on figure A's attack count.

If figure A were to interrupt itself (which, yes, you can interrupt your own activation), to give itself an attack, this attack is during the figure's activation and as such, is subject to the single attack rule.

Not to split hairs, but if you could bring further clarity to one point, I would greatly appreciate it.

What about Lead by Example? It is not an action, yet it is during a figure's activation that it triggers. Does the one attack rule apply to the activation as a whole, or just to actions?

A non-hero figure can use only one of its actions to perform

an attack per activation.

Also Relevant

Numerous game effects allow figures to attack, rest, interact, or

perform a move without performing an action.

Lead by Example is clearly this and I'd say that XO would be as well.

Also I just made a query to see if they'll clarify the latter despite being hypothetical.

There's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law. When the letter of the law seems to go against the spirit of the law then things get weird and broken, in my opinion.

I mean, really? A figure orders itself? What, is he schizophrenic? Perhaps he lacks the gumption needed, so he verbally psychs himself up? How does this work? It's weird and goes against the spirit of the law, and in my opinion you have to ignore the obvious intent of the developers to do it.

Have you ever seen Hulk Hogan push himself? (The classic Hulk-Up!)

He's actually a Thakwaash, and he has multiple personalities, each with different skill sets...

very specific skill sets...

I had an awesome post written to explain the timing of all this, with color coding and everything......and then I accidentally hit F5.

I'm too pissed to re-write it now.

Necroing this in case anyone else is interested: I just got a response to my query from Paul:

Odd that Paul would respond like that, he could have just pointed you to the errata in today's FAQ:

FIELD OFFICER/FIELD GENERAL

The first sentence of the special action of both cards should read:
“Choose another friendly figure within 2 spaces.”

An officer cannot "Order" himself.

IMHO: I would think that the omission of "another" is simply that, an omission and will be FAQ'd.

My question was:

...if it were possible would this count against the one attack limit for the activation? My intuition would be no since it allows an interrupt rather than directly causing the attack.

So that would be why he responded.