I know this has been covered elsewhere, but I can't remember the thread and am having a hard time finding it again.

So what's the deal this? The particular card I'm thinking of is the Leebo crew card but I know this verbiage exists on others that I'm just not remembering. What issue is being addressed in classifying the boost granted by Leebo as a free action? The end result is still that you have to use your one action to do the boost, right? What am I missing?

Another you're thinking of is "Expert Handling".

These actions are both more than the action in question, though. Leebo is a Boost + Ion Token, while Expert Handling is a Barrel Roll + Target Lock removal + Possible Stress.

The long and short of it, however, is that there are plenty of methods of giving ships a Free Action, with Push the Limit being the most iconic.

The phrasing on the cards is put into place so you can't do the action, and then do the equivalent upgrade-action, in the same round. Double Boost or Double Barrel-Roll would be overpowered.

You used your single action to use Leebo since he's an Action: header card. If Leebo just said 'take a boost action', by the letter of the rules the card would be broken, as in non-functional broken, as you're only allowed one action normally. Also, the wording allows an interrupt(EI, or I guess PtL if Boost happens to be on your action bar already My logic was backwards, you could trigger either EI or PtL off of the free Boost in the middle) before taking the ion token, if it matters.

Edit: What Dracon said regarding blocking Leebo Action followed by Boost, the actual action, in the same turn also applies; you've already done the Boost action if you've used Leebo and so can't get around that restriction.

It also precludes any bickering when you would put Leebo on a CR-90.

It also precludes any bickering when you would put Leebo on a CR-90.

Oh god the argument this would spawn would be hilarious.

"Wait, what the hell are you doing? Come on dude boost on huge ships doesn't work like that."

"Oh yeah? Show me."

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)

If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)

So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

Why is it not possible to 'perform a boost'?

Other game effects often associated with actions can take place without actions being performed - why not boost?

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

Why is it not possible to 'perform a boost'?

Other game effects often associated with actions can take place without actions being performed - why not boost?

Yeah, I'm not too sure where VS was going with that second one either. If it just said "Action: perform a boost" then that would be the action, and it would leave you free to perform a boost action later on as well.

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

Why is it not possible to 'perform a boost'?

Other game effects often associated with actions can take place without actions being performed - why not boost?

Yeah, I'm not too sure where VS was going with that second one either. If it just said "Action: perform a boost" then that would be the action, and it would leave you free to perform a boost action later on as well.

Which is rather overpowered.

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

Why is it not possible to 'perform a boost'?

Other game effects often associated with actions can take place without actions being performed - why not boost?

It is possible, but you'll likely never see it on a card because then you could "perform a boost" and do a regular old boost action in the same round.

That is actually why Expert Handling was errata'd back in the day. It used to say "Action: perform a barrel roll (etc)", but then people clued on to the fact that this wasn't actually a barrel roll action. So someone like, say, Vader could Expert Handling for one action, then Barrel Roll for another and thus perform two consecutive barrel rolls.

That is actually why Expert Handling was errata'd back in the day. It used to say "Action: perform a barrel roll (etc)", but then people clued on to the fact that this wasn't actually a barrel roll action. So someone like, say, Vader could Expert Handling for one action, then Barrel Roll for another and thus perform two consecutive barrel rolls.

Which could be used to take the Phantom's original Decloak mechanic, but using a 3 template instead, with a 1/2 ship's more sagittal drift.

Also known as entirely overpowered.

If it said "Action: perform a boost action," then arguably you couldn't execute the card text unless you had two actions available. (Alternately, it's just poor rule templating.)If it said "Action: perform a boost," then it couldn't be done at all. (That is, we'd mostly know what it meant, but again it would be a badly written rule.)So it's written as "Action: perform a free boost action," in order to sidestep both of those issues.

Why is it not possible to 'perform a boost'?

Other game effects often associated with actions can take place without actions being performed - why not boost?

Actually, "acquire a target lock" is the only game effect that works that way. We see "assign a focus token" rather than "perform a focus", because "focus" isn't an operation we can perform on a game element. It's the same with boost: "perform a boost action" is defined, but "perform a boost" isn't.

Actually, "acquire a target lock" is the only game effect that works that way. We see "assign a focus token" rather than "perform a focus", because "focus" isn't an operation we can perform on a game element. It's the same with boost: "perform a boost action" is defined, but "perform a boost" isn't.

This. It's not impossible that some future revision of the rules could define what "boost" and "barrel roll" mean independent of the actions of the same name, but that's not where we are now. And as the assorted dragons have pointed out, the only real upshot of doing so would be to allow certain cards that mimic their effects to become really OP.

ETA: Except Decloak is worded in exactly this way, as Forgottenlore is about to point out.

Actually, "acquire a target lock" is the only game effect that works that way. We see "assign a focus token" rather than "perform a focus", because "focus" isn't an operation we can perform on a game element. It's the same with boost: "perform a boost action" is defined, but "perform a boost" isn't.

Decloaking involves the ship performing either a barrel roll or a boost (with additional stuff), not performing one of those actions. If FFG were so inclined, a card that allowed a ship to "perform a boost" would function exactly the same way.

Actually, "acquire a target lock" is the only game effect that works that way. We see "assign a focus token" rather than "perform a focus", because "focus" isn't an operation we can perform on a game element. It's the same with boost: "perform a boost action" is defined, but "perform a boost" isn't.

Decloaking involves the ship performing either a barrel roll or a boost (with additional stuff), not performing one of those actions. If FFG were so inclined, a card that allowed a ship to "perform a boost" would function exactly the same way.

Ah, good point. Well, you see, Decloak doesn't work to establish a precedent because mumble mumble....

Actually, "acquire a target lock" is the only game effect that works that way. We see "assign a focus token" rather than "perform a focus", because "focus" isn't an operation we can perform on a game element. It's the same with boost: "perform a boost action" is defined, but "perform a boost" isn't.

Decloaking involves the ship performing either a barrel roll or a boost (with additional stuff), not performing one of those actions. If FFG were so inclined, a card that allowed a ship to "perform a boost" would function exactly the same way.

You're right. I hadn't thought of that.