HI,

Im new to these boards and also new to Imperial assault, so please excuse my lack of experience/general ignorance.

I am after a rules clarification regarding the "To The Limit" card within the skirmish game.

I have checked and double checked the rules on this and still unsure what is intended. Both myself and a friend read this rule in and have completely different views on this. Please help if possible, giving details of your understanding, as this will strengthen our understanding (makes it sound like a essay, sorry!!!! hehe)

Our references were:

To the Limit:

"After you resolve a Special Action during your activation perform 1 additional action , Then you become stunned "

"Attacking: Figures can only use one of their 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”)."

(PAGE 5 of the Skirmish pdf)

"During a figure’s activation, it may perform two actions. The available actions are Attack, Move, Interact, Rest, and Special."

(PAGE 3 of the Rules reference guide pdf)

Similar cards that we've seen:

Flurry of Blows (allows 3 attacks for 2 special actions)

Hit and Run (special action makes you attack and the +3 movement).

​Now supposing that page 5 of the skirmish rules is to be obeyed in total (Figures can only use one of their actions to attack per activation) this would render these cards incorrect (which I don't perceive to be the case, else why were they worded in such an easy to understand manner). The issue I perceive is that in which the rules integrate with each other. For continuity purposes, it appears that cards overwrite the basic rules by allow special circumstances to arise, how else could you explain Hit and Run or Flurry of Blows (ref above)? If flurry of blows is as simple on understand as it appears, then it is likely that the intention is that "To the Limit" should follow the same overwriting rules that govern Flurry of Blows, which is that the card takes precedence over the basic rules. Assuming the same rules govern these cards. I also read that the extra action can also be an attack ("During a figure’s activation, it may perform two actions. The available actions are Attack, Move, Interact, Rest, and Special), therefore this extra action as detailed on the card being played, is afforded the same legality as other cards which are of similar description albeit, one states attack, whilst the other states action (which an attack is apart of).

Now on the flip side,

If "To the Limit" is to only refer to moves/interacts etc. Then what rule governs and explains this, in isolation of other cards that enables multiple attacks? should/is this rule restrictive to other cards within the game? As stated, I am only just getting familiar with many of the cards out there and there are still many i don't have/seen so, I am sure there could be others which are difficult to reference rules for.

I am not professing to know the answer to this question, in fact quite the opposite! As I am new to the game, I had thought I would pose this question on the official forum to gain an insight to the intentions, as this can often be lost upon release of newer expansions etc. I have bought lots of expansions all at once and thus, have a huge pile of everything in a lump of craziness!! I have trawled the FAQ and have yet to find a sufficient end point to my question. I am sure someone will want to write: "ANSWER" but it will not really lead to my full grasp as to "WHY?" this is the answer, or the mechanics of its application.

I think I have a steady grasp on the rules I have read so far, but this one has very much beaten me! I am dyslexic, so the written format is seldom my best. I do however, have a knack of finding these tricky rules in every game I play, mainly where cross referring different rules are concerned . Hopefully it won't be as tricky for others to explain.

Cheers

Mick

I think all the parts to the answer are there in your post but simply you are looking for a reason that those aren't the correct answer.

As the rules reference says, you are only allowed to perform 1 attack per turn, and yes the cards do allow you override the rules when it explicitly tells you to. I emphasis the last part because in every instance that allows you to attack twice (Pummel etc.) it explicitly says that you can.

As To the Limit does not provide that text then it is clear to say that you cannot perform an additional action that performs an attack.

Furthermore, due to the fact that you get stunned as soon as you finish resolving the card, and the oddity of how the movement action doesn’t actually do anything other than giving you X movement points, you can't actually use "to the Limit" to move either (well technically you can you just end up being stunned with X movements points that you can't use).

To the Limit is actually a very narrow card that whilst can be potentially powerful, will more often than not leave you stunned where you don’t want to be.

Thanks Mace Windu,

I was drawing on the conclusion that an attack is classified as an action (as per page 3 of the Rules Ref guide), thereby it being allowed as the action this card allows. Else it would inform you to make a Move or Interact action, thus avoiding any misunderstanding.

Becoming stunned seems to be a big negative in this game, so its hard to understand how such a huge negative should be applied to such a limited card. But I feel that FFG could clarify their "Intention" for this card for it to be properly understood. I fully understand both sides of the argument and feel comfortable with either choice tbh. I just don't want to play a game with a friend and enter a game of linguistical twister for an hour. As that card "could" play an important part of my strategy and effect several models. Board games are really hard to rewind hehe

Cheers

Mick

You can do stuff like:
​Vader - Move, Brutality, To the Limit, Force Choke

or

Stormtrooper - Move, Grenadier command card, To the Limit, attack

But generally, To the Limit is a pretty bad card.

You can use it to get Gaarkhan 3 attacks in a round.

I feel like its a similar discussion as this:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/184087-leia-single-purpose-and-rules-lawyering/page-3

In that thread, a designer (Paul) had emailed the questioner back and said specifically that no, you cannot use Single Purpose to do Brutality with Vader twice.

If Single Purpose doesn't override the restriction(and it lets you use the same action twice) I don't believe that To the Limit would either.

I've used the card for Gideon to let him focus two different figures each for his activation.

I've used the card for Gideon to let him focus two different figures each for his activation.

To the limit? Then you cheated, because you can only use a special action once per activation. If you meant Single Purpose, that's fine.

The only thing To the Limit does is let you take another action. That is it. It doesn't let you do anything else that normally isn't allowed.

Whilst that makes perfect sense @Nusair, some cards allow you to make multiple attacks. My point is, how do you differentiate which cards allow this and which cards do not? There should be some special rule or list of "official" examples imho. Some rules are rather grey in their meaning. Only make one attack per activation is as simple as it gets tbh. but, then you create a card that trumps the basic rule and create a similar card that doesn't. It leads for a very confusing introduction to the game. I would love to see more people playing this tbh, its a cracking game!! It just feels like a mine field to understand the gaming concepts. almost as though your not learning the rules, but having to learn each card in isolation to the rest. Also very little in the way of progress with the FAQ. This should be a huge dumping ground of "Official" examples to aide the player. Each card in alphabetical order. If someone writes in (as i have) then those questions should hit the FAQ page in order to reduce question traffic. This will cause little work (copy/paste) other than a little edit here and there and provide a reliable "Go To" page.

Not to imply this is the case here but, sometimes peer pressure can amplify mistakes (as everyone thinks they understand the rule the same, but intact are all making the same mistake) and once that happens in can compound the issue. I am sure people have the best intentions though, as I'm sure there are players with a huge knowledge base within the Imperial Assault game.

Watched the IA podcast (with Fully Op, FIxx and Wampa James) yesterday and it was really great to see people chatting about mechanics and models. Hope they get some FFG support to increase their output and enthuse other gamers, whilst also providing a good knowledge base for veteran and beginners alike!

cheers again

Mick

Your argument is basically equivalent to saying this:

My figure is stunned, but why can't he use To the Limit to perform an attack? The card says he can perform an extra action, so that overrides the rule where stun normally doesn't allow attacks, right?

That should seem like an obviously ridiculous argument. The reason is because you're trying to say the card breaks rules that aren't even mentioned on the card. What you're suggesting is similar.

Since To the Limit doesn't mention the rule about attacks, it doesn't break the rule about attacks.

No but there is the rule that you can only attack once per activation. Yet there are cards that allow for this to be overridden and attack multiple times. What I am trying to understand is, why is this card any different for those other cards? If there is a card that says use 2 special actions to make 3 attacks. The To the Limit card states use another action. An attack is an action, so theoretically can be used. Now assuming To the Limit does not allow this extra attacknow, because it clearly states in the rules that you can only attack once. Then how does the, use 2 special actions to gain 3 attacks gain validaty? Obviously it states so in the latter case, but drawing a logical process from this is that the small cards can/may/do override the fact you may only attack once. I 7nderstand both rules, I just don't understand how they mesh logically together. At best there are separate rules for these cards that I have yet to see. I don't care which is right, I just want to play with better clarity and understanding.

I hope I've made the question a little clearer above. Sorry if I've made it worse. Not had much sleep and it's yet again 0435hrs and Metallica is sponsoring me to stare at the ceiling lots. Hehe.

Flurry of Blades is a single special action that requires 2 actions to use.

And the card explicitly says "Perform 3 attacks", not "Perform 3 actions".

The only time you can break the rules is when the card says you can break the rules. "Perform 3 attacks" explicitly says to do 3 attacks.

"Perform another action" doesn't say, "Perform another action, and you can attack twice this activation."

By your logic, To the Limit says "Perform an additional action", so why can't I do an attack even though I'm stunned? It is an action, and the card says I can perform it. The reason is because you can't just break rules that aren't even mentioned on the cards.

Do what the cards say you can do. Do not do what the cards do not say you can do.

What exactly is the problem, here? : )

Whilst that makes perfect sense @Nusair, some cards allow you to make multiple attacks. My point is, how do you differentiate which cards allow this and which cards do not? There should be some special rule or list of "official" examples imho. Some rules are rather grey in their meaning. Only make one attack per activation is as simple as it gets tbh. but, then you create a card that trumps the basic rule and create a similar card that doesn't. It leads for a very confusing introduction to the game. I would love to see more people playing this tbh, its a cracking game!! It just feels like a mine field to understand the gaming concepts. almost as though your not learning the rules, but having to learn each card in isolation to the rest. Also very little in the way of progress with the FAQ. This should be a huge dumping ground of "Official" examples to aide the player. Each card in alphabetical order. If someone writes in (as i have) then those questions should hit the FAQ page in order to reduce question traffic. This will cause little work (copy/paste) other than a little edit here and there and provide a reliable "Go To" page.

Not to imply this is the case here but, sometimes peer pressure can amplify mistakes (as everyone thinks they understand the rule the same, but intact are all making the same mistake) and once that happens in can compound the issue. I am sure people have the best intentions though, as I'm sure there are players with a huge knowledge base within the Imperial Assault game.

Watched the IA podcast (with Fully Op, FIxx and Wampa James) yesterday and it was really great to see people chatting about mechanics and models. Hope they get some FFG support to increase their output and enthuse other gamers, whilst also providing a good knowledge base for veteran and beginners alike!

cheers again

Mick

Ummmm, because the card tells you. Just look at Pummel- it specifically says two attacks. Look at to the limit--- does it say anything about attacks? No... so no breaking the 1 attack per activation rule. It's really not that hard, the cards are not trying to trick you.

There is a rule that says you can only attack once per activation. Unless a card specifically says you can attack more than that, you cannot.

If more actions meant you could attack more- then Lord of the Sith would be the most broken card in the game. BY FAR.

some cards allow you to make multiple attacks. My point is, how do you differentiate which cards allow this and which cards do not?

Actually, there are three rules, one saying, that you can't attack more than once per activation, one saying that you can't use a special action more than once per activation, and a third one saying, that you can't use more than two actions per activation.

Some rules and cards override one these rules to give you additional attacks (Assault, Pummel), or to give you a second use of a special action (Single Purpose), or to give you another action (To The Limit).

But if a card does not explicitly say, that it overrides more than one of the rules, than it does not override more than one of the rules.

Forgive the obvious question, but all of the above debate about the extra action being an attack or not is based on the idea that you can only use one action during your ACTIVATION to attack. There doesn't appear to be anything on the card To The Limit to indicate it is during your ACTIVATION. Which, if it's outside of your ACTIVATION, this is a moot to point...

Certainly another interesting point. I had not spotted that tbh. So are you also saying that a card may be played on a figure OUTSIDE of its activation? Maybe a model the interrupts then also plays this card? Or a model that has already spent his activations a few activations ago?

I don't think the size of the cards help tbh. They don't really allow for a good explanation of the card, like other games like Warmachine/Wrath of Kings/Wild West Exodus.

From what I can tell though, albeit from my limited time frame within the IA game, it is progressing and it is getting better. Hopefully more interaction (especially within the rules forum) by official staff will help out the game further. I'm just going through my teeth in stage perhaps, I'm sure the penny will drop soon. Hehe

Sorry I can't answer your question though. Like you, I want to understand the rules process more than getting the answer to what the card can do. This aids for a better understanding of the game rules, as you can apply what you have learnt to differing situations.

The grammar of the card is an IF-THEN. If you use special action during your activation, which can only be two actions unless the card specifically stated otherwise which it doesn't, then you get an additional action. To me if would function like parting shot of the Hired Guns.

@Jddilfer,

You are indeed correct. cancel my last