I know that's a rather vague question, but what it boils down to is this: Does the term "immediately" carry any extra weight in the game of X-Wing, when it comes to triggers? Is there a fundamental difference between "When X, you may Y" and "When X, you may immediately Y"? If you have one trigger that says "After A, you may B," and another that says "Immediately after A, you may C," can you choose an order, or is there a pre-determined set of what happens when?

I have a take on this, but want to hear what others have to say. Fundamentally, though, I see up to five situations that could occur... and want to know if the order of executing them is optional or mandatory. I can rationalize an order grammatically, but there may be certain guidelines to how this game parses things.

1. Immediately after X, you must Y. (must "immediately mandatory" always happen first?)

2. After X, you must Y. (is this functionally the same as #1?)

3. Immediately after X, you may Y. (do mandatory and optional effects have an order of operation?)

4. After X, you may immediately Y. (does "immediately after" happen before "after," or concurrently?)

5. After X, you may Y. (same question as #4)

There's one pretty major card interaction I'm thinking about in particular, that could have some serious repercussions if there is an "official" ruling on it!

Thanks!

There's still some debate as to how much weight the word "immediately" carries within the game. In most situations, it simply means follow something straight away. There could be an action or mechanic that takes place that could quite possibly trigger multiple things at the same time as the "immediately" thing.

Mandatory things are a little more defined. When a card or ability features the word "must" then you have to do that. If a card or ability features the word "cannot" then it forbids something and can't be overridden by another card or ability. Those are two key words used within the rules and card abilities. When a card or ability feature "may" it becomes player choice. When a card or ability features "immediately", this may create a timing window that comes into play.

Gunner for example, allows a primary weapon attack immediately after an attack that missed. However, that missed attack can trigger Fire Control System which can give you a target lock before you get to the "immediately" part that gives you another attack. That target lock can be used during that attack

So in most instances, "immediately" doesn't exclude other things from happening, but it does still happen as soon as it is possible for it to happen. That's a fairly general summary.

What was the "pretty major card interaction" you were contemplating?

What was the "pretty major card interaction" you were contemplating?

Specifically, the Fire Control System / Gunner interaction you explained. While I agree that your interpretation is the way the cards are INTENDED to be used, I can see that a rules lawyer / grammar policeman could argue that the "immediately" of Gunner insists that it be started and resolved before Fire Control System can trigger.

I guess I'm kind of stuck on the idea of "The Stack" from Magic: The Gathering, where you pile effects up as they trigger, then resolve them one at a time.

What was the "pretty major card interaction" you were contemplating?

Specifically, the Fire Control System / Gunner interaction you explained. While I agree that your interpretation is the way the cards are INTENDED to be used, I can see that a rules lawyer / grammar policeman could argue that the "immediately" of Gunner insists that it be started and resolved before Fire Control System can trigger.

I guess I'm kind of stuck on the idea of "The Stack" from Magic: The Gathering, where you pile effects up as they trigger, then resolve them one at a time.

No stack like that over here. You've got a pool of stuff that triggered, the player with initiative resolves his triggered effectrs, then the player without initiative resolves theirs. They resolve their respective effects in any order they choose. Once they've chosen to resolve an effect they need to continue resolving everything that subsequently triggers before coming back to the pool to resolve the next effect.

I think that the FAQ entry on how Leebo and Determination interact sets a precedent that "immediately" is essentially a meaningless term.

FAQ, pg 9:

... I can see that a rules lawyer / grammar policeman could argue that the "immediately" of Gunner insists that it be started and resolved before Fire Control System can trigger.

"Immediate" effects resolve prior to non-immediate effects? That is a common assumption. Which is proven wrong by counterexample: The non-immediate Vader resolves prior to the immediate gunner.

For all intends and purposes "immediately" has no meaning at all.

... I can see that a rules lawyer / grammar policeman could argue that the "immediately" of Gunner insists that it be started and resolved before Fire Control System can trigger.

"Immediate" effects resolve prior to non-immediate effects? That is a common assumption. Which is proven wrong by counterexample: The non-immediate Vader resolves prior to the immediate gunner.

For all intends and purposes "immediately" has no meaning at all.

Vader + Gunner gets a nice buff if "immediately" starts to have meaning.

Yeah, immediately has essentially been interpreted by FFG as having no meaning.

Yeah, immediately has essentially been interpreted by FFG as having no meaning.

It's not just FFG, it's games in general. The second you introduce a second card with the term "immediately" both cease to have any value, as you're back to square one in having to find some other way to determine the order those two effects get resolved.

I've always hated the use of "immediately" in games.

The second you introduce a second card with the term "immediately" both cease to have any value, as you're back to square one in having to find some other way to determine the order those two effects get resolved.

That's not intractable, though. We already have a mechanism for resolving more than one card with the same trigger. Or FFG could rule that only one "immediately" effect can trigger.

Immediately only has a meaning if it changes the timing window.

HLC modifies Crits immediately, where dice modifications would normally happen in the next step.

Otherwise it is just superfluous.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

"Immediately" doesn't have a RAW definition.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Reading through I don't see why Gunner's "immediately" only matters in some cases but not in others. If immediately means something, then using FCS first would close the window for Gunner to trigger because the thing that would immediately proceed Gunner is acquiring a target lock, not missing an attack.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Reading through I don't see why Gunner's "immediately" only matters in some cases but not in others. If immediately means something, then using FCS first would close the window for Gunner to trigger because the thing that would immediately proceed Gunner is acquiring a target lock, not missing an attack.

Well, it's because of where the word Immediately falls in the respective sentences.

On HLC the directions read:

Attack 1 ship.

Immediately after rolling

your attack dice...

This use of the word "immediately" means the player must do something at the specific point in time indicated. Immediately is describing the point at which the player must (if able) perform a specific task.

On Gunner the directions read:

After you perform an attack

that does not hit, you may

immediately perform...

On this card, immediately is used to describe that the player is able to perform a task during a specific window of time and (more importantly) also limits that task to that very specific window.

It seems redundant when viewed in a small sample of two very specific cards. If, however, we look at the game as a whole, and take into account the many opportunities there are to perform tasks and the sometimes complicated interactions of those tasks, we can see that the wording really often serves a purpose.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Reading through I don't see why Gunner's "immediately" only matters in some cases but not in others. If immediately means something, then using FCS first would close the window for Gunner to trigger because the thing that would immediately proceed Gunner is acquiring a target lock, not missing an attack.

Well, it's because of where the word Immediately falls in the respective sentences.

On HLC the directions read:

Attack 1 ship.

Immediately after rolling

your attack dice...

This use of the word "immediately" means the player must do something at the specific point in time indicated. Immediately is describing the point at which the player must (if able) perform a specific task.

On Gunner the directions read:

After you perform an attack

that does not hit, you may

immediately perform...

On this card, immediately is used to describe that the player is able to perform a task during a specific window of time and (more importantly) also limits that task to that very specific window.

It seems redundant when viewed in a small sample of two very specific cards. If, however, we look at the game as a whole, and take into account the many opportunities there are to perform tasks and the sometimes complicated interactions of those tasks, we can see that the wording really often serves a purpose.

How are you in that very specific time window if the last thing that you did was to acquire a target lock?

Either of those cards could be rewritten using the grammatical structure of the other with no change in their meaning.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Reading through I don't see why Gunner's "immediately" only matters in some cases but not in others. If immediately means something, then using FCS first would close the window for Gunner to trigger because the thing that would immediately proceed Gunner is acquiring a target lock, not missing an attack.

Well, it's because of where the word Immediately falls in the respective sentences.

On HLC the directions read:

Attack 1 ship.

Immediately after rolling

your attack dice...

This use of the word "immediately" means the player must do something at the specific point in time indicated. Immediately is describing the point at which the player must (if able) perform a specific task.

On Gunner the directions read:

After you perform an attack

that does not hit, you may

immediately perform...

On this card, immediately is used to describe that the player is able to perform a task during a specific window of time and (more importantly) also limits that task to that very specific window.

It seems redundant when viewed in a small sample of two very specific cards. If, however, we look at the game as a whole, and take into account the many opportunities there are to perform tasks and the sometimes complicated interactions of those tasks, we can see that the wording really often serves a purpose.

How are you in that very specific time window if the last thing that you did was to acquire a target lock?

Either of those cards could be rewritten using the grammatical structure of the other with no change in their meaning.

Originals:

After you perform an attack that does not hit, you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack.

Immediately after rolling your attack dice, you must change all of your [CRIT] results to [HIT] results.

Grammar swapped:

After rolling your attack dice, you must immediately change all of your [CRIT] results to [HIT] results.

Immediately after you perform an attack that does not hit, you may perform a primary weapon attack.

There is a fundamental change to the Gunner crew card if you rewrite it this way. In the example with the grammar swapped, you would be required to perform your Gunner attack before doing anything else in the "after attacking phase". As soon as the players finished comparing results, if it was a miss, the attacker would need to declare, measure and attack again. No FCS or other post attack events.

If there were more events that could occur after rolling dice and before modifying them during the attack phase, then the rewording to HLC would allow you to do those things before changing [CRIT] results to [HIT]s.

When a player has multiple things that can happen at the same time, they choose the order that these events are resolved. In the case of HLC (original wording) it describes the exact moment and order that you must resolve it. "Immediately after rolling attack dice" This is before any of the other steps in the attack process. It is also before any ability or upgrade that occurs after the attack roll and before the modification step.

In the case of Gunner (original wording), the point in time described is "After performing an attack that does not hit". The use of immediately is what limits the action to that window and not some later point. FCS, the target lock you are asking about, also occurs in that window, it does not create a new one.

Immediately doesn't just have one meaning but several.

With HLC it means right afte you roll the attack dice but before anything else.

With Gunner it means in the window after an attack that does not hit.

The grammar is actually important. It's how we derive meaning from a group of words.

There is a huge difference between "Immediately after doing something, do this" and "After doing something that ends like that, you may immediately do this"

A word like immediately having multiple meanings in the context of a game like X-Wing is extremely problematic, especially when none of those meanings or an explanation of how you choose which one to use appears in the rules.

Take a look at Gunner and Luke then look at IG-88B's pilot ability. In the newer card, immediately has been omitted. I believe that's because it was meaningless and served no purpose beyond making card text longer.

Maybe so, however Luke and Gunner have been subject to Errata in the past. Immediately was left in.

I think too often people look for game developers to define every word used on their cards. We have a set of rules that govern word usage already, so really the Devs should only need to define a term if they need to limit its meaning beyond the limitations of the language.

I know that as we translate cards, the literal translations can be problematic. So, using the rules of grammar and context of a specific language allows the cards to be clear. With English, the location of a comma or the position of a word in a sentence can greatly affect its meaning. It is up to the reader to interpret this. This is one of the reasons why it's important to read the cards carefully and in their entirety.

This game, I've noticed, has a lot of interactions that initially seem broken. After carefully reading, and testing, I have found that usually if you follow what it says on the card to the letter, and within the written rules of the game, things work very well.

When I've tried to over interpret or infer things beyond the written word, that's when I have run into problems.

These forums are a great source of information, but many times people get focused on one sentence, phrase or word, and miss the entire message as a result.

Reading through I don't see why Gunner's "immediately" only matters in some cases but not in others. If immediately means something, then using FCS first would close the window for Gunner to trigger because the thing that would immediately proceed Gunner is acquiring a target lock, not missing an attack.

Well, it's because of where the word Immediately falls in the respective sentences.

On HLC the directions read:

Attack 1 ship.

Immediately after rolling

your attack dice...

This use of the word "immediately" means the player must do something at the specific point in time indicated. Immediately is describing the point at which the player must (if able) perform a specific task.

On Gunner the directions read:

After you perform an attack

that does not hit, you may

immediately perform...

On this card, immediately is used to describe that the player is able to perform a task during a specific window of time and (more importantly) also limits that task to that very specific window.

It seems redundant when viewed in a small sample of two very specific cards. If, however, we look at the game as a whole, and take into account the many opportunities there are to perform tasks and the sometimes complicated interactions of those tasks, we can see that the wording really often serves a purpose.

How are you in that very specific time window if the last thing that you did was to acquire a target lock?

Either of those cards could be rewritten using the grammatical structure of the other with no change in their meaning.

Originals:

After you perform an attack that does not hit, you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack.

Immediately after rolling your attack dice, you must change all of your [CRIT] results to [HIT] results.

Grammar swapped:

After rolling your attack dice, you must immediately change all of your [CRIT] results to [HIT] results.

Immediately after you perform an attack that does not hit, you may perform a primary weapon attack.

There is a fundamental change to the Gunner crew card if you rewrite it this way. In the example with the grammar swapped, you would be required to perform your Gunner attack before doing anything else in the "after attacking phase". As soon as the players finished comparing results, if it was a miss, the attacker would need to declare, measure and attack again. No FCS or other post attack events.

If there were more events that could occur after rolling dice and before modifying them during the attack phase, then the rewording to HLC would allow you to do those things before changing [CRIT] results to [HIT]s.

When a player has multiple things that can happen at the same time, they choose the order that these events are resolved. In the case of HLC (original wording) it describes the exact moment and order that you must resolve it. "Immediately after rolling attack dice" This is before any of the other steps in the attack process. It is also before any ability or upgrade that occurs after the attack roll and before the modification step.

In the case of Gunner (original wording), the point in time described is "After performing an attack that does not hit". The use of immediately is what limits the action to that window and not some later point. FCS, the target lock you are asking about, also occurs in that window, it does not create a new one.

That still makes no sense. The difference you claim exists is overly complicated and involves too much hair-splitting to be used in rules language

The most recent FAQ defines the term "Perform this attack twice" to mean “After

"Perform this attack twice"...

When you see that sentence you are reading it as: "Perform TWO attacks",

When I see it, I am reading it as: "Perform this ATTACK (singular) twice (repeat the procedure)".

In the rules, during the combat round, it says you are to perform one attack against one opponent [exceptions: Corran Horn's pilot ability, Ghost/Phantom title cards... ]. The upgrade cards for TLT and CM are both "a single attack with repeated procedures" (i.e. doubling the output).

Cards like GUNNER,LUKE or others that "After an attack..." have to wait until the full effect of TLT and CM has been applied before activating their effect. Apply this logic as the intention then all the cards make sense as written. GUNNER would have to have both rolls on TLT or CM to miss in order to activate.

"Perform this attack twice"...

When you see that sentence you are reading it as: "Perform TWO attacks",

When I see it, I am reading it as: "Perform this ATTACK (singular) twice (repeat the procedure)".

In the rules, during the combat round, it says you are to perform one attack against one opponent [exceptions: Corran Horn's pilot ability, Ghost/Phantom title cards... ]. The upgrade cards for TLT and CM are both "a single attack with repeated procedures" (i.e. doubling the output).

Cards like GUNNER,LUKE or others that "After an attack..." have to wait until the full effect of TLT and CM has been applied before activating their effect. Apply this logic as the intention then all the cards make sense as written. GUNNER would have to have both rolls on TLT or CM to miss in order to activate.

You are performing two attacks. The cards says as much and the FAQ backs that up. I see that phrase and I look at the FAQ entry that defines that phrase instead of making up my own interpretation. I've quoted it before, I'll quote it again:

"Perform this attack twice"...

When you see that sentence you are reading it as: "Perform TWO attacks",

When I see it, I am reading it as: "Perform this ATTACK (singular) twice (repeat the procedure)".

In the rules, during the combat round, it says you are to perform one attack against one opponent [exceptions: Corran Horn's pilot ability, Ghost/Phantom title cards... ]. The upgrade cards for TLT and CM are both "a single attack with repeated procedures" (i.e. doubling the output).

Cards like GUNNER,LUKE or others that "After an attack..." have to wait until the full effect of TLT and CM has been applied before activating their effect. Apply this logic as the intention then all the cards make sense as written. GUNNER would have to have both rolls on TLT or CM to miss in order to activate.

You are performing two attacks. The cards says as much and the FAQ backs that up. I see that phrase and I look at the FAQ entry that defines that phrase instead of making up my own interpretation. I've quoted it before, I'll quote it again:

'Perform This Attack Twice

When a card effect instructs you to perform an attack twice, it means: “After

you perform this attack for the first time, perform another attack against the

same target using this weapon.” When performing the second attack, the

weapon and target are not declared again as they remain the same, and any

cost for the attacks is not paid again.'

When attacking with TLT or Cluster Missile you have your initial attack, which then has an "after attacking" effect of allowing you to attack the same target the same same weapon without needing to pay any associated cost.

Timing-wise, both of these attacks, from TLT and CM, are meant to have their full effect enacted before another upgrade/ability is suppose to occur.

I can be wrong, that is possible. Is their another case where one upgrade card or pilot ability interrupts another upgrade card's effect from completing?

"Perform this attack twice"...

When you see that sentence you are reading it as: "Perform TWO attacks",

When I see it, I am reading it as: "Perform this ATTACK (singular) twice (repeat the procedure)".

In the rules, during the combat round, it says you are to perform one attack against one opponent [exceptions: Corran Horn's pilot ability, Ghost/Phantom title cards... ]. The upgrade cards for TLT and CM are both "a single attack with repeated procedures" (i.e. doubling the output).

Cards like GUNNER,LUKE or others that "After an attack..." have to wait until the full effect of TLT and CM has been applied before activating their effect. Apply this logic as the intention then all the cards make sense as written. GUNNER would have to have both rolls on TLT or CM to miss in order to activate.

You are performing two attacks. The cards says as much and the FAQ backs that up. I see that phrase and I look at the FAQ entry that defines that phrase instead of making up my own interpretation. I've quoted it before, I'll quote it again:

'Perform This Attack Twice

When a card effect instructs you to perform an attack twice, it means: “After

you perform this attack for the first time, perform another attack against the

same target using this weapon.” When performing the second attack, the

weapon and target are not declared again as they remain the same, and any

cost for the attacks is not paid again.'

When attacking with TLT or Cluster Missile you have your initial attack, which then has an "after attacking" effect of allowing you to attack the same target the same same weapon without needing to pay any associated cost.

Yes, the FAQ does use the word "attack" a lot and I know this has been the bane of the problem. A better defining of what each 'attack' means is what is needed in order to fix this. The issue is that I really don't believe upgrade cards that came in later waves were meant to have their effects broken up and even interrupted due to unclear wording, or misinterpreted wording from ealier waves of upgrade cards.

Timing-wise, both of these attacks, from TLT and CM, are meant to have their full effect enacted before another upgrade/ability is suppose to occur.

I can be wrong, that is possible. Is their another case where one upgrade card or pilot ability interrupts another upgrade card's effect from completing?

Those two upgrades (TLT and Cluster Missiles) are both examples of upgrades that get interrupted by other effects before you finish resolving them. FCS interrupts those attacks (though the second attack isn't canceled). If you miss the first attack and trigger Gunner before making your second TLT of Cluster Missile attack, it will cancel the second attack. That example is covered in the current Gunner FAQ entry.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Gunner can't trigger off of the first miss and resolve before the second TLT shot (canceling the shot). The argument is on whether or not the controlling player can choose the order to resolve the Gunner and TLT attacks.

Hmph... so it appears they fixed the FAQ to back me up.

"Perform this attack twice"...

When you see that sentence you are reading it as: "Perform TWO attacks",

When I see it, I am reading it as: "Perform this ATTACK (singular) twice (repeat the procedure)".

In the rules, during the combat round, it says you are to perform one attack against one opponent [exceptions: Corran Horn's pilot ability, Ghost/Phantom title cards... ]. The upgrade cards for TLT and CM are both "a single attack with repeated procedures" (i.e. doubling the output).

Cards like GUNNER,LUKE or others that "After an attack..." have to wait until the full effect of TLT and CM has been applied before activating their effect. Apply this logic as the intention then all the cards make sense as written. GUNNER would have to have both rolls on TLT or CM to miss in order to activate.