The "problem" with the card is that it doesn't jive with what people expect unless they have a very clear understanding of how the move action works. I think they could have avoided all of these problems and made it more intuitive with some better wording, something like:

"Use after you resolve a (special action) during your activation to perform 1 additional action. At the end of your activation you become stunned."

Edit: To be clear, I understand that this changes how the card works, but to my mind this probably still matches the idea behind the card and ends up with things seeming less confusing/rules-lawyery.

"Use after you resolve a (special action) during your activation to perform 1 additional action. At the end of your activation you become stunned."

Edit: To be clear, I understand that this changes how the card works, but to my mind this probably still matches the idea behind the card and ends up with things seeming less confusing/rules-lawyery.

"Use after you resolve a (special action) during your activation to perform 1 additional action. At the end of your activation you become stunned."

Edit: To be clear, I understand that this changes how the card works, but to my mind this probably still matches the idea behind the card and ends up with things seeming less confusing/rules-lawyery.

Except that is a very different - and much more powerful - effect.

Is it actually that much more powerful, though? Functionally the only difference that I can think of is that it would allow you to move as your third action. Well I guess it also means that you could perform the special action as your first action, but again that doesn't seem like it would be a game-breaking change.

I mean the gist of the card is that you perform an extra action this turn at the cost of having one less action next turn (because of the stun). Yes that's a useful effect, but I don't think letting that extra action be a move would break the card.

Is it actually that much more powerful, though? Functionally the only difference that I can think of is that it would allow you to move as your third action. Well I guess it also means that you could perform the special action as your first action, but again that doesn't seem like it would be a game-breaking change.

I mean the gist of the card is that you perform an extra action this turn at the cost of having one less action next turn (because of the stun). Yes that's a useful effect, but I don't think letting that extra action be a move would break the card.

Add to that some strange combinations that would be possible if the stun was not applied immediately after the additional action, as there are ways to play To the Limit more than once in a figures activation, making for four actions in one activation (sure two of those would have to be special actions for it to happen, but still).

I do know that it is not uncommon for new players to misunderstand this card at first. Often, as described above, due to being unfamiliar with either the special action icon or the general movement rules, but I really don't see a need for simplifying the card, as the same could be said for a number of other cards and effects; and this one is even penned out thoroughly in the FAQ, unlike a number of other effects that new players tend to get wrong.

Being able to spend movement points after attacking is powerful. (This thread talking about it is the proof of that.)

My bad.

thought you could still spend movement points after special action and before 3rd action. Would be better worded to say 'After your next action you become stunned' That way you could spend your movement from earlier action that was not used.

Everytime I click on this page and read someone's response(s), I cant but help get a mental picture of Bossk in a training/workout montage while "Push It To The Limit" plays in the background...

~D

Ugh, To The Limit is so much more complex than it needs to be.

Agreed... it would be more usable if it wasn't tied to a special action.

Right now you can only do this

Move

Indiscriminate Fire

To the Limit

Attack

Get Stunned

Or

Attack

Indiscriminate Fire

To The Limit

Move

Get Stunned

However.... if you use cards like Urgency you could flip that around a bit.

Are we assuming that you can trigger another special action from To the Limit? Obviously not Indiscriminate Fire again but something else? Like Merciless? Or does it only allow another regular action?

The second example is still not accurate to how push the limit works exactly. You can't really use that 3rd action to move. Performing the move action just grants you the movement points, but then you get stunned before you can actually spend them.

To the limit makes sense in the scope of the rules, but I can understand why players are often confused by it. It's just not a very good card, but the way people often interpret it, it would seem to be. You basically need to do something along the lines of that first example for it to be effective (move, then special action, then shoot or another special action, or maybe an interact or something). It does of course work a bit better with bossk with the end of round ability.

Good point about Move action. I didn't consider the timing of that stun.

So yes, there's really only 1 way to use it.

The only reason people think it will be good on Bossk is because he get's to clear conditions for free at the end of the round.

Side note:

when "at the end of each round" does he clear a stun? Would it be before or after something like "Set a Trap" triggers?

Is it a mission effect or does it happen in the same step as the initiative player using command cards? Is it owners choice?

I really hope they expand on the end of round/start of round timing. It can be quite confusing especially for new players

Given that it is on a deployment card belonging to a player, it should go with the rest of that player's effects during End of Round.

So, if you have bossk and Set a Trap, you get to decide since they're at the same time.

Otherwise, it is order of initiative which determines which player's effects go first.

Mission rules would always come before either player's effects.

I thought set a trap counts as a mission rule? I remember reading somewhere that stuff like Harsh Environment and Survival Instincts count as mission rules for the purposes of adding and removing blocks/evades.

I remember reading somewhere that stuff like Harsh Environment and Survival Instincts count as mission rules for the purposes of adding and removing blocks/evades.

I don't know of any ruling on Set a Trap, but feel fairly confident that it is a player specific event and thus dependent on initiative.

Yup, there it is. FAQ p. 4.

Q: When an ability’s effect lasts “until” a certain timing
window (e.g. “Until the end of the round…”), does that effect
persist through that timing window?
A: No. These abilities’ effects end immediately as the specified
timing window begins, before any other effects in that timing
window are triggered. So, in the given example, the effect that
persists “until the end of the round” would expire before any other
“end of round” effects are triggered.

Yup, there it is. FAQ p. 4.

Q: When an ability’s effect lasts “until” a certain timing

window (e.g. “Until the end of the round…”), does that effect

persist through that timing window?

A: No. These abilities’ effects end immediately as the specified

timing window begins, before any other effects in that timing

window are triggered. So, in the given example, the effect that

persists “until the end of the round” would expire before any other

“end of round” effects are triggered.

So "survival instincts" wears off before someone can play a "jundland terror" or "ferocity" for example?