According to RAW, doesn't seem like it should, but it's being played that way. Gunner has an "immediately after" trigger, where as IG-88B has an "after" trigger, which should mean that choosing to use the secondary weapon waives your primary weapon shot, and using the primary weapon shot prevents further attacks that round. Why is Gunner allowed to trigger after IG-88B ability triggers, even though Gunner appears to have to trigger first according to the text on the cards?

There is no distinction between 'after' and 'immediately after'. they are identical triggers. 'Immediately' is superfluous as it has no effect whatsoever, since all such effects are 'immediately after' by nature.

Just now, InquisitorM said:

There is no distinction between 'after' and 'immediately after'. they are identical triggers. 'Immediately' is superfluous as it has no effect whatsoever, since all such effects are 'immediately after' by nature.

Why wouldn't there be a distinction, though? If as a player, you have multiple things you could do after an attack, why would you not have to resolve "immediately" effects before "after" effects? Since this should be a case of "Do what the card says, don't do what it doesn't say," Gunner should only be able to trigger if the second cannon shot also misses, since immediately performing an attack after an attack that hits directly violates the text of the card, right?

12 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Why wouldn't there be a distinction, though? If as a player, you have multiple things you could do after an attack, why would you not have to resolve "immediately" effects before "after" effects? Since this should be a case of "Do what the card says, don't do what it doesn't say," Gunner should only be able to trigger if the second cannon shot also misses, since immediately performing an attack after an attack that hits directly violates the text of the card, right?

Because nothing in the rules says they should, and the timing chart puts them in the same timing step, which means the player chooses the order.

Not to mention that a vasyt array of things can trigger in between a missed attack and Gunner's 'immediate' attack, the majority of which don't say 'immediately' on them.

Immediately has no meaning on this card.

It goes like this:

Miss a shot.

Trigger Gunner and IGB.

Resolve IGB.

Resolve Gunner.

This is how timing in x-wing works, for the same reason that Whisper can hit with an attack, triggering FCS, ACD, and her pilot ability, and resolve all 3 in whatever order she wants. Or, miss with an attack, triggering FCS and Gunner, resolving FCS, then resolving Gunner (because all non-attack things have to be resolved before all attack things), then as a result triggering her pilot ability, FCS again, as well as ACD, then resolving all of THOSE in whatever order she pleases.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

This is how timing in x-wing works, for the same reason that Whisper can hit with an attack, triggering FCS, ACD, and her pilot ability, and resolve all 3 in whatever order she wants. Or, miss with an attack, triggering FCS and Gunner, resolving FCS, then resolving Gunner (because all non-attack things have to be resolved before all attack things), then as a result triggering her pilot ability, FCS again, as well as ACD, then resolving all of THOSE in whatever order she pleases.

Bolded for emphasis.

FCS is a "may" effect. ACD is a "may" effect. Whisper's ability is a "may" effect. Hence being able to defer any of those. According to the timing chart, all non-attack things have to be resolved before all attack things. Correct.

Once you get to attack things, you have two effects. One says immediately, the other does not. Being able to trigger gunner after a cannon shot that HITS, violates the text of the gunner card, no? You're no longer immediately performing an attack after an attack that misses, you're immediately performing it after an attack that hits.

Can you point me to somewhere in the rules or the FAQ where it specifies that "immediately after" and "after" are the same thing, timing wise? I understand what you're asserting, but can you point me to where we're told to ignore "immediately" timings?

No. Can you point to somewhere that explicitly says that it means what YOU want it to mean?

Also no.

6 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

No. Can you point to somewhere that explicitly says that it means what YOU want it to mean?

Also no.

I'm pointing to what I see as the violation-- Do What The Card Says, Don't Do What The Card Doesn't Say

Gunner allows you to immediately perform an attack after an attack that misses. It doesn't allow you to immediately perform an attack after an attack that hits. The cards have two different wordings for what you are allowed to do-- so why are they allowed to be treated as the same? That's my question. Saying "Treat them as the same" doesn't answer the question of "Why are they allowed to be treated as the same?"

Because 'immediately' is meaningless when 10 other things can explicitly happen in between the trigger and the resolution.

(This has also been confirmed by Frank in an interview, but not anywhere official. And then they released Baze with the same wording afterwards >.<)

I don't disagree that the interaction could use an FAQ, by the by. It's not remotely clear enough how it works from just the cards in question, or this argument wouldn't be happening.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Because 'immediately' is meaningless when 10 other things can explicitly happen in between the trigger and the resolution.

(This has also been confirmed by Frank in an interview, but not anywhere official. And then they released Baze with the same wording afterwards >.<)

I don't disagree that the interaction could use an FAQ, by the by. It's not remotely clear enough how it works from just the cards in question, or this argument wouldn't be happening.

Ah. Okay. Frank said so, so that's the verdict unless it gets FAQed. Thanks! Fair enough-- have a link to the interview by any chance?

Not to hand, or I'd've probably mentioned it earlier. I really wish they'd clarify this properly though, it's been known about and unclear since they first previewed the Shadow Caster, and it's still not had a proper FAQ.

I also really dislike the idea that rules clarifications can come from random interviews that not everyone will have seen...

5 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

I'm pointing to what I see as the violation-- Do What The Card Says, Don't Do What The Card Doesn't Say

Gunner allows you to immediately perform an attack after an attack that misses. It doesn't allow you to immediately perform an attack after an attack that hits. The cards have two different wordings for what you are allowed to do-- so why are they allowed to be treated as the same? That's my question. Saying "Treat them as the same" doesn't answer the question of "Why are they allowed to be treated as the same?"

You're trying to trigger another instance of gunner on the cannon, what you're omitting is the gunner trigger on the stack.

This happens a lot as games get older, different designers use different templating to describe abilities and their function. If you want a headache, play magic the gathering with cards printed before the stack. Infinite saprolings!

The word immediately, if it ever had a meaning, was rendered moot by the attack timing chart and any ruling that says you can stack triggers however you wish. Personally I think the card needs errata.

The mantra of "Do what the card says.." works until something like this comes up. Sometimes a word or phrase is added but not needed that just screws with the thought process. Trust me on this. I've had two long discussions about how the wording on cards can cause a lot of confusion.

Here's the link I use for the rules question and response regarding this issue.

I understand the discussion about the confusion of the word 'immediately' but if you look at the timing chart, it does pretty much clear this up in step 9.

9. Identify abilities that trigger “after attacking” or “after defending” that perform an attack (such as BTL-A4 Y-wing, Dengar [ship], Gunner, etc.)

i. Player with initiative chooses 1 of his abilities to resolve

ii. If no ability was chosen in step (i), the other player chooses 1 of his abilities to resolve

iii. Any abilities that were not chosen, are added to the step 9 of the next attack

9i States that you choose ONE of your abilities to resolve which then brings you to the question below "is an ability being resolved?" yes? ...Back to step 1. And notice what 9iii states about abilities not chosen.

so this shows that if you have multiple abilities in this step which trigger an attack, choose one, any one, and start a whole new attack sequence. the next time you get to step 9, choose the other one.

How in the world are you slotting crew onto the IG88B ship with that pilot? What am I missing? I don't see any crew slots on the ship available?

5 minutes ago, iamzoner said:

How in the world are you slotting crew onto the IG88B ship with that pilot? What am I missing? I don't see any crew slots on the ship available?

It is another ship with two crew slots one being ig88d and gunner and an ig88b agresser ship on the table

How are they working together though? What is this setup exactly?

I think I get this now. Party bus carries IG-88D crew card + gunner. Together with an aggressor using IG-88 B pilot. Crew card on party bus allows pilot skill ability from Agressor. Is that about right?

If I understand this, a Houndstooth equipped with Bossk, gunner, and IG-88d crew + Agressor with IG-88B can do the following?

Houndstooth fires primary and misses. Miss triggers Bossk, gunner, AND IG-88B title due to IG-88D crew card. Result means that Houndstooth takes a stress, gains a focus and a target lock due to bossk. Houndstooth may now fire a primary attack + a turret attack in the same combat round, despite gunner saying on the card "you may not perform another attack this round"?

Is this understanding correct?

34 minutes ago, iamzoner said:

I think I get this now. Party bus carries IG-88D crew card + gunner. Together with an aggressor using IG-88 B pilot. Crew card on party bus allows pilot skill ability from Agressor. Is that about right?

If I understand this, a Houndstooth equipped with Bossk, gunner, and IG-88d crew + Agressor with IG-88B can do the following?

Houndstooth fires primary and misses. Miss triggers Bossk, gunner, AND IG-88B title due to IG-88D crew card. Result means that Houndstooth takes a stress, gains a focus and a target lock due to bossk. Houndstooth may now fire a primary attack + a turret attack in the same combat round, despite gunner saying on the card "you may not perform another attack this round"?

Is this understanding correct?

No its totally wrong.

Setup is: YV-666 + gunner + IG88D + Dengar + Mangler (Bossk is pilot if so, and its optional but effective)

any IG88B cofig

Shoot from YV666. Use Dengar to reroll hits to maximize the chance to miss. Miss. Both Gunner and IG88B abilities trigger. You resolve IG88 first to shoot from Mangler as his ability allows you to. After resolving that you still have gunner waiting to resolve so you shoot primary weapon of YV666.

OK. Seems I can find a reason now to love such an ugly ship model. Maybe even field a scum fleet...

You don't have to do everything just as Vitalis said necessarily but that is sort of the standard thing for the combo.

The key parts are party bus with a cannon, IgD and gunner. Then IGB in an Agressor. After your first shot misses you trigger IGB first because his ability does not prohibit further attacks then gunner second. If you do gunner first you lose the IGB trigger because of the restriction on gunner.

I see now. So that's how the combo works in spite of gunners no more attack ability, it has to do with the triggering sequence. Perfect.

hi there, this is my first post (sorry if it's a long one) and i have been pointed to this thread because yesterday i played exactly this combo.

TL;DR VERSION: i played this for the first time 2 days ago and my friend doesn't want to believe me this is legit, what should i do if another opponents asks for solid proof i am not screwing him? /TL;DR

i was fielding Boosk with dengar, ig88d crew and gunner + IG88B VS a friend of mine with his own rebels (Biggs, Miranda Doni, Ashoka).

as soon as i missed purposedly my first shot against his Biggs, i patiently and seriously introduced him to the card combo, refreshed to him in multiple cases 2.4.3 FAQs, the attack timing chart, step 8 to 9 through the little box after the 9, showed him our nation's (we're from italy btw) primary xwing facebook group talking about this and asserting it was legit, which started discussing it from this post here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/5mvtur/tennessee_regional_battle_report_top_8_cut/

which was my very reason for trying out that list.

the part right after squadron list in the link is the mail exchange between the player and allegedly someone from FFG which responded. i get this is a reddit post and anyone could forge up a fake email, that is why someone else in this thread already said people should not rely on interview clarifications on the rules, but that they should put out something official...

my opponent is a very rational person, never had any problems with him and is a very calm dude, he has even some months of experience playing the game more than me and he almost regularly beats my ass with what i call "imba rebel shit" like bb-8 triple action with PTL or other crazy things these cards let us do in this game.

well, this time HE WAS ENRAGED. he spent like 40 minutes hearing me repeating calmly my explaination, objecting and then closing himself in silence looking up infos on his phone.

i told him from the start of the argument, since he seemed to not aggree, that i had no problem - even if that meant thrashing half of my card and list - to play the rest of the game WITHOUT my double trigger, but i insisted that it was legit and that i could get he didn't have to like any of it. anyway after he spent some other 20 minutes looking up rules on his phone, just to get on with our game, i convinced him to go on finish the game without triggering gunner after IG88D(B).

i ended up winning anyway, since luck wanted to reward my understanding and fairplay.

he left still full of WRATH saying FFG must patch this thing, and that if this is legit he will not play again and that he will wait for them to "FAQ THIS SHIT BECAUSE IT'S NOT RIGHT" to play another game.

i said to him that rebels had much of this same shit somewhere else, and imperials and scum too, in the end i said to him "mate, do you imagine people playing from wave ONE? what could they have been through? which kind of shit they saw happen on the table? let's not think THIS ONE THAT HELPS ME INSTEAD OF YOU is the game breaker..."

it was useless. up until now he is steadfast on this. the argument is over but he still thinks this is wrong.

now tell me, since i want to play this in local tournaments, what should i do to make the opponent accept this as a legit ruling if he gets angry like my friend?

thank you and see you next time

I see the idea behind this, but I'm somewhat leery about using Dengar to throw away an attack that I know I rolled hits on for two attacks I *might* roll hits on. It's not like the initial attack is going to strip tokens, because your opponent would be crazy to spend any knowing what's coming.