On the lam has raised certain questions about how it would interact in a few situations. Can a card be played in response to the move? For instance if an adjacent brawler attacked, then the figure used on the lam, could the brawler then respond with parting blow or a smuggler/hunter with dirty trick, and assuming they could if they imparted the stun condition, would they then return to modifying step of the original attack or would it be over, if they'd used parting blow would the attacker being stunned affect or end the original attack? This is sort of a convoluted web of questions, and my local group wasn't quite sure.

Parting Blow can be used when the figure tries to exit an adjacent space. It interrupts with an attack, the attacker becomes stunned. Then On the Lam gets resolved, and the original attack continues.

According to a recent ruling Stunned prevents declaring attacks. (I always assumed an attack would abort, but I see the benefits of this interpretation.) Any attack you have started will be resolved even when you get stunned during it.

6 hours ago, a1bert said:

According to a recent ruling Stunned prevents declaring attacks. (I always assumed an attack would abort, but I see the benefits of this interpretation.) Any attack you have started will be resolved even when you get stunned during it.

Do you have a reference to this ruling? Curious to see the context

I think it was in Discord, so not that easy to find. However, the FAQ should be out soon...

Fair enough!

10 hours ago, Idgit said:

For instance if an adjacent brawler attacked, then the figure used on the lam, could the brawler then respond with parting blow....?

Discussing this thread with a friend and the question came up as to whether Parting Blow would even be allowed in this situation as the attacker is already performing an attack in his activation and Parting Blow would be performing a second attack thus violating the one attack per activation rule.

By my interpretation of Interrupts in the RRG, I said allowed due to the fact that interrupt is specified which is a "pause" of whatever else is happening at the time.

He says no because ultimately that would be granting two attacks in one activation.

Searched around a bit but haven't seen anything that specifically addresses this situation. Thoughts anyone?

There is no "one attack per activation rule." The rule is you can only spend one action to attack per activation. That's why Jedi Luke's ability lets you attack twice in an activation, because the free attack doesn't take an action. Parting Blow isn't an action, either.

3 minutes ago, Leveton said:

There is no "one attack per activation rule." The rule is you can only spend one action to attack per activation. That's why Jedi Luke's ability lets you attack twice in an activation, because the free attack doesn't take an action. Parting Blow isn't an action, either.

excellent point! Thank you, sir.

Any number of attacks can be performed from abilities that are not attacks and they do not count towards the "one action containing attacks per activation" rule.

Brutality and Rapid Fire allow a figure to perform two attack in one action. Those do not produce any conflict either. They are single actions containing at least one attack.

It also doesn't need to be the attacker who's using Parting Blow.