Question of the day: How can I make a ship that is allowed to hit with two attacks per turn that is not a TLT carrier in the scum faction?

Answer: IG-88B kitted out however you want, and IG-88D Crew on a ship that is also carrying Gunner. Currently only works on one ship in the scum faction: The Hound's Tooth, which is perfect because it also requires a cannon slot, which the tooth provides. So I set up my list, Moralo to really milk that cannon, IG-D, Gunner, Dengar (to purposefully miss the first shot and do better on the other 2) and IG-88B as the second ship with whatever.

Moralo goes to shoot. At whatever range, he uses the Mangler (could be primary, but why not.) He rolls whatever he rolls, Dengars down to (hopefully) no hits. Now his attack missed, and we are on step 9 of the timing chart. Gunner and IG-88B both trigger here. Gunner says you make a primary attack, and may not attack again. IG-88B says you make a secondary weapon attack, with no caveat of attacking twice. I choose to trigger both abilities off my single missed shot, and resolve IG-88B's first.

IG-88D, channeling IG-88B, sends the second mangler cannon shot out, this time Dengar for more hits. Attack hits, deals damage, back to step 9, resolve the other ability from the first attack. Gunner sends out the primary shot, which is also Dengar'd for hits (dude is putting in work today) and deals more damage.

This seemingly broken combo went 4-0 in a tourney on Friday, dealing 7 damage to a range 1 ghost in a single round from a single ship in one of the games (after shooting a range 3 Rex with a primary to miss.) The real question, and the reason it's posted here, is this: Does anything anywhere prevent this from happening?

This has actually been confirmed & agreed upon as a legitimate series of triggers. Fire away.

it's legit. I've got an email from Frank from almost a year ago saying so. Pretty sure it's been added to the consolidated rulings thread, wherever that is.

I went top 8 at the TN regionals last season with this combo. List below.

It's one of me favorite lists in the game. Bossk is an unstoppable force when you get there combo going. Use Dengar to force the initial miss and you are ready to go.

Something else to note, you can change targets for each shot in the sequence. Try to miss the hardest Target to hit, then move to the 0 agi ghost at range 1 of you. Enjoy doing 9 damage.

Aggressor: •IG-88B (47)
Autothrusters (2)
IG-2000 (0)
Veteran Instincts (1)
Fire-Control System (2)
"Mangler" Cannon (4)
Tractor Beam (1)
Inertial Dampeners (1)

YV-666: •Bossk (52)
Engine Upgrade (4)
Adaptability (+1) (0)
"Mangler" Cannon (4)
•Dengar (3)
•IG-88D (1)
Gunner (5)

Total: 99/100

Unstoppable is pushing it a bit.

A lot.

People get behind it and it dies.

My particular version used Moralo to abuse the 180 degree arc, I boosted to side-by-side with a ghost, he had an autoblaster turret so at most I could take 2 damage. I shot his rex first for the miss, then dealt 7 damage to the ghost (range 1 and mangler.) He elected to shoot IG-88 instead (who also dealt 2-3 damage that round to the same ghost.)

IG-88B
-Autothrusters
-FCS
-HLC
-Glitterstim
-A Debt to Pay (crits on HLC shots? sure)

Moralo
-Mangler
-Dengar
-Gunner
-IG-88D
-Engine Upgrade

I've used this style of list fairly successfully with both Moralo and Bossk variations. I'd like to make the case for Bossk with a couple reasons.

1. If your opponent's list doesn't play nice with your scheme because it has only 0-1 agility ships in it, you'll need that fire power enhancement from bossk splitting the criticals because you are likely going to hit accidentally all game. (Been there many times...)
2. Bossk poses a bigger dilemma to the defender who actually wants to take 1 damage to deny you your shenanigans double shot. On the first shot you pick mangler every time so that if your opponent is considering not spending that focus to block you they have to take minimum 2 damage as that crit is going through. If the first shot is at a guy with shields they'll definitely let you hit if they can; so at least now you are taking 2 shields.

Two of my favorite x-wing moments with this list were blowing up 2 tie fighters in 1 round of fire (miss shot --> explode ship 1 IGD --> Explode ship 2 with Gunner)
and having my opponent use (pre-nerf) Palpatine to turn an evade into a blank. I laughed hard at that when he said "Your emperor orders you to take that hit...." then "DO IT!" in palp's voice; wasn't expecting that.

EDIT: obligatory rules answer as this is gradually becoming a squad building topic. "Does anything anywhere prevent this from happening" nope nothing at all its fully legitimate and the only argument I ever heard against it was the word "immediately" on Gunner as I was doing this prior to that FAQ; i talked my way out of it then but once the FAQ dropped if there was any semblance of an argument against this combo that fizzled out once the word immediately was declared meaningless.

Why are we ignoring the word "immediately"? Does the card have errata?

41 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

Why are we ignoring the word "immediately"? Does the card have errata?

FAQ says it means nothing on page 5

12 hours ago, Smitty said:

FAQ says it means nothing on page 5

FAQ is a bad ruling and should be changed.

EDIT: Also that's not what it says. It clearly says it is used for emphasis and as reminder text. As in "A reminder you have to do this right away".

9 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

FAQ is a bad ruling and should be changed.

I agree that it would be better to just errata all of the cards with the word 'Immediately' to remove that term from the game entirely, but it is a lot simpler (and probably cheaper) to just say that the term 'Immediately' has no effect on any card's behavior than it would be to errata the cards that use it.

1 minute ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I agree that it would be better to just errata all of the cards with the word 'Immediately' to remove that term from the game entirely, but it is a lot simpler (and probably cheaper) to just say that the term 'Immediately' has no effect on any card's behavior than it would be to errata the cards that use it.

Then they should have done that. But they didn't they said it says it has no distinct effect. Meaning the effect can be different from one card to another.

2 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

Then they should have done that. But they didn't they said it says it has no distinct effect. Meaning the effect can be different from one card to another.

Distinct means recognizably different. In that sentence they are saying immediately has no game effect distinction from any other word that is regularly found on cards. It's not a keyword its purely emphasis that something happens after a thing. If it meant that it breaks the normal you can resolve things in whatever order you like rule that would be a distinctive trait of the word. They are saying it does not have that distintive trait, its just emphatic not game state altering.

There are frank emails supporting this prior to the faq, and the combo had numerous numerous TO support its use even pre FAQ

Are you trying to imply the meant this to mean that the word immediately was to have a different meaning on each card? That would be mandatory it is distinct from itself even, and sorta the opposite of what they wrote. Can you elaborate on how you mean to interpret this???

3 hours ago, Smitty said:

Distinct means recognizably different. In that sentence they are saying immediately has no game effect distinction from any other word that is regularly found on cards. It's not a keyword its purely emphasis that something happens after a thing. If it meant that it breaks the normal you can resolve things in whatever order you like rule that would be a distinctive trait of the word. They are saying it does not have that distintive trait, its just emphatic not game state altering.

If the words shouldn't be treated any different then why are we ignoring them? If a card said "take an action, then get a stress" no one would say that the word "then" had some distinct meaning. But at the same time no one would be arguing that the stress and action happened simultaneously? A word doesn't need some "distinctive trait" to change the rules. Where is this written? The rules don't say "cards supersede rules only when there are distinctive traits to the words involved." No.

There are frank emails supporting this prior to the faq, and the combo had numerous numerous TO support its use even pre FAQ

I don't know who Frank is but so what? Multiple TOs use this site and follow your groupthink. If I was a TO one of the first places I would check before an event is our generally good Common Rulings thread, where they would get the same erroneous ruling using the same erroneous interpretation.

Are you trying to imply the meant this to mean that the word immediately was to have a different meaning on each card? That would be mandatory it is distinct from itself even, and sorta the opposite of what they wrote. Can you elaborate on how you mean to interpret this???

In the context that distinct is analogous to unique it would mean that immediately after a game would have a different meaning than immediately after shooting. You would interpret this practically. Gunner says immediately after shooting in this context it means as soon as the attack is deemed a "hit" or a "miss". Not multiple attacks later.

2 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I don't know who Frank is but so what? Multiple TOs use this site and follow your groupthink. If I was a TO one of the first places I would check before an event is our generally good Common Rulings thread, where they would get the same erroneous ruling using the same erroneous interpretation.

Frank Brooks is one of the lead game designers and our most common source of rulings.

Per his ruling and the FAQ, "immediately" means nothing and never has. Since both 88B and Gunner have the same timing, the player is free to choose the order of resolution. Stop trying to rules lawyer your way around it.

1 minute ago, DR4CO said:

Frank Brooks is one of the lead game designers and our most common source of rulings.

Per his ruling and the FAQ, "immediately" means nothing and never has. Since both 88B and Gunner have the same timing, the player is free to choose the order of resolution. Stop trying to rules lawyer your way around it.

Meh, death of the author.

If he wants it to mean nothing he should put that into the official rules, or errata the card. Neither has been done, and no the FAQ doesn't say that. It, again, clearly has at least two codified meanings: Emphasis and reminder text. It can't both be meaningless and have value.

Oh and lol at me being the rules lawyer here. Rules lawyering is stacking triggers using secret emails to get around both the spirit and text of the card.

No, Rules Lawyering is trying to twist the rules until they suit your preferred interpretation rather than just applying them and be done with it. That's what you're doing.

The rest of us are just pointing out the actual rules, which is that the word "immediately" is, per the FAQ, just a piece of reminder text that has no input on how the card is resolved. Therefore we have two cards with identical triggers, and thus the player controlling them may resolve them in any order he likes. That has been the case for a long time, and has lead to stacked triggers before (see PtL shenanigans for the most common example).

No its not just reminder text. I know that this argument is about how you want to ignore words but even in the FAQ it says it's more than just reminder text. It is also emphasis. If you can do it later what is it emphasizing?

I can't belive that in the rules forum "read the whole card and the whole FAQ" is the minority opinion.

11 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

No its not just reminder text.

What part of the FAQ calling it "purely reminder text" is unclear, exactly?

The first half of the sentence you cut off?

I mean, that's the entire issue in a nut shell. I point out you're ignoring half of what's written and you respond by cutting out over half of what I wrote to quote only half a sentence.

Whatever. You've clearly made this a personal crusade for some reason. Feel free to submit a rules query if you like, but until then all of the rules we have available (including an actual ruling - see here ) confirm this interaction works as described.

No need to be rude. Everyone knows that Jererrod'ing the Emporer is my personal crusade. (Ok, it's actually rerolls not counting as rolls)

Or is it die results don't count as dice? There's just so many bad rulings in this game.