It's probably worth noting that this is entirely a moot point. There IS no ship in the game that can SLAM, equip bombs, and equip Pattern Analyser (and/or equip Genius), and that's not likely to change any time soon.

I've been thinking about it and the sequence would be this:

Move

(Check pilot stress would normally be here but is delayed)

Clean up

Perform action - SLAM - move - (Check pilot stress would normally be here but is delayed to the same place the first one was) - clean up - ASLAM or EI or Genius

both check pilot stress steps.

So it probably would be legit, but it doesn't really matter, it's not likely to be in the game in the forseeable future.

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:32 AM, Parravon said:

All of your arguments about things triggering "after and action" or "after a maneuver" are valid with a SLAM action as long as the chosen SLAM maneuver was white or green. If it was red, it changes the whole outcome.

I'm just trying to figure out your logic here. Can you explain how you think the stress would stack, and when you think it would be applied?

The issue is that the stress is allowed to be delayed as noted in the FAQ for EI/PTL. If that precedent was not set, then I would not be arguing the point. Personally, again I understand the fact that the red maneuver that was SLAM'd would give stress and thus prevent further actions/free actions. But that being said, look at all of the pieces in place. SLAM allows for after an action/maneuver effects to trigger, EI/PTL have been amended stating that the triggers interrupt the normal flow (therefor they can actually trigger each other stacking the stress), this leaves us with a sequence that allows for the normal assignment of stress to be interrupted. So you could move, SLAM (red), and EI.

Again, I understand the timing of when the red maneuver assigns stress normally, however here it would be interrupted. The issue is that the change to allow EI and PTL to stack creates a trickle effect to other circumstances (this being one of them) particularly when it notes they can trigger from SLAM.

1 hour ago, SkullNBones said:

The issue is that the stress is allowed to be delayed as noted in the FAQ for EI/PTL. If that precedent was not set, then I would not be arguing the point. Personally, again I understand the fact that the red maneuver that was SLAM'd would give stress and thus prevent further actions/free actions. But that being said, look at all of the pieces in place. SLAM allows for after an action/maneuver effects to trigger, EI/PTL have been amended stating that the triggers interrupt the normal flow (therefor they can actually trigger each other stacking the stress), this leaves us with a sequence that allows for the normal assignment of stress to be interrupted. So you could move, SLAM (red), and EI.

Again, I understand the timing of when the red maneuver assigns stress normally, however here it would be interrupted. The issue is that the change to allow EI and PTL to stack creates a trickle effect to other circumstances (this being one of them) particularly when it notes they can trigger from SLAM.

Executing the maneuver is contained within the action. Assigning the stress is contained within executing the maneuver.

The reason nesting works with PTL and EI is both have sequences like:

1. Do a thing
2. Do another thing

And if you have an effect that triggers after "Do a thing" you can interrupt that sequence and resolve that effect before moving on to "Do another thing".

The fact that the SLAM action's "after" window works for both "after maneuver" and "after performing an action" effects does not change when Check Pilot Stress happens during a maneuver. If you SLAM a red maneuver, by the time you get to "after" SLAM, you will have a stress.

It's exactly the same reason you can't EI after performing Fleet Officer's action.

4 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

The issue is that the stress is allowed to be delayed as noted in the FAQ for EI / PTL . If that precedent was not set, then I would not be arguing the point. Personally, again I understand the fact that the red maneuver that was SLAM'd would give stress and thus prevent further actions/free actions. But that being said, look at all of the pieces in place. SLAM allows for after an action/maneuver effects to trigger, EI / PTL have been amended stating that the triggers interrupt the normal flow (therefor they can actually trigger each other stacking the stress), this leaves us with a sequence that allows for the normal assignment of stress to be interrupted. So you could move, SLAM (red), and EI .

Again, I understand the timing of when the red maneuver assigns stress normally, however here it would be interrupted . The issue is that the change to allow EI and PTL to stack creates a trickle effect to other circumstances (this being one of them) particularly when it notes they can trigger from SLAM.

And this is where you've put yourself wrong. The stress is not delayed at all. There's nothing within the sequence that will cause any delay to when the stress token is applied, so it is still applied during the red SLAM maneuver, not after.

Experimental Interface or Push the Limit are not a precedent that can be used here either, because their basic mechanics are different. They both tell you to go and perform an action, so you do that, then you come back to them to receive their stress. Also, there has been no change or amendment to Experimental Interface or Push the Limit. They've always worked the way that is explained in the FAQ. It's just some players found their "nesting effects" to be confusing, so they have been clarified - not changed. The Experimental Interface FAQ entry leaves more questions than it answers, but the Push the Limit FAQ entry has better examples and is quite clear about how they work.

You have confused yourself by thinking that the stress is delayed, but there is no delay . Experimental Interface or Push the Limit do not delay the stress. They don't change when the stress is applied. They just interrupt the sequence and allow you to do something (in it's entirety) before their stress is applied, and that can involve multiple things, that may trigger other things. And this is what we call a "nesting effect". Which incidentally is a term that isn't in the rulebook, but that's what experienced players have termed it.

Pattern Analyzer is an example of delaying the stress. It specifically states that it does. A red SLAM maneuver, Experimental Interface or Push the Limit do not. Experimental Interface or Push the Limit can be interrupted by what they're instructing you to do, but their stress is not delayed or moved until the end of the sequence. You come back to where you left off, and carry on resolving them.

The bottom line is: performing a red SLAM manuever will not allow you take a free action from Experimental Interface or Push the Limit because you will be stressed before they trigger.

I am not confused, please stop insisting that my disagreement with you in predicated on me not understanding the sequence of events. I fully understand them. My argument is that due to amendments made (via the FAQ) that the normal sequence no longer holds.

Again, look at PTL "Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action shown in your action bar. Then receive 1 stress token." If you follow the normal sequence of events (not taking into account FAQ text), then you preform an action, then preform a free action then receive a stress token. No further actions/free actions are possible because of the received stress. EI should behave similar. However, due to the changes wrought in the FAQ, you basically interrupt that sequence, preforming action after action (whether the action itself gives a stress or not ...see the Expert Handling...) until you run out of triggers and then receive the accumulated stress. e.g. Move, Focus, EI (EH), PtL (TL), receive 3 stress (EI+EH+PtL).

Now the difference in SLAM is that it is executing a chosen maneuver, however the FAQ states that since SLAM is an action (as well as a maneuver) it CAN be a trigger for cards that grant an effect (in this arguments case EI/PtL). Again (please stop ignoring this part) I understand that if the maneuver is red (i.e. the 4k of the OP) than as part of (what is now an action - the executing the maneuver) will cause the ship to receive a stress (normally this would end the sequence of events) but as it is a nested <b>action</b>, it can be argued that it will have the same effect as Expert Handling (should the ship not have native BR) in the above example and thus the stress is acquired but the sequence plays out i.e. Move, SLAM (4k), EI (EH), receive 3 stress (SLAM+EI+EH).

Once again, I am not confused, I am not misunderstanding anything. I am completely aware of the rules as written and because of that am presenting an argument for discussion.

1 hour ago, SkullNBones said:

However, due to the changes wrought in the FAQ, you basically interrupt that sequence, preforming action after action (whether the action itself gives a stress or not ...see the Expert Handling ...) until you run out of triggers and then receive the accumulated stress. e.g. Move, Focus, EI (EH), PtL (TL), receive 3 stress ( EI +EH+ PtL ).

Now the difference in SLAM is that it is executing a chosen maneuver, however the FAQ states that since SLAM is an action (as well as a maneuver) it CAN be a trigger for cards that grant an effect (in this arguments case EI / PtL ). Again (please stop ignoring this part) I understand that if the maneuver is red (i.e. the 4k of the OP) than as part of ( what is now an action - the executing the maneuver ) will cause the ship to receive a stress (normally this would end the sequence of events) but as it is a nested <b>action</b>, it can be argued that it will have the same effect as Expert Handling (should the ship not have native BR) in the above example and thus the stress is acquired but the sequence plays out i.e. Move, SLAM (4k), EI (EH), receive 3 stress (SLAM+ EI +EH).

Once again, I am not confused, I am not misunderstanding anything. I am completely aware of the rules as written and because of that am presenting an argument for discussion.

And your argument is still flawed. But I think I finally see where you're going wrong. You're considering the maneuver part of the SLAM to be a separate action and as such able to trigger Experimental Interface or Push the Limit. It isn't. And as such there's nothing to interrupt. There's nothing in the FAQ that redefines it or breaks down the sequencing at all. The Experimental Interface or Push the Limit entries are NOT a precedent here, because they work differently.

To perform a SLAM action, you choose and execute a maneuver, then assign a weapons disabled token. That's the action - maneuver , then WD token . And if the maneuver was a red one, then it's maneuver , stress , then WD token . And the maneuver is all three sub-steps of the normal process ( Move Ship, Check Pilot Stress, Clean Up ). These three sub-steps cannot be interrupted to provide an Experimental Interface /Push the Limit trigger part way through, because on their own they aren't a complete action. There's also no " after performing a maneuver " trigger if you've only completed the Move Ship sub-step, because you haven't completed the other two sub-steps, and therefore haven't completely executed the maneuver. You must complete all three sub-steps and assign a WD token to completely perform a SLAM action. That now becomes a trigger for " after performing an action ". And because a SLAM counts as executing a maneuver, it's also a trigger for " after performing a maneuver ". The only interrupt that could apply is an ability with an " after performing a maneuver " trigger and it would happen before the WD token is assigned. But that's it. And it still wouldn't alter when the maneuver stress is applied, so if that interrupt gave you a free action, you still wouldn't be able to take advantage of it after a red SLAM.

And in your example above, if you follow the sequence properly, it would be:
Move ship
Perform Action - Focus
1. => Trigger Experimental Interface to perform Expert Handling - perform Barrel Roll part of EH
2. ==> Trigger Push the Limit to perform Target Lock action
3. ===> Receive stress from Push the Limit
2. ==> Receive stress from Expert Handling, then remove enemy TL token
1. => Receive stress from Experimental Interface

The stress doesn't accumulate as such. You go through the sequence to the end, then backtrack through the sequence and pick up the assigned stress. Note you can't use Push the Limit or Experimental Interface after performing an Expert Handling action, but you can use it after performing the Barrel Roll action part of the Expert Handling action. That's an example of the " interrupting another effect " described in the Push the Limit entry.

It doesn't mean that just because there's a trigger from performing an action or executing a maneuver, that any associated stress from said action/maneuver is suddenly delayed until after any triggered items have resolved.

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:16 AM, Parravon said:

And your argument is still flawed. But I think I finally see where you're going wrong. You're considering the maneuver part of the SLAM to be a separate action and as such able to trigger Experimental Interface or Push the Limit. It isn't. And as such there's nothing to interrupt. There's nothing in the FAQ that redefines it or breaks down the sequencing at all. The Experimental Interface or Push the Limit entries are NOT a precedent here, because they work differently.

To perform a SLAM action, you choose and execute a maneuver, then assign a weapons disabled token. That's the action - maneuver , then WD token . And if the maneuver was a red one, then it's maneuver , stress , then WD token . And the maneuver is all three sub-steps of the normal process ( Move Ship, Check Pilot Stress, Clean Up ). These three sub-steps cannot be interrupted to provide an Experimental Interface /Push the Limit trigger part way through, because on their own they aren't a complete action. There's also no " after performing a maneuver " trigger if you've only completed the Move Ship sub-step, because you haven't completed the other two sub-steps, and therefore haven't completely executed the maneuver. You must complete all three sub-steps and assign a WD token to completely perform a SLAM action. That now becomes a trigger for " after performing an action ". And because a SLAM counts as executing a maneuver, it's also a trigger for " after performing a maneuver ". The only interrupt that could apply is an ability with an " after performing a maneuver " trigger and it would happen before the WD token is assigned. But that's it. And it still wouldn't alter when the maneuver stress is applied, so if that interrupt gave you a free action, you still wouldn't be able to take advantage of it after a red SLAM.

And in your example above, if you follow the sequence properly, it would be:
Move ship
Perform Action - Focus
1. => Trigger Experimental Interface to perform Expert Handling - perform Barrel Roll part of EH
2. ==> Trigger Push the Limit to perform Target Lock action
3. ===> Receive stress from Push the Limit
2. ==> Receive stress from Expert Handling, then remove enemy TL token
1. => Receive stress from Experimental Interface

The stress doesn't accumulate as such. You go through the sequence to the end, then backtrack through the sequence and pick up the assigned stress. Note you can't use Push the Limit or Experimental Interface after performing an Expert Handling action, but you can use it after performing the Barrel Roll action part of the Expert Handling action. That's an example of the " interrupting another effect " described in the Push the Limit entry.

It doesn't mean that just because there's a trigger from performing an action or executing a maneuver, that any associated stress from said action/maneuver is suddenly delayed until after any triggered items have resolved.

Okay 1) my argument is not flawed, it is stating a precedent that has been set by the FAQ that opens the OP's original question up for debate. 2) Take a look at the FAQ for SLAM "SLAM Timing: If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action" (p7 4.3.3). THAT alone means you can trigger PTL or EI off of a SLAM action. Now it was mentioned earlier that you could do this but it would net you nothing because you would have a stress from the OP's proposed SLAM of a 4k. THIS is where the precedent set in the interaction of EI and PtL comes into play. Since both of those would typically add a stress, the precedent set by allowing them to nest and tack the stress produced on later becomes relevant as it is easily arguable that because of said precedent, thus allowing you to SLAM a 4k (thus the maneuver IS also an action, otherwise "effect after preforming an action" would not trigger) and therefor falls into the ability to nest said actions.

I am not failing to see the action as separate from the maneuver, I am explaining because of the text in the FAQ, a SLAM'd maneuver IS an action as well.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Take a look at the FAQ for SLAM "SLAM Timing: If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action" (p7 4.3.3). THAT alone means you can trigger PTL or EI off of a SLAM action ... I am not failing to see the action as separate from the maneuver, I am explaining because of the text in the FAQ, a SLAM'd maneuver IS an action as well.

No one is arguing against that. If you used SLAM to perform a white or green move, you would of course be completely free to resolve PtL/EI/A-SLAM/etc. But if you get stressed while resolving the SLAM action (either because of a red move or hitting a debris field), then while those cards will still attempt to trigger, you will be unable to resolve them because a stressed ship cannot perform actions.

In fact, the FAQ supports the correct interpretation, not yours. If "after you execute a maneuver" and "after you perform an action" effects resolve at the same time after a SLAM action, then you cannot do one without having done the other. If you haven't completed your maneuver - which includes receiving a stress token during Check Pilot Stress - then you haven't completed your action. So either you've completed the SLAM maneuver and received a stress token that prevents you taking any further actions, or you haven't completed the action and have nothing to trigger PtL/EI with.

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

THIS is where the precedent set in the interaction of EI and PtL comes into play.

It does not. Nesting Push the Limit etc is possible because the cards are a two-step process: first do this thing, then do this other thing. If that first thing was an action, anything that triggers off performing that action can jump in and resolve before we move on to the second thing.

Where I think you're going wrong there is that you're thinking that the second thing is being delayed when you nest effects, but that isn't the case. You're resolving Step 1 (perform a free action), anything that is triggered by Step 1, then moving on to Step 2 (receive a stress token), then resolving anything that triggers off Step 2 (eg. Soontir).

While a SLAM action does follow that template, the two things are execute a maneuver, then receive a weapons disabled token. There is no "sub-action" for Push the Limit or Experimental Interface to trigger from.

4 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Okay 1) my argument is not flawed, it is stating a precedent that has been set by the FAQ that opens the OP's original question up for debate. 2) Take a look at the FAQ for SLAM "SLAM Timing: If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action" (p7 4.3.3). THAT alone means you can trigger PTL or EI off of a SLAM action. Now it was mentioned earlier that you could do this but it would net you nothing because you would have a stress from the OP's proposed SLAM of a 4k. THIS is where the precedent set in the interaction of EI and PtL comes into play. Since both of those would typically add a stress, the precedent set by allowing them to nest and tack the stress produced on later becomes relevant as it is easily arguable that because of said precedent, thus allowing you to SLAM a 4k (thus the maneuver IS also an action, otherwise "effect after preforming an action" would not trigger) and therefor falls into the ability to nest said actions.

I am not failing to see the action as separate from the maneuver, I am explaining because of the text in the FAQ, a SLAM'd maneuver IS an action as well.

But this is still not a precedent , because you cannot move the Check Pilot Stress step from the maneuver until later. There's nothing in the FAQ that will allow this. And it is receiving the stress token in the Check Pilot Stress step during the SLAM action that is stopping any actions that EI or PtL attempt to provide later. Hence, if you SLAM a red maneuver, you will be stressed before EI or PtL reach their trigger. EI and PtL do not move the Check Pilot Stress step, and because they don't, they are not a precedent in this case.

DR4CO, digitalbusker, thespaceinvader and myself have all explained how an EI/PtL nest works, and we've all explained how and why a red SLAM maneuver doesn't allow for any actions when you complete the SLAM maneuver/action. We've all stated that there is indeed a trigger point for EI/PtL because you've just performed an action. No one is saying that's wrong.

What we're all saying is that EI and PtL both have an interrupt point where you can trigger something else before coming back for their stress. That's where they can nest other actions. The only interrupt point within a SLAM action is immediately after the maneuver is completed and before you assign the weapons disabled token. So there is absolutely no way to delay the stress until later.

The flaw in your argument is believing that the EI and PtL FAQ entries set a precedent that somehow delays any stress until you've completed everything else that might trigger.

When EI and PtL nest with other actions, they don't " tack the stress on later ". They are completely sequential and if you follow the sequence properly, you assign the stress in sequential order. THIS is explained in the PtL entry in the FAQ.

I think we all want to help here, so can you explain to us just how the stress from a 4K SLAM action can be delayed and allow free actions from EI or PtL? And please don't fall back on the " EI/PtL FAQ entries are a precedent ", because we've shredded that argument already. Give us a detailed, step-by-step mechanical of how you think it works, just so we can all see how you reached the conclusion that you did.

Okay, lets go at this another way. I am in complete agreement with you. However, what I am arguing is the language. So let's step back and look at PtL again:

"Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action shown in your action bar. Then receive 1 stress token." At no point on that card does it say, check for interrupts. No where in the rules for X-Wing do we have a phase or step that says check for interrupts and no card has a subheading Interrupt. Therefore a sequence of play using PtL should happen like this: Move, Action (assuming no stress from move), 1 Free Action (PtL), "...then receive 1 stress token." End of sequence.

Yet, that is not the case, as the FAQ allows EI and PtL (ipso facto other cards) to nest, when by RaW they should not. Same FAQ states that a SLAM action may trigger cards "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver", it does not delineate that only non red maneuvers may do so. Therefore by omission, it can be inferred that the following sequence could occur: Move, Action (SLAM), Free Action (EI), receive stress for the SLAM and the EI, in the same manner that the nested EI/PtL.

I understand (so please stop citing it) that during the execute maneuver sequence you check for pilot stress after the red maneuver is preformed.

Again what I am pointing out is that the language as written exists for the argument that I am making.

3 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

"Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action shown in your action bar. Then receive 1 stress token." At no point on that card does it say, check for interrupts. No where in the rules for X-Wing do we have a phase or step that says check for interrupts and no card has a subheading Interrupt. Therefore a sequence of play using PtL should happen like this: Move, Action (assuming no stress from move), 1 Free Action (PtL), "...then receive 1 stress token." End of sequence.

Push the Limit doesn't need to say check for interrupts, because they happen naturally as you progress through the card's text. That's how everything in the game works. Nothing tells you to stop and check for trigger points, not even the core rules. You don't get told to check for "before or after you reveal your dial" effects during your ship's activation, and you don't get told to check for "after you perform an action" triggers during your Perform Action step. You proceed through the normal sequence of play, and whenever a card is triggered you resolve it and then return to the sequence of play.

The actual process of effect nesting with PtL and EI is this:

1. Perform an action.
2. PtL & Experimental Interface trigger. Resolve PtL first (because reasons).
   1. Perform free action on action bar.
      1. An action has been performed. We will use it to trigger EI.
      2. Perform free action on another upgrade card.
      3. Receive stress from EI; it finishes resolving.
   2. Receive stress from Push the Limit; it finishes resolving.
3. End of sequence.

Note how we don't just arbitrarily decide to delay the stress from PtL because we'd like to. We simply move through the different steps in a step-by-step sequence, handling any additional triggers that are created as we go along. That's how the game works.

Now, I don't want to fall into an appeal to authority here, but this thread has consisted of a number of the more consistent rules guys on the forum trying to explain to you something that was settled 3 years ago when Jake Farrel and Experimental Interface first became things. These effects have been handled in this way at every level of competitive play, up to and including Worlds. Yet you're insisting that everyone except you has it wrong. Can you see why you're meeting just a little bit of resistance on this?

3 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

Yet, that is not the case, as the FAQ allows EI and PtL (ipso facto other cards) to nest, when by RaW they should not . Same FAQ states that a SLAM action may trigger cards "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver", it does not delineate that only non red maneuvers may do so. Therefore by omission, it can be inferred that the following sequence could occur: Move, Action (SLAM), Free Action ( EI ), receive stress for the SLAM and the EI , in the same manner that the nested EI / PtL .

I understand (so please stop citing it) that during the execute maneuver sequence you check for pilot stress after the red maneuver is preformed.

Again what I am pointing out is that the language as written exists for the argument that I am making.

Which particular Rules as Written are you referring to?

I've referred to things that interrupt others, which may not have been the best term to use. I know it's not in the rulebook, but " trigger " is, and everyone that plays this game knows what that means. When you do something, it might trigger something else. This is the way this game has ALWAYS worked.

You've made it clear that you know when to check for stress, but why do you think it's delayed until after EI triggers? EI doesn't trigger part way through the maneuver. EI triggers after you've performed the action ( SLAM maneuver, assign WD token ), not just after the maneuver, after the whole action.

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 4:11 AM, Parravon said:

Which particular Rules as Written are you referring to?

I've referred to things that interrupt others, which may not have been the best term to use. I know it's not in the rulebook, but " trigger " is, and everyone that plays this game knows what that means. When you do something, it might trigger something else. This is the way this game has ALWAYS worked.

You've made it clear that you know when to check for stress, but why do you think it's delayed until after EI triggers? EI doesn't trigger part way through the maneuver. EI triggers after you've performed the action ( SLAM maneuver, assign WD token ), not just after the maneuver, after the whole action.

I understand that, but part and parcel of using EI or PtL is receiving the stress (just like receiving the stress after executing a red maneuver). You move ship, check for stress (it was red so receive stress), etc. EI and PtL did the same thing. Preformed free action then received stress. Until the FAQ stated you could nest them (do to people stating the logic argument that the action is complete between the paragraphs on the card text (the only logical way to explain it) and thus allowing for nested actions and effectively delayed stress).

My argument now is, because of the inclusion of the language that was included in the FAQ, you can argue that there is no difference. That even though receive that stress because the slam was a red maneuver, since the maneuver was in essence an <b>action</b> that it can still trigger something like EI that states it triggers after preforming an action in the same way as doing EH (without a native BR) and still triggering EH or PtL (which is being allowed).

5 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

I understand that, but part and parcel of using EI or PtL is receiving the stress (just like receiving the stress after executing a red maneuver). You move ship, check for stress (it was red so receive stress), etc. EI and PtL did the same thing. Preformed free action then received stress. Until the FAQ stated you could nest them (do to people stating the logic argument that the action is complete between the paragraphs on the card text (the only logical way to explain it) and thus allowing for nested actions and effectively delayed stress).

My argument now is, because of the inclusion of the language that was included in the FAQ, you can argue that there is no difference . That even though receive that stress because the slam was a red maneuver, since the maneuver was in essence an <b>action</b> that it can still trigger something like EI that states it triggers after preforming an action in the same way as doing EH (without a native BR) and still triggering EH or PtL (which is being allowed).

So the entire crux of your argument is because SLAM is an action , you can now delay the stress to the very end of the sequence because EI and PtL do ?

Dude, you're just not getting it. There most definitely is a difference , and we've all explained it till we're blue in the face. The EI/PtL FAQ entries do not provide a precedent that will allow this to work! There is absolutely nothing in the FAQ that states ALL stress is delayed until EI/PtL finish resolving. It only refers to their associated stress! Let's look at the PtL FAQ entry and break it down:

Quote

Free actions, such as a free action granted from Squad Leader, can trigger Push the Limit ( it also doesn't need to be a free action, it can be any action ) . This can result in an action interrupting (keyword here is " interrupting" ) another effect, causing that effect to finish resolving later. For example, if a ship performs a free barrel roll action granted by Expert Handling, it could use that action as a trigger for Push the Limit ( the free barrel roll action triggers and interrupts ) . After Push the Limit resolves ( and you receive the PtL stress ) , Expert Handling finishes resolving ( and you receive the EH stress ) .

Additionally, the free action granted from Push the Limit can itself trigger other abilities that occur after performing an action. Those abilities resolve before the ship receives the stress token from Push the Limit. For example, a ship also equipped with TIE/v1 can boost, use Push the Limit to target lock, then perform the free evade from TIE/v1 before receiving the stress from Push the Limit.

An action or ability that provides a trigger point part way through may allow other actions or abilities to trigger (and resolve) before it finishes resolving. THAT'S NESTING.

Yes, the SLAM is an action , and that action can trigger EI/PtL when it's resolved , but any stress from a red SLAM cannot be delayed like it can with EI/PtL because it's MECHANICALLY DIFFERENT! A SLAM action offers no trigger point part way through , only at its completion , and as a result you cannot delay the stress from a red SLAM maneuver because the stress is part of the maneuver sequence and that sequence has no trigger point for EI/PtL, because they both trigger " after performing an action ". And although you can trigger EI/PtL after a red SLAM maneuver/action, you still can't perform the free actions they grant while you have a stress token assigned. And you will have one. Everything in the game has a strict sequential mechanic, and when you understand that game mechanic, the workings of several abilities make very clear sense.

And you still haven't explained the mechanics of how you think you delay the stress gained from a red SLAM maneuver until after an EI/PtL trigger. All you've said (repeatedly) is that the language in the FAQ says you can. But it doesn't, and we've all shown you how and why it doesn't.

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:46 PM, Parravon said:

So the entire crux of your argument is because SLAM is an action , you can now delay the stress to the very end of the sequence because EI and PtL do ?

Dude, you're just not getting it. There most definitely is a difference , and we've all explained it till we're blue in the face. The EI/PtL FAQ entries do not provide a precedent that will allow this to work! There is absolutely nothing in the FAQ that states ALL stress is delayed until EI/PtL finish resolving. It only refers to their associated stress! Let's look at the PtL FAQ entry and break it down:

An action or ability that provides a trigger point part way through may allow other actions or abilities to trigger (and resolve) before it finishes resolving. THAT'S NESTING.

Yes, the SLAM is an action , and that action can trigger EI/PtL when it's resolved , but any stress from a red SLAM cannot be delayed like it can with EI/PtL because it's MECHANICALLY DIFFERENT! A SLAM action offers no trigger point part way through , only at its completion , and as a result you cannot delay the stress from a red SLAM maneuver because the stress is part of the maneuver sequence and that sequence has no trigger point for EI/PtL, because they both trigger " after performing an action ". And although you can trigger EI/PtL after a red SLAM maneuver/action, you still can't perform the free actions they grant while you have a stress token assigned. And you will have one. Everything in the game has a strict sequential mechanic, and when you understand that game mechanic, the workings of several abilities make very clear sense.

And you still haven't explained the mechanics of how you think you delay the stress gained from a red SLAM maneuver until after an EI/PtL trigger. All you've said (repeatedly) is that the language in the FAQ says you can. But it doesn't, and we've all shown you how and why it doesn't.

I did explain, you simply refuse to accept it. I understand how and when the stress from a SLAM'd red maneuver is applied. What I am pointing out is that is (until the FAQ changed it) <b>NO</b> different than how EI and PtL functioned. They granted a free action and then assigned stress. NO point in the rules is there a clause for interruption points on a card, a card is activated or not. Now "nesting" was allowed in the case of EI and PtL NOT because of a break in the text on the card or because of any actual logic, the pure logic and mechanical sequence demands the card is active and finished before moving to another, however that being said, that logic was changed to allow for EI/PtL to trigger off of each other (should they be equipped on the same ship - and thus opening the door for other actions required triggers to also be rationalized out at the same point) via the text in the FAQ.

My point that you have completely missed, as you continue to harp on a point that I told you I understand, was trying to explain that you need to look at a broader picture painted by the language provided in the FAQ. IT can be argued that the stressed gained from the SLAM'd red maneuver is applied no less validly than that from EI/PtL and therefore since that (the EI/PtL) stress can be stacked, so can that from the SLAM'd action, no matter when during the action its acquired because X-Wing does not break things down (fortunately) that far into minutia.

Now that being said, stop telling me when the stress is acquired and why that invalidates my argument, I explained to you at the beginning of the post that I understood that and that again what I am trying to bring to discussion is the language existing that subverts your very defense.

<b>Again</b> I agree with your argument (so please stop restating it). I am trying to discuss a broader point (and yes there is a point to discuss because again your defense is arguably mitigated by the existing language in the FAQ at this point of relatively minimal interaction (other than on a theoretical basis) but with additional ships coming out which possess the maneuver and varied upgrade slots, it is likely to become far more tangled.

My preferred solution would be to remove "nesting" all together. It solves issues before they can arise. However that is not likely to happen, so theoretical interaction needs to be discussed, which is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

35 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

I did explain, you simply refuse to accept it. I understand how and when the stress from a SLAM'd red maneuver is applied. What I am pointing out is that is (until the FAQ changed it) <b>NO</b> different than how EI and PtL functioned. They granted a free action and then assigned stress. NO point in the rules is there a clause for interruption points on a card, a card is activated or not. Now "nesting" was allowed in the case of EI and PtL NOT because of a break in the text on the card or because of any actual logic, the pure logic and mechanical sequence demands the card is active and finished before moving to another, however that being said, that logic was changed to allow for EI/PtL to trigger off of each other (should they be equipped on the same ship - and thus opening the door for other actions required triggers to also be rationalized out at the same point) via the text in the FAQ.

You just don't get.

SLAM'ing a red move is entirely different to how PtL and EI function, whether you want to see it or not. Nesting was allowed because of the way the cards are set up (do X, then do Y), again whether you want to see it or not. I know this because I was involved in the original debates on this topic three years ago when Rebel Aces and Wave 5 made them a thing. I can even provide you a link to Frank Brooks' original ruling on the matter, if you'd like.

Just to push it home a little bit more, Frank even pointed out in that original ruling that this wasn't even the first example of effect nesting the game had. If Dutch used R7-T1, his ability would trigger partway through the droid's effect, after the target lock is acquired but before the boost action. We just didn't really pay much attention to it (mostly, I imagine, because both cards are kinda trash so it quite possibly just never came up for anyone who could have been bothered to consider the wider implications).

That is what the FAQ is talking about. Effects can interrupt each other, but only if they are triggered by something , be it an action, a target lock, or the assignment of a token (ie. Jake). It does not mean that you can alter the resolution of effects because you'd rather take the stress at a different time.

35 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

Now that being said, stop telling me when the stress is acquired and why that invalidates my argument, I explained to you at the beginning of the post that I understood that and that again what I am trying to bring to discussion is the language existing that subverts your very defense.

No, we will not stop "harping on" about when the stress is acquired, because it does invalidate your argument. I honestly don't know what we're still doing here, as you've had no case since the word go. The language you claim supports you does not -- as has been explained to you multiple times by the best rules guys we have -- the timing of the situation is cut and dry, but yet you are still trying to argue it because... reasons? What are you even trying to get out of this? To prove that the designers, players and every event judge on the planet have been doing this wrong for three years?

35 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

My preferred solution would be to remove "nesting" all together. It solves issues before they can arise. However that is not likely to happen, so theoretical interaction needs to be discussed, which is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

There's no need to change anything, because the current system works just fine. It has worked just fine for -- again -- THREE BLOODY YEARS .

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is how it is. You have a deeply flawed comprehension of almost every rule surrounding this situation. We're trying to help you here, but you need to actually listen to what is being explained to you instead of remaining fixated on your misunderstanding of the FAQ.

2 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

I did explain, you simply refuse to accept it. I understand how and when the stress from a SLAM'd red maneuver is applied. What I am pointing out is that is (until the FAQ changed it) <b>NO</b> different than how EI and PtL functioned. They granted a free action and then assigned stress. NO point in the rules is there a clause for interruption points on a card, a card is activated or not. Now "nesting" was allowed in the case of EI and PtL NOT because of a break in the text on the card or because of any actual logic, the pure logic and mechanical sequence demands the card is active and finished before moving to another, however that being said, that logic was changed to allow for EI / PtL to trigger off of each other (should they be equipped on the same ship - and thus opening the door for other actions required triggers to also be rationalized out at the same point) via the text in the FAQ.

So, now you're saying that nesting was created because of EI & PtL? And without any logical basis? Simply untrue. The FAQ didn't change anything. The nesting effect was clarified in FAQ 2.2 (Sept 2014) - not invented or changed for EI or PtL to work. And the first paragraph for the PtL entry has remained unchanged since FAQ 2.2. It was not a game design " change ". It was a clarification of how the cards are supposed to work together. There has been no change or errata to the text on PtL or EI to specifically allow the nesting of actions, because there didn't need to be.

Triggers are an intrinsic part of X-wing and without them many, many pilot and upgrade card abilities simply wouldn't be able to function. PtL has a trigger that may cause that "interrupt" that you're so fond of saying isn't in the rules . The word "interrupt" might not be in the rules, but "trigger" is referenced four times and it's use leaves absolutely no doubt as to it's meaning. Things can and do trigger at specified timings , and they can and do interrupt other things part way through . And this is the way PtL has worked since the Wave 2 release in March 2013.

2 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

My point that you have completely missed, as you continue to harp on a point that I told you I understand, was trying to explain that you need to look at a broader picture painted by the language provided in the FAQ. IT can be argued that the stressed gained from the SLAM'd red maneuver is applied no less validly than that from EI / PtL and therefore since that (the EI / PtL ) stress can be stacked, so can that from the SLAM'd action, no matter when during the action its acquired because X-Wing does not break things down (fortunately) that far into minutia.

Now that being said, stop telling me when the stress is acquired and why that invalidates my argument, I explained to you at the beginning of the post that I understood that and that again what I am trying to bring to discussion is the language existing that subverts your very defense.

I have looked at the broader picture, and it hasn't changed. The FAQ does not say the stress timing from a red SLAM is in any way similar to that of EI or PtL. There's no similarity at all. It also doesn't say that all stress is stacked and delayed until you've finished everything you'd like to trigger. Which is what you appear to be reading into it. When cards share very similar language, you can claim one might be a precedent for the other. EI and PtL are a perfect example of this as both of their texts start with " Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action... ".

On 10/22/2017 at 4:57 AM, SkullNBones said:

My argument now is, because of the inclusion of the language that was included in the FAQ, you can argue that there is no difference .

In order for there to be no difference, they would have to be similar, but there is absolutely no similarity in the text or language used on the SLAM Action Reference Card when compared to EI or PtL. Hence, why I keep "harping on" about them being different . You claim that the language provided in the FAQ infers a similarity. But you're the only one that sees that similarity.

And you also appear to have missed the point that X-wing does, in fact, break thing down that far. The game's entire mechanic is broken down into Phases, Steps, and sub-steps, and even sub-steps of the sub-steps. And at each point in the sequence, there might be a trigger point for an ability to interrupt it. Just look at the Attack chart. If you can't see that as a break down of the game mechanic, then I don't know what else to say.

2 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

My point that you have completely missed, as you continue to harp on a point that I told you I understand, was trying to explain that you need to look at a broader picture painted by the language provided in the FAQ. IT can be argued that the stressed gained from the SLAM'd red maneuver is applied no less validly than that from EI/PtL and therefore since that (the EI/PtL) stress can be stacked, so can that from the SLAM'd action, no matter when during the action its acquired because X-Wing does not break things down (fortunately) that far into minutia.

Now that being said, stop telling me when the stress is acquired and why that invalidates my argument, I explained to you at the beginning of the post that I understood that and that again what I am trying to bring to discussion is the language existing that subverts your very defense.

<b>Again</b> I agree with your argument (so please stop restating it). I am trying to discuss a broader point (and yes there is a point to discuss because again your defense is arguably mitigated by the existing language in the FAQ at this point of relatively minimal interaction (other than on a theoretical basis) but with additional ships coming out which possess the maneuver and varied upgrade slots, it is likely to become far more tangled.

My preferred solution would be to remove "nesting" all together. It solves issues before they can arise. However that is not likely to happen, so theoretical interaction needs to be discussed, which is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

What is the precise wording in the FAQ that you feel confuses the issue?

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

What is the precise wording in the FAQ that you feel confuses the issue?

That's the golden question we'd all like the answer to.

@SkullNBones Don't just argue.

Set out, in simple steps, how you assert that doing, e.g. SLAM 5k PTL would work.

In steps like this:

SLAM

- Choose a red manoeuvre the same speed as you just did.

- Enter the 'execute a manoeuvre' sequence.

- Execute the red manoeuvre

- Check Pilot Stress - receive one stress.

- Clean Up

SLAM complete. You can now go on to 'after you perform an action' triggers.

After performing SLAM, trigger PTL

PTL Focus

After performing Focus, trigger EI

EI GONK bank a shield

Receive EI stress

Receive PTL stress.

The black, bold step is the one that cannot be moved outside of the SLAM action. Thus, everything in bold red , doesn't work, because stressed ships cannot perform actions. If you had instead SLAMMED a white or green move, the rest of this sequence would work fine, because you explicitly CAN insert 'after performing an action' triggers between the steps of PTL and EI.

Please let us know HOW it is that you assert that the Check Pilot Stress step is being deferred. Don't just argue that it is, give us a sequence of events, like the one above.

(Noting that there are not any currently released ships which can both SLAM and equip Pattern Analyser. Let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it, because that bridge is frigging MINED.)

^^ This is the form of explanation I've also been asking @SkullNBones for, but instead, he just keeps repeating that the FAQ sets a precedent.

Expain how. If you can.

(sits back with a bucket of popcorn)

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:44 AM, Parravon said:

^^ This is the form of explanation I've also been asking @SkullNBones for, but instead, he just keeps repeating that the FAQ sets a precedent.

Expain how. If you can.

I actually did lay it out like that a few posts ago, but that was ignored. Anyway. I shall continue to entertain myself and @emeraldbeacon .

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:17 PM, JJ48 said:

What is the precise wording in the FAQ that you feel confuses the issue?

First, I do not feel it confuses anything. I feel it opens a door that leaves things a bit open to interpretation (similar to the veerrryyyy stretched arguments that I heard about Targeting Synchronizer - that will fortunately be wrapped up with the latest FAQ) and argumentation (e.g. what is going on here )

To quote: SLAM Timing If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action. (FAQ 4.3.3) Note the language "these effects occur". This opens the door to allowing those triggers to happen regardless if you SLAM'd a red, white, green, blue, purple poka-dotted people eater maneuver. This language does not say "...these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action (provided the SLAM action was not a Red maneuver)".

Now that opens up the sequence (as explained this way before) to be:

SLAM

• Choose a red maneuver the same speed as you just did.
• Enter the 'execute a maneuver' sequence.
• Execute the red maneuver
• Check Pilot Stress - receive one stress.
• Clean Up

SLAM complete.

After performing SLAM, trigger PTL (Focus)

After performing Focus, trigger EI ("GONK")

Receive EI stress

Receive PTL stress.

(in the above example you would net 3 stress btw).

So again what I am getting at is not that the sequence changes in any fashion, but that the language in the FAQ has opened a door to allow continued nesting of actions.

Instead of the proper sequence being along the lines of:

SLAM

• Choose a red maneuver the same speed as you just did.
• Enter the 'execute a maneuver' sequence.
• Execute the red maneuver
• Check Pilot Stress - receive one stress.
• Clean Up

SLAM complete. (END)

After performing SLAM, trigger PTL (Focus), Receive PTL stress (END #2)

After performing Focus, trigger EI ("GONK"), Receive EI stress (END #3)

Here an END there an END everywhere an END, everyone gets an END. Nesting is problematic in itself, but saying that you can do it for one sets a precedence that allows other language to be interpreted in a way that opens it up for other instances. Again I agree with all of your (royal you) assessments as far as the red SLAM causing an end. I am just pointing out that a loop hole is present that is arguably exploitable.

So what you're saying is you could PTL and EI off SLAM if it wasn't red, but not if it was?

That's absolutely right.

What we've all understood you to be arguing is that you can PTL off SLAM even if it's red. WHich you can't.

2 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

I actually did lay it out like that a few posts ago, but that was ignored. Anyway. I shall continue to entertain myself and @emeraldbeacon .

First, I do not feel it confuses anything. I feel it opens a door that leaves things a bit open to interpretation (similar to the veerrryyyy stretched arguments that I heard about Targeting Synchronizer - that will fortunately be wrapped up with the latest FAQ) and argumentation (e.g. what is going on here )

To quote: SLAM Timing If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action. (FAQ 4.3.3) Note the language "these effects occur". This opens the door to allowing those triggers to happen regardless if you SLAM'd a red, white, green, blue, purple poka-dotted people eater maneuver. This language does not say "...these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action (provided the SLAM action was not a Red maneuver)".

Now that opens up the sequence (as explained this way before) to be:

SLAM

• Choose a red maneuver the same speed as you just did.
• Enter the 'execute a maneuver' sequence.
• Execute the red maneuver
• Check Pilot Stress - receive one stress.
• Clean Up

SLAM complete.

After performing SLAM, trigger PTL (Focus)

After performing Focus, trigger EI ("GONK")

Receive EI stress

Receive PTL stress.

(in the above example you would net 3 stress btw).

So again what I am getting at is not that the sequence changes in any fashion, but that the language in the FAQ has opened a door to allow continued nesting of actions.

Instead of the proper sequence being along the lines of:

SLAM

• Choose a red maneuver the same speed as you just did.
• Enter the 'execute a maneuver' sequence.
• Execute the red maneuver
• Check Pilot Stress - receive one stress.
• Clean Up

SLAM complete. (END)

After performing SLAM, trigger PTL (Focus), Receive PTL stress (END #2)

After performing Focus, trigger EI ("GONK"), Receive EI stress (END #3)

Here an END there an END everywhere an END, everyone gets an END. Nesting is problematic in itself, but saying that you can do it for one sets a precedence that allows other language to be interpreted in a way that opens it up for other instances. Again I agree with all of your (royal you) assessments as far as the red SLAM causing an end. I am just pointing out that a loop hole is present that is arguably exploitable.

And what WE'RE all pointing out is that there is NO LOOP HOLE. Nesting is not problematic, it follows a very logical, mechanical sequence, and it's remained unchanged since Wave 2, so it obviously works perfectly fine. But I don't think you have a complete grasp of exactly what a " nested action " is, because you seem to see problems there that aren't actually there.

In your first example, the only nested action is the Gonk action provided by EI, which is nested within the PtL and triggered by performing the Focus action before the PtL stress is received. There's nothing else nested there at all. Certainly nothing associated with the SLAM. PtL and EI trigger after , so they're not nesting with the SLAM action in any way. And if the SLAM was white or green, then your first example would be absolutely correct with the net result of 2 stress (from EI then PtL). But your second example is nowhere near close to " the proper sequence " you think it should be. It's more wrong than correct. And definitely NOT how nested actions work.

Let's take another look at your quote from the FAQ: " If an effect triggers "after performing an action" or "after executing a maneuver," these effects occur at the same time after a ship performs a SLAM action. "

Any effect that triggers after an action or maneuver, can both trigger after you've performed a SLAM action. Note it says "after" the SLAM, not " during the SLAM ", not " part way through the SLAM just before you receive any stress ". It says AFTER. Which means only one thing - perform a red SLAM and you are stressed.

No one has yet disputed that performing a SLAM action, regardless of maneuver colour, is a trigger for any ability occurring " after performing an action... " or " after executing a maneuver... ". There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It does not matter if the SLAM was red, the trigger is still there. What we ARE disputing is that there is no language within the FAQ entries you have quoted, that allow you to perform an action when you have a stress token. And in both of your examples above, you've correctly identified exactly where the red SLAM stress is received. But now that you have received that stress token, just how are you able to perform the free actions that EI or PtL grant after performing the stress-inducing SLAM action? Because the rulebook states in six different locations that " a ship cannot perform actions while stressed ". And you, yourself, have identified that you would now be stressed after the SLAM.