8 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

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 )

By this logic, absolutely any wording "leaves things open to interpretation...and argumentation" provided someone is willing to argue about it no matter what! In this particular instance, I suggest that it may not be the wording so much as the reader that is the real issue.

8 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

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).

You yourself point out that a red SLAM action receives a stress before the SLAM is complete. Since the FAQ clarifies that other, triggering actions don't take place until after the SLAM action is complete, the ship clearly already has a stress at that time and can't take further actions, even free actions. Therefore the chain stops before PTL or EI can trigger.

I think the main thing to consider is that PTL and EI are not actions, themselves. They simply allow you to take actions, and then take a stress (as two separate steps). Therefore, things that trigger after taking an action trigger after the first step, before taking a stress, rather than waiting until the entire card has completed (since the card is not itself an action).

To that end, I don't think there's any confusion in the FAQ in that regard, as long as one keeps in mind the difference between an action and a card.

It's also worth noting: triggers can occur, but leave you unable to act on them. Easily.

For instance, getting a free action when you're stressed, getting a free action when you've already done all actions that are available to you, etc.

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:38 AM, JJ48 said:

By this logic, absolutely any wording "leaves things open to interpretation...and argumentation" provided someone is willing to argue about it no matter what! In this particular instance, I suggest that it may not be the wording so much as the reader that is the real issue.

You yourself point out that a red SLAM action receives a stress before the SLAM is complete. Since the FAQ clarifies that other, triggering actions don't take place until after the SLAM action is complete, the ship clearly already has a stress at that time and can't take further actions, even free actions. Therefore the chain stops before PTL or EI can trigger.

I think the main thing to consider is that PTL and EI are not actions, themselves. They simply allow you to take actions, and then take a stress (as two separate steps). Therefore, things that trigger after taking an action trigger after the first step, before taking a stress, rather than waiting until the entire card has completed (since the card is not itself an action).

To that end, I don't think there's any confusion in the FAQ in that regard, as long as one keeps in mind the difference between an action and a card.

My whole point is that cards should be completed when activated, not partially completed.

The funny thing is, I wanted to discuss the language presented in a rational manner, which is now nearly impossible simply because the argument has devolved (and quickly at that) into "its our way, your too stupid and don't understand so we will not even consider examining anything because we are right and until you say we are right (even though I already stated I understood and agree with the pov) we refuse to move forward..."

Anyway, I will continue to point out that the language in the FAQ gives you permission to trigger "AEM" or "AA" cards after a SLAM regardless of whether that SLAM received a stress.

13 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

My whole point is that cards should be completed when activated, not partially completed.

And I disagree. I think it's perfectly natural that when a card involves multiple distinct steps, each step offers a chance to respond to it.

Otherwise, you'd have to reword a whole slew of cards, as cards tend to trigger off of actions and maneuvers, not "when a card completes".

EDIT: Also, could you please elaborate which cards you mean by "AEM" and "AA"? I don't see any cards in the FAQ that would fit either of those except possibly Adaptive Ailerons, which I don't think would interact much with SLAM, unless I'm missing something.

1 hour ago, SkullNBones said:

My whole point is that cards should be completed when activated, not partially completed.

The funny thing is, I wanted to discuss the language presented in a rational manner, which is now nearly impossible simply because the argument has devolved (and quickly at that) into "its our way, your too stupid and don't understand so we will not even consider examining anything because we are right and until you say we are right (even though I already stated I understood and agree with the pov) we refuse to move forward..."

Anyway, I will continue to point out that the language in the FAQ gives you permission to trigger "AEM" or "AA" cards after a SLAM regardless of whether that SLAM received a stress.

It gives you permission to trigger them, sure.

But you may not be able to resolve them, because you're stressed.

FOr instance, if a card existed which said 'after you perform an action, you may acquire a target lock' you could do it fine after a red SLAM, or Fleet Officer, or w/e.

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

EDIT: Also, could you please elaborate which cards you mean by "AEM" and "AA"? I don't see any cards in the FAQ that would fit either of those except possibly Adaptive Ailerons, which I don't think would interact much with SLAM, unless I'm missing something.

He is referring to " A fter E xecuting a M aneuver", and " A fter performing an A ction", since both of these are triggered at the same time after a SLAM maneuver.

39 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

He is referring to " A fter E xecuting a M aneuver", and " A fter performing an A ction", since both of these are triggered at the same time after a SLAM maneuver.

As many have said:

The mechanics are clear. After you perform a SLAM maneuver that was red you will satisfy the conditions necessary to trigger "After Executing a Maneuver" and "After Performing an Action" abilities. That being said, unless you are flying Tycho (who, as of yet, has no way to perform a SLAM Action), you cannot perform actions while stressed . Experimental Interface triggers off of the completion of the SLAM action [which was the execution of a red maneuver] however it allows you to perform a free action and, as you are now stressed and still cannot perform actions while stressed, the ability never resolves.

13 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

He is referring to " A fter E xecuting a M aneuver", and " A fter performing an A ction", since both of these are triggered at the same time after a SLAM maneuver.

Ah, I see. I think, then, that some of the confusion may also be that his breakdown of the SLAM action is not entirely accurate.

Per the SLAM reference card, "To SLAM, choose and execute a maneuver on the ship's dial. The chosen maneuver must be the same speed as the maneuver that ship executed this round. Then assign that ship a weapons disabled token." So logically, the stress is received as part of "executing a maneuver", not after it.

Now, I do see that technically, there should be a chance to perform "After executing a maneuver" responses prior to receiving a weapons disabled token, so I suppose in that case there is a minor discrepancy that should, perhaps, be clarified, but unless there are cards that allow you to attack "after executing a maneuver", this shouldn't really matter practically, and is hardly likely to confuse newer players, who are probably already confused enough by the rules in general without looking at such inconsequential details.

4 hours ago, SkullNBones said:

My whole point is that cards should be completed when activated, not partially completed.

The funny thing is, I wanted to discuss the language presented in a rational manner, which is now nearly impossible simply because the argument has devolved (and quickly at that) into "its our way, your too stupid and don't understand so we will not even consider examining anything because we are right and until you say we are right (even though I already stated I understood and agree with the pov) we refuse to move forward..."

Anyway, I will continue to point out that the language in the FAQ gives you permission to trigger "AEM" or "AA" cards after a SLAM regardless of whether that SLAM received a stress.

And I will continue to also point out that this particular point is not in dispute at all. And everyone else in this thread has (repeatedly) stated that we agree with that . But there is no mechanic within the game, or language in the FAQ that supports delaying or deferring any stress from a red SLAM until after any AEM or AA triggers provided by that SLAM. And this seems to be the one thing you're clinging to.

No one has said that "you're too stupid", but it's also clear from your first three posts in this thread that you didn't clearly understand the interaction of all the factors involved with the red SLAM/EI/PtL scenario or nested actions, that we've now been discussing for three pages. We've illustrated it so many times now, that there should be absolutely no doubt to ANYONE reading this thread as to how they work.

I think the main problem is that although you've said you agree with our point of view , you've also continued to say selected texts in the FAQ allow it to work otherwise. So let's eliminate some of that language.

1. A SLAM Action includes a maneuver and will trigger any effect that occurs after executing a manuever or any effect after performing an action . Everyone here agrees with that , so it now no longer needs to be stated as an argument point because no one is arguing against that. It seems to be the stress that is creating the issue, so:
   • Does a stress-inducing SLAM action alter or affect those trigger points at all? No, it does not. They are still trigger points.
   • Does a stress-inducing SLAM action allow any actions provided by those trigger points? No , because although you may be able to trigger something like EI or PtL, you still can't perform any actions while you are stressed.
   • Does a stress-inducing SLAM action allow any non-action abilities provided by those triggers? Yes, it does, as long as those actions meet their requirements. eg. Outlaw Tech triggers after executing a red maneuver.
   • Can the stress from a stress-inducing SLAM action be delayed due to any nested effects? No , because there are no trigger points within the SLAM action or it's maneuver sequence that allow something else to occur and interrupt.
2. Experimental Interface FAQ Entry.
   • The first thing it says is "See Push the Limit", which is a space-saver so they didn't have to repeat themselves. But I think the should have actually repeated themselves because the cards are nearly identical in their wording and mechanical application. End result: Non-argument .
   • The next paragraph tells you that you can use EI and PtL together to perform two additional free actions (which is correct because you can), then receive 2 stress tokens (which is the end result of the sequence). But at no point in this entry, does it explain exactly how this is done, or offer any example of the correct sequence.
   • If you read just this entry , you could conceivably (and incorrectly) conclude that there is no interrupt happening anywhere and Experimental Interface and Push the Limit are sequential and stack their stress until after their granted actions. But when you read the Push the Limit entry (as instructed), it would seem to offer a different, but much more detailed mechanic entirely. End result: Ambiguous entry .
   • The last paragraph refers to possible misprinted cards. End result: Non-argument .
3. Push the Limit FAQ Entry.
   • The text in the first paragraph is unchanged from FAQ 2.2 and reiterates that performing a free action can be a trigger for PtL.
   • It also provides an example of how an action can be interrupted part way through because a trigger condition has been met (barrel roll action from Expert handling as a trigger for PtL). This is the first official example of what the players now refer to as "nesting" which is still an unofficial, but widely accepted term.
   • The second paragraph continues by explaining that the free action granted by PtL can itself trigger other abilities (TIE/v1, EI, etc). It also provides another example of how an action can be interrupted part way through because a trigger condition has been met (TIE/v1 evade).
   • Does it state anywhere that when beginning your action sequence, any stress incurred is delayed or deferred until the very end ? No , it does not.
   • Does it imply that? No , it does not.
   • Does it clearly illustrate that Push the Limit is a two-step sequence . Yes , it does, by the example of the free TIE/v1 evade action occurs before the Push the Limit stress is received.
   • Does it clearly illustrate that a card that has a two-step or multi-step sequence may be interrupted before it is fully resolved? Yes , it does with the Expert Handling example.
   • The last paragraph states that if you can't use the free action from PtL then you can perform a different action, or decide not use PtL at all. End result: Non-argument .

So this is the guts of the "language" that you have been quoting since your first post in this thread, but I've noticed that you've only applied certain entries when and if they might vaguely apply to support your argument and pretty much excluded the possibility that the other entries could prove you wrong. For example, you're clutching onto " the FAQ states you can trigger EI or PtL after a SLAM ", which hasn't ever been in question. Everyone agrees with you on that, so why do you keep stating it? Is there something else in the SLAM Timing entry that we're all missing? I don't think so.

The fact that you can trigger any effect after a SLAM action's maneuver is fine. Whether or not you can utilize that effect is still governed by the rules. Just because there is a trigger point for EI or Ptl after a red SLAM does not automatically mean that they will be able fully resolve. It never has and there's nothing in the FAQ that changes that.

CONCLUSION:
The language in the SLAM Timing entry is clear and undisputed.
The language in the Experimental Interface entry is unclear, lacks examples, and leaves questions, but it does list the only similar card (PtL).
The language in the Push the Limit entry is clear and has two examples of how the mechanic works, and the only similar card is also listed (EI). And has been UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by a world-wide player base for over three years.
Neither EI or PtL have any mechanical similarity to how a SLAM action works, and therefore can offer NO PRECEDENT WHATSOEVER.

Okay, this has just turned into a non-productive back and forth.

I understand (and have since before I posted the first time in this thread) and even agree with your assessment and I will continue to play it in the same fashion you also rule it.

That being said, you are still stuck on correcting me when I do not need to be corrected regardless of how I attempt to approach the subject.

I believe the language exists and there will be those that argue the minutia of the wording (I run into them all the time) to try and bend the rule. Your inability or unwillingness to discuss the theoretical position is clear (and has been for several posts) and I am good with that.

Therefore continued discussion or comment is mute.