I have a question about the timing of receiving a Stress token on a Red Action that may come up with two ships with with at least one Red Coordinate.
Consider Two Coordinating Ships, both with Red Coordinate.
ONE moves and performs the Red Coordinate Action, to give TWO an action... which chooses to perform Red Coordinate.
Does ONE gain the Stress prior to TWO performing its Red Coordinate Action (therefore making ONE not a valid target, in normal circumstances, for TWOs Coordinate)?

I think that ONE does not gain the Stress prior to the resolution of TWO's Coordinate... and, in fact, TWO gains Stress prior to ONE....
But it is a bit ambiguous to me.

My working:
Under the "Action" heading of the FAQ/Rules Reference, it states " As a cost to attempt to perform a red action, a ship must gain 1 stress token ".... but does not specify the timing of this.
The ambiguity arises as it is uncertain as to when that cost is applied...
Under the "Stress" heading, " A ship receives one stress token while it executes a red maneuver or after it performs a red action ." (emphasis mine)
Here, it seems as if a Red Action must be completed (or failed) prior to the addition of Stress.
Moving to specifically the Coordinate Action, order of operations is as follows -
"1. Measure range from the coordinating ship to any friendly ships
2. Choose another friendly ship at range 1–2.
3. The chosen ship performs one action."
As far as I can tell, this then nests the chosen ship's action prior to the end of the first's Coordinate, as the ship being Coordinated to must perform its action as part of Step 3 of Coordinate.

Chain of events as I see it, given the above:
- ONE chooses Red Coordinate action
- (ONE measures range, chooses to Coordinate an action to TWO)
-- TWO chooses Red Coordinate action
-- (TWO measures range, chooses to Coordinate an action to ONE)
--- ONE takes an action (say... Focus)
-- TWOs Red Coordinate action has now ended, giving TWO Stress
- ONEs Red Coordinate Action has now ended, giving ONE Stress.

Specific reasons for performing this convoluted set of events, rather than ONE performing a simple regular Action to begin with:
- Movement Shenanigans for TWO
- Maybe there is a case for Squad Leader, on either ship, with Stress mechanics or something.

I am new to Coordinating, so I am not sure how this interaction plays out.

that seems about right, yes. strangely, the cost of receiving a stress to attempt to perform a red action is paid after the action is attempted or performed according to the rules reference - and that timing is after the ship being coordinated performs the coordinate action, meaning when the last ship being coordinated has performed an action. for some reason, i really don't like that, but it's what the rules say.

you are going to struggle finding benefits from being stressed (rebel b-wings, l'ulo l'ampar and 4-lom comes to mind), though.

My best argument against the nesting is that once a ship is chosen as target for co-ordinate the co-ordinate action is complete. The ship would then get a stress. Then the co-ordinated ship would perform a chosen action.

It should not be nested simply as a matter of principle.

3 hours ago, Frimmel said:

My best argument against the nesting is that once a ship is chosen as target for co-ordinate the co-ordinate action is complete. The ship would then get a stress. Then the co-ordinated ship would perform a chosen action.

It should not be nested simply as a matter of principle.

i agree that's it's not good that it's nested, but RAW the coordinate action is not complete until the chosen ship has performed an action.

And AP-5 would not work with the current wording if the given action was not nested...

On 5/8/2019 at 2:31 AM, Frimmel said:

My best argument against the nesting is that once a ship is chosen as target for co-ordinate the co-ordinate action is complete. The ship would then get a stress. Then the co-ordinated ship would perform a chosen action.

It should not be nested simply as a matter of principle.

That is not what the Coordinate rule says. It specifically states that the ship that was the target of a Coordinate Action must perform its Action as part of the Coordinate Action's steps.
If I am reading this correctly, at worst, it could be stated that the Coordinated ship's Action happens simultaneously with the end of the Coordinate Action's step (meaning you would choose which happens first anyway).

If the rule was to be written using the method you have just described, it would be written similar to Jam... whereby the effect of the action/token is written after the steps of the action, rather than having it self contained within the steps of the Action (as Coordinate currently is written).

An action is not performed until all of its steps are followed through to completion... If you have multiple steps to complete in order to perform an action (such as the movement abilities and Coordinate) then the action is not yet performed.

As for principles...
*shrug*
Basically, I am seeing if the rules allow it. I think that they do.

On 5/7/2019 at 6:14 AM, meffo said:

you are going to struggle finding benefits from being stressed

Those ships with explicit bonuses/rules for Stress notwithstanding, there are definitely movement shenanigans to be had with being stressed after the beginning of Activation.

2 hours ago, Vespid1311 said:

Those ships with explicit bonuses/rules for Stress notwithstanding, there are definitely movement shenanigans to be had with being stressed after the beginning of Activation.

yes. if you've planned a red maneuvre and your opponent flies first, letting you realize that your red maneuvre will be bad for you, having the option of stressing a ship before it activates would force it do do a white two forwards maneuver instead. that could be useful, but it will very rarely come up.

that's one of the benefits of having a red action on your action bar and having a ship with coordinate in your list. it's definitely not a big advantage by any stretch of the imagination. you would have to pay for it with action economy.

still good to be aware of.

the rules definitely allow it. it's still a bit of a danger having several actions nested within the same action, but at least as of right now it doesn't seem to be a problem.

7 hours ago, Vespid1311 said:

That is not what the Coordinate rule says. It specifically states that the ship that was the target of a Coordinate Action must perform its Action as part of the Coordinate Action's steps.     

Fair enough. It was just the best argument I could make against it nesting.

Experience suggests that whenever things start getting "nested" like this it very often leads to broken stuff and arguments and not fun times and things getting banned. Rules-lawyering like this often creates bad feelings. After all why are you asking or feel like you have to ask? Because you're doing stuff that doesn't really seem fair or in the spirit of the game and is kind of broken. You know this is going to make someone angry when you use it.

From a RAW standpoint it probably nests. RAI or not I don't think it should.

4 hours ago, Frimmel said:

From a RAW standpoint it probably nests. RAI or not I don't think it should.

As I said previously, AP-5 stop working if you don't nest the action.

Edit: Lieutenant Sai would also not work

One example of when this would be useful: RAC and Sai are in a squad together. Sai moves first and bumps, getting no action. RAC takes a red coordinate action, allowing Sai to coordinate RAC back, and RAC can focus before the stress from the red coordinate is applied. Normally that’s a waste, but Sai turns a coordinate into two (or 3 with the Lambda title) effective actions, and it only works if the coordinates are nested and happen before the stress from the first red coordinate is applied.

16 minutes ago, muribundi said:

As I said previously, AP-5 stop working if you don't nest the action.

Edit: Lieutenant Sai would also not work

I've conceded that it is RAW to be nested. 🙂

However, I think both of those cards work without being locked into a nested interpretation for co-ordinate.

AP-5 just allows a ship to bypass being unable to perform an action because of stress. That the co-ordinated ship completes an action first before AP-5's co-ordinate is considered complete is neither here nor there to AP-5 unless his co-ordinate is to be considered red. That just leaves us with the question already before us about when co-ordinate is complete.

Whether you consider Sai's co-ordinate complete before or after the target's action is again neither here nor there. It might matter if Sai's co-ordinate were red or to be considered red but as white co-ordinate it all processes the same no matter when you consider Sai's original co-ordinate complete. Sai-target-back to Sai if action is on his bar. And if it were a red co-ordinate on Sai nested or not he's SOL since his ability is specifically after he co-ordinates. He'll be stressed before he can take his copy-cat action.

To recap: Conceding RAW for it to be nested. Not agreeing AP-5 and Sai support RAW as nested. Still thinking nesting is a bad idea with Sai and AP-5 most certainly contributing to that opinion. 🍻

@Frimmel
It's all good

13 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Experience suggests that whenever things start getting "nested" like this it very often leads to broken stuff and arguments and not fun times and things getting banned. Rules-lawyering like this often creates bad feelings. After all why are you asking or feel like you have to ask? Because you're doing stuff that doesn't really seem fair or in the spirit of the game and is kind of broken. You know this is going to make someone angry when you use it.

That's true too.
In terms of how I feel if/that this works, I am neutral. On one hand, I agree with your points on potential for this getting out of hand (though I think that they wrote the rules well enough that it probably won't get out of hand between two ships as you can not infinitely take the actions.... as was mentioned in the most recent Gold Squadron podcast, I think, with the non-potential of Nantex infinite Tractor up the board).
As noted above, the Sai interaction (which I had not thought of before then) is potentially problematic.

For me, realising that this could be a possibility has opened up some potential with the list I am currently testing.
The shock value once it is initially realised/achieved could be something both positive and negative (in that it could show an entirely different way of playing... or someone might want to slap you).
It is a bit of beardy rules lawyering.... but if it is there relatively clearly, I see no real problem with it... yet. It is an edge scenario, but it is good to know if it is a possibility.

@meffo
Ever tried to keep a fast-moving ship from moving fast? It's hard work. Some ships can do with a little extra push in the slower direction

@Vespid1311

nah, i like fast ships moving fast. moving slowly sounds boring. also, i don't like support ships. 😊