Looking forward to your insight. While I think the interaction is simple to rule, I am sure we will see many arguments due to how the 7th Fleet Gunner is worded.

To begin with, let's look at both of the cards:

Now, should Ric, coming in hot, perform a range 1 attack against an enemy who revealed a slower maneuver, with a support of the Seventh Fleet Gunner available, is the player free to resolve the effects in order:

1. (Game effect with priority) Bonus attack die for Range 1 attack - total of 3;
2. (User effect with custom ordering) Bonus attack die for the 7th Fleet - total of 4, reaching maximum;
3. (User effect with custom ordering) Bonus attack die for high-speed maneuver from Ole!'s ability - total of 5, exceeding the maximum given by 7th Fleet, but that effect has already been resolved and maximum is irrelevant.

I find nothing ambiguous in such an interaction, yet less rules-fluent players are likely to argue. What about the rest of the community?

Seems correct to me. 7FG can't take you above 4 if you already have 4, but other effects can stack on top of it.

I don't think this works. It seems to me that the caveat on Seventh Fleet Gunner (a maximum of 4 dice) is not a condition for using the ability in the first place, it's a hard limit on the number of dice you may roll during the attack.

it seems correct to me, even though i don't like it. the effect of 7th fleet gunner does not use the word cannot - and so the effect does not limit the total number of dice rolled if you add other effects after 7th fleer gunners.

not sure what the intention is, but if it's not supposed to be permitted to roll a larger number of dice than four when attacking with a ship affected by 7th fleet, the card needs an entry in the FAQ.

I'm not sure you can order the effects that way. Ric's effect is not a "may do" it is a "must do." "Roll 1 additional" as opposed to "you may roll 1 additional."

As a "must do" it comes before 7th Fleet Gunner the same as the range bonus would. Thus you are at four dice when the choosing to "may do" the gunner and can't choose it.

3 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I'm not sure you can order the effects that way. Ric's effect is not a "may do" it is a "must do." "Roll 1 additional" as opposed to "you may roll 1 additional."

As a "must do" it comes before 7th Fleet Gunner the same as the range bonus would. Thus you are at four dice when the choosing to "may do" the gunner and can't choose it.

This is more persuasive.

3 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I'm not sure you can order the effects that way. Ric's effect is not a "may do" it is a "must do." "Roll 1 additional" as opposed to "you may roll 1 additional."

As a "must do" it comes before 7th Fleet Gunner the same as the range bonus would. Thus you are at four dice when the choosing to "may do" the gunner and can't choose it.

Relevant RR quotation, please?

To my knowledge, we only know that:

Quote

If a player has multiple abilities that triggered from the same event, that player chooses the order that those abilities are added to the ability queue.

And:

Quote

If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first.

And the "CARD INTERPRETATION" paragraph where the words "must" and "may" are being defined says nothing about the order of application.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

This is more persuasive.

I was looking at the ability que rules in the Rules Reference on page 3.

Quote

• If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first.

◊ For example, if a ship performs a red barrel roll and the ship has an ability that triggers after it performs a barrel roll, l, the ship gains a stress token before the other ability is resolved.

I think Ric's effect is a "game effect" as opposed to a "player ability." I'm making the difference between a player ability and a game effect the use of the word "may."

4 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I think Ric's effect is a "game effect" as opposed to a "player ability."

I get your notion and it's an utter misconduct from FFG's side that these two terms are not being anyhow defined nor separated by the rules. I favour the interpretation that game effects are those resulting directly from the game rules (e.g. obstruction bonuses, range bonuses, damage cards) and player's abilities come from the cards the player chosen to include in their squadron due to their particular effects and abilities. But I do recognise this might not be better than other ones.

I'd concur with the interpretation that game effects are mandatory and player effects are optional (it seems the easiest and least controversial to write rules about), but also the interpretation that FFG should absolutely define this somewhere.

Just now, Ryfterek said:

I get your notion and it's an utter misconduct from FFG's side that these two terms are not being anyhow defined nor separated by the rules. I favour the interpretation that game effects are those resulting directly from the game rules (e.g. obstruction bonuses, range bonuses, damage cards) and player's abilities come from the cards the player chosen to include in their squadron due to their particular effects and abilities. But I do recognise this might not be better than other ones.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'd concur with the interpretation that game effects are mandatory and player effects are optional (it seems the easiest and least controversial to write rules about), but also the interpretation that FFG should absolutely define this somewhere.

I think it is ill defined as well. My point hinges on Ric's effect being the same as the range bonus. Per page fifteen of the Rules Reference:

Quote

• Range bonuses are applied for all attacks unless stated otherwise.

Unless someone is suggesting that Ric's bonus is a choice when he's going faster then to me it has to process before 7th Fleet Gunner.

20 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I think  it  is ill defined as well. My point hinges on Ric's effect being the same as the range bonus.

While mine hinges on assumption, that his effect is classified as a Player's Ability and can therefore be queued at will.

And, frankly speaking, both assumptions are somehow equally reasonable.

I will try to find an example of an ability of similar wording that we are more used to and analyse how it could interact with other effects in it's timing window.

like all discussions regarding player and game effects, this is very interesting. in my opinion, all pilot abilities are player effects - and i do not see Oliés effect as absolutely mandatory, or rule that the game state should be rolled back if the effect was missed. as i see it, it's open to being a missed opportunity.

game effects are as @Ryfterek mentions typically on damage cards, in the turn sequence, described in the rules reference and so on...

i wholeheartedly agree that player effects and game effects should be properly defined by FFG as well, since it's quite pivotal to resolving a lot of interactios in the right order.

2 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

While mine hinges on assumption, that his effect is classified as a Player's Ability and can therefore be queued at will.

And, frankly speaking, both assumptions are somehow equally reasonable.

I also agree that both assumptions are equally reasonable with what the rulebooks provide. I just want whatever concept of the two is chosen to thenceforth be applied consistently.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

like all discussions regarding player and game effects, this is very interesting. in my opinion, all pilot abilities are player effects - and i do not see Oliés effect as absolutely mandatory, or rule that the game state should be rolled back if the effect was missed. as i see it, it's open to being a missed opportunity.

Well mostly a player is not going to complain if someone rolls too few attack dice against them. The trouble there becomes when a player with a Ric like ability (i.e. one that doesn't include "may") would be subject to a penalty of some sort or might suffer an ill consequence when the die from the ability is included. Then whether or not the ability is mandatory is important.

The question at hand seems to be more of when an ability on a pilot or upgrade or damage card is a "game effect" and when it is a "player ability." We don't seem to have any disagreement that something can be mandatory and still be a player ability.

In my opinion something on a pilot, upgrade, or damage card that is mandatory should be considered a "game effect" that processes before a "player ability."

I am in the “doesn’t work” camp based on my interpretation that the max 4 is an ongoing condition. Not a one time check. Similar to Gunboats’ Assault Config.

But I'm no rules expert.

Nice salty rules question find, tho! 😝

25 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

I am in the “doesn’t work” camp based on my interpretation that the max 4 is an ongoing condition. Not a one time check. Similar to Gunboats’ Assault Config.

But I'm no rules expert.

Nice salty rules question find, tho! 😝

I wonder - should it be an ongoing condition, how would the gunner work, theoretically, with Ghost / Upsilon attacking at range 1? Would it prevent the 5th die being added by the core game concepts?

6 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

I wonder - should it be an ongoing condition, how would the gunner work, theoretically, with Ghost / Upsilon attacking at range 1? Would it prevent the 5th die being added by the core game concepts?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

I don't think there is much of an argument that a CLT Aethersprite can add the focus after using 7th Fleet Gunner. In that way 7th Fleet Gunner does not limit you to only four die as an ongoing limitation.

If you had something like Kanan Jarrus take a die away from a four die attack that you couldn't add 7th Fleet Gunner's ability to, could you after the Kanan subtraction could you then go back and use 7th Fleet Gunner? The use of "while" suggests you could while timing matters/ability que suggest you couldn't since Kanan processes after the chance to use 7th Fleet Gunner. I'd be willing to flip a coin on that one though I lean to "Kanan wins and you only roll three."

I'd argue that the assault boat configuration is a one time check. You add or subtract dice per weapon values and range bonuses and upgrade bonuses and what have you then you see if you have more than three dice. Then if it is more than three it becomes "three" and then Kanan would win again dropping you to 2.

I think we're back again to whether we consider something that is mandatory in that it lacks the word "may" a "game effect" or a "player ability" that is subject to the ability que. An assault gunboat config to me would be a game effect. It determines what can and can not be so when the time to actually roll the dice comes around for a ship with one disarmed token.

Something else I would point out from the Rules Ref. page two.

Quote

The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory , the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect.

Ric's pilot ability is mandatory when going faster. This reinforces my thinking that a mandatory or must do effect should be considered a "game effect" that has to come before a player ability.

If Ric goes faster and gets the extra die at range 1, you cannot use 7th fleet because you would then be rolling more than 4 dice. Your primary essentially turns into 3 dice due to the pilot ability. It's simple. It's printed on the card.

7th gives you that range 2 spike when Ric goes fast but doesn't get close enough for R1.

You can CHOOSE not to take a range bonus and use 7th instead, but that's pretty silly.

With CLT, you aren't ROLLING 5 dice, you're rolling 4 and adding a focus result, so it works.

It's a limitation at the ROLLING stage of the attack. If you've activated 7th, and 5+ dice are leaving your hand, then you're not following the rules.

Have any of y'all looked in the RRG under attack? Roll attack dice all happens at once. Specifically:

2. Attack Dice: During this step, the attacking player rolls attack dice
and the players can modify the dice.
a. Roll Attack Dice: The attacking player determines the number of
attack dice to roll based on the chosen weapon’s attack value, range
bonus, and any abilities that add or remove attack dice. Then they roll
that many dice.
b. Modify Attack Dice: The players resolve abilities that modify the
attack dice. The defending player resolves their abilities first, then the
attacking player resolves their abilities

It doesn't matter what order you trigger either effect - you roll all your dice at the same time. If you roll more than a maximum of 4 dice, you're not following the text on seventh fleet gunner.

21 minutes ago, napolyphonic said:

You can CHOOSE not to take a range bonus and use 7th instead, but that's pretty silly.

This is not correct. The Range bonus is not a choice, it is mandatory. Specifically (page 5 of the Rules Reference): "During an attack, a ship cannot choose to roll fewer dice than it is supposed to roll."

Since the Range Bonus and Ric's pilot ability (when the condition is met) are not "may" effects, you have to use them. But since 7th is a "may" effect to trigger it, you can choose to use 7th Fleet Gunner or not.

Nspace - yes, that is accurate. My bad. It is the same wording as Ric's ability. There is no qualifier. Just "the attacker rolls one additional attack die."

This just means, save your 7th bonus for those juicy Range 2 shots instead.

Thank you all for your input!

I am now convinced that - by the common understanding and intuition of the player base - this interaction cannot work the way I have initially described at the current state of the rules, because we believe the obligatory card effects to fall into game effects category.

However, should the boundary between game effects and player's abilities be clarified anytime in the future in a way which strictly classifies Ric's Pilot Ability as the latter, I'd care to argue the freedom of organising the Ability Queue ought to be respected and the abilities could be resolved in the preferred order. As noted somewhere before in the thread, the Gunner's ability puts no restrictive ("cannot") clause on the ship but merely introduces a condition to it's own benefit - which mean the condition should only be applicable to resolution of this single effect. Mind that the queue is the core principle of the game and we should always resolve game events sequentially - I can see no reason why the 7th Fleet Gunner should do a "lookup" into the future of the queue to predict whether or not any following ability is about to exceed the limitation it introduces. Should we see a primary 4-attack ship for the Republic, should it attack at range 1 and roll 5 dice naturally, I don't believe using the 7th Fleet Gunner on it should nerf it down back to 4 - the bonus die simply shouldn't be granted to the ship.

This has been an interesting rules "argument" in that it has been more of a "we've identified a shortcoming in the rules that we need to have resolved" than a knock down drag out I'm right you're wrong sort of thing. We seem to have all been working to solve the same problem more than trying to "win."