So please correct me if im wrong (clarifications) :
1. Vader (afterbuners) performs 3 ahead -> Boost -> (force token) Target Lock -> (Perform Action Step) Focus -> Red Barrel roll
2. Vader (afterburner) maneuvers 3 over Asteroid/Gas cloud -> Boost -> (force token) TL -> (2nd free action - force token) Focus - Red Barell roll -> (Skip action Step)
Please correct me !!
Edited by topacesteveThat’s right, if I’m reading it right.
11 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:That’s right, if I’m reading it right.
i just found out yesterday !!!!
Aside from calling any action a "free action", it looks right. The terminology "free action" doesn't exist in 2nd Edition. It may seem like a nitpick, but I've often found when someone thinks they get a free action in 2nd Edition, they are wrong about something in their in thought process. The most common at the start of 2nd was people taking the Phantom's Stygium Array evade action or the Defender's Full Throttle evade action as "free actions" even if they were stressed which they could not legally do.
Sorry about the rant.
Off topic counter rant:
2 hours ago, 5050Saint said:Aside from calling any action a "free action", it looks right. The terminology "free action" doesn't exist in 2nd Edition...
Personally I like that 'free action' has been returning to informal use as a part of player jargon to describe actions that explicitly don't count against the one standard action and/or that are still usable while skipping your Perform Action step (such as those from Afterburners and Vader's ability in the actual topic of this thread).
2 hours ago, 5050Saint said:...people taking [examples] as "free actions" even if they were stressed which they could not legally do.
That didn't change, even in 1e you couldn't take a 'free action' while stressed without a special ability to enable it. Furthermore, people still try to argue they should get triggered actions (like Stygium, Full Throttle, FTC, etc.) while stressed even without the 'free action' terminology being printed.
9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:Off topic counter rant:
Personally I like that 'free action' has been returning to informal use as a part of player jargon to describe actions that explicitly don't count against the one standard action and/or that are still usable while skipping your Perform Action step (such as those from Afterburners and Vader's ability in the actual topic of this thread).
That didn't change, even in 1e you couldn't take a 'free action' while stressed without a special ability to enable it. Furthermore, people still try to argue they should get triggered actions (like Stygium, Full Throttle, FTC, etc.) while stressed even without the 'free action' terminology being printed.
I'm with Nitrobenz here. I think clarifying the source of the action is important - whether it be an AB boost, a Vader ability target lock or a focus into a linked barrel roll. Using "free action" helps clarify that the token/action came outside of the normal action step. This helps eliminate any confusion as to the source of the token. Granted you can state the card name/ability source, but saying "it was a free action from decloaking/3 speed maneuver/Vader ability" just feels cleaner for some reason.
Edit: Back to OP's point - AB is such a valuable card on Vader because he can trigger his ability off from it after losing his action for another reason (excluding a bump/stress). You cannot use his ability of AB when he performs a talon roll or trigger passive sensors(if you have it) as an action outside the action step, so keep those two things in mind when flying this cool combo.
Edited by SwampyCr9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:Personally I like that 'free action' has been returning to informal use as a part of player jargon to describe actions that explicitly don't count against the one standard action and/or that are still usable while skipping your Perform Action step (such as those from Afterburners and Vader's ability in the actual topic of this thread).
9 minutes ago, SwampyCr said:I'm with Nitrobenz here. I think clarifying the source of the action is important - whether it be an AB boost, a Vader ability target lock or a focus into a linked barrel roll. Using "free action" helps clarify that the token/action came outside of the normal action step. This helps eliminate any confusion as to the source of the token. Granted you can state the card name/ability source, but saying "it was a free action from decloaking/3 speed maneuver/Vader ability" just feels cleaner for some reason.
I'm mostly with this.
I think it was a worthy innovation in 2e that an Attack and a Bonus Attack are slightly different, and that we've got clean terms. My only hesitation with "bonus action" or "free action" is that it just seems much more ubiquitous. There's a lot of things which grant free actions, and not as many as bonus actions.
Perhaps "Standard Action" and "Action" would have been great, with some term to refer to the one action in the perform action step. It'd also clarify things like Passive Sensors, SLAM, and Chopper crew (depending on how exactly Chopper crew actually works... I don't want to get into it...).
The same sort of normal/bonus/free distinction also should have been made with bomb drops and launches.
Well, hopefully FFG is filing away some of the linguistic improvements for 3e.
these belong in this thread.
On 4/14/2020 at 9:19 AM, 5050Saint said:Aside from calling any action a "free action", it looks right. The terminology "free action" doesn't exist in 2nd Edition. It may seem like a nitpick, but I've often found when someone thinks they get a free action in 2nd Edition, they are wrong about something in their in thought process. The most common at the start of 2nd was people taking the Phantom's Stygium Array evade action or the Defender's Full Throttle evade action as "free actions" even if they were stressed which they could not legally do.
Sorry about the rant.
You're not ranting though. I've always thought that "free action" was bad terminology. It causes mix-ups over whether the action has a cost and does nothing to inform as to the source of the action or the "when" of the action. Use of "free action" causes sloppiness.
3 hours ago, Frimmel said:You're not ranting though. I've always thought that "free action" was bad terminology. It causes mix-ups over whether the action has a cost and does nothing to inform as to the source of the action or the "when" of the action. Use of "free action" causes sloppiness.
Agreed. Vader's extra actions aren't free because they cost a force charge. The Stygian Array evade action isn't free as you must decloak to get it, effectively spending the cloak token for a evade token. Full Throttle isn't free because you must go 3-speed or faster to "purchase" that token.
Edited by 5050Saint
22 hours ago, Frimmel said:You're not ranting though. I've always thought that "free action" was bad terminology. It causes mix-ups over whether the action has a cost and does nothing to inform as to the source of the action or the "when" of the action. Use of "free action" causes sloppiness.
21 hours ago, 5050Saint said:Agreed. Vader's extra actions aren't free because they cost a force charge. The Stygian Array evade action isn't free as you must decloak to get it, effectively spending the cloak token for a evade token. Full Throttle isn't free because you must go 3-speed or faster to "purchase" that token.
Yeah... Free Action is a bit of a misnomer. I still like the sense of a distinction between "action granted by something" and "action in the perform action step," but the more I think about it, it's the Perform Action Step "one action" which needs a special term.
2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:Yeah... Free Action is a bit of a misnomer. I still like the sense of a distinction between "action granted by something" and "action in the perform action step," but the more I think about it, it's the Perform Action Step "one action" which needs a special term.
That was what I was thinking as well. That action step action seems the one that needs its own term though that might come with its own pitfalls.
There is often it seems a sort of roadblock where players get twisted up thinking the Perform Action Step is the only place an "action" can be performed and the most obvious place where performance of an action can be denied. (I know I often consider getting a stress token from a maneuver the first part of the Perform Action Step instead of the last part of the step before.)
It seems flippant to just blow it off as a tendency to not want to leave 1st Edition in 1st Edition as I think there is some sort of cognitive mechanism with how we keep track of things at work in this. I think other contributors to the difficulty here are ships being allowed to perform actions not specifically indicated on their cards such as a ship that can't choose boost during the perform action step being able to boost from the ability of another ship. There is a kind of mental hiccup with that which causes the need for labeling the action granted by something "free."
😉
Only Chopper gives free actions.
😉
On 4/14/2020 at 11:34 AM, nitrobenz said:Personally I like that 'free action' has been returning to informal use as a part of player jargon to describe actions that explicitly don't count against the one standard action and/or that are still usable while skipping your Perform Action step (such as those from Afterburners and Vader's ability in the actual topic of this thread).
Except, when you think about the mechanics and terminology, there is no "free action" at all. Just Actions. The only difference is what grants them. Perform Action step Grants an action. Spending Vader's force token Grants an action. Just as we don't call "acquiring a lock" a 'free lock'.
"Free" makes it sounds like you are not paying anything to do it, or dont have to wait for an event to trigger it. In vaders case, you are paying the cost of the force token. Or in afterburners case, it is triggered by specific speed maneuvers. So they are not 'free'.
11 hours ago, Lyianx said:"Free" makes it sounds like you are not paying anything to do it, or dont have to wait for an event to trigger it.
Sure, so maybe 'free action' specifically isn't the best term for a non-standard action. As noted by others, it could be 'bonus action' or to take it a step farther it's might really be the Perform Action Step action that needs to be more specifically named...
On 4/14/2020 at 6:23 PM, theBitterFig said:Perhaps "Standard Action" and "Action" would have been great, with some term to refer to the one action in the perform action step. It'd also clarify things like Passive Sensors, SLAM, and Chopper crew (depending on how exactly Chopper crew actually works... I don't want to get into it...).
The same sort of normal/bonus/free distinction also should have been made with bomb drops and launches.
8 hours ago, nitrobenz said:it's might really be the Perform Action Step action that needs to be more specifically named...
Why? For what purpose? There are already abilities that specifically call out that step, and in those cases, its the step itself thats important, not so much the action it grants.
Also, "bonus action" would be tied to closely to 'bonus attack'. Since you are only allowed 1 bonus attack, but do not have that limit on performing actions, it could cause confusion.
The fact that actions are just actions, and there is nothing differentiating them other than what grants them, is quite honetly the more simple approach. Trying to split them up into "bonus" or "free" (or whatever) actions actually makes it more needlessly complicated.
As seems to often be the case on subjective matters, you and I will have to agree to disagree @Lyianx. I feel that having an additional term would clarify some interactions, but I'd you see that as needless confusion I can't tell you you're wrong.
It's ultimately a moot discussion for purposes of the game as it exists though. There is no differentiating term to distinguish Action Step actions from other actions, it's just wishful thinking for myself and a minority of others.
24 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:As seems to often be the case on subjective matters, you and I will have to agree to disagree @Lyianx. I feel that having an additional term would clarify some interactions, but I'd you see that as needless confusion I can't tell you you're wrong.
It's ultimately a moot discussion for purposes of the game as it exists though. There is no differentiating term to distinguish Action Step actions from other actions, it's just wishful thinking for myself and a minority of others.
I suppose so. Tho i was hoping you would go into more detail explaining why you think that would help. I'm not against changing my mind about it, but ive not read anything to really convince me to do so. I guess i just dont see what you're seeing. *shrugs*. But yea, its is moot. Even if FFG changed it, it would be moot because "thats how it be".
On 4/19/2020 at 2:46 AM, Lyianx said:I suppose so. Tho i was hoping you would go into more detail explaining why you think that would help. I'm not against changing my mind about it, but ive not read anything to really convince me to do so. I guess i just dont see what you're seeing. *shrugs*. But yea, its is moot. Even if FFG changed it, it would be moot because "thats how it be".
One of the things I think it would help with is confusion over gaining tokens when the ship does not have the action on its action bar that grants that token. I think it also would help with being able to do an action granting movement that the ship does not have on its action bar. I think also it might help with confusion over performing linked actions.
You made a good point about introducing more complication with trying to give the Perform Action Step action a name. I think not having one though is the cause of some of the other confusions and frequent questions around actions. I think for newer players and then for complicated interactions you get a initial thought of, "It isn't the Perform Action Step how can I perform an action? Especially one not on my action bar?"
This is likely also the source over confusion about trying to do actions while having a stress token outside of the Perform Action Step.
Perhaps it is simply a failure of organization in the rulebook and rules reference.
As if on cue:
1 hour ago, Frimmel said:As if on cue:
As the guy who asked the question, allow me to point out the major source of my confusion. Quoting myself from that topic here:
The second paragraph in the RRG under “Actions” specifically states that ships may perform a Standard Action (one with an icon, like Focus, Calculate, or Boost) which appears on their Action Bar, “as well as abilities that have the ‘Action:’ header on that ships condition, damage, upgrade, or ship cards.” It then goes on to talk about how some upgrades have icons on
them which are effectively added to the action bar, which then become standard actions which that ship can perform. It doesn’t explicitly say that there are some upgrade cards
which neither have the additional action bar additions nor the “Action:” header which nevertheless allow a ship to perform an action that isn’t on its bar. It is written in a way that makes it sound as if these are the only two standard actions that a ship is allowed to take, and it doesn’t make much sense vis-a-vis cards like Afterburners.
It’s misleading because (at least given a fairly thorough reading of this entry, if not an exhaustive combing of the whole document), I could nowhere find a clarifying sentence like, “Note that some cards allow actions to be performed even if they do not appear on the ship’s action bar and do not have the ‘Action:’ header, and some cards allow actions to be performed outside of the Perform Action Step.”
I love FFG, but they badly need to hire some more technical writers. Armada rules are even more of a mess (we recently had the head developer of that game respond to a specific rule question with, “Probably? I’m not sure, that card is oddly worded.” I about died).
As to the issue at hand in this thread, I can see both sides of the argument. From the perspective of someone who’s new, but not bad with rules, if might be helpful if they had a term like, “Non-Standard Action” for non-Action-Step actions, but that gets messy because they’ve already earmarked the term Standard Action to mean something else.
“Extra Action” might work. It would sort of seem to fill the same role that the phrase “Free Action” apparently once did, without also implying that there are no costs to pay (like spending Force charges) or conditions to be met (like performing a speed 3-5 maneuver). It also would avoid using the term “bonus,” which I understand might get entangled with “Bonus Attacks” (which is not the best term for that, either, if you ask me, but I digress).
One thing that further confuses the issue is that certain extra actions can be taken either within or outside of the Perform Action Step (such as Vader spending a Force).
Once again, I think the real answer is that FFG needs to hire some technical writers.
🙂
8 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:The second paragraph in the RRG under “Actions” specifically states that ships may perform a Standard Action (one with an icon, like Focus, Calculate, or Boost) which appears on their Action Bar, “as well as abilities that have the ‘Action:’ header on that ships condition, damage, upgrade, or ship cards.”
You've omitted the very first sentence of that which is what tells you when to apply it.
QuoteWhen a ship is instructed to perform an action ,...
The perform action step instructs the ship to perform an action.
QuotePerform Action: The ship may perform one action.
As does Coordinate.
Quote3. The chosen ship performs one action.
8 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:and it doesn’t make much sense vis-a-vis cards like Afterburners
Cards like afterburners don't instruct a ship to perform "AN action" or "One action". They give the option for the ship to perform THAT SPECIFIC action, which is different from what that paragraph is stating.
2 hours ago, Lyianx said:You've omitted the very first sentence of that which is what tells you when to apply it.
The perform action step instructs the ship to perform an action.
As does Coordinate.
Cards like afterburners don't instruct a ship to perform "AN action" or "One action". They give the option for the ship to perform THAT SPECIFIC action, which is different from what that paragraph is stating.
That doesn’t help someone who is new to the rules understand the rules for using actions any better.
When I read a card like Afterburners, I say to myself, “OK, cool. I can Boost after I move, AND get a regular old Action Step action too, so I can do two actions in a turn. But can a ship that isn’t normally allowed a Boost action use Afterburners? I’d better read the rules on actions.”
So I go to the Actions entry in the RRG. And what it tells me is that when I’m granted an action, I can either perform an action on my Action Bar, or I can perform an action from an upgrade or damage card with the header, “Action:”.
So I go look at my Y-Wing. No Boost on the Action Bar. And I look at the Afterburners card. No “Action:” header. Bummer. It doesn’t look as if Afterburners will help my Y-Wing. If it were intended to grant my Y-Wing the ability to Boost, they’d have had the Boost symbol printed on the right-hand side of Afterburners, like they put Evade on Debris Gambit... or the RRG would have specifically told me that certain upgrade cards allow actions for ships that cannot normally perform them, even if those upgrade cards lack the “Action:” header. Neither of those things are true. Therefore it looks as if I cannot use Afterburners to give my Y-Wing Boost actions.
Now, that ISN’T, perhaps, the way the rules work, but the people who wrote the rules didn’t make that very clear. It’s not that the rules don’t work the way they’re written, it’s simply that there are reasonable interpretations that can lead a person to interpret them incorrectly, and it isn’t much of a stretch to get there. Good technical writing would make it very difficult to interpret the rules incorrectly. That’s all I’m saying.
That, and thanks for helping me understand the rules correctly. 🙂
Quick and dirty explanation:
The limits on performing any given action no more than once per round always apply. This includes failed actions, as well; if you fail a barrel roll early, you can't do a different barrel roll later. It's also worth noting that there are effects that look like actions (gaining a token, being tractored, being Kid Anakin ), but aren't; those do not count against your "once per round" limitation.
You might be instructed to perform an action (or a specific action) from any number of sources:
Thanks to @Lyianx for some clarifications.
Edited by emeraldbeacon20 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:Quick and dirty explanation:
- If something instructs you to perform an action, you are permitted to perform one action from among your action bar, or from any assigned cards (upgrades, damage, perhaps conditions) that would allow you to perform an action. In this case, it's notable that if the effect instructing you to perform an action doesn't stipulate a specific action, you can only choose from those on your action bar or assigned cards.
- If something instructs you to perform a SPECIFIC action, then you just perform that action (assuming you still can). You don't need to have that action on your action bar or assigned cards; you just do it.
- The limits on performing any given action no more than once per round always apply. This includes failed actions, as well; if you fail a barrel roll early, you can't do a different barrel roll later.
- It's also worth noting that there are effects that look like actions (gaining a token, being tractored, being Kid Anakin ), but aren't; those don't count against your "once per round" limitation.
- You might be instructed to perform an action (or a specific action) from any number of sources:
- During your perform action step, you may perform one action.
- If coordinated, you may perform one action (there may be limits here: see Squad Leader for examples).
- Some pilot abilities (Rebel Sabine Wren , Turr Phenir) or ship abilities (Delta-7 Aethersprite, TIE/D Defender) may instruct you to perform actions (usually specific ones).
- Upgrades like Afterburners or C1-10P also instruct you to perform specific actions.
Excellent breakdown. Did you write that yourself, or find it somewhere? As far as I can tell, there’s nothing half so clear in the RRG!