I don't disagree, but does it say that outright someplace?

It's pretty bogstandard for games in general CrookedWookie. Fantasy Flight has clearly allowed for Gamesmanship bias. What it really comes down to is that while the conditions are met the card has to be playable because otherwise it would never work. The card doesn't say once per combat. Nowhere in the rules does it say any card is once per combat. So if the card is playable at all it's playable whenever the card could be used.

I've been mulling this over and I'm going to write a md-length expose on why it works(and how Darth Vader differs, to show the wording difference).

I'm attacking with an opportunist. We'll say it's a black squadron pilot because he appears to be the best user.)

I'm attacking so the gamestate is met. I have no stress. The opponent lacks focus or evade tokens. I use opportunist. When I finish I pass stress to Yore. Gamestate is still I'm attacking. I still lack stress. The opponent still lacks a focus or evade. I use opportunist. Yore gains another stress. Etc.

Darth Vader

I'm attacking. I attack. It's after I attack. I activate Vader. The opponent takes damage from him. I try to use Vader again but it's no longer after attacking it's after I used Vader so the conditions no longer apply, next ship down the line.

Of note, this isn't really that imbalanced. It's expensive to set up, and extremely predictable. It forces focus/evade actions, but those are common actions anyway and the best users(low pilot skill elite talents are extremely vulnerable.

the issue is that since the card is not out yet FFG isn't going to FAQ it for a while, so why worry about it now, lol

I've been mulling this over and I'm going to write a md-length expose on why it works(and how Darth Vader differs, to show the wording difference).

I'm attacking with an opportunist. We'll say it's a black squadron pilot because he appears to be the best user.)

I'm attacking so the gamestate is met. I have no stress. The opponent lacks focus or evade tokens. I use opportunist. When I finish I pass stress to Yore. Gamestate is still I'm attacking. I still lack stress. The opponent still lacks a focus or evade. I use opportunist. Yore gains another stress. Etc.

Would you care to explain how this sense of timing works with, say, Backstabber's ability? Because here's how I see it working under your description:

I'm attacking from out of arc, so the gamestate is met. I use Backstabber's ability. There is no stress generated. I use Backstabber's ability. Then I use Backstabber's ability. Then I use Backstabber's ability. We take a break so I can run to the counter and pick up a couple extra packs of dice, then I use Backstabber's ability.

It might be "bogstandard for games" but it's pretty obviously not bogstandard for this one. Your understanding fails when the ability doesn't have any sort of use limiter like a stress requirement. In fact, use limiters are by far the exception in X-wing's abilities, rather than the rules.

X-wing inherently has a one-use-per-trigger concept. No, it's not explicit, but if it's not there the vast majority of abilities simply don't make sense. Your earlier distinction based on cost is also incorrect - X-wing has no explicit concept of cost, only what you do. There certainly isn't anything saying that "with cost" and "without cost" abilities are handled differently.

the issue is that since the card is not out yet FFG isn't going to FAQ it for a while, so why worry about it now, lol

This is what we DO here.

Yes I did miss that lol.

I've been mulling this over and I'm going to write a md-length expose on why it works(and how Darth Vader differs, to show the wording difference).

I'm attacking with an opportunist. We'll say it's a black squadron pilot because he appears to be the best user.)

I'm attacking so the gamestate is met. I have no stress. The opponent lacks focus or evade tokens. I use opportunist. When I finish I pass stress to Yore. Gamestate is still I'm attacking. I still lack stress. The opponent still lacks a focus or evade. I use opportunist. Yore gains another stress. Etc.

Would you care to explain how this sense of timing works with, say, Backstabber's ability? Because here's how I see it working under your description:

I'm attacking from out of arc, so the gamestate is met. I use Backstabber's ability. There is no stress generated. I use Backstabber's ability. Then I use Backstabber's ability. Then I use Backstabber's ability. We take a break so I can run to the counter and pick up a couple extra packs of dice, then I use Backstabber's ability.

It might be "bogstandard for games" but it's pretty obviously not bogstandard for this one. Your understanding fails when the ability doesn't have any sort of use limiter like a stress requirement. In fact, use limiters are by far the exception in X-wing's abilities, rather than the rules.

X-wing inherently has a one-use-per-trigger concept. No, it's not explicit, but if it's not there the vast majority of abilities simply don't make sense. Your earlier distinction based on cost is also incorrect - X-wing has no explicit concept of cost, only what you do. There certainly isn't anything saying that "with cost" and "without cost" abilities are handled differently.

I don't know, I still think it's a stretch. I tend to think their "take 1 to get 1" is a one time effect, but I'll be curious to see how they rule on it. Once more they used "attacking" rather ambiguously where it could refer to any or all steps of the combat phase.

Because his isn't used. It happens. There is a significant difference and one that has been addressed several times. It says when attacking from outside the arc attack with 1 additional dice. There is no activation. No choice(you are in fact compelled to use it). Nothing, just a basic plus 1. There is a choice to use opportunist, and thus the ability to use it every time the conditions apply. That isn't a huge logical gap, it's based clearly on the wording.

Okay, then, since this is your new spot to split the baby let's try one that is a choice. Let's go with Howlrunner: "When another friendly ship at Range 1 is attacking, it may reroll 1 attack die."

It's certainly a choice (says 'may'). So can you use it every time the conditions apply? There are any number of cases where a trigger occurs and allows an optional action. By your reasoning, any of these would allow unlimited uses, because there is no cost, and it's a choice.

I don't know, I still think it's a stretch. I tend to think their "take 1 to get 1" is a one time effect, but I'll be curious to see how they rule on it. Once more they used "attacking" rather ambiguously where it could refer to any or all steps of the combat phase.

"When attacking" means that the ability will be active for the entire process of the attack. IMHO it's not ambiguous - it may mean the ability is broadly active, including during steps of combat that it can't actually affect anything, but it's actually a more elegant structure than Wedge saying "During the Roll Defense Dice Step..." It saves space and is consistent across a host of abilities which relate to combat.

Because his isn't used. It happens. There is a significant difference and one that has been addressed several times. It says when attacking from outside the arc attack with 1 additional dice. There is no activation. No choice(you are in fact compelled to use it). Nothing, just a basic plus 1. There is a choice to use opportunist, and thus the ability to use it every time the conditions apply. That isn't a huge logical gap, it's based clearly on the wording.

Okay, then, since this is your new spot to split the baby let's try one that is a choice. Let's go with Howlrunner: "When another friendly ship at Range 1 is attacking, it may reroll 1 attack die."

It's certainly a choice (says 'may'). So can you use it every time the conditions apply? There are any number of cases where a trigger occurs and allows an optional action. By your reasoning, any of these would allow unlimited uses, because there is no cost, and it's a choice.

(Also of note, I don't think I'd ever use this, Yorr is too much a liability to make it worthwhile, I'd rather have Jendon.

Captain Yorr's ability:

"When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 would receive a stress token, if you have 2 or fewer stress tokens, you may receive that token instead."

Opportunist (from upcoming Imperial Aces expansion)

"When attacking, if the defender does not have any focus or evade tokens, you may receive 1 stress token to roll 1 additional attack die.

You cannot use this ability if you have any stress tokens."

So say I have a Black Squadron Pilot with Opportunist within range 2 of an unstressed Captain Yorr, attacking a target at range 2 with no focus or evade tokens. Can I add 4 attack dice to my roll for a total of 6 dice (putting 3 stress on Yorr and 1 on the BSP)? I realise that there is very limited scope for this interaction to be this effective, but that seems to be pretty nice payoff. If it was a Saber Squadron Pilot at range 1 I would need to borrow some more red dice!

I'm not so sure I agree with everyones view of why it should only be one die added. I do agree that it should be only one die added, for game balance, but the wording on the cards makes the combo seem to work as suggested.

Yorr's ability kicks in when a target "would receive" a stress token, so it applies before the BSP gets the token. Opportunist stops once the user has received a stress token. It is a one stress for one die trade off.

Since a ship can have more than one stress token given to it at any time, one could argue that I can opt to take 4 stress tokens in one shot, 3 get passed to Yorr and I have to keep the last one, which stops Opportunist from infinite cycling. The argument here being that I've resolved Opportunist in one instance, having the BSP only receiving one stress token at the end.

But what if I someone uses it not as an all in one shot, but does it repeatedly.

Since opportunist is not an action, I could use it more than once in the roll dice stage to make it work another way. I take one stress for one die and pass off the stress to Yorr. I then, in the same roll dice step, do it again three more times. I've added 4 dice (total) four individual times to my dice. I only receive the stress token to keep on the BSP on the fourth time, which stops Opportunist.

I am going to admit that I really don't like this combo. I can see some unsuspecting T.O. getting this dandy landing in their lap during a tournament. I can also see players being ejected for this under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rules for Tournament play, specifically on card chaining.

Edit: Changed "Modify" to "Roll" in some instances where I incorrectly stated the step to which the dice are added.

The text on Elusiveness Expose is, the way I read it, a way to prevent you from using it IF you due to the "Structural Damage" already are at Agility 0. I don't read it to mean that you may/can use it over and over again UNTIL you reach Agility 0

"

Uuuups, I got Expose and Elusiveness mixed up in my head. My bad

There are zero examples of abilities that can be used repeatedly in this manner. None, zero, zip. On the other hand, literally every single ability or rule works the other way, whether those abilities are "paid for" or not.

The only difference between Opportunist and these other abilities in terms of wording is that you ALSO have the additional instruction to take stress in order to apply it. Nothing else even suggests that you can use it multiple times. Backstabber, Howlrunner, range 1 attack dice, range 3 agility dice for that matter, and so on.

Darth Vader doesn't say "immediately after attacking", so why couldn't I use him repeatedly? Your "gamestate" method would make every moment for the rest of the game "after attacking" so why couldn't I try using him to finish off a ship next turn? That would still be after I attacked him.

More, the mechanism you are talking about would completely break the game. There are so many completely OP combos you could put together doing things this way I cannot even count them all. This isn't Magic, the goal of X-Wing is not to come up with some uber-combo that breaks interactions so thoroughly you auto-win when you play them.

So, you have a ridiculously game-breaking mechanism, that has a mountain of precedent stacked against it, that has zero precedent for it, supported by a questionable interpretation of the text involved (questionable in that it may be interpreted differently without requiring grammatical changes). How does this seem like a good idea? Are we trying to understand the rules as the designers intended them, in a way that makes this game better, or are we trying to break the game?

This seems like rules-lawyering to the n'th degree to me, allowing our excitement at finding the potential for a powerful combo to overcome our desire to play a well-balanced game. At best this would be an unintentional interaction supported only by the ability to warp the contextual nature of the English language by pulling things out of their intended framework, at worst this is an unintentional break in the game soon to be errata'd out of existence.

Interestingly, looking at the elite pilot talent cards, they are almost all worded in such a way that they are static (Veteran instincts) or can only happen once (via action use, discard, or specifically limited or have a very short trigger window (ie when you are dealt a damage card) etc...)

Elusiveness also falls into this You may recieve a stress to do X pattern - Interesting....

I can see the argument for both sides,

I am inclined to agree that opportunist and elusiveness are using stress to limit multiple use in a single turn....

I do see a vast difference between abilities on the cards versus abilities on the ships, ship abilities are triggered by the game, not a button to be pushed. Howlrunner has choice, but also no cost.

You're claiming distinctions here which don't exist. Ship abilities aren't handled any differently than upgrade abilities. They have the same triggers, the same effects, and frequently the same terminology. Jan Ors takes a stress to activate her obviously optional ability, so there's a ship with both choice and cost.

We started with cost, then it was optional vs. mandatory, now it's ship vs. upgrade (which is what I assume you mean by "card"). None of these distinctions actually exist in the rules in any way. But, let's go ahead and take this new distinction anyway:

R2-D2: After executing a green maneuver, you may recover 1 shield (up to your shield value).

So, that one's on a (upgrade) card, not a ship. It's also optional. Pretty obviously not intended to fully refill your shields each turn, right?

So that leaves distinction based on cost, a term which doesn't even appear in the rulebook or FAQ, at least not without "squad point" in front of it.

I completely agree that the "once trigger, one use" rule isn't clearly spelled out in the book. But it's pretty obvious it needs to be there for SOME abilities, otherwise things just get stupid. So once we acknowledge that need, what do we apply it to? We can apply it to everything, or we can make distinctions over what should and shouldn't be affected by that concept. If we're going to try and split it up, that's fine - but it needs to be split up along some line where an actual difference exists in the rules.

Interestingly, looking at the elite pilot talent cards, they are almost all worded in such a way that they are static (Veteran instincts) or can only happen once (via action use, discard, or specifically limited or have a very short trigger window (ie when you are dealt a damage card) etc...)

Elusiveness also falls into this You may recieve a stress to do X pattern - Interesting....

I can see the argument for both sides,

I am inclined to agree that opportunist and elusiveness are using stress to limit multiple use in a single turn....

The problem with this is that we now have to consider Elite Pilot Skills to be different from every other ability and upgrade in the game. It's POSSIBLE that they are different from Ships, and Astromechs, and Crew... but I don't think "There's no counterexample to prove they're different" is a compelling argument for why they should be handled differently.

Though, I don't see why we have to consider elite talents different.

I see this another one of those "The rules are not written in a way that makes this really resolvable" cases. More specifically, there's really no rule that gives us a "what we're supposed to do." There's nothing defining costs, but we have abilities that are written that look an awful lot like cost. (I know you don't consider them costs, but i'm going to refer to these pseudo costs as costs to look at what happens)

We definitely need tighter rules on abilities, especially as card interactions grow. What follows is trying to clarify the other interpretation. My mind is not set on either side, but I would like to explore to see if it breaks ANY other ability. Now, as I see it, it looks like the argument for the interpretation you don't support comes from a difference in card writing structure. I can see reading abilities as follows.

"Timing window" ,"Restrictions and conditions" ,"Cost", "Effect"

I think your interpretation is that the timing window is really the trigger. The second interpretation I see is that the timing window shows when the trigger can occur. (A great many of your disagreements with Kinetic Operator in other rules threads seems to be over how you two perceive the difference between Timing and Triggers)

So - How does a trigger occur in this setup?

During the timing window, we continuously check to see if there are any conditions / restrictions preventing the activation. We then pay any costs involved, paying the cost triggers the effect text. In some cases, there is no cost, and the ability triggers automatically.

This is where you argue that you could activate backstabber over and over again - but I disagree because no cost does not equal cost = 0.

Let's look at backstabber.

"When attacking from outside the defender's firing arc, roll 1 additional attack die"

I see the "Timing window" and "Effect" - it flatly tells us when to use the ability, and gives us no way to re-trigger the ability during the timing window. So we can't pay this "No cost" to "retrigger" our ability - So backstabber can only activate once. Other cards with a "triggering cost" sometimes alter the timing window, and cannot be triggered again (like Darth Vader)

You argued before that Vader has a standard "Do X to Do Y" cost. I'll argue the same, that Opportunist, and Elusiveness have the same standard "Do X to Do Y" cost. Looking at Elusiveness - "When defending, you may receive one stress token to choose one attack die"... There's our timing window, and our Do X to Do Y - though it's May do X to do Y in this case. The conditions and restrictions follow "The attacker must re-roll that die, if you have at least one stress token, you cannot use this ability".

In the case of captain Yorr, we can remove the effect causing the restriction and we have a way to pay the "triggering cost" again. I don't think one super attack that really stresses Yorr out is broken. (And from a thematic point of view, it's like the whole crew of an awacs getting supper stressed out in coordinating one very very important attack)

So, we're back to our problem, the rules don't define Do X to Do Y as a cost, and they don't define timing windows or triggers.

If we look at all the pilot cards, talents, secondary weapons, bombs, modifications, crew, systems and droids.... I can only Identify three kinds of costs - of which only 2 are defined in the rules - the Action cost, and the Attack cost. The third kind of cost, is the one we are arguing, i'll call it a "triggering cost" for the rest of this post. Triggering costs are defined by a card - and appear in a form of the "Do x to do y" If this X cannot be paid, the effect cannot occur.

Darth Vader has the clearest triggering cost. Things without timing windows, that don't have an action or attack header (defining a timing window for them) tend to be static abilities (Like veteran instincts, or nien nunb).

Of all the pilots, only Jan Ors has a triggering cost.

When another friendly ship at Range 1-3 is attacking, if you have no stress tokens, you may receive 1 stress token to allow that ship to roll 1 additional attack die.

No crew (other than Vader) appear to have a triggering cost

No titles appear to have triggering costs costs

No systems have triggering costs

No droids have triggering costs

Secondary weapons

- There are several triggering costs in missiles and the blaster turret - but the attack header window limits us to a single attack, so the rules override the apparent ability to spend multiple (focus tokens / target locks) to attack more than one ship in a round.

If we are to break things down it's really in looking at all the wording, - We don't see costs in many cards, and we also see clearly written timing on some cards, but not all. There's no reason to treat elite talents differently from any other card - but there may be reason to treat "Do x to do Y" cards differently from "When A, do B" cards

Kyle is another example of this. With the MC title and Recon Specialist, he can stockpile Focus at a scary rate. There's no limiter on his ability besides the "1 focus" bit. By the logic here there's nothing stopping him from passing out a dozen focus at the start of the combat phase if he has them piled up.

Kyle is another example of this. With the MC title and Recon Specialist, he can stockpile Focus at a scary rate. There's no limiter on his ability besides the "1 focus" bit. By the logic here there's nothing stopping him from passing out a dozen focus at the start of the combat phase if he has them piled up.

by the logic I gave, we can see there's no cost associated with Kyle's ability

Kyles wording says "At the start of the Combat Phase, you may assign 1 of your focus tokens to another friendly ship at Range 1-3." - There's no Do X to do Y structure here, meaning there's no cost. - we can't retrigger it, so he'd only get to pass out one.

It would need the following wording to do what you suggest

At the start of the Combat Phase, you may spend one of your focus tokens to assign it to another friendly ship at Range 1-3.

This follows the Do X to do Y function - and would by my logic allow him to pass out as many tokens as he had. The lack of a cost becomes a limiter in a situation where you could otherwise trigger many times.

(I should note, that the whole argument really is moot - because there's no rule telling us "You can activate an ability any time you can pay the cost for the ability" There's also no definition of cost. Likewise there's no definition of triggers or timing outside of the actual game phases. There's also no rule telling us "Abilities are used only once" - Looking at the cards to find precedents and trends is about all we can do, but the cards are not always worded super consistently - and it becomes possible to find enough card wordings to support either case.

As time goes on the lack of these specific timing and "Game Framework" is becoming more and more apparent ( Game framwork being - rules for timing, resolution, tight definitions of interactions that occur outside of the game and between steps etc) A solid game framework is more than most people need to actually play the game - but would help in figuring out rules interactions and the RAI will more often be the RAW of a card. Luckily, we can go on. )

<shrug> Honestly, if you're determined to invent a concept which is never named in the rulebook, never named in the FAQ, never referenced in any ability, and not required to explain anything in the game other than how you want Opportunist to work, then I don't think anyone can say anything to change your mind.

Wait, so by your logic, if there is no cost, you can only do it once, but if there is a cost - a concept not actually expressed in the rules anywhere, you can pay the cost over and over?

(Not sure why my quote went weird, so I just edited it out, I was quoting Buhallin's prior post)

Let's see if I can clarify myself... I think you may be doing something very simmilar of what you're accusing me of doing - the whole concept of triggers isn't named in the rulebook or FAQ, and not referenced in any ability, but without them, the game doesn't work. No matter which overarching framework we assume to exist, we have to assume something. I just wanted to illustrate an alternate fundamental perspective of the rules and the wording on the cards that functions in a way that didn't rely upon the words as triggers but words as timing windows.

Cooked Wookie has a point, but it's a point that I stated in both of my posts - the concept is not actually expressed in the rules anywhere!, I'm not trying to argue that "because it's not stated that you can't, you can" I'm trying to argue that we don't have a ruling that treats to cards with cost, and can't know the intent, or how to rule it, because there's also no framework for how to deal with the situation!

If that makes sense - It's not meant to be an attack against you.

I am surprised FFG hasn't made a ruling on this yet, since it will have a huge effect on the game

Ravncat - You are correct that there are no explicit statements on the subject. However, we can choose which framework to use with some confidence due to the context provided by the rest of the game. Several issues, including the stack of precedent pointing one way vs. zero precedent pointing the other, as well as the simple fact that the timing "window" methodology can easily lead to the game being unplayable, leads me to conclude that the "window" method is incorrect.

I do appreciate your bringing it up, however, and showing how the rules could be read in a manner that supports your position. When you (or others) do that, it allows me to consider something that often never occurred to me, and leads either to a new understanding of the rules or at least a deeper understanding.

Having said that, on this particular I think we need to go with the "one use per situation" if only so that our game doesn't break.