Only just got my wave 3 ships and haven't even had a game with these yet but I just wanted a quick answer for the FCS and gunner interaction. Presumably this can only happen with the Lambda shuttle as you need a sensor and crew slot.

If the shuttle attacks a target with their primary gun and does not hit, does the FCS give a TL before the gunner's attack and if so can they then spend the TL for the gunner's attack?

In other words does the FCS kick in before the gunner "immediately" performs their primary attack.

Thanks

Tough one. Good question, but I would be tempted to say - off the top of my head, without having my rules handy to dig through - that if Gunner says immediately, you would kind of 'pause' the FCS, resolve the Gunner shot, and then resolve FCS.

Although then THAT raises the question - could you then use FCS only on Gunner's target, the original target, or either, if you shot Gunner at somebody else in range.

I think the timing on this would be basically the same as for Vader with a Gunner. As CW says, "immediately" effects would go first, so it would look like this:

1. Make first attack. Miss.

2. Trigger Gunner and FCS.

3. Gunner is "immediately", so resolves first

4. Make second attack.

5. Trigger FCS.

6. Resolve FCS trigger from (2)

7. Resolve FCS trigger from (5)

You could end up with the lock on whichever target you wanted, since FCS is optional - if you want it on the first target it, lock it and then don't lock the second, or if you want the second, just take the second (first lock becomes irrelevant as the lock will just shift to the new target).

that if Gunner says immediately, you would kind of 'pause' the FCS, resolve the Gunner shot, and then resolve FCS.

Gunner does say immediately, but I'd be inclined to say that FCS would go off because it's part of the first attack. You should completely resolve the first attack, including effects like FCS then go on to the Gunners attack.

I have to disagree, Vanor. Look at the two side by side, first line of each.
Gunner: After you perform an attack that does not hit, immediately perform a primary weapon attack.

FCS: After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.

After you perform and attack, vs After you perform an attack... immediately . You don't have to use Gunner - I believe the FAQ updated it as optional - so you could use FCS if your attack misses, but I think if you do so you're passing up your chance to use Gunner, because it's no longer 'immediately' after.

But either way, no - I don't think you could use it immediately, because I think Gunner would interrupt, and FCS wouldn't take effect until after the attack made by Gunner.

I do see where you're coming from, but stripped down to their most basic, assuming your attack missed, you have "after you make an attack" and "after you make an attack, immediately" and I don't see any way Gunner doesn't take precedence there.

Sadly, this is one of those things we don't really know.

We generally assume that "immediately" will interrupt to go before other effects that don't have "immediately", because what else could it mean? But it's not one of those things that we actually have a solid ruling on.

But assuming we stick with that, Gunner and the Fire Control System have the same trigger condition, so are triggered at the same time. Just because Gunner's effect starts a new attack doesn't give it any special treatment, or change the order in which abilities would activate.

I'm not comfortable on a gut level of having doubled effects from Gunner-preempting both getting to go off. It makes sense from a legalistic standpoint, but I don't like it. If that is the case though, throw in Weapon Engineer to take advantage of it.

I would like to think it should be you get a (one) free TL after you have attacked for the current round regardless of how many "attacks" you have technically rolled. It seems to be just giving a "free TL" action opportunity to benefit from in successive rounds. The wording "may acquire" could simply be because you may have destroyed the target so no need for a TL on it.

I guess the opportunities to get multiple TLs are not an issue as no ship can maintain more than one TL on a single ship and FCS only seems to allow a TL on the defender of the attack. If FCS is triggered after the first attack and a gunner attack (which could be against a different defender) then you would need the weapons engineer as well. I do not think this is the intention of the upgrade which at 2 points is cheap.

The "may acquire" wording has a clear purpose - to make it optional.

As you say, the only way to maintain more than one is with the Weapons Engineer, and if you have him then you can take two from the single FCS anyway. So it seems the concerns over intent are satisfied.

Doesn't change that each attack triggers anything that comes from that attack. We know for sure thanks to the ruling that says Gunner can trigger from either Cluster Missile attack. Two attacks, two events, triggers fired on each one.

Actually I was thinking about this last night and I changed my mind.

I realized that I had a flaw in my line of thinking. I was thinking of the TL from FCS being part of the attack process. Consider it in the form of a psedu-math equation.

(Pick target + ((role attack dice) reroll/modify attack dice) - ((defense dice)+(reroll/modify defense dice)+FCS) = outcome. So FCS is part of the overall attack process.

But that doesn't actually match up with what the card says. It says after the attack. So the immediate effect would trump the after effect. Once I realized the flaw in my thinking I see that it would work the way you and Buhallin said it does, with the Gunner attack going off before the FCS kicks in.

Doesn't the player decide the order in which these activate.

Doesn't the player decide the order in which these activate.

General consensus is that the purpose of "immediately" in an ability means it goes off before abilities that lack that term ("normal" abilities). This is a bit of derived rules on the part of the community, but nobody's really come up with a convincing alternative for what it would mean, so it's what most of us use.

And given that, the Gunner is "immediately" but the FCS is not. So the Gunner goes first.

I agree with Vanor here: Acquiring the fire control TL is part of the first attack, you then immediately move to the gunner attack after the first attack is completed.

The current Errata for gunner and Luke reads “After you perform an attack that does not hit, you may immediately perform a primary weapon attack. " This means to me that the affect from gunner and Luke is now optional and FCS could trigger first since it is from the initial attack. This is once again word play, but as a TO I would rule that since the MAY was added it goes into the realm of player choosing first trigger, second trigger, etc.

This means to me that the affect from gunner and Luke is now optional and FCS could trigger first since it is from the initial attack.

But that would also mean you give up the 2nd attack by Luke/Gunner to trigger the FCS.

The May allows you the option of preforming that 2nd attack or not. It doesn't change the timing of events in anyway, short of the 2nd attack not happening.

FCS says "After the attack" and Luke/Gunner say immediately, so IMO that means the Luke/Gunner attack take place first, because otherwise the word immediately doesn't mean anything.

Sorry to ninja-post on this thread. I hit this situation a game I played tonight.

I sent an email to customer support about this rules question. I'll update the thread when they respond.

Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect, such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade card) twice? A: Yes, once after each attack

As both vader and FCs both say after you preform an attack.

It doesn't leave much to the imagination does it now.

Attack

Vader

Gunner

Vader

Attack

FCS

Gunner

FCS

Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect, such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade card) twice? A: Yes, once after each attack

That's a firm precedent of a non-immediate effect resolving prior to an immediate one. So the theory "immediately resolves first" goes straight out the airlock.

The term immediate has been debated for a long long time, a consensus has not been reached and is unlikely to be reached until a response from FFG is received. As dvor just highlighted the vader ruling gives us a precedent of non immediate effect resolving before an immediate one.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/91406-immediately/

Doesn't change that each attack triggers anything that comes from that attack. We know for sure thanks to the ruling that says Gunner can trigger from either Cluster Missile attack. Two attacks, two events, triggers fired on each one.

Dont forget, for the cluster missile attack twice, if gunner/Luke trigger at the first miss roll you cannot perform any attack after this one. So you better hit with the first roll attack and miss with the second roll to trigger gunner/Luke.

That's a firm precedent of a non-immediate effect resolving prior to an immediate one. So the theory "immediately resolves first" goes straight out the airlock.

Or it's yet another case of a "Because I said so" ruling that falls outside the normal rules.

Honestly, I don't consider any single ruling to generate precedent in X-wing any more. There are just too many exceptions. If we take single rulings to be precedent, turrets break, color-changing maneuver abilities can't chain, and boost is a maneuver that can trigger all sorts of fun stuff.

As far as I know, we don't have any specific "immediately" rulings in this vein that don't involve Gunner. I'm more inclined that FFG realized that Gunner being immediate created some very screwy timing and have effectively declared it to be not immediate. That feels more likely to me than them throwing a random pointless word into 15% of card abilities.

Of course the other possibility is that there simply are no fine-grained timing rules for X-wing, and the timing rules for any given ability just are what they want them to be for that ability

Ive checked the FAQ and the only ruling I would say even came close to a "because I said so" ruling would be...

Q: If a ship equipped with Darth Vader has a number of Damage cards that equals or exceeds its hull value, but is not yet destroyed because of the simultaneous attack rule, can it use Darth Vader’s ability? A: No

But the alternative would make vader too powerful so im glad FFG resolved it the way they have.

Off the top of my head:

- Proximity Mine and Boost/Barrel Roll

- Obstacle collision when your template overlaps it but you stop short

- Nien Numb on a failed K-turn

- Measuring before attempting a boost

- Maneuver difficulty conflict and the Swarm Tactics conflict ruling you relayed

All of these directly contradict the rules/abilities as printed except for the last, where we have two different rulings which contradict each other. There are plenty of others there as well.

And seriously? Allowing Vader to be used in the incredibly rare simultaneous fire situation would be what makes him too powerful?? Wow. I guess I wasn't doing enough to make sure I correctly guessed my opponent's PS so I could match it before failing the initiative roll and make sure to force that ship to shoot at Vader so that I could totally exploit the OP potential there. It's a good thing they closed that loophole before everyone (read: ANYONE) realized the potential for abuse that represented.

Off the top of my head:

- Proximity Mine and Boost/Barrel Roll

- Obstacle collision when your template overlaps it but you stop short

- Nien Numb on a failed K-turn

- Measuring before attempting a boost

- Maneuver difficulty conflict and the Swarm Tactics conflict ruling you relayed:

As bombs are not obstacles that ruling is obviously correct

Obstacles collision, your template crossed the obstacle so yes again obviously correct.

Measuring before a boost its in the rules as well, but you can enforce the competitive play rules if you so desire.

Swarm tactics was rather obvious as well, you just didn't want to listen to other people's comments and had read far to much into the rules. Its defiantly not a because I said so ruling ;-)

Nien Numb the dial revealed a red his ability only works on white I don't know how that was ever an issue.

Now if FCS is resolved differently to vader and we don't get an reason why I may agree on that one being a because FFG said so.

Did anyone read the article in defense of the shuttle FFG posted, one of the builds Buzsaw actually uses FCS and Gunner and explains that you do get to use FCS after both attacks.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4699