So,

We have some excellent arguments proposing that the word "immediately" grants precedence over actions that lack the same qualifier. An example would be Gunner/Vader, or Gunner/FCS. However, it occurs to me that IF the qualifier "immediately" does in fact suggest priority, then you simply lose the opportunity for the other actions.

When two non-immediate (or two immediate) actions "go off", according to the rules the player chooses which one to resolve first before resolving the second. However, if "immediately" does in fact change timing, and we have one "immediate" and one "non-immediate" action that could potentially trigger (say from an attack) then they do not in fact go off at the same time.

For example, Gunner/FCS. Gunner says "immediately", FCS does not. Let's assume you fire your Gunner attack at a new target. You fire the first attack at target A, and miss. Now you have Gunner trigger because it goes off "immediately", but FCS does NOT go off at all because since it lacks the "immediately" qualifier it does not go off simultaneously with Gunner. Following through the example, you get a second attack using Gunner at target B, and that attack can/will trigger FCS allowing you to TL target B. You will not have the opportunity to TL target A using your FCS at any point.

The rules only allow for you to activate multiple abilities from a single "event" if those abilities all go off simultaneously. If indeed the qualifier "immediately" changes the timing, then that rule would no longer apply.

Considering the FAQ, the implication here is that either "immediately" does alter timing but we ignore that fact when it comes to activating abilities, or the word "immediately" does not in fact alter timing at all. Either way, wouldn't we be ignoring the word "immediately" when we activate abilities?

The rules only allow for you to activate multiple abilities from a single "event" if those abilities all go off simultaneously.

This is a decent way of looking at it. The choose-the-order FAQ entry specifically says you can choose when multiple effects RESOLVE at the same time. If one is immediate and the other is not, they're not resolving at the same time.

Now you have Gunner trigger because it goes off "immediately", but FCS does NOT go off at all because since it lacks the "immediately" qualifier it does not go off simultaneously with Gunner.

This is problematic, though. There's absolutely nothing in the rules that even suggests you can't activate multiple abilities from a single event, or that another resolving first somehow stops the second from resolving even though its trigger has been met.

You say you're considering the FAQ - could you maybe be more specific?

You will not have the opportunity to TL target A using your FCS at any point.

Buhallin -

It is exactly accurate, though I used the word "simultaneously" rather than the synonymous "at the same time". From the FAQ:

Q: If a player has multiple effects that resolve

at the same time, can he resolve them in

any order?

A: Yes.

I used the word simultaneously, the FAQ actually says "at the same time". In either case, the reason you can "choose" what order to do multiple events that trigger "at the same time" is because of this answer. If you have FCS and Vader, after an attack you may choose whether to use Vader or FCS first, then after resolving that you can resolve the other. However, there are no instances in the rules of "saving" things. So if you finish your attack and forego Vader, then something else occurs (another attack, whatever) that did not occur "at the same time" that Vader would have, you don't get to go back and do Vader. The only reason you get both FCS and Vader is because they both "went off" when you attacked, you just choose what order to resolve them.

The FAQ only allows you to resolve both of them if the both went off "at the same time". If "immediately" actually changes timing, then Vader and Gunner do NOT go off at the same time. Gunner goes off first, period.

You are saying that things with "immediately" do not go off at the same time as things without it. I am just saying IF that is true, we need to follow through on that line of reasoning. So Gunner would go off "immediately" and FCS would not have gone off yet AT ALL, because it is "slower" than Gunner. So when FCS finally does go off, the most recent attack is all we have. You can't "go back" to the previous attack any more than you could "go back" to last turns attack.

I can see the argument on KO's side. However, the Gunner/FCS problem would be moot as a ship can only keep one target lock active at any given time (unless it is the Shuttle with Weapons engineer). If you missed the TL option or not on the first attack, you would be redoing a target lock on the second, which would eliminate the first one.

As for "immediately", I would stress its use is more for defining when multiple items go off at the same time. The immediate ability should go first (but by the FAQ rules, a player can choose which order he chooses to activate them in so it remains only as an option).

Edit: I'll add to KO's post that was written as I was making mine. KO's argument, therefore, is if multiple "immediate" abilities went off the player would choose their order, but if one immediate and 2 non immediate abilities went off, the immediate would go first, followed by the two remaining (with their order determined by the player). That looks like it works.

The FAQ only allows you to resolve both of them if the both went off "at the same time". If "immediately" actually changes timing, then Vader and Gunner do NOT go off at the same time. Gunner goes off first, period.

You are saying that things with "immediately" do not go off at the same time as things without it. I am just saying IF that is true, we need to follow through on that line of reasoning. So Gunner would go off "immediately" and FCS would not have gone off yet AT ALL, because it is "slower" than Gunner. So when FCS finally does go off, the most recent attack is all we have. You can't "go back" to the previous attack any more than you could "go back" to last turns attack.

I agree completely that Gunner goes off first.

But if the conditions for an ability have been met, that ability should be resolved. This is a pretty foundational rule. You're suggesting that an interrupted effect changes that rule, but that's a pretty major change that should require some pretty serious evidence to push the idea through. You're suggesting how things would work under your reading, but not actually showing why that reading is correct.

So again, simple rule: Conditions are met, ability will activate. What changes that? Is there an FAQ ruling that can only be correct if it works this way?

And the more I think about it, the more I think the basic premise is flawed.

"Immediately" abilities don't do anything to interrupt or change the game state. We know if Gunner activates between two Cluster attacks it inserts itself, but otherwise the flow would continue back to the second attack just fine. HLC's "immediately" does its thing, and then you return to the same point in the resolution process.

The resolution of every ability functions as a subroutine - you pause where you're at, do whatever the ability says to do, then return to the point you were just at. Gunner's ability is a longer detour, but nothing suggests you don't return to the same point when it's done just like you would with any other ability.

In this specific case, there might be some argument that the FCS gets "confused" about which attack it's working against, but I don't really see any support for that idea.

I see KO's point, and to be honest, I'm not too fond neither on those 'retroactive' effects.... Which are, resolving a 'past' effect when another has already 'inserted' in between. Gunner seems the main culprit here. And it has important interactions with FCS and Vader (crew).

However Buhallin is right in that there's no rule that explain what happens to those effects when another 'steps in'.

If we interpret the text on those abilities as prerequisites, then, the ability should trigger retroactively, because prerequisites have been met, and the ability 'hangs in the air' expecting you to resolve them at a later point.

BUT if we interpret them not as prerequisites, but as moments in time in which you can activate the ability, then, they should not trigger... because that moment has already passed. Another ability step in and you are no longer 'after the' primary ability.

Let's consider this: If both effects had the same trigger but the 'immediately after' effect resolution made the 'after' effect illegal to resolve... Could we defend that the 'after effect' should still be resolved because it was validly triggered "in the past"?

If the answer is no, then, it is clear that abilities do not trigger simultaneously, they activate in a given order, and one ability could affect the resolution of the other, potentially preventing it.

There are ample precedents for simultaneous effects. Fettigator has one action altering the gamestate that was changed by a previous action, even though they both "went off" due to revealing the dial. The reason both go off is because they both activate at the same time, allowing the player to simply choose which one goes first. Even so, the second one to go off deals with the NEW gamestate, not the old.

If they don't go off "at the same time", you would need to do the first action completely. You aren't choosing anything, and the other has not gone off yet. Then your second action would have a chance to trigger based on what happened there, but it didn't "go off" the first time.

Or, it may be that both "go off" but one resolves completely before the other (which is what we have said, and the FAQ supports). If so, the second would need to operate on the new game state. So if FCS and Gunner both went off, Gunner would make its attack. Then, FCS would activate but the attack it is referencing would be the new one, not the old one.

Alternately, FCS might not "go off" due to the first attack at all. But either way, it couldn't TL on the first target.

It may be that both "go off" but one resolves completely before the other. If so, the second would need to operate on the new game state. So if FCS and Gunner both went off, Gunner would make its attack. Then, FCS would activate but the attack it is referencing would be the new one, not the old one.

The FCS ability references the attack which triggered it. It doesn't say "the defender of the last attack". Do you not think that "...the defender" references the defender of the attack which triggered it?

<shrug> It's an interesting hypothetical, but it's entirely self-contained and has zero concrete examples to support it. We know multiple abilities can resolve from the same trigger. We know those abilities still resolve, even if something inserts between them, in a pretty standard subroutine fashion. We know those abilities can be "on hold" past the trigger point while others resolve, and then they go back to where they were.

What happens if a later ability no longer has its trigger by the time it resolves? No idea, but it's also not relevant here. FCS does not say it acts on the most recent attack. Gunner does not make the previous attack vanish, or cancel it in any way. The game state which FCS triggered on is still perfectly valid - the first attack happened, it had a defender, and we know who that defender was. "Attack" is not some one-deep memory slot that gets wiped out whenever a new attack takes place.

Even if the Fettigator proves the perfect example for his case, it still doesn't mean what KO is claiming it to mean.

A ship has only one maneuver dial, and one maneuver, at a time. Fett and Navigator are both explicitly changing that one thing. The same limitation does not apply for attacks. There is nothing that indicates that "attack" is a single-slot memory option which can only hold a single attack at a time.

Fett and Navigator are both explicitly looking at the same thing, so the second one is affected by game state changes which the first one makes. But Gunner isn't doing anything to change the state of the first attack, and there's nothing in the wording of the FCS that indicates that it works only on the most recent attack, rather than the one that triggered it.

Could you use the ruling in the FAQ about the Heavy Laser being able to be modified to a crit post its immediate effect. Text of heavy laser says after rolling immediately change crits to hits. Maybe this suggests that immediately does preceed triggered actions and may in fact prevent some triggered actions.

Maybe this suggests that immediately does preceed triggered actions and may in fact prevent some triggered actions.

I don't see how that can be used for this case.

Heavy Laser changes the dice, this has an effect because you no longer have a [crit] to resolve the immediately part of it simply isn't realivent to that change, other then to say it happens before anything else does. So you would change the dice before applying other modifers. That isn't the same thing as saying that a 2nd attack changes the state of who is or isn't a defender for a given ships combat round.

Could you use the ruling in the FAQ about the Heavy Laser being able to be modified to a crit post its immediate effect. Text of heavy laser says after rolling immediately change crits to hits. Maybe this suggests that immediately does preceed triggered actions and may in fact prevent some triggered actions.

It would be an interesting case, but is there anything that actually interacts with the roll in this way? We'd need an ability that was something like "After rolling one or more {Critical Hit} results, you may..." and we don't have any abilities like that.

What we do know from the FAQ is that the HLC doesn't stop you from performing other abilities which modify the dice results - that seems to suggest pretty strongly that the "immediately" of the HLC doesn't automatically clobber any of the other dice modification abilities occurring in the same window.

It doesn't necessarily help address the specific case of Gunner and which attack the FCS works on, but I do think it helps answer the general question of whether "immediately" abilities stop "standard" abilities from going off.

I don't have zero concrete examples, I have concrete examples you are ignoring.

Fettigator. Both Fett and Navigator trigger when dial is revealed. Lets say a 1L Bank. So, we pick Fett first and he changes the dial to a 1R Bank. Then Navigator goes, and it changes the 1R Bank to a 3R Bank. By your logic Navigator could only make it a 3L Bank, since it would be modifying the game state it found "when it went off". Which has been shown repeatedly not to be the case. When things happen, they check gamestate and modify whatever happens at the moment they actually execute, not what the game state used to be when they were triggered. You have argued this point consistently, but we have repeatedly been told otherwise. When you activate Fett, he finds a left bank and makes it right. When we activate Navigator, it finds a right bank and changes its speed. It doesn't matter what "used to" be on the dial when Navigator went off.

This says another maneuver with the same bearing. So if your theory was sound, then when Navigator resolves it would rotate the dial to another maneuver with the same bearing it found when it "went off", and since the bearing when it went off was a LEFT bank, Navigator would switch the dial back to a LEFT bank of some speed.

Another example. Two ships with Swarm Tactics, lets say Vader and Mauler. Both Swarm Tactics "go off" at the beginning of combat. We choose to do Vader first, he gives PS 9 to Mauler. Then Mauler's Swarm Tactics is resolved, say to an Academy Pilot. The Academy Pilot does not get PS 7 (Mauler's PS when his Swarm Tactics "went off"), he gets PS 9. Again, the action resolves based on the gamestate it finds when it resolves, regardless of what it "used to" look like at the moment it "went off".

FCS and Gunner both "go off" after a failed attack against target A. We resolve Gunner first, whether we want to or because we are required to because of "immediately", and we take a second attack at target B. Now FCS resolves. The "defender" is target B, not target A, regardless of who the defender "used to" be when FCS went off. So we may TL against target B, and only target B. Gunner is optional, which would let you skip Gunner entirely then TL against target A, but there is no way to use FCS against target A THEN activate Gunner if indeed "immediately" is a hard requirement.

Also, none of this resolves the core issue I brought up. We can only select between events when they go off "at the same time". If immediately really does change timing, then those events do NOT go off at the same time. Your other abilities would not have a chance to go off at all, because by the time you are checking them you are past the trigger point. Alternately, maybe "Immediately" is NOT a change in timing and just a redundant term, and all the events trigger and resolve in whatever order you wish. Or, maybe a third possibility; Immediately is not really a change in timing, but rather simply a requirement to put it at the front of the queue, so to speak.

I don't have zero concrete examples, I have concrete examples you are ignoring.

...

FCS and Gunner both "go off" after a failed attack against target A. We resolve Gunner first, whether we want to or because we are required to because of "immediately", and we take a second attack at target B. Now FCS resolves. The "defender" is target B, not target A, regardless of who the defender "used to" be when FCS went off. So we may TL against target B, and only target B.

Not ignoring anything - if you look up a bit, you might notice that I addressed Fettigator, which was the only similar example. If you're trying to claim the Gunner/FCS interaction as an example, I think you've got a bit of a chicken/egg issue.

I've never questioned that abilities act upon the current game state when they resolve. Quite the opposite, if you look at the FCS vs. Kagi discussion. If you'd like, I can give you a dozen more - we can start with Focus+Target Lock and go from there.

The disagreement is not over whether abilities work against the current game state, but what that game state includes. The problem is that you're assuming that the second attack overwrites the first, to the extent that the Fire Control System cannot know which it is working against. In essence, you're arguing that there can only be one attack in the game state at any given time. None of your examples actually address that, because they all operate on clearly singular elements - a ship has one maneuver/dial, one pilot skill, etc. But an attack is not the same. An attack is a process, and that process has multiple instances where it is performed, all of which still exist in "memory".

We actually have multiple abilities that rely on this. I have a PS 4 ship that's destroyed by another PS4 enemy - am I immediately removed? Depends on whether or not I've attacked this turn. What if my ship fires at a target with a Rebel Captive. Do I get a stress? That depends on whether or not anyone else has attacked them this turn.

The first attack triggers FCS, and then FCS will resolve on that attack. The second attack will also trigger FCS, and it will also resolve on that attack. It can do so without incurring any confusion, or ending up referring to the wrong attack, because we know what attack triggered it, and "current attack" is not a singular element of the game state.

Late addition that I'll made a new post rather than an edit:

I think Rebel Captive conclusively disproves the idea that FCS can't remember who the defender for its attack was. Every time an attack is made against Rebel Captive, it has to evaluate every other attack which has occurred this turn, including who the defender was in that attack. If it can remember that, then I don't see how FCS can have a problem remembering the attack it was a part of.

And again - we don't actually know for certain "how" Fettigator works. There are several mechanics they could use to justify it and I, at least, haven't actually seen a ruling in print anyplace that explains it. So I think calling it a "concrete example" is a bit of a stretch, when they could turn around and rule that "changing" your dial "reveals" it again, chaining Fettigator's effects rather than making them simultaneous.

I can think of two or three different ways they could 'explain' Fettigator being legal, and only one of them would actually lend any credence to this argument. You may very well be right (about why Fettigator works) but you can't really use as evidence an example that hasn't been spelled out for us yet. We just know it works, we don't know why or how.

No, there is no memory. A simple statement like "first ship that attacks" is not the same thing. It is a self-contained statement, that predicates itself on conditions found throughout the turn. This as opposed to a statement of conditions you find right now, like "attacker" or "you" or "defender" or really anything else ALL of which apply to what is going on RIGHT NOW, and nowhere is it ever suggested that you are to concern yourself with who/what/why/when something else might have met those conditions. You are clearly getting into apples and oranges at this point.

Also, Defender is clearly defined in the rulebook. Once a ship is declared as a legal target, it becomes the defender. Period. There is no "previous defender" exception anywhere in the rules that would allow FCS to TL some ship that used to be the defender.

No, there is no memory. A simple statement like "first ship that attacks" is not the same thing. It is a self-contained statement, that predicates itself on conditions found throughout the turn. This as opposed to a statement of conditions you find right now, like "attacker" or "you" or "defender" or really anything else ALL of which apply to what is going on RIGHT NOW, and nowhere is it ever suggested that you are to concern yourself with who/what/why/when something else might have met those conditions. You are clearly getting into apples and oranges at this point.

So if there is no memory of other attacks, how do I know if I'm the first ship to attack? How can I NOT concern myself with when else those conditions might have been met, and still implement the rule?

Consider a single-attack gamestate. I have Rebel Captive on a ship. Your Garven attacks my ship. Do you get a stress for that?

If there is no memory of other attacks, as you suggest, you should be able to answer that question with the given information.

KO, just to point out with the ST topic. Their are actually two resolutions to that problem. The player gets to decide which one to use. He can have Vader to Mauler and Mauler to another OR have Mauler to another and then Vader to Mauler. The choice is up to the player which one to use. It becomes a matter of strategy that the player should choose one order over another -> Vader to Mauler to another to maximize the Swarm Tactics values passed.

Gamestate changes can be determined on the go, and this is worked out by the FAQ ruling. What seems to be in question is the use of a timing limiter to indicate no selection of order. The immediate ability goes first, however, that does not preclude that it stops the later timed ability from occurring. In the case of gunner, it starts another attack, but any ability that was triggered by the first attack is still in queue to happen, it just has to wait for its turn to resolve. The attack happened and FCS is triggered, but so was gunner but it needs to resolve first so it does. FCS then comes in and resolves for the first attack and then, being the only ability still active due to the second attack trigger, it resolves a second time. Its like Han's reroll ability with cluster missiles. Han shoots cluster missiles, rerolls all dice if they are not good, rolls for second attack, rerolls if they are not good. Gunner can kick in at either attack (because each missile attack is in itself a trigger for Gunner).

I'll leave it a that as I can hear Buhallin starting to whimper and skulk over to the corner at the mention of cluster missiles...

Sergovan -

Agreed. In the case of Swarm Tactics, it is up to the active player to decide what order they resolve in. My point is only that it DOES matter what order they resolve in, because if you were to use Vader to give Mauler PS 9 before resolving the Swarm Tactics on Mauler, then when Mauler's ST goes off it would pass a PS 9, not the original PS of 7. Alternately, you could choose to activate Mauler's Swarm Tactics first, pass the PS 7 to Vader, and have Vader pass that PS 7 along. Which is exactly what would happen with Fire Control System. If it resolves after Gunner has made target B the "defender", FCS would now only be able to lock onto target B. It really doesn't matter that FCS "went off" after the first attack at A, because by the time it resolves the defender is B. You CAN choose not to use gunner after the first attack on A, which would allow you to lock target A. Or, IF it is possible that "immediately" does not force gunner to go first then you could choose to use FCS first, gaining a lock on target A, then activate Gunner to shoot at target B. Regardless, the only "defender" as far as the rules are concerned is the one declared as the target of the most recent attack.

Yes, I can see that FCS would be able to activate twice, with the first activation going "in the queue" after the attack on A and the second activation going in the queue after the attack on B. However, if both activations resolve after the attack on B, the defender is target B for both of them. Just like Swarm Tactics both going "in the queue" at the beginning of the round, FCS and Gunner both go "in the queue" after the first attack. Just like when the second ST resolves once the first is complete and finds a "new" PS to pass along, FCS resolves after Gunner and finds a "new" defender to pass along. What the PS was back when both ST went in the queue is irrelevant, and who the defender was when both FCS and Gunner went in the queue is also irrelevant. The only PS that is passed is the one that exists when ST resolves, and the only defender that can be locked is the one who is defending when FCS resolves.

Buhallin -

I have provided a logical framework for my position, backed it up with quotes from the book and the FAQ, then provided two substantive examples that support my position while simultaneously refuting yours. At this point I am going to stop playing the game where you demand more proof and I provide it. Unless and until you provide solid examples that both support your position and are incompatible with mine, I will consider my point made. Of course you are not required to accept that either, but I don't want to get into another silly back and forth with you. We just end up repeating ourselves while becoming less and less civil.

You're relying on the idea that there is only a single attack in the game state, Gunner replaces that attack with a new one, and abilities cannot reference a previous attack even when they refer to it directly. You rely on FCS pointing to the "defender" slot without being able to distinguish the defender for the attack that triggered it.

But we have at least one concrete example of an ability which can do so. Since you dodged it above, I'll rephrase it more broadly - if you walk into the room in the middle of a game and see a pilot about to shoot at a Rebel Captive, can you tell if he will get stress for doing so? The answer is no, you cannot. You require knowledge of previous events which are not contained in the immediate game state.

That is incompatible with your position that there is no memory in the game.

It proves that cards operate on and with knowledge of previous attacks, including who the defender was.

Honestly, your concept relies on memory too. Since the FCS triggers after the attack is complete, you're looking back either way. You can look at the most recent attack, where the last defender is stuck in memory, or we can look at the context of the FCS card and refer it to the attack which triggered it.

It would be nice if you provided proof that actually related to the point I've been trying to make, of course, but I suspect you're right that it's pointless.

For Buhallin's challenge, You can determine that to a high degree of certainty, based on the game state. But not with perfect accuracy.

As a mental exercise, it's the following questions...

Which pilot skill is shooting?

How many ships have the rebel captive in arc?

Which ships show a red maneuver?

Which ships have a stress token?

Which ships show a face up damage card?

Which ships have an ability or EPT that generate stress

The case we can't tell, comes from a ship doing a white maneuver that kept a stress token, or tycho with multiple stress tokens. Or a used ability that generated a stress token.