Decent coverage, Ravncat, but I'd contradict one and add a few:

- You can't know what the past maneuver was. That would be memory, which is explicitly disallowed by KO's position.

- Even if you did know the maneuver, you couldn't guarantee that ships with a stress got it from a maneuver rather than from shooting the Captive, because of Adrenaline Rush (discarded after use, so no longer part of the game).

- Yorr, who I include mainly because shoehorning him into this discussion is the best use I've found for him yet

I agree you could make a pretty good guess, and it makes a decently fun brain teaser, but a pretty good guess isn't good enough for the rules engine. It deals in absolutes. And if it can't make that absolute determination based on the current game state, it MUST be capable of looking to historical elements.

When are dials removed after being revealed?

When are dials removed after being revealed?

During step 5 of the activation phase. See Rulebook page 7.

5. Clean Up : Return the used template to the pile of maneuver templates. Place the revealed dial outside the play area, near the ship’s corresponding Ship card.

So, it's still revealed?

It is not neccesary to keep track of past events (memory) when those events change the state of the game.

In the case of 'Rebel Captive', once a ship declares it as a target for the 1st time, it gets its stress token (immediately BTW) and from that moment, it changes the game's state for all others. From this this point on, you don't doublecheck everytime a ship fires if 'Rebel Captive' has been resolved or not. You already have that knowledge, because you are in the game, and its state changed.

If you walk into the room, of course you don't know the game's state, but that's because you are an outsider to that game. In the same way, you don't know which round it is, or if both players are playing a casual skirmish or a booklet scenario, or which side of the table the imperial/rebel border is. You may not even know on which side is playing each one of them, or their names.

You lack that information because you are a total outsider to the state of the game. But I think we can safely assume that both actual players have an accurate and up-to-date knowledge of that state at this precise moment. You can't entirely justify the 'persistence' or 'memory' of past events just because a stranger enters the room and has to know exactly what's going on.

Two players walk into a room where a game is in progress, they are handed a dial and told its the start of the planning phase, the only information they need is who has initiative.

If a player must have complete memory of how every token or ship got to where it is then the two new players can not finish the game. Does the fact that a stress token got assigned to that ship two moves before stop the new player from assigning a green manouviour now?

If you walk into the room, of course you don't know the game's state, but that's because you are an outsider to that game.

That's not true.

I could post a screen shot from Vassel, say that it was the planing phase, and who has initiative and anyone could pick a side and play out the rest of the game. You don't need know what happened in previous turns to contiune the game, because at the least there is no memory past this current turn.

Everything else is either irrelevant or would have tokens in play from previous rounds. The owner of a table edge might be required knowledge. But that goes further to prove the idea of memory, because the game state must remember who owns which edge.

I was starting to come around to KO's way of thinking, but the Rebel Captive does provide proof that the game must remember a previous state. It must remember that the ship with that card has been targeted already.

OK I think people are overcomplicating the memory situation. When something references an item eg Maneuver dial, number of Hull points etc. you check this value when you come to resolve the card. So in the situation of Fettigator.

• Reveal Dial - When Dial is Revealed phase starts.
• You declare you are using Fetts ability.
  • Check if the Dial shows a Bank
  • If it does change it to the Bank at the same speed in the other direction.
• You declare Navigator.
  • You check what the Dial now says (not what is says in the past, this is the items have no memory bit).
  • change it to say another Speed.
• No other things happen in this phase so you resume the game.

Now to the question in hand. It's a hard one to answer.

I would be inclined to go with you can't use the Fire-Control System if you choose to use Gunner. But I'm not certain on this, and this is why.

If we assume that Gunner has to be the first thing you resolve after shooting at a ship. Then it would break down like this.

• Shoot and Miss
• Gunner Kicks in
• Perform Second Attack

But this feels really unnatural. If "immediately" just means before you do another attack (which is wishy washy, but may be their intended reading), then you could go

• Shoot and Miss
• FCS for target lock on first target
• Gunner Kicks in
• Perform Second Attack against different target
• FCS for target lock on second target

Edit: This first grey area is redundant due to Rodent Masterminds' excellent post. Read if you like, or skip.

How does Rebel Captive relate to anything? Rebel Captive specifically references the long term gamestate, none of the other completely unrelated issues do so. Are we supposed to set up from the beginning every time as well? Do we "remember" that our ship used to be at range 1, so we keep adding dice every time it shoots from now on? Which maneuver do we perform, this one or one of the other ones "in memory"? How about next turn, does our ship take another stress from Rebel Captive because we "remember" that we were first, never mind that things have changed and we have moved on? Which abilities are supposed to "remember", and for how long, if we are just going to assume they remember something whenever it is convenient despite the fact that there is no indication on the card that we are supposed to do so? The only way any term makes sense is by looking at what it means right now, not what it meant some random period of time ago. So when Rebel Captive says the first time this turn, it means THIS turn. And "defender" means THIS defender.

The only real question is whether the "defender" referenced on the card (or some other term) is referring to who was defending when the card went in the queue or who is defending when the card resolves. That was a legitimate point of contention, but by now we have a consistent body of precedent that answers the question. Buhallin argued this same point way, way back in the day and has continued to tilt at this particular windmill with every single card that comes along. Fettigator? He said it couldn't work because Navigator could only make changes to the dial it "found" when it went off. Ruling comes along, and no it changes the new dial. Adrenaline Rush to take a Red maneuver while stressed? According to his line of thinking the dial change is already on the way so AR doesn't help. Ruling comes along and nope, AR makes the maneuver white before the Stress check resolves, so Stress check looks at the new color. We have gone around on this since I first came across his posts, and he argues it the same way every time, and every single time he has been proven wrong first by reason and later by rulings, and he still refuses to bend his mind around the simple fact that his concept of how these things work is WRONG.

When an effect goes "in the pipe", the whole card goes in not just the results. I will quote commuterzombie from the end of the Adrenaline Rush/Stress/Red Maneuver thread (that was argued for 12 pages, despite the Fettigator precedent) because he does a good job of summarizing.

Seems that the general guideline for scenarios like this is that when multiple effects are triggered at the same time the active player chooses the order of resolution (excepting 'immediate' effects). After each effect is resolved the game state is updated before the next effect is resolved, which can potentially invalidate effects that were triggered before the game state shift.

As others have said, that approach works with the Swarm Tactics ruling, Adrenaline Rush and Fettigator. It may be counter-intuitive for some of us but at least we now have a consistent body of precedent that may help with future issues.

And here is a link to that thread.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/88528-adrenaline-rush-and-stress/page-12

It is noteworthy that at each point, with Swarm Tactics, with Fettigator, with Adrenaline Rush, and now with FCS/Gunner the arguments on timing have been the same, and the rulings have been consistent with one another. A card acts on the gamestate it finds when it RESOLVES, not the gamestate that existed when it went into the queue.

At some point could we consider this question answered? We deal with the conditions we find when the card resolves, not what they were when the card went in the queue. It could have gone either way, but that is the way FFG has chosen to go with it for now. Maybe they will change their mind someday, but until then this particular horse is dead, dead, dead.

You're so eager to show me wrong, KO, that you pull out several examples without seeming to have a clue as to WHY I was wrong.

Adrenaline Rush, as clarified by James, is no timing issue at all. Its use prevents the maneuver from ever being red at all - it's ALWAYS considered white, so the "opponent chooses dial" never actually triggers. Only one effect, no timing, no issue of game state during resolution, and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Honestly, it was never a question of game state in the first place.

As CW has tried to point out, we still have no idea why Fettigator works. Considering what we do know, my guess is that the trigger is only "When you reveal a maneuver" and the rest of the text is all resolution. If that's correct, I was putting too much knowledge into the trigger. Fair point that I missed that one.

And I'll say, yet again, that I do not, have not, and will not ever question that you operate on the game state you find when it goes off. That's never been the issue, as much as you keep flogging it. The question is whether "attack" and "defender" are singular elements of the game state which can be replaced, or if knowledge of the process sticks around enough for FCS to deal with the attack that triggered it.

Two players walk into a room where a game is in progress, they are handed a dial and told its the start of the planning phase, the only information they need is who has initiative.

If a player must have complete memory of how every token or ship got to where it is then the two new players can not finish the game. Does the fact that a stress token got assigned to that ship two moves before stop the new player from assigning a green manouviour now?

I just gave you an example where your first statement is not true, and there are plenty of others.

A player doesn't need complete memory of how everything got where it is - only the ones that matter for resolving abilities. There are any number of cases where game memory is more than what's on the board at a given time. You take over just before Turr shoots - can he barrel roll? You have no way of knowing unless you know what else happened previously in that turn.

Yeah I'm still really uncomfortable with everyone hammering Fettigator as an example proving (or DISproving) anything, because it involves making some big assumptions about why Fettigator works. There are a couple of ways that FFG could rule it, and they would each set very different precedents for rules like this one.

If someone from FFG tells (I think) Hothie "yeah, you can do that" - that's good enough for me, for now. But you can't safely draw anything from that pseudo-ruling, because there's no explanation or context or indication of what makes it tick.

You're pointing to something we know works, but not why and trying to use it as evidence in support of an argument and that just doesn't stand up, because if FFG turns around and says "changing the dial from maneuver A to maneuver B counts as a new reveal," or something along those lines, it doesn't help the case being made here at ALL. And it's as likely it works like that as anything else is, so don't jump to conclusions.

As compelling of a argument KO makes, and I think he is by and large correct... as you pointed out. The gamestate when a event resolves is what matters.

There is a problem with KO's argument, he assumes that only one ship can be considered the Defender at a time. There's nothing in the rules that adress this issue. All the precidence listed so far doesn't apply very well either, because none of those examples are the same thing, it's a bit of a apples to oranges issue.

Sure using Swarm Tactics doesn't consider the PS writen on the card/ship, only the current PS. But that is not the same thing as having more then one ship be considered a defender.

On the other hand there's nothing in the rules that say more then one ship can be a defender either. The Gunner/Luke card kind of throws the whole thing in to a grey area because the rules only allow for one attack per ship per turn.

Myself I think I'd be inclined to play it the way KO is saying with the TL only allowed on the ship targeted by Gunner, because there isn't IMO good support for multiable defenders from a single target. Until FFG rules way or the other I think i'd error on the side of TL on gunners target because that more closely follows the current rules.

As compelling of a argument KO makes, and I think he is by and large correct... as you pointed out. The gamestate when a event resolves is what matters.

The question is whether "attack" and "defender" are singular elements of the game state which can be replaced, or if knowledge of the process sticks around enough for FCS to deal with the attack that triggered it.

There is a problem with KO's argument, he assumes that only one ship can be considered the Defender at a time. There's nothing in the rules that adress this issue. All the precidence listed so far doesn't apply very well either, because none of those examples are the same thing, it's a bit of a apples to oranges issue.

Sure using Swarm Tactics doesn't consider the PS writen on the card/ship, only the current PS. But that is not the same thing as having more then one ship be considered a defender.

On the other hand there's nothing in the rules that say more then one ship can be a defender either. The Gunner/Luke card kind of throws the whole thing in to a grey area because the rules only allow for one attack per ship per turn.

Myself I think I'd be inclined to play it the way KO is saying with the TL only allowed on the ship targeted by Gunner, because there isn't IMO good support for multiable defenders from a single target. Until FFG rules way or the other I think i'd error on the side of TL on gunners target because that more closely follows the current rules.

Even with the timing that KO puts forward, the term immediately hasn't been defined. Which is really the issue here.

I do think that it is likely timing is atomic, in the you do everything for one item in the pipe then move onto the next. The theory seems solid, in that no ruling so far has really contradicted it.

The scientific method is that if you don't know something you look at how it affects things, in this case rulings made by FFG, you then make a Theory based on these ruling about how the timing actually works. A theory holds until proof it is wrong appears (in this case a ruling that doesn't fit the theory). Then you either modify the theory or throw it out.

I don't think this really has anything to do with "immediately" any more. KO's original argument started on the idea that Gunner's "immediately" kept the FCS from going off on the first attack at all. It's evolved at least twice since then, and I could be wrong but I haven't seen "immediately" referenced in a while (note that all his "winning!" examples have nothing to do with immediate effects) - it's all about game state when an ability goes off, which shouldn't seem to care WHY something else went first, or even how many other things went first.

If we go back to the original idea, though - that an immediately stops other effects from firing - and assume it wrong (because there's nothing that indicates that it should stop it) then the game state change/single defender means you get something like this:

- Attack Target A, Miss

- Trigger Vader(a) and Gunner.

- Gunner is immediate, so goes first

- Gunner attacks Target B

- Gunner attack triggers Vader(b)

- Vader(a) resolves, hitting Target B (current defender)

- Vader(b) resolves, hitting Target B (current defender)

I don't consider that disqualifying, but it's hard not to raise an eyebrow at it.

I don't think this really has anything to do with "immediately" any more. KO's original argument started on the idea that Gunner's "immediately" kept the FCS from going off on the first attack at all. It's evolved at least twice since then, and I could be wrong but I haven't seen "immediately" referenced in a while (note that all his "winning!" examples have nothing to do with immediate effects) - it's all about game state when an ability goes off, which shouldn't seem to care WHY something else went first, or even how many other things went first.

If we go back to the original idea, though - that an immediately stops other effects from firing - and assume it wrong (because there's nothing that indicates that it should stop it) then the game state change/single defender means you get something like this:

- Attack Target A, Miss

- Trigger Vader(a) and Gunner.

- Gunner is immediate, so goes first

- Gunner attacks Target B

- Gunner attack triggers Vader(b)

- Vader(a) resolves, hitting Target B (current defender)

- Vader(b) resolves, hitting Target B (current defender)

I don't consider that disqualifying, but it's hard not to raise an eyebrow at it.

Yeah it really seems weird, probably just a artifact of them not thinking immediately through correctly. I really think it should just mean this has to be the next attack you make after missing, and the first FCS should slot in before you start the next attack.

There is nothing suggesting this should be the case, but feels more natural.

Which is why I said it's all down to what "immediately" means.

Yeah it really seems weird, probably just a artifact of them not thinking immediately through correctly. I really think it should just mean this has to be the next attack you make after missing, and the first FCS should slot in before you start the next attack.

There is nothing suggesting this should be the case, but feels more natural.

Which is why I said it's all down to what "immediately" means.

But immediately doesn't actually affect the outcome, at least by KO's current theory. Or, rather, it does affect it but only by forcing an odd outcome that the player would have to choose otherwise.

Let's assume for a moment that Gunner wasn't an immediate effect. What happens with it and Vader? They'd resolve at the same time, allowing me to choose the order. I choose Gunner first, and it plays out exactly the same, because by the time Vader resolves the Gunner has changed the singular attack held in the game state..

There's some different wording on Vader (not actually referencing "defender") but I don't think it plays out any differently because it references an attack against a ship. If the new attack fully replaces the previous in the game state, Vader would still reference the "wrong" attack even with the different wording.

Which is why I said it's all down to what "immediately" means.

In some cases yes, in others no.

It is yet another example of FFG using terms and not really doing anything to clearly define those terms. To use MtG, is Immediately a Instant or Interrupt? Does Immediately get put into the queue with everything else and resolved FIFO or does it jump in front of everything else, and then everything else gets resolved based on the effect of the Immediate action?

But there's other issues here as well.

Does the game have memory or is the current game state the only thing that matters? I'd say that Rebel Captive shows that the game does have memory for at least the current turn. It has to remember that the ship has already been targeted.

Then there's also the issue of if Defender is a single case or if you can have more then one defender in a given ships attack round.

Does the game have memory or is the current game state the only thing that matters? I'd say that Rebel Captive shows that the game does have memory for at least the current turn. It has to remember that the ship has already been targeted.

I think the game MUST have memory. There are too many rules and effects which cannot be determined by the immediate game state (which, for these purposes, I consider to be everything on the board represented by components, as well as "virtual" elements like elements of a process such as attacker, defender, etc).

- No dual actions. Cannot implement this without remembering which actions a ship has taken in the turn

- Rebel Captive (again)

- Arguably, every "after" ability in the game requires at least a short-term memory, because it doesn't go off until the process is complete and will often reference some element of a process.

But at the very least, the first two are firm and absolute examples where memory is required for at least the scope of the current turn.

LOL. My argument has been evolving? In the OP, and TWICE since then I have tried to return to my core question. That is, can you consider events with the "immediately" header to be happening "at the same time" as events that do not. If not, then there is a real chance that events lacking the "immediately" header NEVER go off, because their "trigger" is long gone by the time you get to them. 3 possibilities for the word "immediately" present themselves, and I will once again put them out.

1 - Immediately is a different timing than others. Because of this, "immediately" events check, trigger, and resolve before any other events have the opportunity to check. This means they do not go off at all.

2 - Immediately is a redundant and essentially meaningless term. We can ignore it for all intents and purposes, and simply resolve all events in whatever order we wish.

3 - Immediately is somewhere in between. It is still the same timing, so all non-immediate events still trigger, but when placing these events in the "queue" to resolve them all, "immediately" events must be resolved before non-"immediately" events.

I am looking for a rational argument for one or more of these hypothesis. Instead, Buhallin has once again threadjacked the thing and gotten into what exactly goes "in the queue". I have responded to these also, as have others over the course of several other related threads.

CrookedWookie - I get that you are uncomfortable with using Fettigator. Ok, so look at Adrenaline Rush. That interaction also holds if my theory is correct. Then, examine Swarm Tactics. That example also holds. In all cases, IF my theory is true, then we are able to resolve the questions in a manner consistent with the rulings so far. If on the other hand we go with Buhallins theory, it would be inconsistent with ALL previous FAQ answers. That isn't proof, but it is evidence.

And I'll say, yet again, that I do not, have not, and will not ever question that you operate on the game state you find when it goes off.

Really? You were talking about memory earlier on in THIS thread, how FCS would "remember" who the defender was not the defender as they are now. This despite the quote I posted directly from the rulebook. You talked about it in the Fettigator thread, saying how Navigator could only alter the dial that was first revealed, not the dial as it found itself. You argued it in Adrenaline Rush, claiming that the stress check would "remember" that the maneuver was red when it was revealed, not white as it was now. You keep making bold statements, but when you are called out on them you wiggle around and either change the argument slightly, present a demand for more evidence, or throw out a straw man argument. I have asked you repeatedly for ONE instance of a ruling that would be consistent with your interpretation, and/or inconsistent with mine, and you cannot do so.

Of course we have some "memory", the Devs did not assume that we are all mindless robots playing the game. This doesn't mean we get to pick and choose which "defender" we are looking at on a card. The defender is the current defender. The attack dice are the current attack dice. This turn is the current turn. And as you have pointedly said to others, the mere fact that the rules do not specifically disallow you picking a previous defender, that is NOT a reason to assume that you can. If FCS said "You may acquire a Target Lock on any ship you have attacked this turn", then THAT would be an excellent example of memory working. But it does not, nothing even suggests that you are allowed to pick a previous defender.

If this were Magic, or some other game that uses that system of resolution, then your interpretations would be correct. But it is not, and X-Wing does not appear to use the same method of resolution.

To anyone reading the above: KO either does not understand or has willingly misrepresented the positions I have taken on numerous issues. I invite everyone to check the original discussions.

Done with this load of dishonest tripe.

Edit: If I thought there were serious discussion to be had here, I'd happily continue, but it seems to me that KO's on some vengeful crusade to attack my credibility, rather than try to actually evaluate anything. I do welcome further discussion which is more about the issues than trying to laundry-list past cases where I have been incorrect. I could spend pages explaining where he misunderstood or misrepresented both my position and the outcome, but the frothing-at-the-mouth has become tiresome, so I'll just leave to anyone interested to review the other threads.

KO I think there is another option.

The Gunner is placed in the pipe normally and resolves in the order you choose (IE immediately doesn't push it to the top of the pipe).

The reason the Immediate is there is to differentiate it from "May make another attack with it's primary weapon". Which could be read by people as "get an additional attack this turn", which could be used after cluster missiles second shot.

The Gunner is placed in the pipe normally and resolves in the order you choose (IE immediately doesn't push it to the top of the pipe).

KO already covered that option with #2 on his list.

Thank you Rodent Mastermind, that is the core of what I was asking. That would seem very similar to the second option as I listed them, in that "immediately" does not actually present a hard requirement that this event be resolved before other events lacking that label. Yours does not completely ignore "immediately", however, in that it does have some precedence over other events that could occur later in the turn. Since FFG is so inconsistent with their use of specific terminology, it seems possible that this is correct. On the other hand, people have made compelling arguments in other threads to the contrary.

I see no issues where playing that way would be inconsistent with previous rulings, but that is a lack of evidence to the contrary rather than any sort of evidence disproving the alternatives. Can you think of an example using "immediately" that would provide us with a more efficient test? I cannot.

I think you have both missed a point. This is a GAME you are arguing over.
Neither can present a winning case so stick it in an email to FFG and patiently wait for their response.

Until resolved by FFG I would take the conservative view point i.e. the one which gives the least advantage.

This stand then means that in the worst case scenario things stay the same. In the best case, things improve for you.