Adrenaline rush also has a weird hangover memory, it remembers the maneuver was red after the activation phase, while it currently doesn't matter, it potentially could.

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?

I think a good example is Vader with a gunner. You attack, then immediately attack again. Now that you have already attacked, the time for vader to use his ability is gone from the first attack. He can still use it after the second, though. The logic that certain effects that take place "when" or "after" other ones need to be taken quickly before something else happens is foundational to games in general. If this unspoken limit is not there, as you seem to think, then, when you combine that with the explicit and also universal "cards trump basic rules" rule, why not use vader's ability in the end phase or even in a lower skill pilot phase. In those cases, you would still be using it after you attacked. That is ridiculous though, because we know it means right after you attack. You can't save it. With that logic, you could even do it turns later as that is still 'after' you attacked at some point.

The logic that certain effects that take place "when" or "after" other ones need to be taken quickly before something else happens is foundational to games in general. If this unspoken limit is not there, as you seem to think, then, when you combine that with the explicit and also universal "cards trump basic rules" rule, why not use vader's ability in the end phase or even in a lower skill pilot phase. In those cases, you would still be using it after you attacked. That is ridiculous though, because we know it means right after you attack. You can't save it. With that logic, you could even do it turns later as that is still 'after' you attacked at some point.

The Action rules say that "each ship may perform one action immediately after moving". Does that mean that performing your action stops any other effects which might trigger from executing a maneuver?

You can't bank an ability until some unspecified "after" because you execute it when the conditions are met. IMHO, "after" is not part of the condition text - it's an ordering of the ability relative to the condition. So "After performing an attack..." does not trigger on some "after attack" - because as you say, that's a massive time window. The condition is "performing an attack", and "after" tells you that you order the ability to follow the attack. "When" and the dreaded "Before" are the same thing. They aren't specifically part of the condition, they just tell you what the timing of the ability is relative to that condition.

To be absolutely honest. I think this is how this will be ruled. This is based on a mixture of factors, simplicity, cutting out wierd interactions, previous rulings.

All the abilities we are talking about happen "after an attack". This is a segment of time as soon as the attack is made. I believe if the ability can not be played in this time period it is gone. Why I believe this is things get very weird if you allow an item to be added to the pipe after one attack only to be resolved after another attack. Therefore I believe this solution is not going to be the correct answer.

• Make an Attack,
• put FCS(1), and Gunner in the stack
• Resolve Gunner first as it's Immediate
• Make another Attack
• put FCS(2) in the pipe
• resolve FCS(1) & FCS(2)

• Make an Attack,
• put FCS(1), and Gunner in the stack
• Resolve Gunner first as it's Immediate
• "After Attack" pipe cleared.
• Make another Attack
• put FCS(2) in the pipe
• resolve FCS(2)

Saying that, I personally think that this is not how immediately is meant to be played. I believe that immediately means it has to be done immediately when you start resolving the card, but does not affect the order it's put in the pipe "You may resolve effects that happen at the same time in any order" still applies. What immediately does is it means that any item that comes after it in the pipe gets purged if what the card does ends the time period you are resolving (for example by starting a new Attack). This means that most of the time this would stops you doing two things that are immediate in the same time period.

• Make an Attack,
• put FCS(1), Gunner and Luke in the stack
• resolve FCS(1)
• resolve Gunner
• "After Attack" pipe cleared, so Luke would never trigger. Opposite would happen with Gunner being lost if Luke resolved first..
• Make another Attack
• put FCS(2) in the pipe
• resolve FCS(2)

What happens to the idea of "immediately" dumping other effects when we consider it as a broad principle which has the ability to interrupt negative effects as well as positive? It's fine to say that using my Gunner costs me the opportunity to use my FCS, but what happens when using my Gunner means I don't take the damage from the "Overload Token" I have? (note that that is hypothetical).

Turning immediate abilities into counterspells has a huge impact on the design space that at worst I don't think has been fully considered, and at best is not something that's up to us to try and derive.

What happens to the idea of "immediately" dumping other effects when we consider it as a broad principle which has the ability to interrupt negative effects as well as positive? It's fine to say that using my Gunner costs me the opportunity to use my FCS, but what happens when using my Gunner means I don't take the damage from the "Overload Token" I have? (note that that is hypothetical).

Turning immediate abilities into counterspells has a huge impact on the design space that at worst I don't think has been fully considered, and at best is not something that's up to us to try and derive.

I can see an issue there, but that is easily dealt with by massaging the timing a bit so "Immediate" effects don't appear in the same block as negative effects. You don't get the issue if you have to deal with your hypothetical "Overload Token" before you make the attack.

As I said this is all supposition, but that is all we can do till the FAQ. However, as it currently stands "immediately" does cause huge issues if items can be put off till later in the turn (FCS resolving after the next attack). I can't see that being allowed. If abilities are allowed to move the time stop they are designed for you get huge game design issues. Which is why I can't ever see them taking the pink option.

What happens to the idea of "immediately" dumping other effects when we consider it as a broad principle which has the ability to interrupt negative effects as well as positive?

A common way other games handle this is by having mandatory effects be <gasp> mandatory. So, if you must do something, it gets squeezed in (just like the gunner is since you don't have a choice). All other optional effects are less pressing, so they can be wiped whether you like it or not, by timing issues. This would only be a problem if there were options negative-only effects, which won't ever be.

TL;DR - Mandatory is Mandatory. Optional is dependent on timing.

But how do you define a negative effect to split it between the time block? This is the same issue creating concepts of "cost" runs into - is a stress gain a negative effect? What if it's Fel, or Ibby? You're going down a road which is requiring more and more special handling of different effects, which is creating the need for ways to identify those different effects, none of which exists in X-wing right now.

I really don't agree about the huge issues "immediately" creates. It does create some odd timing with the attack, but even if we consider it unacceptably strange that's more of an issue with Gunner than it is with the entire concept of immediately. You're looking at Gunner/FCS, deciding that the outcome is so strange as to be unacceptable, and making broad changes to the rules to try and justify it. You couldn't do the same with Rebel Captive or R5-K6. Honestly, I'm not even sure anyone has considered anything but Gunner - if an immediate effect interrupts other abilities after an attack, what does it do in the middle of the Modify Attack Dice step?

just like the gunner is since you don't have a choice

Gunner is optional.

Not that I disgree with your larger point, but gunner is an optional action not a mandatory one.

A common way other games handle this is by having mandatory effects be <gasp> mandatory. So, if you must do something, it gets squeezed in (just like the gunner is since you don't have a choice). All other optional effects are less pressing, so they can be wiped whether you like it or not, by timing issues. This would only be a problem if there were options negative-only effects, which won't ever be.

TL;DR - Mandatory is Mandatory. Optional is dependent on timing.

I'm not sure I'd like the idea of our hypothetical X-wing rules making different rules for timing depending on whether the ability was optional or not, but it would likely fix the problem.

But if we take a step back from the design session and try to ground in the rules as they actually are, there's absolutely nothing to suggest this distinction exists in the game right now. It would certainly fix the problem, but let's remember that the goal here is to try and figure out what "immediately" might mean. The more new rules like this one you'd need to add, the less likely it is that your interpretation matches the rules as they currently exist.

I really don't agree about the huge issues "immediately" creates. It does create some odd timing with the attack, but even if we consider it unacceptably strange that's more of an issue with Gunner than it is with the entire concept of immediately. You're looking at Gunner/FCS, deciding that the outcome is so strange as to be unacceptable, and making broad changes to the rules to try and justify it. You couldn't do the same with Rebel Captive or R5-K6. Honestly, I'm not even sure anyone has considered anything but Gunner - if an immediate effect interrupts other abilities after an attack, what does it do in the middle of the Modify Attack Dice step?

Nothing happens with Rebel Captive or R5-K6 as neither of them end the current Time Step. I did state "What immediately does is it means that any item that comes after it in the pipe gets purged if what the card does ends the time period you are resolving (for example by starting a new Attack)."

The issue is not that Gunner is "immediate" and that purges the pipe for the Time Period, It's the fact that Gunner stops the current time step and starts another one.

but let's remember that the goal here is to try and figure out what "immediately" might mean.

Now it could be argued that they maybe didn't intend for it to mean that. Or that they just used it because the writer thought sounded better then "Do this before you move on to the next ships action" or some such. But without something to go on, some reason to think it means anything other then what it says. I think it's best to err on the side of RAW, and if it says to do something immediately, then that's exactly what you should do.

This might cause some odd cases like the FCS + Gunner combo, but those cases can be delt with by a FAQ.

Note it does say on Gunner. "After you perform an attack that does not hit (COMMA) immediately perform..... "

I think the comma is important here, look through the cards. They seem to use the comma to split between When something happens and What happens. Eg If this attack hits, the defender suffers ...

If this is the case, you should only really consider the first part for timing and the second part when you come to resolve.

So why should ending the time period affect anything? It's nothing but another event trigger. Even if it starts a new attack, there's nothing that suggests you can't subroutine into whatever it does, and then come right back to where you started. I'm not even sure what I'd call your "time step" concept, or what would qualify. You say an attack is - good. But why is a target lock not? It's an action, it has steps to perform just like an attack, there just aren't as many of them. What makes an attack a "time step" but a "target lock" not?

It's definitely going out on a limb, but the mistaken ruling on Cluster/Gunner may suggest that Gunner doesn't cancel or interrupt anything. The ruling originally said you could Cluster-Gunner-Cluster. Lots of us when "Wha?" because of the "No more attacks" clause on Gunner, and that got changed. If we assume that our reason for protest was accurate, then that means Gunner being immediate would not inherently interrupt the ongoing process just because it started a new attack.

So why should ending the time period affect anything? It's nothing but another event trigger. Even if it starts a new attack, there's nothing that suggests you can't subroutine into whatever it does, and then come right back to where you started. I'm not even sure what I'd call your "time step" concept, or what would qualify. You say an attack is - good. But why is a target lock not? It's an action, it has steps to perform just like an attack, there just aren't as many of them. What makes an attack a "time step" but a "target lock" not?

It's definitely going out on a limb, but the mistaken ruling on Cluster/Gunner may suggest that Gunner doesn't cancel or interrupt anything. The ruling originally said you could Cluster-Gunner-Cluster. Lots of us when "Wha?" because of the "No more attacks" clause on Gunner, and that got changed. If we assume that our reason for protest was accurate, then that means Gunner being immediate would not inherently interrupt the ongoing process just because it started a new attack.

Because you are no longer after the initial Attack. This is the issue as soon as you start another Attack your no longer in the Time Period after the initial attack. So the "after the attack" is no longer true even if you came back to resolve it latter. You are after a totally different attack.

Because you are no longer after the initial Attack. This is the issue as soon as you start another Attack your no longer in the Time Period after the initial attack. So the "after the attack" is no longer true even if you came back to resolve it latter. You are after a totally different attack.

So why wouldn't this apply to something like Rebel Captive? If we assume a non-immediate ability which triggers based on selecting a target, then it goes off concurrently with Rebel Captive. Rebel Captive goes first, and adds a stress, now theoretical second card goes, but I'm not after target selection any more - I'm after "put stress on ship".

It seems that you're drawing a very arbitrary line where "attack" is long enough to be outside the window, but "target lock" or "add stress" aren't. That's why I was asking what your "time step" actually is - because you're saying some immediate effects move you out of the time step, but others don't. How do I tell the difference?

Well the fact that a Attack is split up into multiple steps that are done in a chronological order in the actual rulebook suggests they are separate timing steps. The fact that these individual steps are also referenced for timing on cards also suggests they split up this way.

Well the fact that a Attack is split up into multiple steps that are done in a chronological order in the actual rulebook suggests they are seperate timing steps.

As is target lock, which you just said WASN'T a new time step.

Where in the rulebook does it say that gaining a Target Lock is a step. If you use it as an Action it happens in the Perform Action phase.

You just described your time step as something which is "split up into multiple steps that are done in a chronological order". A target lock is an action, but it's also split up into multiple steps that happen in chronological order.

An attack is not a step. An attack HAS steps - 7 of them - but it's not itself a step. Or do you mean phase? But an attack isn't a phase either, an attack just happens in the combat phase.

It seems clear that you want "attack" on one side of the line, and everything else on the other side of the line, but nothing you've suggested seems to match the terminology X-wing uses. I'd honestly help you if I could, but I really can't see any meaningful line that can be drawn to isolate the attack. Multiple operations? Plenty of those. Explicit steps? Plenty of those. Takes up an entire phase? Closer, but by the time we get Gunner we've got two attacks and that's not true any more.

So I can't find any meaningful way to isolate an attack the way you seem to want to, which is a problem even before we start looking to justify different handling based on those.

Maybe we expand the pool - other than an attack, what else in the game qualifies as a "time step"?

Maybe we should put it this way, what makes you think an Attack can happen inside another Attack? which is more or less what what your suggesting if the first Attack's "after attack" resolutions can be postponed until after the second Attack. The second attack is being bracketed by the First Attack. This feels very unlikely to be the case when the Attack steps are laid out in the book.

Maybe we should put it this way, what makes you think an Attack can happen inside another Attack? which is more or less what what your suggesting if the first Attack's "after attack" resolutions can be postponed until after the second Attack. The second attack is being bracketed by the First Attack. This feels very unlikely to be the case when the Attack steps are laid out in the book.

I treat it like any other sub-process in the game. You do whatever you have to do for it, then you go back where you were.

When you spend a target lock and make that roll with R5-K6, you detour to the 3 steps for "Acquire a Target Lock", complete them, then come back to where you were and continue. Turr does the same - trigger, barrel roll/boost (which include steps), return to where they were. Abilities are basically functional subroutines - you pause where you are in the current flow of the game, go off to do whatever that tells you to do, deal with any chained triggers/nested routines, hope you don't end up in an endless cycle, finish it all up and pick the main flow up where you left off.

I don't see an attack as being any different. It's just another bit of process, and outside of being longer I don't see that "perform an attack" is handled any differently or creates any different timing requirements than "acquire a target lock" or "receive one stress token".

That's why I'm trying to figure out why you think it should be different. At some point in the spectrum from "add a token" to "action with steps" to "perform an attack" you see a line that says you treat things differently depending on which side of the line they're on. The core issue I'm trying to understand is why you think it should be treated differently, but knowing what exactly is being treated differently is a first step for that.

So, Buhallin, are you saying you're okay with the banking of actions until the first available opportunity? As opposed to the AS/PtL scenario of waiting until after a manoeuvre to use the second action since an opportunity (immediately after the first action) had been passed over.

You don't step out of sequence, then return to where you were. Neither does the game go on "pause". You just keep going. For example, we have Darth Vader and Fire Control System, both activate after an attack.

We resolve the attack, all 7 steps. We don't pause at this point, but we do have two different events that are supposed to happen right now because the text on their cards say they occur after the attack. That text is how we identify where they fit in the turn sequence. The rules say that since both cards are supposed to go "at the same time" we are to decide what order they occur in, so we decide that Vader goes first then FCS. We resolve Vader, then we resolve FCS, then we move on to the next part of the turn. At no point do we return to the attack phase, it is over. The turn order looks like:

Attack Phase

Darth Vader

Fire Control System

Next Attack Phase or End Phase

The rule book contains all of the "standard" phases of the turn. Cards indicate where in that sequence they are supposed to be resolved. This doesn't really indicate anything other than that the rule book would be impossibly long and unreadable if there was a phase written into it for every conceivable card effect they may ever want to add. The card text tells you where in the turn order to resolve the card, and "ties" are resolved by the player. We don't need to "pause" anything, and we never "go back" to anything. Each event is resolved in turn, completely, before moving on.

So, Buhallin, are you saying you're okay with the banking of actions until the first available opportunity? As opposed to the AS/PtL scenario of waiting until after a manoeuvre to use the second action since an opportunity (immediately after the first action) had been passed over.

Not at all. In fact, I've argued strongly and consistently against this particular interpretation. What I think is that it's a false choice. It's not "You can do it whenever you want" or "There's only one opportunity for an ability to trigger". Saying that I disagree with the second so I must support the first is unfair.

As I addressed to lazarus earlier, I don't believe "after" is really part of the trigger condition. I believe the condition for "After performing an attack" is "performing an attack". Timing terms like "After", "Before", and "When" tell you what order to resolve the ability in relation to the trigger. This is why I disagreed with KO's objection to the mere presence of "before" on Advanced Sensors.

I think this is a decent read that works with what we've got. I also see a ton of issues with the "Only one chance" argument being put forward. It's being pushed with regards to immediate actions, but if resolving an ability means you're past the "After performing an attack" time window, then that same problem should exist for any two standard abilities. If an immediate ability resolving means you're past the opportunity for anything else to trigger, why wouldn't resolving a non-immediate ability have the same effect?

We know that abilities can be triggered and waiting to resolve, allowing others to complete first. There's nothing in the rules that make any distinction on that based on how long it takes to do so, or whether or not it involves steps, or whether it's immediate.

It really seems to me that there are a lot of very arbitrary lines being drawn, and it feels like people are starting with the answer (Gunner clobbers FCS) and working backwards to justify that outcome. I think that's why there's such difficulty with questions like "Why does Gunner interrupt but not Captive or R5-K6?" If we were starting from the rules and working towards the conclusion, those lines would be obvious. But we're not - we're going backwards, and that opens up questions of "Okay, why doesn't it affect this the same way?"