Except for the little fact that in 'Push the limit', performing the second action is part of the first sentece, the prerequisite.

So we're back to the first sentence is the only mandatory one? I thought that bit of creative invention was abandoned four pages ago. There's absolutely nothing in any rule or example that suggests that the first sentence of an ability should be treated differently than any other.

Ah well. This is pretty clearly into the land of "Going to read it how I want it to play until FFG says something" so might as well move along.

By this logic, any ship with Push the Limit will gain a stress token after an action, independent of taking a second action.

The "Then" is not only separated by a period from the previous statement, it's in an entirely new paragraph. By the above logic, this would imply that after an action is performed you may perform a second action. Regardless of the second action being taken, you then receive a stress token.

I get that it's a little vague, but lets apply a bit of common sense here.

Thanks for finding this - it's a good reinforcement to what I've been trying to say.

"Then" is a conditional in X-wing. It's timing, but not JUST timing - it says that if you don't complete what came before, you don't do that part.

All the conditional logic (which I've admittedly skimmed, because we have no idea if that's how we should read the groupings) seem to be ignoring this. IMHO, this is the core of the question - if you can't do B, can you "then" do C? We have FAQ an example that you can't (Expert Handling), and at least one very obvious no with Push the Limit.

Barring some pretty good evidence, I don't see any reason to think R7-T1 shouldn't follow the evidence we have, meaning you can't do C (boost) unless you successfully do B (which means being in arc).

Except for the little fact that in 'Push the limit', performing the second action is part of the first sentece, the prerequisite.

Thus, if you don't perform the second action, the prerequisite is not met, the card fails in its entirety, and you never get to 'Then' clause.

No, the only required part of push the limit occurring is that, once per round, an action is taken. That activates the card, then by all of the logic in this thread you may optionally take a second action. That's it, end of sentence and paragraph. "Then" is a timing word meaning that you get a stress token (note: it's required, not optional) after the second action is taken or not. Therefor, by having push the limit, any time an action is taken you get a stress token regardless of a second action.

By this logic, any ship with Push the Limit will gain a stress token after an action, independent of taking a second action.

The "Then" is not only separated by a period from the previous statement, it's in an entirely new paragraph. By the above logic, this would imply that after an action is performed you may perform a second action. Regardless of the second action being taken, you then receive a stress token.

I get that it's a little vague, but lets apply a bit of common sense here.

Thanks for finding this - it's a good reinforcement to what I've been trying to say.

"Then" is a conditional in X-wing. It's timing, but not JUST timing - it says that if you don't complete what came before, you don't do that part.

All the conditional logic (which I've admittedly skimmed, because we have no idea if that's how we should read the groupings) seem to be ignoring this. IMHO, this is the core of the question - if you can't do B, can you "then" do C? We have FAQ an example that you can't (Expert Handling), and at least one very obvious no with Push the Limit.

Barring some pretty good evidence, I don't see any reason to think R7-T1 shouldn't follow the evidence we have, meaning you can't do C (boost) unless you successfully do B (which means being in arc).

Except for the little fact that in 'Push the limit', performing the second action is part of the first sentece, the prerequisite.

Thus, if you don't perform the second action, the prerequisite is not met, the card fails in its entirety, and you never get to 'Then' clause.

No, the only required part of push the limit occurring is that, once per round, an action is taken. That activates the card, then by all of the logic in this thread you may optionally take a second action. That's it, end of sentence and paragraph. "Then" is a timing word meaning that you get a stress token (note: it's required, not optional) after the second action is taken or not. Therefor, by having push the limit, any time an action is taken you get a stress token regardless of a second action.

Ehm no.

The logic (my logic at least) is that choosing a ship at range 1-2 is a prerequisite. And being inside its firing arc is another prerequisite. The first operates as activation for the whole card, the second only for acquiring a target lock. And that is so because they are in different sentences and refer to different things. Furthermore, in order to check for firing arc, you already had to choose a ship first, thus, activating the card with your action. Therefore they are 2 different steps.

If the activation phrase were: "Choose one enemy ship that has you in its firing arc" then, indeed, both situations would be the prerequisite for the whole card, including the boost. It would be only one step, and you could only activate the card if both situations were met simultaneously.

But since the activation phrase is "Choose one enemy ship at range 1-2", and in order to do just that you must spend your action, the action of choosing a ship must be valid by itself and has to activate something... Otherwise the card is bad redacted , and the first sentence would be meaningless if you are not on someone's firing arc. In other words: You could choose someone at range 1-2, (Thus validly activating the card) only to end wasting your action if you were not in it's firing arc.

Since I give some credit to FFG's developers, I can positively conclude that choosing an enemy ship must be enough to activate the card and gain some benefit from it, while being in the firing arc is a prerequisite only for acquiring an extra target lock. Then (after checking for firing arc and target lock [YES-NO]) you may boost.

Because the alternative some of you are so fiercely defending could be our first "Action: Oh sorry, you waste your action" card in the whole game.

And, again in the case, of push the limit... The prerequisite of activation includes taking the second action. And it does so because the conditional is contained in the very own activation sentence. If you do not take that second action, the conditional 'may' which is an integral element of the prerequisite phrase doesn't happens, the prerequisite fails, and thus, you can't apply the rest of the card's text, (nor any part of it by extension)... Including the stress gaining part.

Push the Limit:

Ok, one last try.

Let's you assume you are right, and that the card works as you say, in that case, let me 'complete' card's text for you:

Action: Choose one enemy ship at range 1-2.

If you are in that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then, you may perform a free boost.

If you are not in that ship's firing arc, you can't do nothing else, and you just wasted your action.

If choosing a ship not pointing at us makes the action automatically fail... Why are we given the option to choose it in first place?

Is it some sort of hidden IQ test from FFG? "Ha ha, let's see how many idiots choose ships not firing at them and lose their action". "Hey! Look! Another one fell for it... LOOOL!!!!"

At this point, there's really nothing more I can argue or add to point of the debate, so this concludes my contribution to the discussion.

It's worth noting that in another similar "it can fail" situation (Expert Handling) the FAQ explicitly allows you to measure the risky part (the barrel roll) before taking the action. I'd expect the same to apply here, even if such reasonableness on FFG's part means a weaker argument.

I'm quickly coming to agree with the duck on this one, on all parts. The optional portion of the ability counting for moving forward was the only thing I was on the fence over, and PtL does provide us with a good example of a "Then" following an optional action.

Usual caveats about FFG's questionable wordings and interpretation of their own rules, but that's a close enough example for me to take it until the inevitable clarification.

Ok, one last try.

Let's you assume you are right, and that the card works as you say, in that case, let me 'complete' card's text for you:

Action: Choose one enemy ship at range 1-2.

If you are in that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then, you may perform a free boost.

If you are not in that ship's firing arc, you can't do nothing else, and you just wasted your action.

If choosing a ship not pointing at us makes the action automatically fail... Why are we given the option to choose it in first place?

Is it some sort of hidden IQ test from FFG? "Ha ha, let's see how many idiots choose ships not firing at them and lose their action". "Hey! Look! Another one fell for it... LOOOL!!!!"

At this point, there's really nothing more I can argue or add to point of the debate, so this concludes my contribution to the discussion.

There are ample examples of actions not being completeable. Target lock, barrel roll, boost, daredevil, etc. the same thing always occurs, you back out of the action and perform a different one.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up.

Maybe this will help.

http://s28.postimg.org/s9zog7az1/R7_T1_Flowchart.png