But it's also important to understand what the rules actually say, and not invent new ones because you don't like what they say. ..... I'd much rather have an environment where everyone knows what it actually does, and then can consciously decide to change that by applying a bit of RAI, than one where people feel the need to invent rules to support their RAI claim by calling it RAW.

****. I already pretended to use my entire day's allotment of likes on another post somewhere. We'll just have to say that I am going to like this bit a couple hundred times tomorrow.

Thanks for the replies. I especially appreciate Buhallin's input. And for all the theorizing I did not see any replies where someone ran into this situation and how they handled it or how a TO ruled on it. From what I've read here I think I'll propose to my opponents before a game to treat an overlap as a 3 hard turn and see what they say. It seems the cleanest and most likely to be in line with a future FAQ.

So what if it overlaps with the turn template and you switch to the bank template and that, then does not overlap

So what if it overlaps with the turn template and you switch to the bank template and that, then does not overlap

I can't imagine switching would be allowed. As soon as a template hits the table, you should be committed.

So what if it overlaps with the turn template and you switch to the bank template and that, then does not overlap

according to the rules you treat it as a bank of the same colour and bearing as the Seg loop - you'd complete the maneuver, but you wouldn't turn 180, and you'd take stress