The no was trying to stress that it was very much not the way that you were allowed to resolve a card. The intent was not to be an ass, and if that's how it came across I apologize.

No worries. We all need to be reminded from time to time that tone is difficult via text. It is best if we all try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

I appreciated your explanation — I learned something in there. Thanks.

This explains that whole "Rule Lawyer" thread perfectly. Thanks.

No, that doesn't and you should read it why this is different. Draco is showing the proper usage with out trying to gain an advantage.

Draco explained it better yes, but he said basically the same thing after the bold underline No. He could have given the same, yet more indepth explanation without being an ass about it. You can in fact, piss off your opponent making them distracted by telling them they are wrong and then basically repeating what they said. S talking is a tactic that often works in competition. This was in fact a perfect example of "rules lawyer", literally using the rules to gain an advantage. Of course, no game was being played but how does this guy behave during competitions, if he plays them?

Alternatively he was frustrated because people try and make that argument all the time. There's currently two threads in the rules forum and one on reddit all attempting to do it when it doesn't work that way.

The stress token and Kanan occur at the same time so the player picks the order of things.

The two cards resolve at the same time ("after you execute a maneuver"), so the player may resolve them IN FULL, in any order he wants.

To me, those two explanations say the same thing, one is a quick and causal explanation, one is more technical. I understand the difference between a card effect resolving and a token being granted but I also understand the causal way in which this was explained.

This isn't a "NO!" situation, but rather a "yes, but ...." then a technical explanation and why it is important in other situations. Otherwise it just sounds like "that guy".

I'm not sure I understand why Kanan can't remove stress from inertial dampeners. Kanan's ability triggers after the cleanup substep of the Execute maneuver step but before the perform action step. Isn't that the exact same time Inertial Dampeners assigns a stress token? After you complete a white (zero) maneuver, but before you take an action?

Yes and no. Kanan interrupts the resolution of Inertial Dampeners as soon as the maneuver is executed and must be resolved right then and there. You don't get to put him on hold, move forwards past that trigger point, then come back to him so he actually does something.

1. Reveal your dial, triggering Inertial Dampeners.

2. Execute white [0 stop].

2a. Move the ship (or not).

2b. Check pilot stress.

2c. Cleanup

3. Kanan's "After you execute a white maneuver" trigger is met and he interrupts the resolution of Inertial Dampeners.*

4. Dampeners continues to resolve & applies stress token.

Refer here for a near-identical situation with Kanan and Daredevil.

* Though note Kanan could trigger here and get rid of an existing stress token (ie. you find you want to use ID the turn after performing a red move). It's not like there's no synergy at all here.

Thanks for the help. That makes more sense now. Soon we will need a flow chart for the movement phase, too.

Thanks for the help. That makes more sense now. Soon we will need a flow chart for the movement phase, too.

Quick comment on the flow chart... I don't think one will be needed for the movement phase anytime soon. The biggest concepts during this phase are event triggers, "nested" steps and interruptions. If you understand these three concepts, you should be good. I don't think a flow chart would be all that more useful (maybe making it more confusing). Don't get me wrong, the attack phase needed a flow chart; there were just too many triggers that seemed to happen all at the same time.