Making up cards when we have examples is not a good idea (makes the thing even more complicated).

Ship A assign a red maneuver when he was not yet stressed. Due to game mechanics (despite which, i.e. Attani), before he gets to activate he was assigned a stress token.

Now, when you see that you have a stress and you do reveal a red maneuver, you are now limited to a number of abilities that are listed in FAQ. Anything else may be used only afterwards.

Making up cards when we have examples is not a good idea (makes the thing even more complicated).

Ship A assign a red maneuver when he was not yet stressed. Due to game mechanics (despite which, i.e. Attani), before he gets to activate he was assigned a stress token.

Now, when you see that you have a stress and you do reveal a red maneuver, you are now limited to a number of abilities that are listed in FAQ. Anything else may be used only afterwards.

You missed my point mate. The cards were made up to example a scenario when i can affect the maneuver but not directly but i need to trigger something else first.

Either FAQ shall list explicitly the cards and abilities that we can trigger or IMO we have a window to trigger anything that triggers between reveal and execute and live with its consequences.

(But i see your point - i just disagree with it.)

Sorry, I understood your example in a different way, because the effect of Card 1 is not affecting the maneuver as such - did not change speed, bearing or color.

I think you tried to provide following example:

If the stressed ship that is revealing the Red maneuver is U-wing (Andor) with Adrenaline Rush, Navigator, title and another Card (lets call it Card 3) crew or system that is currently not existing but would trigger at reveal of a maneuver.

On the reveal of red maneuver, the player:

1. May trigger Adrenaline Rush to change the difficulty of the maneuver;
2. May not trigger Navigator - there is a window and allowance but there are no other bearings of the same speed (zero);
3. May not use Card 3 until he resolves the abilities described in

   rules section;

4. (?) May not use Title card to rotate U-wing because he is treated as he was assigned a straight 2 maneuver (while the title requires you to reveal the stop).

The last point of course is not clear, because physically you have revealed the required maneuver and the rules does not use words like instead, rotate or even reveal in the section. However, IMHO, the intention was to avoid this kind of shenanigans.

This can easly be fixed by changing it to after you execute a stop maneuver instead of after you reveal a stop...

And again, until we see the final version of the card we don't know that it doesn't say exactly that.

It wouldn't be the first time a preview had a bunch of us looking at a card and wondering about it, only to have the final version be what we all figured it should of said.

They will add it to the FAQ, but I must side with SaszalPL. If it was an example, they would have stated, as an example. Clearly the sentence is worded as a limiting of which range of ability you have the right to trigger.

And no, there is no shamanistic stuff, if the ability does not directly modify the maneuver, it does not trigger.

Think FFG needs to do a "maneuver" flow chart like they did for combat. Because clearly there is an order in mind for things that alter a maneuver dial and things that trigger on the final maneuver. You probably shouldn't be able to trigger things BEFORE things that can alter your maneuver dial itself.

As for this, the easy fix would be inserting "this ship does not count as having revealed a dial" along with the "execute a S(2) maneuver instead'.

Think FFG needs to do a "maneuver" flow chart like they did for combat. Because clearly there is an order in mind for things that alter a maneuver dial and things that trigger on the final maneuver. You probably shouldn't be able to trigger things BEFORE things that can alter your maneuver dial itself.

As for this, the easy fix would be inserting "this ship does not count as having revealed a dial" along with the "execute a S(2) maneuver instead'.

Except it has to count as revealing a dial, because you can use e.g. Navigator to change the bearing so it's not red any more.

Think FFG needs to do a "maneuver" flow chart like they did for combat. Because clearly there is an order in mind for things that alter a maneuver dial and things that trigger on the final maneuver. You probably shouldn't be able to trigger things BEFORE things that can alter your maneuver dial itself.

As for this, the easy fix would be inserting "this ship does not count as having revealed a dial" along with the "execute a S(2) maneuver instead'.

Except it has to count as revealing a dial, because you can use e.g. Navigator to change the bearing so it's not red any more.

You only execute the S(2) if you would be executing a red maneuver while stressed. So you would:

1. Reveal red maneuver while stressed

2. Use any abilities that allow you to shift to a non-red, or execute a red maneuver while stressed

-If still performing a red while stressed and not explicitly allowed to (see: Hera), you would remove the ship's dial and no longer count as revealing anything.

3. Trigger any other abilities that trigger on revealing a maneuver.

Note that in my example you would still perform the white S(2) during the "Execute Maneuver" step of the Activation Phase as normal. Or you could simply change the bullet point to:

A stresses ship cannot execute red maneuvers or perform actions. If a stressed ship reveals a red maneuver (and cannot use a game effect to rotate its dial or execute a non-red maneuver instead), the owner treats the ship as if it revealed a white S(2) maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver cannot be changed. No abilities that trigger on revealing a dial may be used.

That bullet point only applies if you were unable to do anything to save yourself from doing an illegal red maneuver while stressed. So you still have all the opportunities in the world to use abilities that alter your maneuver to prevent bullet point 4 from triggering. BUT, you would have to use those abilities to stop yourself from performing an illegal maneuver in the first place.

If we go by normal "you choose the order" the shenanigans get silly. Imagine a U-Wing with Title, Hera Crew and Stay On Target.

Reveal a Red 0-stop. Trigger title to turn 180 degrees. Trigger Stay on Target to rotate your dial to literally anything on the U-Wing dial, treat as red; Hera lets you still perform that maneuver.

The maneuverability on what is supposed to be a lumbering troop transport would be ridiculous.

Hence why I said that I expect a flow chart similar to the attack chart. Things that alter the actual dial should all be required to be used BEFORE things that trigger on any specific kind of result (be it a specific maneuver, difficulty, speed or bearing) but do not change the dial itself.

If we go by normal "you choose the order" the shenanigans get silly. Imagine a U-Wing with Title, Hera Crew and Stay On Target.

Reveal a Red 0-stop. Trigger title to turn 180 degrees. Trigger Stay on Target to rotate your dial to literally anything on the U-Wing dial, treat as red; Hera lets you still perform that maneuver.

The maneuverability on what is supposed to be a lumbering troop transport would be ridiculous.

Hence why I said that I expect a flow chart similar to the attack chart. Things that alter the actual dial should all be required to be used BEFORE things that trigger on any specific kind of result (be it a specific maneuver, difficulty, speed or bearing) but do not change the dial itself.

U-Wing with Hera is allowed to reveal red maneuvers when stressed.

Stay on target does not allow you to change that stop maneuver to anything else, because you have no other maneuvers of the same speed.

Putting Hera on a ship make the entire argument moot, as it's no longer an issue.

I think the rule is pretty darned clear. If you reveal a red while stressed, you can only resolve an ability that may be able to change that manoeuvre to a non-red and then carry on as normal. If you can't change the manoeuvre to a non-red, then you replace it with a white 2-straight (as per the rule) and that becomes the "revealed" manoeuvre, but you can't do anything to alter the 2-straight. It doesn't say resolve any ability you like, then try and change the manoeuvre. So the U-wing title will not trigger, nor will anything else that requires a red manoeuvre to be "revealed". Even before the new red/stress rule came in, you wouldn't have been able to do this, because as soon as you revealed a red while stressed, your opponent got the chance to spin your dial and change it to a non-red, meaning that red manoeuvre you initially chose now doesn't exist as the "revealed" manoeuvre.

Personally, I'd love to hear an explanation from the developers why they chose to use a "reveal" trigger instead of an "executed manoeuvre" trigger. Using the executed stop manoeuvre to trigger the title would have avoided this entire debate.

Well its not "darned clear" cause there is absolutely no support to the claim that we "reveal" white 2s in this situation. We replace with, we execute it but gimme a bookmark in the rules where is says we reveal it?

Bah! There is even a rule that says : "when you reveal a red maneuver while stressed(...)" that could well not trigger in fact if we would interpret it that way....

your opponent got the chance to spin your dial and change it to a non-red, meaning that red manoeuvre you initially chose now doesn't exist as the "revealed" manoeuvre.

Well that one is rich for me...so rule triggers on revealing the maneuver but its no longer revealed.

I thing there is some ovethinking here - revealing is revealing, physical activity we do, that can trigger some rules. But what you revealed is in the past and can't be changed.

Revealing Red Maneuvers

When a player reveals a red maneuver for a stressed ship, he has an opportunity to resolve card effects that change the maneuver’s difficulty or change the maneuver to a different one (Adrenaline Rush, Navigator, etc.). After resolving these effects, if the ship would still be executing a red maneuver, the owner moves the ship (and resolve any abilities) as if it were assigned (and revealed) a white [ 2] maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver cannot be changed.

Two small additions to the wording. Is it OK now?

The worst part of this is that a player, playing with U-wings may get advantage unless this is not cleared. Example that came to me the first is blocking of a defenders 4K after a previous bump ..

@Sasza

Now of course it ultra clear Problem is thats not our rules

@Vitalis

Now, one could argue if you may say that you revealed another maneuver then the one you were assigned (if you did not use any abilities to alter your initial choice which is the case).

You are totally right - that is not written, anywhere. There is also no precedence other than the fact that some cards were FAQ'ed to be more "logical" or were explained how they work, though other cards were explained (or FAQ'ed) in non-intuitive manner.

The author of the rules did not take into consideration (was not aware) of abilities triggered on reveal or simply forgot about them. Sentence used suggests that the intention was to mark the very first step in planning phase (assignment of maneuver) to cover all abilities that could have been triggered by assignment of illegal maneuver, even triggers related to "assigned maneuver" (Cassian crew?*).

Once again, that is not written, and to be honest as per RAW - the unreleased U-wing is able to move backward (by revealing stop maneuver twice in a row). Ridiculous, but the rules as written are not precise, thus allows this (unless TO ruled the other way). By the way - this kind of situation is good for calling TO, imo.

*Another interesting case: what if you discover illegal maneuver assigned to a ship via Intel Agent or Cassian Andor, at the End of Planning Phase or Beginning of Activation Phase? It has to stay that till the activation of that ship... Ridiculous

*Another interesting case: what if you discover illegal maneuver assigned to a ship via Intel Agent or Cassian Andor, at the End of Planning Phase or Beginning of Activation Phase? It has to stay that till the activation of that ship... Ridiculous

Step ahead: I call 2s with Cassian on the stressed ship and i found red maneuver.

Mine reveal interpretation: i missed.

Interpretation of "revealing 2s"....?

You missed. The manoeuvre on the dial isn't a 2 straight.

But hey i revealed an illegal dial! It should count as 2s! (in case someone missed - salty mode on).

Another proof for me that this interpretation has as many holes as good cheese.

You didn't reveal it, you just looked at it

You didn't reveal it, you just looked at it

But hey i revealed an illegal dial! It should count as 2s! (in case someone missed - salty mode on).

Another proof for me that this interpretation has as many holes as good cheese.

So you're actually now arguing that Intel agent/cassian reveals the dial? Do they drop bombs when you Intel agent them? Can they navigator to change away from your cassian guess?

There's clear precedent that 'on reveal' replacement effects completely replace what was revealed in that boba fett and hera pilot both work with navigator. There's no reason to think that the stress maneuver is any different, and while I'm sure they'll likely faq for clarity there's nothing which supports the title being usable here.

But hey i revealed an illegal dial! It should count as 2s! (in case someone missed - salty mode on).

But hey i revealed an illegal dial! It should count as 2s! (in case someone missed - salty mode on).

Another proof for me that this interpretation has as many holes as good cheese.

So you're actually now arguing that Intel agent/cassian reveals the dial? Do they drop bombs when you Intel agent them? Can they navigator to change away from your cassian guess?

There's clear precedent that 'on reveal' replacement effects completely replace what was revealed in that boba fett and hera pilot both work with navigator. There's no reason to think that the stress maneuver is any different, and while I'm sure they'll likely faq for clarity there's nothing which supports the title being usable here.

No im not - that was a jest.

I just realized with that joke that it possibly create even more unclear scenarios.

Hera/Boba and Navigator - thats the only point that is solid in "no" arguments. And you managed to shake my belief a bit i admit it.

Unless anyone else got anything new i presume we can suspend this discussion till FAQ/FFG mail.

EDIT: I just emailed FFG about this. Lets wait.

Too bad Dracon has left, he would've loved to add the shenanigans to this topic of his:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/136300-crazy-dracon-espouses-the-nope-button-or-when-what-is-supposed-to-be-a-punishment-can-be-used-to-your-advantage

This would give you a very maneuverably U-Wing, and unpredictable:

U-Wing with Hera and Ezra, plus FCS. Move up and then just sit still, shooting at anything that comes within range. When they get past you; flip around and continue.

U-Wing with Hera and Ezra, plus FCS. Move up and then just sit still, shooting at anything that comes within range. When they get past you; flip around and continue.

Han Solo instead of Ezra (for better utility of the Target Lock).