http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/xwing-miniatures/images/d/dc/Swx62-pivot-wing-landing.png/revision/latest?cb=20160902154904

I assume this will be faqed as soon as faq are our, but right now a stressed U-Wing on landing mode can: reveal 0 red maneuver, trigger the rotation and then, since he's stressed and has revealed a red maneuver, execute a 2 white straight.

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 as if it were assigned a 2 white maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver cannot be changed

CUrrently yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if something gets FAQed or errated to say no, though.

I would say no. See page 2 of the FAQ for the revised rules for Stress:

The fourth bullet point in the Stress entry should read:

• A stressed 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 moves the ship as if it were a white [straight-2] maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver cannot be changed.

The key phrase there is "... and cannot use a game effect to rotate its dial or execute a non-red maneuver instead".

I read that as it doesn't really matter about the red that was revealed, because that was an illegal manoeuvre and cannot be executed and as such is replaced by the white straight-2. So I don't think you can use abilities triggered off the reveal of an illegal manoeuvre. If you can, this is going to get abused to the max.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Unless I am wrong, has been discussed here already =)

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/235711-uwing-can-go-2-straight-after-kturn-gj-ffg/

The way I read it and plan to play U wings (till its FAQ'ed anyway) is "do a red full stop then do a 180 degrees turn", no move foreword 2, do what the card say's not what it does not say.

Toss Sabine & Kanan on there.

Reveal a stop while stressed. > Turn around 180 > Drop bomb > Perform white 2 straight ( Can't stop with stress) > Kanan clears stress > Action.

The way I read it and plan to play U wings (till its FAQ'ed anyway) is "do a red full stop then do a 180 degrees turn", no move foreword 2, do what the card say's not what it does not say.

That's not what the card says to do though.

"When you reveal a (0 STOP) maneuver, you may rotate your ship 180°."

You have the order and the trigger wrong. You rotate the ship before moving it and the rotation triggers when the maneuver is revealed. The title does nothing to alter the speed, heading, or difficulty of a maneuver. The only thing that is debatable here is whether or not a red maneuver while being stressed counts as being revealed. If it does, then doing what the card says to do would have you rotate the ship, and then perform a two straight.

Remove the elipses for clarity: "If a stressed ship reveals a red maneuver, the owner moves the ship as if it were a white (2 straight) maneuver instead." The pronoun "it" refers to the revealed maneuver, and then INSTEAD is the key word for the purpose of interpreting the rule. Meaning the revealed maneuver is treated as white 2-straight. In this case, the U-wing title does not meet the condition required to rotate 180 degrees, therefore you cannot do what the card says.

Insert the elipses for further explanation: "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 moves the ship as if it were a white (2 straight) maneuver instead." The elipses creates an exception to the rule for cards like Navigator and Adrenaline Rush. U-wing title does not change the maneuver in any way; the maneuver is still a red stop, so the exception does not apply.

Remove the elipses for clarity: "If a stressed ship reveals a red maneuver, the owner moves the ship as if it were a white (2 straight) maneuver instead." The pronoun "it" refers to the revealed maneuver, and then INSTEAD is the key word for the purpose of interpreting the rule. Meaning the revealed maneuver is treated as white 2-straight. In this case, the U-wing title does not meet the condition required to rotate 180 degrees, therefore you cannot do what the card says.

The condition would still be met, a red stop maneuver was revealed. The U-Wing title says nothing about executing a red stop maneuver which is what gets changed by the rule. There is nothing that indicates that the revealed maneuver changes. An ability that triggers upon revealing a white, 2 speed, or straight maneuver would not trigger based on the way the errata is written.

The condition would still be met, a red two stop maneuver was revealed.

There is nothing that indicates that the revealed maneuver changes.

An ability that triggers upon revealing a white, 2 speed, or straight maneuver would not trigger based on the way the errata is written.

Because for some dumb reason they worded it as when you REVEAL a stop, flip around, it flips then moves 2fwd for illegal move because the red move while stressed rules state trying to execute the maneuver, so any reveal or pre-reveal moves still go off before it does.

Had they simply worded it "After executing a stop" then there would be 0 issues.

Not sure when this will be viable though, since you arent doing a 2k, youre doing a 2rev peelout.

The condition would still be met, a red two stop maneuver was revealed.

You are semantically correct. The maneuver necessary for the Pivot Wing card was originally revealed. However, the rule is stating the revealed red maneaver is replaced with something else. I'm arguing that as far as this specific rule is concerned, the players should treat the White 2-straight as the only revealed maneuver (because of the word instead) unless they have a game effect that meets the terms of the exception.

There is nothing that indicates that the revealed maneuver changes.

The rule: "the owner moves the ship as though it [the revealed maneuver] were a white (2 straight) instead." The revealed maneuver is inherently changed by the rule. The rule is telling the players do x instead of y, or in other words, change your revealed maneuver to what the FAQ says.

An ability that triggers upon revealing a white, 2 speed, or straight maneuver would not trigger based on the way the errata is written.

I don't disagree with this point, because the FAQ says, "The speed, bearing and difficulty of this maneuver cannot be changed." This statement is applied after the fact of the white 2 straight replacing the revealed illegal maneuver.

The errata isn't:

"The owner moves the ship as if it..."

(pronoun representing revealed maneuver)

"...were a white (2 straight) instead."

The maneuver is not whatever the player revealed, it is a white 2-straight.

Moves the ship.

Not treats the revealed manoeuvre.

I'm certain it will be FAQed to not work, but at the moment, RAW, it does.

This is as much a question of language comprehension as game mechanics. The wording exists as is for mechanical reasons. No dial has a white 2-straight; so the solution is to dictate the maneuver with speed, bearing and difficulty. The interpretation of the rule depends on players understanding a pronoun's role in a sentence, and the meaning of the word "instead".

it pronoun used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified

instead adverb as a substitute or alternative to; in place of

In the errata, "it" refers to the previously mentioned red maneuver, revealed by the player. The rule instructs the player, "move the ship as if [revealed maneuver] were a white [2-straight] maneuver [as a substitute or alternative to; in place of]." In English, the sentence means one thing: white 2-straight takes the functional place of "it" (revealed maneuver) and the original "it" (revealed maneuver) ceases to be relevant.

This is as much a question of language comprehension as game mechanics. The wording exists as is for mechanical reasons. No dial has a white 2-straight; so the solution is to dictate the maneuver with speed, bearing and difficulty. The interpretation of the rule depends on players understanding a pronoun's role in a sentence, and the meaning of the word "instead".

it pronoun used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified

instead adverb as a substitute or alternative to; in place of

In the errata, "it" refers to the previously mentioned red maneuver, revealed by the player. The rule instructs the player, "move the ship as if [revealed maneuver] were a white [2-straight] maneuver [as a substitute or alternative to; in place of]." In English, the sentence means one thing: white 2-straight takes the functional place of "it" (revealed maneuver) and the original "it" (revealed maneuver) ceases to be relevant.

It ceases to be relevant, yes.

But not until *after* the trigger for Pivot Wing has already occurred.

This is as much a question of language comprehension as game mechanics. The wording exists as is for mechanical reasons. No dial has a white 2-straight; so the solution is to dictate the maneuver with speed, bearing and difficulty. The interpretation of the rule depends on players understanding a pronoun's role in a sentence, and the meaning of the word "instead".

it pronoun used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified

instead adverb as a substitute or alternative to; in place of

In the errata, "it" refers to the previously mentioned red maneuver, revealed by the player. The rule instructs the player, "move the ship as if [revealed maneuver] were a white [2-straight] maneuver [as a substitute or alternative to; in place of]." In English, the sentence means one thing: white 2-straight takes the functional place of "it" (revealed maneuver) and the original "it" (revealed maneuver) ceases to be relevant.

The revealed maneuver is still a red stop. That never changes. Anything that triggers on revealing a red or stop maneuver would trigger. The move is only a white 2 straight for the purposes of execution. Anything that triggers on revealing a 2 speed, white, or straight maneuver.

The errata does not instruct you to treat the maneuver as a white straight for any purpose other than execution. Mechanically the wording could have been similar to that of Count Ryad's ability if the 2 white straight was to be treated as the manuever that was revealed.

This is as much a question of language comprehension as game mechanics. The wording exists as is for mechanical reasons. No dial has a white 2-straight; so the solution is to dictate the maneuver with speed, bearing and difficulty. The interpretation of the rule depends on players understanding a pronoun's role in a sentence, and the meaning of the word "instead".it pronoun used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identifiedinstead adverb as a substitute or alternative to; in place of

In the errata, "it" refers to the previously mentioned red maneuver, revealed by the player. The rule instructs the player, "move the ship as if [revealed maneuver] were a white [2-straight] maneuver [as a substitute or alternative to; in place of]." In English, the sentence means one thing: white 2-straight takes the functional place of "it" (revealed maneuver) and the original "it" (revealed maneuver) ceases to be relevant.

It ceases to be relevant, yes.

But not until *after* the trigger for Pivot Wing has already occurred.

The timing for the rule is not after pivot wing. Both the rule and Pivot Wing are dependent on revealing a maneuver. The question at this point is precedence. When two card abilities have the same timing, order of operations is player's choice, but this is a conflict between rule and card ability. A rule takes precedence unless a card ability creates an explicit exception. Pivot Wing does not; the rule treats the revealed maneuver as white 2-straight. The stop is no longer the revealed maneuver; opportunity gone for Pivot Wing.

This is as much a question of language comprehension as game mechanics. The wording exists as is for mechanical reasons. No dial has a white 2-straight; so the solution is to dictate the maneuver with speed, bearing and difficulty. The interpretation of the rule depends on players understanding a pronoun's role in a sentence, and the meaning of the word "instead".it pronoun used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identifiedinstead adverb as a substitute or alternative to; in place of

In the errata, "it" refers to the previously mentioned red maneuver, revealed by the player. The rule instructs the player, "move the ship as if [revealed maneuver] were a white [2-straight] maneuver [as a substitute or alternative to; in place of]." In English, the sentence means one thing: white 2-straight takes the functional place of "it" (revealed maneuver) and the original "it" (revealed maneuver) ceases to be relevant.

It ceases to be relevant, yes.

But not until *after* the trigger for Pivot Wing has already occurred.

The timing for the rule is not after pivot wing. Both the rule and Pivot Wing are dependent on revealing a maneuver. The question at this point is precedence. When two card abilities have the same timing, order of operations is player's choice, but this is a conflict between rule and card ability. A rule takes precedence unless a card ability creates an explicit exception. Pivot Wing does not; the rule treats the revealed maneuver as white 2-straight. The stop is no longer the revealed maneuver; opportunity gone for Pivot Wing.

The errata never has you change the revealed maneuver. It never even tells you to treat the revealed maneuver as a white 2 straight. The errata instructs you to execute a maneuver as if you had revealed a white 2 straight. You are reading in something that is not there to say that the errata instructs you to treat the revealed maneuver as a 2 white straight instead of whatever had actually been revealed for any purpose other than executing the maneuver.

If it said treat the reveal as though it were a white 2 straight instead of what was actually revealed, then thered be no arguement. Reveal red stop, but you are stressed/dont have Hera so as far as the game concerned its a white 2fwd. Any reveal abilities go off that dont require a specific maneuver, because you effectively reveal a white 2fwd.

Thats not what it says though. Your dial does not change, you are not instructed to do anything with the dial. So you still revealed a stop, but you are being told to do something other than whats on the dial when you actually move.

Fold. I'm out of chips for this one. For anyone who isn't sick of my posts, here's fat hole I never filled in my own argument:

Move Ship as a substep of Execute Maneuver, comes after Reveal Dial.

It really is that simple, but I was trying to explain why the effect of the rule could be applied to the entire Activation Phase for the ship in question. Doesn't hold water.

p2: A stressed 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 moves

the ship as if it were a white [straight 2] maneuver instead.

Says nothing about effects... so you'd think it would be fine.

However, the following would suggest that ONLY card effects that can change your maneuver to a legal one are allowed to be performed.

p6: 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 as if it were assigned a white [straight

2] maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver

cannot be changed.

Fold. I'm out of chips for this one. For anyone who isn't sick of my posts, here's fat hole I never filled in my own argument:

Move Ship as a substep of Execute Maneuver, comes after Reveal Dial.

It really is that simple, but I was trying to explain why the effect of the rule could be applied to the entire Activation Phase for the ship in question. Doesn't hold water.

No, it doesn't hold water under the current rules and the current errata, even if it is quite logical. But I admire your tenacity for trying to argue what you and I feel is probably how it should be.

When players with U-wings discover this loophole, it's going to get thoroughly abused and argued about over tables around the world. My only hope is that FFG errata the card to read "... execute a [stop] maneuver..." instead of "reveal". Although, it will probably be a few weeks after the whole wave is released before we get an update to the FAQ.

p2: A stressed 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 moves

the ship as if it were a white [straight 2] maneuver instead.

Says nothing about effects... so you'd think it would be fine.

However, the following would suggest that ONLY card effects that can change your maneuver to a legal one are allowed to be performed.

p6: 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 as if it were assigned a white [straight

2] maneuver instead. The speed, bearing, and difficulty of this maneuver

cannot be changed.

... which is correct. Both passages of text are only stating the way to avoid the white 2-straight is by changing your revealed manoeuvre with a card or ability that specifically does that, but the argument in this case is that the player does not want to change his revealed manoeuvre so that he can still trigger the title and turn the ship around.

The rule effectively removes the manoeuvre you had chosen and replaces it, but it does not clearly reference any change to the revealed manoeuvre. And that's where the problem lies...

Fold. I'm out of chips for this one. For anyone who isn't sick of my posts, here's fat hole I never filled in my own argument:Move Ship as a substep of Execute Maneuver, comes after Reveal Dial.

It really is that simple, but I was trying to explain why the effect of the rule could be applied to the entire Activation Phase for the ship in question. Doesn't hold water.

No, it doesn't hold water under the current rules and the current errata, even if it is quite logical. But I admire your tenacity for trying to argue what you and I feel is probably how it should be.

When players with U-wings discover this loophole, it's going to get thoroughly abused and argued about over tables around the world. My only hope is that FFG errata the card to read "... execute a [stop] maneuver..." instead of "reveal". Although, it will probably be a few weeks after the whole wave is released before we get an update to the FAQ.

The problem with that errata you're suggesting is this:

- You're on attack mode.

- You reveal and execute a 0 red stop

- After the maneuver is executed, you flip the pivot wing title

- Still at the "after executing a maneuver" window, you turn your ship 180°

- Then, at the same window, you go back to attack mode.

I think that's why they worded that way in the first place