It is not a question of beating a dead horse. Their customer support is there to answer gameplay question even basic / stupid one. If you don't know how to play the game and you write to them about Focus usage, they will answer. But for now, they never answered this question. And in the past, it was an indication that there was still no official answer on their side.

So think that we are idiots beating a dead horse as much as you want to. Precendent prove that we are right and the "question" is not as clear cut as some want to believe.

23 hours ago, AWingXWinger said:

Seriously? OK, let's just take this slowly and read the rules.

Execute Maneuver:
Resolve the following substeps in order:
a. move ship

b. check pilot stress

c. cleanup

Pattern Analyzer
When executing a maneuver, you may resolve the "Check Pilot Stress" step after the "Perform Action" step (instead of before that step).

Ergo, with Pattern Analyzer, Execute Maneuver becomes
Resolve the following substeps in order:
a. move ship
c. cleanup

There's no "substep b." It has been removed and placed after Step 3. There's no "2b." There never was. There was Step 2 and substep b. Nowhere does the rule state that the step or substep designation is transitive. Nowhere does it state that such designations are nominal; they're ordinal descriptors. As with any ordinal descriptor, they're lost as soon as the order is changed. A lot of myopic inferencing that fails to recognize the entirety of the "Execute Maneuver" rule doesn't change that...

The important bit, again, is "Resolve the following substeps in order." Since substep b may have been removed from that list by Pattern Analyzer, it is no longer designated under "Resolve the following substeps in order."

Pattern Analyzer writes an exception to "in order," but it also affects what "the following substeps" designates, since "check pilot stress" is now a post-Step-3 substep.

In other words, yes, of course Snap Wexley with Pattern Analyzer gets his boost after a Tallon Roll.

There's a reason FFG doesn't bother with this sort of thing.

Again, with no interest in relitigating the point, but simply to explicate the two arguments --

You argue that side of the debate well, and many people (the majority of the very small subset of players who are active on rules forums) agree with you.

The counterargument, though, relies on an equally simple reading of the card that again asks us to just take it slow and read the rules. Specifically, it asks us to read the card.

Pattern Analyzer reads: "When executing a maneuver, you may resolve the "Check Pilot Stress" step after the "Perform Action" step (instead of before that step)."

Two important points here: the entirety of the card is one sentence, and that entire sentence is modified by the participial phrase "When executing a maneuver." A present participial phrase denotes an ongoing, unfinished action. In other words, the entirety of the card text should resolve while the action in the phrase is ongoing and prior to it finishing. ("When going to the store, put the milk away in the refrigerator" doesn't make sense -- by the time you're home to put the milk into the refrigerator, you've completed the going to the store.)

What this means is that, grammatically speaking, we can clearly read the card to say that executing a maneuver cannot finish until the rest of the card (resolving the "Check Pilot Stress" step) has also finished. In other words, you do not finish executing a maneuver until after you perform the Check Pilot Stress step. If it had been meant to say the other thing, then it could have been worded as "When executing a maneuver you may skip the "Check Pilot Stress" step. If you use this ability, resolve a "Check Pilot Stress" step after the "Perform Action" step."

Again -- not looking to reargue the debate. Each side has made their points and nothing more will be gained from arguing them over and over. I only want to explain where the debate is coming from.

It would seem that FFG's silence indicates they believe there is no controversy here. I would argue that the designers made it clear from the beginning how they intended pattern analyzer and Snap's pilot ability to interact. Read under Snap's section here https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/9/19/the-galaxys-greatest/. Clearly the designers intended that pattern analyzer would allow Snap to perform his pilot ability after a red maneuver, since the tallon roll is explicitly mentioned. Moreover, they intended that the player controlling Snap would then move on to the "perform action" step; the example explicitly mentions performing the "barrel roll" action added to the action bar by the "vectored thrusters" modification card. That can only occur if pattern analyzer removes substep b from its "execute maneuver" step, places it after the "perform action" step, and then reiterates that substep c completes the "execute maneuver" step, similar to what the FAQ enumerated with the Kanan Jarrus crew card. Only then would the stress from the red maneuver be assigned. To me, it seems, FFG was clear how the card was intended to work.

3 hours ago, Armchair_Admiral said:

It would seem that FFG's silence indicates they believe there is no controversy here. I would argue that the designers made it clear from the beginning how they intended pattern analyzer and Snap's pilot ability to interact. Read under Snap's section here https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/9/19/the-galaxys-greatest/. Clearly the designers intended that pattern analyzer would allow Snap to perform his pilot ability after a red maneuver, since the tallon roll is explicitly mentioned. Moreover, they intended that the player controlling Snap would then move on to the "perform action" step; the example explicitly mentions performing the "barrel roll" action added to the action bar by the "vectored thrusters" modification card. That can only occur if pattern analyzer removes substep b from its "execute maneuver" step, places it after the "perform action" step, and then reiterates that substep c completes the "execute maneuver" step, similar to what the FAQ enumerated with the Kanan Jarrus crew card. Only then would the stress from the red maneuver be assigned. To me, it seems, FFG was clear how the card was intended to work.

That's a good source, and you might be correct. However it would not have been the first time they have gotten the rules wrong in one of their preview articles.

I'm waiting for Frank to weigh in, and in the meantime, I'd bring it up with my opponent to make sure we're both on the same page.

Indeed. A response from FFG would be definitive. And, as you point out, FFG doesn't hold those articles as gospel truth either. For that very reason, I hesitated to bring that article up. But, in lieu of an email from FFG, I think the examples given in the article, and a lack of any FAQ over these many months to set those examples aside, provide some precedent for any player to use these cards and abilities to the desired effect.

Not looking to reopen the debate, but just asking whether anyone has heard from FFG?

Yes!

So Snap now does maneuver, PA kicks in, takes action, then resolves check stress, then clean up, THEN the trigger off of execute maneuver kicks in and he boosts if he is not stressed.