4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

It doesn't miss that, it fundamentally requires it.

No. From the RR:

3 happens after 2. That is, you do not progress to 3 until 2 is completed. If 2 is completed, Snap triggers. The execute maneuver step is over when you've run out of things to do in step 2. If step 2 was not complete, you could not progress to step 3 because the rules tell you to resolve the steps in order.

You're wrong. Clean up does happen before perform action as blodvargarna has stated.

2.Execute Maneuver:

Resolve the following substeps in order:

a.Move Ship:Slide the maneuver template between the front guides of the ship’s baseso that it is flush against the base. Then pickup the ship and place it at the opposite endof the template, sliding the rear guides of the base into the opposite end of the template.

b. Check Pilot Stress: If the maneuver is red, assign one stress token to the ship; if the maneuver is green, remove one stress token from the ship.

c. Clean Up:Return the maneuver template to the pile of maneuver templates. Place the revealed dial outside the play area next to the ship’s Ship card.

3.Perform Action: The ship may perform one action.

Quote

Bottom line is that if you are resolving your perform action step, you must have finished your execute maneuver step. There is no way for this not to be true (given current rules).

Pattern analyser specifically lets you do this, would you agree?

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

It lets you resolve check pilot stress after perform action step allowing you to do 2.b after step 3. And from your own insisting you can't do step 3 (perform action) until step 2 is complete.

18 hours ago, Oberron said:

You're wrong. Clean up does happen before perform action as blodvargarna has stated.

I never said that clean up doesn't happen before perform action. I said that the trigger for starting step 3 is finishing step 2; it just so happens that clean up is the last thing you do in step 2.

18 hours ago, Oberron said:

Pattern analyser specifically lets you do this, would you agree?

No, it has absolutely no effect on this whatsoever. That's my entire point. Moving the check pilot stress step does not mean that you don't finish 2 before moving on to 3. It just means that a thing that happening in step 2 now happens after step 3.

18 hours ago, Oberron said:

And from your own insisting you can't do step 3 (perform action) until step 2 is complete.

Again, no. Step 2, the execute manoeuvre step, is complete before you progress to step 3. If it were not, you could not be progressing to step 3. Hence, as I said, trying to resolve it this way is literally impossible. It can't be done.

You'd have to find a reason to progress to step 3 before finishing step 2, and such a thing does not (and cannot) exist. It's a logical contradiction that cannot be overcome without an explicit ruling (or 'clarification', as it is usually called) to that effect.

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Moving the check pilot stress step does not mean that you don't finish 2 before moving on to 3. It just means that a thing that happening in step 2 now happens after step 3.

This is not a certainty and given the ambiguity of the rules at this point I think FFG should clarify how movement of the check pilot stress substep interacts with execute maneuver step.

7 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

This is not a certainty and given the ambiguity of the rules at this point I think FFG should clarify how movement of the check pilot stress substep interacts with execute maneuver step.

Yes, it's ambiguous in the lack of specificity. However, my point is that it can only physically only work one way.

How do you get to the perform action step if you haven't finished executing your maneuver? That's the bit that people seem to be inventing out of thin air. I don't see how that needs any more clarification that 3 comes after 2.

I mean you said I was just repeating the same thing without taking how Pattern Analyser changes the rules into account, but I want you to understand that that's exactly what you're doing now. You're repeating the same thing without ever explaining how you can be in the perform action step without having completed the execute maneuver step. How did you decide to do step 3 before you declared step 2 complete? There's an assumption in there that I don't think you realise you're making. My guess would be that it's how you naturally go from clean-up to perform action because they're physically adjacent when written out, but that's not actually how the rules state it. It says you complete the following steps: Reveal Dial, Execute Maneuver, Perform Action. 'In order' refers to steps 1, 2, and 3 – it does not refer to the substeps within those steps. If you try to start perform action before you have finished execute maneuver then you're deliberately breaking the rules. If you can show me how you get around that (Pattern Analyser has no such text) then you have a case, but you haven't presented any reason to break the rules.

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

The text of Pattern Analyser is all about WHEN EXECUTING A MANEUVER

Every word after the above phrase pertains to executing maneuvers.

How does one get from 2 to 3 without completing all of 2? The text of the card says how.

2 isn't complete until after checking pilot stress.

You are waving your hand and saying that checking pilot stress becomes bifurcated from Executing Maneuver, but nothing in the rules or the text of PA says so.

The text of upgrade cards takes precedence over the base rules. PA alters how Execute Maneuver and Perform Action is done.

The OP has pointed out the ambiguity of the interaction and lack of clarity.

Does 2c become part of 3 as you contend? (And I was pretty sure of as well btw until I looked at this critically)

or Does 3 interrupt 2 and then 2c is resolved as the text of the card and the rules seem to suggest?

FFG should clarify this.

53 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

How does one get from 2 to 3 without completing all of 2? The text of the card says how.

No it does not. That is literally not mentioned on the card. This is where people like to say 'do what is on the card; do not do what is not on the card'.

53 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

2 isn't complete until after checking pilot stress.

That is an assumption that you will have to justify. That is the assumption that leads to a failed game state that fundamentally cannot resolve. 3 cannot start if you haven't finished 2. This is the part that breaks the game and it simply cannot be this way, which is why I discard it as a reasonable answer to resolving Pattern Analyser.

58 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

You are waving your hand and saying that checking pilot stress becomes bifurcated from Executing Maneuver, but nothing in the rules or the text of PA says so.

I have not said that. I have said that the game cannot function in the way you are suggesting, and thus the other alternative is the only available possibility. I have not questioned that the wording is ambiguous – only that one of the option that ambiguity brings up is not actually possible and thus can be discarded.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

The text of upgrade cards takes precedence over the base rules. PA alters how Execute Maneuver and Perform Action is done.

Yes, which is what you have been disregarding. On one hand you're saying that check pilot stress must happen for the execute maneuver step to complete, and on the other you're saying that Pattern Analyser changes the rules. If Pattern Analyser supersedes the rules (which is not in contention), then you cannot claim that check pilot stress must happen to count as complete. You argument is self-contradictory and counters your own argument.

Again, my proposition requires your assertion to be true. it is not countered by it.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

or Does 3 interrupt 2 and then 2c is resolved as the text of the card and the rules seem to suggest?

Neither card text nor rules directly suggest this anywhere. This is what you're not providing a justification for. Without that justification (again, Pattern Analyser does not give you that justification as it neither says nor infers what you're claiming it does), option A is impossible and option B works smoothly. Which do you think the answer is most likely to be?

32 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

"Each ship resolves the following steps in order: "

1, 2 a b c, 3

Wrong, and I've already covered this. The order is 1, 2, 3. This is demonstrated by the fact that step 2 has the specific text:

Quote

2. Execute Maneuver: Resolve the following substeps in order:

The Activation Phase rules cover the order of steps. The second step specifically covers the order of substeps.

This is an example of an assumption that you have made that you seem to be unaware that you are making.

38 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

So your hand wavery reads something isn't there in either the card which states WHEN EXECUTING A MANEUVER... or the rules which states that the parts of the turn are resolved in the following order.

I'm not sure what you think you are trying to show here. Again, no-one has questioned whether Pattern Analyser activates 'when executing a maneuver'. That tells us when the effect kicks in, which is an uncontested point. That has absolutely nothing to do with order of steps and substeps – these things are unrelated. Unless you can show otherwise, of course.

41 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Given that the rules state that Step 2 is complete after 2c is resolved, PA changes how that interaction works.

The rules don't say that. Again, I explicitly stated above that that is not what the rules say, and I have quoted the text already. This is not argument.

43 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

So AFTER 3 then 2c, thus finishing 2.

Not unless you can provide that reasoning as to why you started 3 before finishing 2. Again, Pattern Analyser does not tell you to do this. This is an assumption that you are making that you have not yet substantiated.

44 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

I think either way could be valid, but a more strict RAW interpretation of how it works, would be how I think it works.

You're the one who is arguing against the rules as written.

45 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

You are ignoring 2c as a component of 2 and saying that 2 is now complete after 2b which is written nowhere in the rules.

And yet again, that is not what I am saying, and there is no point going on if you're going to ignore what I have actually said and make up something I haven't said instead. Doubly so after I already explained that that is explicitly not what I am saying.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Again, Pattern Analyser does not tell you to do this.

That's Exactly what the card is telling you to do.

1, 2a, 2c, 3, 2b.

Show me where the rules state that 2 is resolved before all substeps of 2 are completed?

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Yes, which is what you have been disregarding. On one hand you're saying that check pilot stress must happen for the execute maneuver step to complete, and on the other you're saying that Pattern Analyser changes the rules. If Pattern Analyser supersedes the rules (which is not in contention), then you cannot claim that check pilot stress must happen to count as complete. You argument is self-contradictory and counters your own argument.

You are making a leap here. There's no reason why PA changing the order of the Activation Phase doesn't change the way how the Execute Maneuver Phase is resolved.

Paraphrasing your argument here:

Because PA tells us to skip ahead to 3, 2b is now no longer part of 2 and is some kind of orphan phase.

Where do you get that 2b is no longer part of 2? It doesn't make any sense. Neither the rules, nor the card tells us that how this should be resolved, just InquisitorM says so.

I'm saying PA changes the order in which 3 is resolved, but PA still happens in 2 because of the text of the card "WHEN EXECUTING A MANEUVER" 2b is the last step of 2 (when using PA) and then when 2b is finished so is 2.

Anyway, has someone written to FFG yet?

Sigh, and I was hoping this topic was dead and gone.

For my two cents, common sense would seem to dictate that yes Snap gets his free boost, but I'm aware that my common sense is not a binding ruling so if an official one comes down I'm wrong so be it but I'd be willing to bet the other way.

Actually, here's my technical argument. PA says move the Check Stress step to after the perform action step. It does NOT say move perform action to in front of the Check Stress step which would essentially accomplish the same thing in any case other than this one. Perform action cannot be done until after a maneuver has been completed. Therefore once I hit that step I can trigger any "after maneuver" effects, even if some supstep has been moved elsewhere by a card effect.

2 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

That's Exactly what the card is telling you to do.

1, 2a, 2c, 3, 2b.

Show me where the rules state that 2 is resolved before all substeps of 2 are completed?

Show me on the card where it says that, because your card clearly has text that's not on everyone else's.

It doesn't say that step 2 is resolved before all of the substeps of 2 are completed. But again, I haven't made that claim and that is nor a part of my argument. 2 having resolved is a logical necessity for resolving 3.

But as I said, you're doing all the things you've accused me of at this point, just repeating the same things with no attempt to give an explanation and hand waving off anything that is inconvenient to your case. You're right right, there is no point in continuing because you're arguing from your preconception, not from reason and evidence. You're not talking to me, you're just putting words in my mouth so that you can argue with that ad infinitum.

To finish, I'll rephrase what Sharrrp noted above. When you activate Pattern Analyser, the Execute Maneuver step looks like this:

Quote

2. 2a. 2c.

Step 2 starts, which tells us to execute the substeps in order, which are 2a and 2c. After those steps are done, we return to step 2, check that it is complete and trigger effects conditional to completing the step – in this case, Snap. Then proceed to step 3. After step 3, we perform the check pilot stress substep which is no longer in the Execute Maneuver step.

M out. (Thanks, Sharrrp!)

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

Actually, here's my technical argument. PA says move the Check Stress step to after the perform action step. It does NOT say move perform action to in front of the Check Stress step which would essentially accomplish the same thing in any case other than this one. Perform action cannot be done until after a maneuver has been completed. Therefore once I hit that step I can trigger any "after maneuver" effects, even if some supstep has been moved elsewhere by a card effect.

No here's the exact text:

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

So 2b is resolved after 3.

57 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

So 2b is resolved after 3.

You keep making statements about things that are no contested. No-one has said that 2b doesn't resolve after 3 when using Pattern Analyser. What you're not saying is how that is relevant to anything.

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

You keep making statements about things that are no contested. No-one has said that 2b doesn't resolve after 3 when using Pattern Analyser. What you're not saying is how that is relevant to anything.

Because it changes how to progress from step 2 to step 3

InquisitorM is right. here is why:

Pattern Analyser does not state that You can move step 3 between substep 2.a and 2.c, then resolve substep 2.b. It requires to complete the maneuver, proceed to step 3 and then do something that is moved from step 2. PT stating that " You may resolve the "Check Pilot Stress" step after the "Perform Action" step" does not let you make actions from step 3 in step 2, thus step 2 is resolved without substep 2.b.

I don't really see the argument, despite so many post going so much in-depth.

When a manouver is considering executed? After the whole step 2 is completed.

Pattern Analyzer just postpone part of step 2 after step 3, therefore the manouver is considered executed after step 2b is resolved, and at that point, Snap would be stressed so no free boost for him. Pattern Analyzer doesn'change that Snap ability triggers "after executing a manouver".

What sparked such a controversy here?

16 hours ago, Oberron said:

Because it changes how to progress from step 2 to step 3

Both both sides of the argument accept that 2b resolves after 3. To state that it does so has no effect on either argument because it isn't a contested fact.

10 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Pattern Analyzer just postpone part of step 2 after step 3, therefore the manouver is considered executed after step 2b is resolved, and at that point, Snap would be stressed so no free boost for him. Pattern Analyzer doesn'change that Snap ability triggers "after executing a manouver".

What sparked such a controversy here?

What sparked it is that the resolution you propose is literally impossible. The rule is that step 2 of the activation phase is completed before you proceed to step 3. If you haven't finished step 2 as you suggest, then step 3 doesn't start. if you were to start step 3 in that case, you'd be breaking the rules without a reason to do so, which I would like to think we can agree is unacceptable.

The alternative being that when you start step 3, Perform Action, you have completed your maneuver (because you've moved on from step 2) and Snap triggers. And yes, that means step 2 is completed before doing the check pilot stress step because that step is no longer part of the Execute Maneuver step.

11 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Both both sides of the argument accept that 2b resolves after 3. To state that it does so has no effect on either argument because it isn't a contested fact.

What sparked it is that the resolution you propose is literally impossible. The rule is that step 2 of the activation phase is completed before you proceed to step 3. If you haven't finished step 2 as you suggest, then step 3 doesn't start. if you were to start step 3 in that case, you'd be breaking the rules without a reason to do so, which I would like to think we can agree is unacceptable.

The alternative being that when you start step 3, Perform Action, you have completed your maneuver (because you've moved on from step 2) and Snap triggers. And yes, that means step 2 is completed before doing the check pilot stress step because that step is no longer part of the Execute Maneuver step.

Cutting the check pilot stress substep from the Execute Manouver step would be as impossible as considering it postponed and I argue that doing so would actually require a bigger interpretative jump.

I still find it pretty clear. 2b resolves after 3. So step 2 is fully resolved only after step 3. Thus the manouver is considered executed after 3 is resolved.

Removing altogether the check pilot stress from the executing a manouver process is a bolder move with less foundation in my opinion

As I mentioned earlier, Pattern Analyzer instructs You to move substep out of step 2, and resolve it after step 3. Pattern Analyzer does not instruct You to move step 3 into step 2, and resolve it between substeps 2.c and 2.b.

19 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Removing altogether the check pilot stress from the executing a manouver process is a bolder move with less foundation in my opinion

This is, in fact, the only possible way to resolve this situation, as InquisitorM tried to explain.

I think this is similiar to nesting actions with PTL - it was legal after explanation inf FAQ from FFG. There is not any mention about nesting substeps, so... cut and paste

38 minutes ago, Woocash said:

As I mentioned earlier, Pattern Analyzer instructs You to move substep out of step 2, and resolve it after step 3. Pattern Analyzer does not instruct You to move step 3 into step 2, and resolve it between substeps 2.c and 2.b.

I never said that with PA you move step 3.

My point is: we are into executing a manouver, resolve 2a then PA kicks in and we postpone 2b so we directly go to 2c. Since 2b isn't yet resolved, the manouver isn't completly executed yet. We Enter into 3 and only then we resolve 2b. Manouver is now considered fully executed and at this point Snap is stressed, thus no free boost.

Considering the manouver executed after 2c (with 2b still pending) has in my opinion bigger implications than just considering the Executing Manouver process a bit longer in the case of a Pattern Analyzer ship

38 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Since 2b isn't yet resolved, the manouver isn't completly executed yet.

And that is the bit I think you're assuming without qualification. I accept it's a possible interpretation of the wording, but if, as you say, the maneuver isn't completely executed yet, then you can't go on to step 3, because step 3 come after step 2 is finished resolving. So you can't resolve step 3 until you're finished step 2, but step 2 doesn't finish resolving until after step 3. This is a game terminating contradiction and thus I do not recognise it as valid.

I can't honestly see any TOs ruling this way, either.

40 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

And that is the bit I think you're assuming without qualification. I accept it's a possible interpretation of the wording, but if, as you say, the maneuver isn't completely executed yet, then you can't go on to step 3, because step 3 come after step 2 is finished resolving. So you can't resolve step 3 until you're finished step 2, but step 2 doesn't finish resolving until after step 3. This is a game terminating contradiction and thus I do not recognise it as valid.

I can't honestly see any TOs ruling this way, either.

I'm not following you anymore: PA literally says that you are going to resolve 2b after 3, how would be impossible to go into step 3?

We are sure of 2 things:

• Pattern Analyzer resolves 2b after 3
• A maneuver is considered executed only after all three substeps of step 2 are resolved.

Therefore, a ship triggering Pattern Analyzer is considered to have executed a maneuver after 2b is resolved. Will Snap be stressed at that point? Yes.

Until a FAQ comes out telling us that actually no, a maneuver isn't considered executed when all substeps 2 are resolved, that's how I think PA should be ruled.

As I said, "removing" the check pilot stress from the executing a maneuver is bigger interpretative jump (since PA only refers to a difference in timings) and also probably brings bigger ruling implications with it (since you are no longer checking stress as part of a maneuver)