40 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

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

But the card tells us to do this. It says nothing about removing 2b out of 2. It says resolve it after 3. Step 3 becomes nested within 2 (between 2c and 2b).

5 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

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)

This is 100% correct, and it's only after taking the time to read the wording of the rules, the card, and Snap's ability carefully and then actually THINKING about how it all works, that I've come around to this interpretation as the correct one.

""Removing" the check pilot stress from the executing a maneuver" is found nowhere in the rules. It's made from whole cloth.

So here' my question: is anybody in this thread actually USING Snap and PA?

46 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

So here' my question: is anybody in this thread actually USING Snap and PA?

Nope. Intensity and Primed thrusters is the way to go with Snap!

3 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

• A maneuver is considered executed only after all three substeps of step 2 are resolved.

This is not the case.

3 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

Therefore, a ship triggering Pattern Analyzer is considered to have executed a maneuver after 2b is resolved.

Most people seem to think he's executed a maneuver after finishing step 2 and before proceeding to step 3. I agree with them.

3 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

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)

Well, that's subjective. I think removing it a both vastly more logical and actively maintains the integrity of the rules system. But that's neither here nor there. But yet again, I'm not saying that I think it's the logical way of doing it, I'm saying that your way doesn't work and thus 'removing' the step, as you put it, is the only viable option we have. Whether it is the most sensible or not os pretty much irrelevant.

3 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

But the card tells us to do this. It says nothing about removing 2b out of 2. It says resolve it after 3. Step 3 becomes nested within 2 (between 2c and 2b).

No, it doesn't say that. And no, it doesn't say it's removing it from 2, but it doesn't say you can do step 3 out of sequence, either. It just says that you don't resolve 2b in its usual place. Everything else is an assumption.

57 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

This is not the case.

Most people seem to think he's executed a maneuver after finishing step 2 and before proceeding to step 3. I agree with them.

Well, that's subjective. I think removing it a both vastly more logical and actively maintains the integrity of the rules system. But that's neither here nor there. But yet again, I'm not saying that I think it's the logical way of doing it, I'm saying that your way doesn't work and thus 'removing' the step, as you put it, is the only viable option we have. Whether it is the most sensible or not os pretty much irrelevant.

There is nothing on pattern analyzer that suggests a change on when a maneuver is considered executed.

Executing a maneuver is a process involving 3 steps: moving the ship (2a), checking pilot stress (2b) and cleaning up (2c). Resolving 2b after the perform action step doesn't change it.

Your interpretation add much more to the rules than mine. Pattern Analyzers messes up the sequence on how usually a maneuver is executed, it doesn't change the fact that you still need to do all the three substeps before it is actually executed.

Not having anymore 2b as part of executing a maneuver isn't viable at all. What does make you think that this is the only logical option?

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

No, it doesn't say that. And no, it doesn't say it's removing it from 2, but it doesn't say you can do step 3 out of sequence, either. It just says that you don't resolve 2b in its usual place. Everything else is an assumption.

Again the actual text of the card:

Quote

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

Well what does resolve mean?

Quote

Execute Maneuver: Resolve the following substeps in order:

Quote

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.

So resolve here means to complete the substep.

If 2b is resolved after 3 Perform Action, then obviously 2 isn't completed until that happens. You keep saying it's impossible to go from 2 to 3 without finishing 2, but PA card says otherwise.

Hopefully Frank will reply to our rules questions soon but I agree with the poster in the other thread that there's no use arguing this anymore.

2 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

There is nothing on pattern analyzer that suggests a change on when a maneuver is considered executed.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You're the one suggesting it changes.

2 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

Your interpretation add much more to the rules than mine.

Such as? I don't think it adds anything at all. Play goes exactly as it always did, sans 1 step.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

So resolve here means to complete the substep.

Yep. So when you finish 2 and go on to 3, you're done. Snap triggers.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

If 2b is resolved after 3 Perform Action, then obviously 2 isn't completed until that happens.

You say obviously, but you don't seem to understand that that's just your opinion. That's not a fact. Nor do I believe it is necessarily true. Check pilot stress is resolved after 3, but that is not the same as saying that step 2 is completed after step 3, because that seems silly to me. The '2b' tag is just for show. You have shown no reason as to why it still counts as part of step 2 when it isn't happening inside step 2. Step 2 could reasonably be said to be resolved before you get to check pilot stress.

32 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

because that seems silly to me

A compelling reason.

Just to make things even more complicated.... The card text of Lightning Reflexes implies that a maneuver is normally considered completed once 2a has been completed (not 2c and not 2a through 2c), and that Lightning Reflexes modifies those rules by having you add that stress token after 2b instead of where it would normally be applied after 2a (2a again being where the maneuver was completed which triggered Lightning Reflexes in the first place).

If that is the case, Snap Wexley executes his free boost action after 2a, regardless of the order of 2b in the process, which also means he would get his free boost even if executing a red maneuver without PA assuming he wasn't already stressed.

If that is not the case, and a maneuver is completed after 2a, 2b, and 2c are all completed even without PA, then it is impossible to follow the card text of Lightning Reflexes to apply the stress after 2b, since you've already executed 2c by the point of triggering Lightning Reflexes. So a maneuver must be considered completed after 2a.

Here are the Rules AGAIN

Quote

Each ship resolves the following steps in order:

Quote

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

a. Move Ship: Slide the maneuver template between the front guides of the ship’s base so that it is flush against the base. Then pick up the ship and place it at the opposite end of 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.

2 b. is not for show. It is a substep of step 2.

Text of the card:

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

You may resolve the "Check Pilot Stress" step

It doesn't say resolve check pilot stress. It says to resolve the step, step 2b to be specific.

So looking at the rules, it says to resolve the steps 1, 2, 3. It also says to resolve 2 a. b. c. before you get to 3. PA changes this order to 2a. 2c. 3. 2b. Once the substeps of 2 are resolved, then 2 is resolved. Its pretty simple really based on the actual text of the rules and upgrade card not a feeling.

9 hours ago, sharrrp said:

So here' my question: is anybody in this thread actually USING Snap and PA?

Yup; played him with PA a week or two ago. We played it as he does get his free boost before stress is applied. Didn't even come up as a question at the time. We both just accepted that's the way it would work. (Acknowledging now that we may have done that wrong. A clarification from FFG would be welcome).

As I've said. You keep repeating the same stuff, but what you're posting doesn't actually prove your case because the things you're arguing are not in contention. Saying that CPS is a substep of 2 doesn't help you if no-one was saying it wasn't. It is a substep of 2, then PA makes it not a substep of 2 because it's no longer in step 2.

11 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Its pretty simple really based on the actual text of the rules and upgrade card not a feeling.

But it's not based on the text of the cards. That's my entire problem with it. It's your assumption that has no justification from the cards, and that's why this is all pointless. if it was so simple, you wouldn't be getting it wrong.

11 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

PA changes this order to 2a. 2c. 3. 2b

Exactly. You can't go from 2 to 3 if 2 isn't complete, so this way cannot work. You've proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.

Something came to me as I read the card again. It may be to bad wording, but: Pattern Analyzer makes a STEP from a SUBSTEP. Check pilot stress substep becomes independent step, in times when You want to activate PT.

21 hours ago, Joe Censored said:

If that is not the case, and a maneuver is completed after 2a, 2b, and 2c are all completed even without PA, then it is impossible to follow the card text of Lightning Reflexes to apply the stress after 2b, since you've already executed 2c by the point of triggering Lightning Reflexes. So a maneuver must be considered completed after 2a.

This is something that implies that step can be completed without resolving all the substeps of that step. And again, as BlodVargarna suggests, if a maneuver is not completed since substep 2b is resolved, means that step 3 is put into maneuver step. There is no rules of nesting steps that i can think of, thus, suggesting that this is the case with PA, is making more rules than option with maneuver resolving without all substeps resolved, i.e. Lightining Reflexes.

14 hours ago, Joe Censored said:

Just to make things even more complicated.... The card text of Lightning Reflexes implies that a maneuver is normally considered completed once 2a has been completed (not 2c and not 2a through 2c), and that Lightning Reflexes modifies those rules by having you add that stress token after 2b instead of where it would normally be applied after 2a (2a again being where the maneuver was completed which triggered Lightning Reflexes in the first place).

Great point, but... Kanan Jarrus is clarified in the FAQ as 'triggering after the Clean Up substep of the Execute Maneuver step', and both cards have the same written trigger. On the surface, this is an outright contradiction, but it not.

Err, sort of.

You see, the original X-Wing rules did not have substeps. The activation phase was thus:

Quote

1. Reveal Dial

2. Set Templates

3. Execute Maneuver

4. Check Pilot Stress

5. Clean Up

6. Perform Action

So the problem is that Lighting Reflexes is literally written for a different rules system. It cannot give us a valid frame of reference with regard to the updated rules reference. However, it might give us a solid insight into how designers still thing. However, that would be guesswork and ought to be dismissed as an argument.

So Lightning Reflexes doesn't actually work with the new rules, but the fact is that we all know what it is supposed to do and we have no problem using it without causing problems. I felt the same way about Patten Analyser, but some people seem to have some odd ideas about it, so obviously it is not as easy as LR.

1 hour ago, Woocash said:

This is something that implies that step can be completed without resolving all the substeps of that step.

As much as it would resolve the deadlock, no, unfortunately it doesn't do that. It's just an old card using an obsolete set of rules.

Top marks to both of you, though

20 hours ago, sharrrp said:

So here' my question: is anybody in this thread actually USING Snap and PA?

Yes! 3↑, free boost, Focus, Push for TL, clear stress.

Never played against anyone who thought that was wrong. (not that that proves squat)

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Exactly. You can't go from 2 to 3 if 2 isn't complete, so this way cannot work. You've proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.

Sure you can.

Quote

Card abilities can override the rules listed in this
guide

PA card tells us to do exactly this.

What you continually fail to rebut is the fact that you are making up rules. 2b is part of 2.

It doesn't simply become some vestigial orphan because it is resolved after 3 as you contend. You cannot and have not used he actual text of the rules and card to back up your interpretation. Ipse Dixit is a logical fallacy.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

then PA makes it not a substep of 2 because it's no longer in step 2

This is what you say. It is not what the card or the rules say.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

PA card tells us to do exactly this.

See, you're claiming this and then accusing me of making up rules after you state this as if it were true but without ever explaining it.

Again, I need you to understand that I'm not saying it logically reads one way or the other. The rule can be taken two ways, but your way doesn't work and you haven't said how you're getting from 2 to 3 without 2 finishing. Until you do that, you're just projecting what you are doing onto me.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

This is what you say. It is not what the card or the rules say.

It doesn't need to be in the rules because it's a logical extrapolation. What you're saying isn't on the card or in the rules either. That's why there is a discussion over it.

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

you haven't said how you're getting from 2 to 3 without 2 finishing.

I have. Repeatedly.

The Golden Rules state text of cards overrules the Rules reference.

PA changes the rules for resolving the steps. It changes the order.

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

What you're saying isn't on the card or in the rules either

Wrong. I have been citing the rules throughout. You are citing your "logic" and your "feelings."

The card literally changes the order of resolving the steps. Read it again.

8 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

You can't go from 2 to 3 if 2 isn't complete, so this way cannot work. You've proved yourself wrong. Congratulations.

Pattern Analyzer literally says that you pass to 3 before completing 2. You can still refer to your interpretation, but the card is quite clear on this regard: 2b happens after 3, thus, in the case of pattern analyzer ships, you go to 3 and only after that you complete 2.

We have a rulebook stating a clear sequence and a card that change this sequence. Other than that, nothing changes. 2b is therefort resolved after 3, which would mean that in this particular case the maneuver is resolved after that the ship performs action.

You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit in your logic, but there's nothing on PA making us beleiving that the "check pilot stress" is no longer part of "executing a maneuver"

30 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Pattern Analyzer literally says that you pass to 3 before completing 2. You can still refer to your interpretation, but the card is quite clear on this regard: 2b happens after 3, thus, in the case of pattern analyzer ships, you go to 3 and only after that you complete 2.

We have a rulebook stating a clear sequence and a card that change this sequence. Other than that, nothing changes. 2b is therefort resolved after 3, which would mean that in this particular case the maneuver is resolved after that the ship performs action.

You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit in your logic, but there's nothing on PA making us beleiving that the "check pilot stress" is no longer part of "executing a maneuver"

Thank you. Thats exactly how I see this.

It's pretty clear neither side is willing to move on this and spending energy arguing is wasted.

Has anyone actually submitted a rules question yet?

I just sent one in.