2 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

Pattern Analyzer literally says that you pass to 3 before completing 2.

I don't think you understand what the word literally means. It literally doesn't say that.

5 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Wrong. I have been citing the rules throughout.

No, you've just been saying it's the rule. But you never actually show how it works. It's just rhetoric. Like Sunista, you keep saying that it says it on the card, but it's not actually on the card. That and many of the rules you cite don't actually exist, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

7 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

I don't think you understand what the word literally means. It literally doesn't say that.

No, you've just been saying it's the rule. But you never actually show how it works. It's just rhetoric. Like Sunista, you keep saying that it says it on the card, but it's not actually on the card. That and many of the rules you cite don't actually exist, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

Funny, it seems that you are the one who has not shown how the rules interact with the card. You've cited your "logic" your "extrapolations" and your "feelings" but never the actual text of the game to support your opinion.

Read the PA card. What does it tell you to do? What do the actual rules say?

I'm not going to actually repost all of that because I've done so repeatedly and if you want, you can see it in the text above. I'll paraphrase though:

1: Golden Rules state that in event of conflict between Card and Rules, card wins.

2: Rules state to resolve each step of Actvation Phase in order:

1: reveal dial

2: Execute maneuver (resolve the following in order)

a. Move ship

b. Check pilot stress

c. Clean up

3: Perform Action.

PA the upgrade card changes this. It states (paraphrased) you may resolve the check pilot stress step after the Perform Action step instead of before.

This now means the order is with PA:

1

2

a

c

3

2b.

Once all the substeps of 2 are resolved, then 2 is resolved not before.

This is based on reading the rules.

Your opinion is based on your feelings, and is not supported by the text of the rules or the card.

This argument has become an absurd infinite loop and until FFG clarifies this rules interaction , I'm done here.

I hope you will enjoy 8th ed 40k and find a home with like minded folk.

20 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

That and many of the rules you cite don't actually exist,

What do mean? The Rules Reference and the Card don't exist? That's rich.

12 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

I hope you will enjoy 8th ed 40k and find a home with like minded folk.

You would probably find people more receptive to your arguments without following up with personal attacks.

5 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

You would probably find people more receptive to your arguments without following up with personal attacks.

That's not an attack. That's a heart felt wish that InquisitorM can enjoy 40k 8ed.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

Funny, it seems that you are the one who has not shown how the rules interact with the card. You've cited your "logic" your "extrapolations" and your "feelings" but never the actual text of the game to support your opinion.

Because there are none. There are no written rules on how to resolve the situation.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

1: Golden Rules state that in event of conflict between Card and Rules, card wins.

2: Rules state to resolve each step of Actvation Phase in order:

1: reveal dial

2: Execute maneuver (resolve the following in order)

a. Move ship

b. Check pilot stress

c. Clean up

3: Perform Action.

PA the upgrade card changes this. It states (paraphrased) you may resolve the check pilot stress step after the Perform Action step instead of before.

This now means the order is with PA:

1

2

a

c

3

2b.

All correct, save that you have not shown why check pilot stress is 2b and not just the check pilot stress step. As I stated it, you keep saying you've shown the rules, but you conveniently leave out the bits that don't matter.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

Once all the substeps of 2 are resolved, then 2 is resolved not before.

Again, show me wow you came to that conclusion. Exactly as I said, you're quoting it as if it were rules, but you don't actually quote any rules.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

our opinion is based on your feelings, and is not supported by the text of the rules or the card.

My opinion is in no way or ever has been based on feelings and is completely supported by the card – an without those convenient little holes you never quite seem to explain.

1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:

I hope you will enjoy 8th ed 40k and find a home with like minded folk.

Says the guy making up rules to fit his preconception!

45 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Because there are none. There are no written rules on how to resolve the situation.

All correct, save that you have not shown why check pilot stress is 2b and not just the check pilot stress step. As I stated it, you keep saying you've shown the rules, but you conveniently leave out the bits that don't matter.

Again, show me wow you came to that conclusion. Exactly as I said, you're quoting it as if it were rules, but you don't actually quote any rules.

My opinion is in no way or ever has been based on feelings and is completely supported by the card – an without those convenient little holes you never quite seem to explain.

Says the guy making up rules to fit his preconception!

I'm pretty sure you are just now trolling.

Check page 4 of the Rules Reference.

And the reason you haven't cited any actual text of the rules or the actual text of the card is because your argument is entirely based on an idea you've made up.

Oh boy. This is getting more and more toxic with each day. To sum up the last 4 pages, am I understanding this correctly? BlodVargarna, your point is that the definition of "execute maneuver" changes with Pattern Analyzer, so that it includes the action step. InquisitorM's point is that despite Pattern Analyzer's fundamental changing of the step order, that the "execute maneuver" step is completed prior to the action step.

Is that right?

Can we agree to disagree until FFG actually says something? There's no reason for either side to start taking personal attacks (or even perceived personal attacks) over FFG's inability to maintain consistent rulesets.

12 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Check page 4 of the Rules Reference.

15 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

1: Golden Rules state that in event of conflict between Card and Rules, card wins.

14 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

PA the upgrade card changes this.

By your own logic, that is not a valid reason.

35 minutes ago, Juunon said:

Is that right?

Close. The rules can be taken either way. I have never had a dispute with that – there is option A and option B that are both valid interpretations of the card.

The problem is that option A doesn't work because it requires starting step 3 before step 2 is complete and there is no provision on PA for that happen. Therefore, out of the two options, the one that can physically play out without fudging the gamestate is the one I'm going with. BlodVargarna's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that step 2 is not complete until all of the substeps in 2 have been completed, and that PA is what allows step 3 to start before step 2 is done.

I have two specific problems with this: 1) BlodVargarna keeps saying that the card says that that's how it works but never explain how (since two camps obviously get different possibilities from the same wording, some explanation is necessary), and 2) that his golden rule argument is a double standard: he's saying that the 'complete these steps in order' is inviolate in the sense of the step isn't complete until all substeps are done, while simultaneously saying that the rules are not inviolate because PA allows step 3 to start prematurely. He says that PA changes one but not the other, but offers no explanation for this. I see no reason not to apply the rule equally in both situations.

Ok I think we've reached peak rules forum on this.

@InquisitorM has his interpretation, I have mine. I'll wait for Frank to clarify, if ever, and call it a day.

It took you so long to figure that out ?!?! This will do near 1 week you two repeat yourself Ad Nauseam...

Edit: And the funny thing, you two were saying the exact same thing at first...

After reading through all of this, it seems that the debate is 2 comes before 3.

Here is an easier solution to break this down. Remove all the numbers from the steps, complete each step from top to bottom in the order they are listed. PA moves one of those steps to the end of the list, but that doesnt change the fact that previous steps are completed.

Reveal
Execute
Move
Check
Clean
Action

becomes...

Reveal
Execute
Move
Clean
Action
Check

The issue is a bit different @gigglyomnioronicon, because Move, Check and Clean are part of Execute and we are discussing when a maneuver is considered executed for things that triggers "after executing a maneuver"

For @InquisitorM, Pattern Analyzer removes Check Pilot from Execute because "anything else is impossible and illogical, since you wouldn't be able to enter in Perform Action otherwise"

For me Pattern Analyzer just delays the full completation of Execute to when you resolve Check, so after Perform Action. My argument here is that Pattern Analyzer only make Check happening after Perfom. It doesn't say anything about considering a maneuver executed without resolving Check, so there are no reasons to not keep it as close to the rules as possible

Right now the argument is mostly trivial since other than Snap (which isn't exaclty a common sighting) and Unkar Platt crew on a quadjumper (another rarely played card) I can't think of other cases in which it would be relevant, but an answer will still be helpful

There is two arguments, and the fact the each side think they are right change nothing, there is currently no way to be sure outside of FFG finally answering this. Same exact thing happenned with Targeting Syncroniser.

After applying Pattern, there is two possibilities:

ONE:

2 - Execute Maneuver:
a - Do maneuver.

b - Do Action.

c - Check Pilote Stress.

d - Clean Up.

TWO:

2 - Execute Maneuver:
a - Do maneuver.

d - Clean Up.

3 - Do Action.

4 - Check Pilote Stress

I don't have an opinion toward any of them, and you can reply to me saying I wrongly demonstrate any of your side, I don't care...

56 minutes ago, muribundi said:

you can reply to me saying I wrongly demonstrate any of your side, I don't care...

I love it. If you don't care why bother posting?

And I will say you have incorrectly paraphrased the (correct) interpretation, which should be:

2

a. Move

c. Clean up

3. Perform Action

2b. Check pilot stress.

Because I like showing off like everyone else. And sorry but my opinion was precisely demonstrated, and I did not incorrectly write anything.
Pattern Analyser change the rules of movement, and it will end up exactly as one of these in the end.
When you build up step and sub step, number have to follow.

If they rule that Check Pilot is now out of the movement, it will be step four, not an out of order idiot step.

And if the rule that Check Pilot can't be out of movement, then the action will be a sub step. Not a step idiotly put between sub step.

8 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

... Snip ... 2) that his golden rule argument is a double standard: he's saying that the 'complete these steps in order' is inviolate in the sense of the step isn't complete until all substeps are done, while simultaneously saying that the rules are not inviolate because PA allows step 3 to start prematurely. He says that PA changes one but not the other, but offers no explanation for this. I see no reason not to apply the rule equally in both situations.

I'm with you @InquisitorM

On 6/9/2017 at 8:40 PM, BlodVargarna said:

Good lord talk about looking for a problem where there isn't one.

Snap +PA works like this:

Dial T-Roll,

execute T Roll,

delay check pilot stress step with PA

perform action step:

Did Snap complete a 2, 3, or 4 maneuver?

yes: he may perform a free boost.

he may also perform an action such as focus, TL, or any actions from upgrades.

Check pilot stress step:

Dis snap reveal a red maneuver?

yes

assign a stress token.

And @BlodVargarna, respectfully, even though you have seriously come around to the opposite side of the argument, I think your initial gut reaction was probably in line with the RAI and likely the most commonly way this situation would play out.

This is clearly a word logic problem that needs to be FAQ'd since similar things will probably crop up again.

7 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

It doesn't say anything about considering a maneuver executed without resolving Check, so there are no reasons to not keep it as close to the rules as possible

It doesn't say anything about the maneuver not being complete before moving on to the perform action step, either, so that doesn't really seem to help.

Also, B keeps the trigger in the same place it would normally be, so I was very much working on the basis that B was keeping as close to the rules as possible.

5 hours ago, muribundi said:

ONE:

2 - Execute Maneuver:
a - Do maneuver.

b - Do Action.

c - Check Pilote Stress.

d - Clean Up.

I do find it funny that no-one had actually thought of this variation yet, but it's as valid a reading as any other

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

I do find it funny that no-one had actually thought of this variation yet, but it's as valid a reading as any other

Seriously, after two years of seeing their way of doing errata, that will be the way they see it or the other... They will not put a full step between sub step or they will not extract a sub step and keep it sub step.

And they have been so unpredictable in the past that I don't dare finding their intend here.

I sent an email about this question roughly 2 months ago. I'll follow up if/when I hear back. Right now it seems hopelessly ambiguous as the continued threads debating it with increasing vitriol demonstrates.

On 6/15/2017 at 8:44 AM, Sunitsa said:

Right now the argument is mostly trivial since other than Snap (which isn't exaclty a common sighting) and Unkar Platt crew on a quadjumper (another rarely played card) I can't think of other cases in which it would be relevant, but an answer will still be helpful

The more common situation where it would matter is its interaction with Snap Shot, especially when the Shap Shotter has Juke or R3-A2, both of which are not incredibly common, but do pop up with some regularity (Juke/Snap A-wing swarms and Snap/R3-A2 Nien Numb).

Imagine Quickdraw has PA equipped and executes a maneuver that takes her to Range 1 in arc of a ship equipped with Snap Shot.

If PA allows her to execute her perform action step before she is said to have completed her maneuver, then she can barrel roll out of arc (preventing the shot), grab a focus for defense (especially valuable against Juke) or her counter-attack, or generally perform any action prior to being stressed by R3-A2. If, on the other hand, PA does not let her perform her action then she will not have a focus to flip a Juked evade back up.

Additionally, if PA says that she will have completed her maneuver prior to checking pilot stress, then if she did a green maneuver into an R3-A2 snap shot, then she will get the chance to clear the R3-A2 stress almost immediately (though not before it prevents her from performing an action).

Why would R3-A2 work with Snap Shot? Snap Shot is a triggered attack ability. It doesn't follow the same steps as an attack in an attack round, therefore there is no declare target step.

5 minutes ago, iamzoner said:

Why would R3-A2 work with Snap Shot? Snap Shot is a triggered attack ability. It doesn't follow the same steps as an attack in an attack round, therefore there is no declare target step.

You still go through all the steps for an attack, it's just that it happens in a nonstandard timing window.

Oh. I did not know this. Well then this creates a seemingly broken sequence of events for sure.

Hang on a sec, in the normal sequence, is an action considered to be taken before the manuver is completed or is an action considered to be taken after a manuver is executed?

Nevermind I see that the perform action step is separate and after the execute maneuver step.

So with PA, it's basically allowing check pilot stress after the manuver has been executed as well as after an action has been performed.

So then if I understand the rules properly, in a case such as the previous post described, Quickdraw equipped with PA would execute a manuver into the firing arc of an enemy equipped with Snap Shot and R3-A2. My interpretation based on all cards in play would be that Quickdraw does the manuver, yet BEFORE quickdraw can perform an action, Snap Shot is triggered. Snap Shot fires and if R3-A2 is used, then the stress from R3-A2 gets applied to Quickdraw but does not get checked until after PA resolves, therefore, after Quickdraw is attackked with Snap Shot and R3-A2, Quickdraw can return fire with special ability, then perform the action that is still owed to her, execute the action, then check all stress applied during this entire debacle.

Confusing for sure.

So then the question in this case is when is stress in the game in effect, immediately, or only after being checked?

9 minutes ago, iamzoner said:

So with PA, it's basically allowing check pilot stress after the manuver has been executed as well as after an action has been performed.

Or does it simply change the order and check pilot stress substep occurs after perform actions step at which time Execute Maneuver step is complete? This is the crux of the disagreement.