5 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

While we're on the subject of rules lawyering, I'd like to make known my displeasure with turrets not allowing for front arc attack effects, when it's pointed forward...

But the symbols mean different things and are not the same as the direction of shooting as far as I understand it.

"Front arc effects" are "attacks fixed to the front arc only) with the arc symbol. A turret shooting in the same direction is just coincidentally the same direction and has nothing to do with the attack of a front arc. (hhaha wtf)

"Turret" effects are tied to using a turret. It doesn't matter where it points.

Just now, JasonCole said:

You have to look at the AA on the ship card. It specifically lists ailerons as a maneuver, not a move. If it wasn't called a "maneuver", then this wouldn't be a thing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwia1-vdgt7dAhVKy1MKHRD3BaIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxwing-miniatures-second-edition.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2F%22Vizier%22&psig=AOvVaw2CtVuYPa61wOcPUii7hFa1&ust=1538235177097816

So, is that a "Devs will rule that bumped AAs skip perform action step at Coruscant?"

It sounds more like a "hey, the rules reference isn't perfect yet, and here's the spot they should clarify the thing we all actually know".

2 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

Except that nothing about executing a maneuver grants you an action. The order of phases grants action.

During activation:
"Each ship activates by resolving the following steps in order:
1. Reveal Dial: The ship’s assigned dial is revealed by flipping it faceup
and then placing it next to its ship card.
2. Execute Maneuver: The ship executes the maneuver selected on the
revealed dial.
3. Perform Action: The ship may perform one action."

AA inserts the extra mandatory maneuver before reveal dial, but doesn't exempt it from the effects of the maneuver (overlapping and skipping the action step being one of them).

My take, based on wording and all, the AA overlap causes it to skip the action with that maneuver... but as it never had an action for that maneuver, it's a non-factor... then the ship reveals it's dial, moves, and get's the action for THAT maneuver...

Thankfully, though, nothing I have to TO for is big enough to matter if I screw up.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

But the symbols mean different things and are not the same as the direction of shooting as far as I understand it.

"Front arc effects" are "attacks fixed to the front arc only) with the arc symbol. A turret shooting in the same direction is just coincidentally the same direction and has nothing to do with the attack of a front arc. (hhaha wtf)

"Turret" effects are tied to using a turret. It doesn't matter where it points.

Yeah, I'm just hurt about not being able to use Outmaneuver with Oicunn.

Well getting past the bumped ship argument for AA, what's the argument for/against AA going over a rock? Or did I miss that one being more cut and dry?

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

My take, based on wording and all, the AA overlap causes it to skip the action with that maneuver... but as it never had an action for that maneuver, it's a non-factor... then the ship reveals it's dial, moves, and get's the action for THAT maneuver...

Thankfully, though, nothing I have to TO for is big enough to matter if I screw up.

This both makes RAW sense (there are no limits on amounts of Perform action steps a ship could have during their turn) and we all know how they will rule it.

RAI will win again just like with Trajectory Genius, who knew?

It's almost like the developers are not unthinking machines?

16 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't know why the new version has brought out the worst rules lawyering I've ever seen, but I'm sick of it.

Rules lawyering is a nerd d*** waving contest rather than about an actual legitimate belief that the rules should be interpreted that way. I have no patience for it. I suspect that the people engaging in it would otherwise be trying to come up with broken card combos but the current card pool has left them seeking another outlet to prove how clever they are.

1 minute ago, RStan said:

Well getting past the bumped ship argument for AA, what's the argument for/against AA going over a rock? Or did I miss that one being more cut and dry?

That one's actually ambigious RAW, so we will just wait for the devs to tell us what they meant.

Just now, Tlfj200 said:

So, is that a "Devs will rule that bumped AAs skip perform action step at Coruscant?"

It sounds more like a "hey, the rules reference isn't perfect yet, and here's the spot they should clarify the thing we all actually know".

The rules reference is far from perfect yet, this case and the mines one make it quite clear, but why are you assuming AA will be ruled the same way they were in 1.0? If anything, I'd say they will be worse than 1.0, like almost everything else is now.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

My take, based on wording and all, the AA overlap causes it to skip the action with that maneuver... but as it never had an action for that maneuver, it's a non-factor... then the ship reveals it's dial, moves, and get's the action for THAT maneuver...

Thankfully, though, nothing I have to TO for is big enough to matter if I screw up.

I dig that. To me, AA currently reads as inserting step 0.5 in the activation, then proceeding on with 1-3. Nothing about the maneuver with AA generates it's own perform action step. Lets look at Vizer, for example. After the AA maneuver, he lets you perform a coordinate action before the dial reveal, but prevents you from taking an action in your action step. He's specifically breaking the action order. By all other logic so far, his ability would be useless if there were an action after every maneuver inherently (and his ability specifically calls AA a maneuver, and requires it to be "fully executed").

I'll assume AA got nerfed because it's 2.0 when I assume I should follow RAW with Jostero, aka his pilot ability is blank because it's impossible to trigger.

1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:

The rules reference is far from perfect yet, this case and the mines one make it quite clear, but why are you assuming AA will be ruled the same way they were in 1.0? If anything, I'd say they will be worse than 1.0, like almost everything else is now.

I am confident enough I would be $5 on it. Yes.

what on earth is happening

9 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

You have to look at the AA on the ship card. It specifically lists ailerons as a maneuver, not a move. If it wasn't called a "maneuver", then this wouldn't be a thing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwia1-vdgt7dAhVKy1MKHRD3BaIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxwing-miniatures-second-edition.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2F%22Vizier%22&psig=AOvVaw2CtVuYPa61wOcPUii7hFa1&ust=1538235177097816

Oh I read the text on YASB, it doesn't say manouver there. The fact it says manouver on the card doesn't change much thought, since the perform action step isn't intrinsically part of executing a manouver

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I'll assume AA got nerfed because it's 2.0 when I assume I should follow RAW with Jostero, aka his pilot ability is blank because it's impossible to trigger.

I don't understand the Jostero example, what's the problem there?

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I am confident enough I would be $5 on it. Yes.

Well, it won't be the first time they make a rule at an event just to publish a FAQ saying otherwise after it.

I'm not that confident about devs understanding their own game, 1.0 gave us plenty of examples where they had no clues

Just now, Sunitsa said:

Oh I read the text on YASB, it doesn't say manouver there. The fact it says manouver on the card doesn't change much thought, since the perform action step isn't intrinsically part of executing a manouver

The fact that the card says "maneuver" matters because the rules for overlapping (thus calling to skip the action step) apply to maneuvers only, not "moves" like barrel rolls or boosts.

I'm still on record here saying I'm not a fan of the above. I think AA should be treated more like decloaking.

I just had an idea because I read that

15 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

"Devs will

as Devils.

Give me your best list to fit the squad name "Devil's Triangle" - Go!

47 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I'll bet $5 it's not ruled that way at Coruscant.

brent's judging coruscant, how deep those pockets Travis?

9 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

I don't understand the Jostero example, what's the problem there?

Bonus attacks are triggered (RAW) in the aftermath step. There is always a defender in the aftermath step.

Anything that says perform a bonus attack outside of an aftermath step clearly do nothing.

58 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I'll bet $5 it's not ruled that way at Coruscant.

I too will bet $5 that the devs know the rules better than these clowns.

28 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Rules lawyering is a nerd d*** waving contest rather than about an actual legitimate belief that the rules should be interpreted that way. I have no patience for it. I suspect that the people engaging in it would otherwise be trying to come up with broken card combos but the current card pool has left them seeking another outlet to prove how clever they are.

I'M AN ARCHITECT!!!!

3 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

I too will bet $5 that the devs know the rules better than these clowns.

I'M A RULES ARCHITECT TOO!!!!!!

Anyhow, U-wings are pretty fun, and I'll argue worthwhile in a rebel salad.

Any of you british?

Rules cant take the sky from me

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Rules cant take the sky from me

But strikers are purpose-built to take the sky from you.

ALL YOUR SKY BELONG TO STRIKERS NOW!!