So from the kraytfire, this came up. It quickly entered the "but I'm an architect" and "muh ships" level of discussion, so I thought I'd re-ask here. I'd love it if someone can break the logic below. Latest Rules Reference is being applied.

http://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.wikia.com/wiki/"Vizier"?file=Swx75_card2_vizier.png

Both mentions of AA on Vizer, for example, call the AA a maneuver.
Rules reference pages that are relative here: 3 (activation), 13 (maneuver), and 14 overlap

A ship with AA activates .
ACTIVATION PHASE
The Activation Phase is the third phase of a round. During this phase, each
ship activates, one at a time, starting with the ship with the lowest initiative
and continuing in ascending order.

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.

Prior to revealing the dial, AA triggers. Since the activation step is labeled 1-3, we'll call AA 0.5 of the activation (other suggestions are welcome).
0.5 - aileron maneuver, vizer moves and overlaps a friendly ship.

OVERLAP
While a ship executes a maneuver or otherwise moves, it overlaps an object
if the ship’s final position would physically be on top of an object.
A ship fully executes a maneuver if it does not overlap a ship. If a ship
executes a maneuver and overlaps a ship, it must partially execute that
maneuver by performing the following steps:
1. Move the ship backward along the template until it is no longer on top of
any other ships. While doing so, adjust the position of the ship so that the
hashmarks in the middle of both sets of guides remains centered over the
line down the middle of the template.
2. Once the ship is no longer on top of any other ship, place it so that it is
touching the last ship it backed over. This may result in the ship returning
to its starting position.
3. The ship skips its Perform Action step.
• Even though a ship that partially executes a maneuver must skip its
Perform Action step, it can still perform actions granted from other game
effects.
• Even if a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is still treated as having
executed a maneuver of the indicated speed, bearing, and difficulty.

So the turn so far looks like this:
0.5 - AA Maneuver, bump. Overlap rules are applied. Nothing in overlapping rules state what phase they're relevant in.
1.0 - Reveal dial. Blue 2 straight revealed.
2.0 - Execute maneuver. Vizer flies over the small base he overlapped.
3.0 - Perform action step. This step is skipped (?) based on the overlap rules that were triggered in 0.5.

I don't think this is AA as intended, but I can't find a way around it as written. Using ANY available printed rules language including FAQ and errata, can anyone refute this? AA triggering in the systems phase (ala decloaking) doesn't help unless it gets errata'd to be a move, not a maneuver, that could still be partially executed, similar to Arvyl.

RAW at the moment, unlike 1.0, if you bumped with your Aileron, you skip your oerofrm action step. I don't think there's any reasonable argument against it.

It's worth noting some of the history. FFG specifically revised the 1e rules to give Strikers their actions. When the expansion first shipped, RAW was the same as 2e, and a striker which hit a rock (and maybe even a ship... I wasn't deep into Strikers at the time) skipped it's action. A while after, they changed things, but initially a striker could lose it's normal action based on the Ailerons move. In a lot of ways, I don't think it's unfair. In 1e, for balance reasons, I think it was necessary to carve out an exception for how Strikers worked.

Yes currently in 2.0 they once again lose their action if their AA move bumps/hits a rock.

This was the case in 1.0 when they first dropped, and was fixed rather quickly because it was kinda BS since it was SO EASY to punish the striker player as a result.

I've emailed them as have many others inquiring about if this was simply "forgotten" - since the AA text literally didnt change one bit, it just moved cards, its possible it was just copy/pasted over and nobody remembered to put in "If you hit a rock outside of your normal maneuver or ion move, you dont skip your action step" that they gave us in 1.0 to prevent this.

I'd like to check the current consensus/interpretation of the above rules - do Strikers & Reapers skip their perform action step if the Ailerons maneuver bumps them or lands them on an asteroid/gas cloud?

(Even when their normal, dialed maneuver afterwards doesn't bump/overlap.)

21 minutes ago, Rossetti1828 said:

I'd like to check the current consensus/interpretation of the above rules - do Strikers & Reapers skip their perform action step if the Ailerons maneuver bumps them or lands them on an asteroid/gas cloud?

(Even when their normal, dialed maneuver afterwards doesn't bump/overlap.)

No.

Rules Reference pg 32

Quote

Q: Do TIE Strikers (and Reapers) skip their perform action step if they overlap an asteroid or another ship with their Aileron’s ability maneuver?

A: No. It is only during the Execute Maneuver step that a ship skips its Perform Action step for overlapping a ship or obstacle.

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

No.

Rules Reference pg 32

Quote

Q: Do TIE Strikers (and Reapers) skip their perform action step if they overlap an asteroid or another ship with their Aileron’s ability maneuver?

A: No. It is only during the Execute Maneuver step that a ship skips its Perform Action step for overlapping a ship or obstacle.

There it is, I would have quoted that if no one else had. That's the only thing preventing Ailerons overlap from skipping the perform action step.

Surprisingly, that FAQ ruling wasn't added until Rules Reference v1.0.3 (on p27) six months after 2e released!

Adaptive Ailerons:

1. Can bump a ship without losing Perform Action Step.
2. Can overlap obstacle without losing Perform Action Step. Ship still suffers effects of said obstacle.
3. Can be performed partially. Meaning they don't follow the normal Boost Action limitation of "if you cannot perform it fully, you cannot perform it at all".

That last point is why I think they are referred to as maneuvers. To keep the naming convention of "Maneuver" is a ship movement that can be performed partially. While "Boost" and "Barrel Roll" can only be performed, if the ship can fully move to the end of the maneuver template.

Decloak clearly calls for a Straight Boost or a Barrel Roll, with the limitation, you need to be able to fully perform it to decloak.

10 hours ago, Schanez said:

Adaptive Ailerons:

1. Can bump a ship without losing Perform Action Step.
2. Can overlap obstacle without losing Perform Action Step. Ship still suffers effects of said obstacle with the exception of skipping the perform action step.
3. Can be performed partially. Meaning they don't follow the normal Boost Action limitation of "if you cannot perform it fully, you cannot perform it at all".

That last point is why I think they are referred to as maneuvers. To keep the naming convention of "Maneuver" is a ship movement that can be performed partially. While "Boost" and "Barrel Roll" can only be performed, if the ship can fully move to the end of the maneuver template.

Decloak clearly calls for a Straight Boost or a Barrel Roll, with the limitation, you need to be able to fully perform it to decloak.

4. Counts as executing a maneuver for all effects triggered by said event. Meaning, Snap Shot *can* be used against them after they perform the maneuver from Adaptive Ailerons.

Strikers and Reapers really hate Loose Stabilizers.

8 hours ago, Schanez said:

Adaptive Ailerons:

1. Can bump a ship without losing Perform Action Step.
2. Can overlap obstacle without losing Perform Action Step. Ship still suffers effects of said obstacle.
3. Can be performed partially. Meaning they don't follow the normal Boost Action limitation of "if you cannot perform it fully, you cannot perform it at all".

Point of order on #2: ailerons users do still suffer the standard overlap effects of obstacles, just not the "during your maneuver" effects.

As for point 3 it's interesting that Arvel got his new text in the 2e conversion so he can bump boost, but they chose to keep Ailerons as a "maneuver" which adds all this other complication with obstacles and as Lyianx said other abilities that trigger off maneuvers as well.

1 hour ago, nitrobenz said:

As for point 3 it's interesting that Arvel got his new text in the 2e conversion so he can bump boost, but they chose to keep Ailerons as a "maneuver" which adds all this other complication with obstacles and as Lyianx said other abilities that trigger off maneuvers as well.

I mean, i get it, sort of.. its suppose to (i think) represent an atmospheric craft (usually) constantly moving though the air and in order to maintain agility/stability, it has to move at a minimum speed. As i mentioned somewhere (reddit it think), FFG designed both of those ships with their In atmo quality's rather than how they would perform in a vacuum (which is to say, garbage).

I just hate how they had to "because we say so" rule on the no skipping perform action portion of overlapping obstacles.

I'm also not a fan of 'cuz we said so' rulings, especially since they do have the avenue available to rewrite the rules to actually say what they intended.

13 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Point of order on #2: ailerons users do still suffer the standard overlap effects of obstacles, just not the "during your maneuver" effects.

As for point 3 it's interesting that Arvel got his new text in the 2e conversion so he can bump boost, but they chose to keep Ailerons as a "maneuver" which adds all this other complication with obstacles and as Lyianx said other abilities that trigger off maneuvers as well.

I think Arvel uses Boost wording, so that he can use his ship ability of it, if he so desires. There also comes the fact, it is performed after the maneuver, where he can pick to ram an enemy at the cost of losing his action. Also let's not forget, Daredevil works with Arvel's pilot ability, he can bump Red Hard 1 Boost as well.

All good points @Schanez , it would be an entirely different animal if Ailerons gave a boost-that-can-partial-execute instead of a maneuver-that's-not-a-maneuver.

Either way you end up with weird interactions somewhere, it does make me cringe a little to think of a hypothetical Daredevil Duchess with boost-erons 😬 since they did it the way it is we get to deal with maneuver related triggers instead 😋

4 hours ago, Schanez said:

where he can pick to ram an enemy at the cost of losing his action.

He wouldnt loose his action, that would be his action. Not to mention if that ship would otherwise have a shot on him, ramming him with a boost would make him safer and he'd Still get to shoot them. Even tho that is worth not getting a token from it, with the ship ability he could even still do that at the cost of a stress. Tho i kinda wish he had a higher initiative.

10 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I'm also not a fan of 'cuz we said so' rulings, especially since they do have the avenue available to rewrite the rules to actually say what they intended.

Especially since we are on the 2nd revision of the Rules Reference since they ruled on it, and the wording for Obstacles-Asteroid/Gas Cloud STILL doesnt reflect their FAQ ruling. So it Still seems like a "this ONE instance works this way because we say so since its really the only way this situation will ever come up" (spoilers, its not).

I'm ok with "because we say so" if its a case of game balance/mechanics over "how it really works in the IP", but in this case it just feels like a "we want this one thing to be Super special in how it works and ignore part of something, but not ignore the rest of it". It just makes it needlessly over-complicated for the sake of making one thing work a very specific way for some illogical reason.