OK, friends. You do not skip your Perform Action step after you partially execute a maneuver.

Simple. Easy. Elegant.

But what happens if you partially execute a maneuver that overlaps an asteroid?

Justice says you still skip your Perform Action step. I think there's a reading to support that, as it never mentions asteroids, and could be interpreted as specifically referencing the consequences of partially executing a maneuver.

As such, I think it's incumbent on the other side--still having the Perform Action step on a partial asteroid maneuver--to prove their case.

I think I'm with Fig on this one. You have two effects telling you to skip your Perform Action step, only one of which is overruled by Zari. Since nothing tells him to ignore the effects of the obstacle, he gets no action.

Yeah they probably should have said "Partially executing a maneuver does not cause you to skip your perform action step" but I would agree rocks still block it.

RAW means she does not skip her perform actions step if she overlaps an asteroid while partially executing a maneuver.

the card states she doesn't skip her perform actions step as long as she bumps. that's absolute. doesn't matter what happens on the way.

whether it's just, fair or intented is an other matter all together.

could have been worded something like:

"partially excecuting a maneuver does not cause you to skip your perform actions step."

She could also have been worded, "After you partially execute a maneuver, you may perform an action," which would make it 100% clear that she does get the action if she both bumps and overlaps.

I think her ability can be read as altering a rule in place, in which case she doesn't get an action because it does not alter the rules governing asteroids.

I think it can also be read as a directive that must be followed, in which case she always gets her perform action step when bumping, regardless of other circumstances.

Frankly, I don't know that there's a definitive answer based on how it's written (which is why I posited the OP as a question rather than stating an opinion). This is one that I believe will ultimately need clarification from FFG.

[ edit ] - What are the odds such clarification comes through before she is released?

Yeah it could go either way. Needs FAQ.

Yeah, I'm with @meffo on this one. RAW, her ability is a simple condition and effect. IF she partially executes her maneuver THEN she does not skip her perform action step.

I think RAI obstacles are supposed to block her, though.

It feels like this needs an intricate timing flowchart of the sort we have for the engagement phase.

If we had a version of the 'check stress' step but for 'check actions' it might make more sense. Her ability would be after the 'check maneuver fully or partially executed then check actions step' but before the 'check obstacle overlap then check actions step '.

However, without those timings codified in the rules there's nothing to say her ability has to account for obstacles whatsoever.

Good catch though @nexttwelveexits , not something I would have seen and definitely one for the FAQ.

Honestly, I'm not in the least convinced by the action if Overlap + Asteroid. You've said nothing more than "it works." GIVE US MORE EVIDENCE from rules if you intend to make this case. The three letters "RAW" are not a magic wand. You have to actually make a case, because I'd say RAW Zari is only talking about the Overlap rule, and nothing written on her card discusses the Obstacles rule.

First, context:

• 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. (Overlap, p.14)

The context of Zari is that she invokes the "partially execute a maneuver" rule, and Zari alters the process of that rule, skipping step 3 of the rule. Zari doesn't say "cannot be made to skip her perform action step." The rules on how to handle overlaps are pretty clear, and Zari deletes one part of that rule. There's an entirely different rule invoked (Obastacles, p.13).

Second, analogy:

• If multiple abilities change the difficulty of a maneuver, the effects are cumulative. For example, if a ship reveals a red [4 Straight] maneuver and has one effect that increases the difficulty of the maneuver and another effect that decreases the difficulty of the maneuver, the maneuver is treated as red. (Difficulty, p.10)

There are examples in the rules where, when a ship is able to ignore one effect, it doesn't necessarily get to ignore another similar effect. Most things in this game are cumulative. Not all, but enough to suggest that there had better be a compelling argument for why.

Third, counterpoint:

• Dauntless title. After you partially execute a maneuver, you may perform 1 white action, treating it as red.

We have a card which *does* work after flying over an asteroid. Zari is worded entirely differently. It's possible to take two roads to the same location, but I don't think that's what's at work here.

Fourth, Do what the cards say, not what they don't say. Zari says *nothing* about obstacles, and using her ability--which is clearly altering the "partially execute a maneuver" rule--to alter the behavior of the "Obstacles" rule is exactly doing what the card doesn't say to do.

"You do not skip your Perform Action step after you partially execute a maneuver."

Normally you skip the Perform Action step if you partially execute a maneuver. This pilot ignores that rule . Overlapping an obstacle, is a whole other rule entirely. You don't get carte blanche to partially execute a maneuver than ignore all other rules. Do what the card says, not what you want it to do.

ok, so the card says "You do not skip your Perform Action step after you partially execute a maneuver."

this means that if you partially execute a maneuver, you do not skip your perform action step.

if you were to overlap an asteroid while partially executing a maneuver, the rules for overlapping asteroids would tell you to skip your perform action step. however, the card clearly states that you do not skip your perform actions step after partially executing a maneuver, which means you do not skip your perform actions step when you partially execute a maneuver, no matter if you overlap an asteroid or not.

yes, it is clearly altering the rules for partially executing maneuvers. the way it's worded also means it's altering any effect that would make you skip your perform action step other than partially executing a maneuver.

there is no if or may, as long as you bump, you get your perform action step.

the card doesn't say anything along the lines of "cannot be made to skip her perform action step.", since the cards normally tell you what to do and not what not to do. this card is different though, it tells you what not to do. you do not skip your perform action step after you partially execute a maneuver.

i agree that the card text quite clearly addresses the rules for partially executing a maneuver, but in the context of the other rules and the game as a whole, it affects more than just the rules for skipping your perform action step after partially executing a maneuver, intentional or not.

difficulty does default to the hardest difficulty. dauntless has nothing to do with the perform actions step - and i completely agree that it's much better worded.

if the intention was to only adress the rules for partially executing maneuvers, it should have been worded something like: "partially executing a maneuver does not cause you to skip your perform actions step."

if i play the ship or against the ship, if there is no clarification or change to her pilot ability, i will do what the card says. as of right now, that means that zari bangel does not skip her perform actions step if she bumps, regardless of other circumstances such as overlapping an asteroid.

rules as intended are more important that rules as written, but when i play the game, i need to follow the rules. i believe the way this pilot ability is worded means what it means, zari bangel never skips her perform actions step when she bumps. if this is not the intention, i want FFG to tell me, so i can play the game as they intended it.

58 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

"You do not skip your Perform Action step after you partially execute a maneuver." 

Normally you skip the Perform Action step if you partially execute a maneuver. This pilot ignores that rule . Overlapping an obstacle, is a whole other rule entirely. You don't get carte blanche to partially execute a maneuver than ignore all other rules. Do what the card says, not what you want it to do.

except, the card does not say that you ignore the rule for skipping you perform action step after partially executing a maneuver. the card says you do not skip your perform action step after partially executing a maneuver.

Yeah, there will be literally zero point to continuing this.

I think I've laid it out pretty clear that there exists a valid RAW argument that Zari only impact one rule--the specific rule mentioned in the text of the cards--nnot ANY rule regarding skipping the perform action step. So this isn't a conflict between RAW and RAI. It's a choice between two RAW arguments, one of which has RAI and fairness on its side, the other which a massively expansive interpretation. To me, there is only one reasonable choice, but when folks start acting like they're not making a choice, and start getting holier-than-thou about it...

18 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Yeah, there will be literally zero point to continuing this.

I think I've laid it out pretty clear that there exists a valid RAW argument that Zari only impact one rule--the specific rule mentioned in the text of the cards--nnot ANY rule regarding skipping the perform action step. So this isn't a conflict between RAW and RAI. It's a choice between two RAW arguments, one of which has RAI and fairness on its side, the other which a massively expansive interpretation. To me, there is only one reasonable choice, but when folks start acting like they're not making a choice, and start getting holier-than-thou about it...

you asked for an argument. i'm happy to oblige. i like RAI, but i don't presume to know what the intention of the developers is. i will say it's fair to go with the option of skipping the perform action step if you fly over an asteroid in this case, as long as you agree with your opponent or TO.

i don't agree that my interpretation is massively expansive, since it doesn't actually presume any other conditions than what's on the card. it's not like i'm making things up, i just want to play the pilot ability the way it's written. i will, however, admit that i am interpreting the pilot ability quite absolutely and not considering the rules for skipping your perform actions step after partially executing a maneuver as the only thing her pilot ability affects. that's mostly for the sake of argument, though. i'm sorry to say we cannot assume all players of this game will be as well versed in the rules as you are.

we can always go back to the article and try to interpret some of the intention.

"Harnessing the great speed of the RZ-2 can make it difficult to maneuver in the thick of a space battle and most pilots would be content to maintain some distance between them and other ships. Zari Bangel, on the other hand, has no problems steering through heavy traffic. She does not skip her Perform Action step after partially executing a maneuver, making her the perfect candidate to show off her skills in close quarters without giving up her ability to take actions. She could use this to evade and avoid some incoming fire, but it could also be the perfect opportunity to focus and set up a close range attack with some Proton Rockets."

but then, we must ask ourselves if asteroids are a part of space traffic. xD

ok, sorry. i mean no harm, just want the rules to be clear and preferably carefully expressed, so i can play the game i know and love without arguing over what's what and how things work with my opponent.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

you asked for an argument. i'm happy to oblige. i like RAI, but i don't presume to know what the intention of the developers is. i will say it's fair to go with the option of skipping the perform action step if you fly over an asteroid in this case, as long as you agree with your opponent or TO.

i don't agree that my interpretation is massively expansive, since it doesn't actually presume any other conditions than what's on the card. it's not like i'm making things up, i just want to play the pilot ability the way it's written. i will, however, admit that i am interpreting the pilot ability quite absolutely and not considering the rules for skipping your perform actions step after partially executing a maneuver as the only thing her pilot ability affects. that's mostly for the sake of argument, though. i'm sorry to say we cannot assume all players of this game will be as well versed in the rules as you are.

we can always go back to the article and try to interpret some of the intention.

"Harnessing the great speed of the RZ-2 can make it difficult to maneuver in the thick of a space battle and most pilots would be content to maintain some distance between them and other ships. Zari Bangel, on the other hand, has no problems steering through heavy traffic. She does not skip her Perform Action step after partially executing a maneuver, making her the perfect candidate to show off her skills in close quarters without giving up her ability to take actions. She could use this to evade and avoid some incoming fire, but it could also be the perfect opportunity to focus and set up a close range attack with some Proton Rockets."

but then, we must ask ourselves if asteroids are a part of space traffic. xD

ok, sorry. i mean no harm, just want the rules to be clear and preferably carefully expressed, so i can play the game i know and love without arguing over what's what and how things work with my opponent.

It's certainly an expansive interpretation.

If a pilot had the ability "When you move over a Debris Cloud, do not gain a stress" I wouldn't interpret that to mean you wouldn't gain a stress from a red maneuver, or from performing red actions, or target locking someone with Ferrosphere Paint.

You're taking a card which I think is really clear--it's about overlapping ships--and using that to escape the rules on asteroids, and that's really expanding beyond the scope of the card as written.

//

You say "not everyone is as versed in the rules as me," but that's the point of the forum. To refer back to the rules, and see how things line up. Zari's ability lines up very neatly with the overlap rules in the rules reference.

You say you want stuff to be clear? You don't add clarity by applying a move about partially executing a maneuver to asteroids.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

It's certainly an expansive interpretation.

If a pilot had the ability "When you move over a Debris Cloud, do not gain a stress" I wouldn't interpret that to mean you wouldn't gain a stress from a red maneuver, or from performing red actions, or target locking someone with Ferrosphere Paint.

You're taking a card which I think is really clear--it's about overlapping ships--and using that to escape the rules on asteroids, and that's really expanding beyond the scope of the card as written.

//

You say "not everyone is as versed in the rules as me," but that's the point of the forum. To refer back to the rules, and see how things line up. Zari's ability lines up very neatly with the overlap rules in the rules reference.

You say you want stuff to be clear? You don't add clarity by applying a move about partially executing a maneuver to asteroids. 

i can live with expansive, no problem. just not massively expansive. another good point of the forum as looking at new cards and see how they interact with the game as a whole,

if a pilot had the ability "when you move over a debris cloud, you do not gain stress.", then yes, i would interpret that as meaning that you do not gain stress when performing a red maneuver over debris (since checking difficulty is part of the executing the maneuver). performing actions is after that, so the pilot is not moving anymore and would, of course, gain stress from performing red actions or target locking someone with ferrosphere paint (out of bullseye).

i still agree that her pilot ability lines up very nicely with the overlap rules, but what it actually says is more than that. i don't like it, but it's not clear. if you think it's very clear, good for you. i still think we definitely need clarification or another wording. it's reasonable.

frankly, i don't care if i'm adding clarity, especially since my aim is mostly to highlight why we need this clarified further. until that point, i'm going with the ability as stated. you bump = you don't miss your perform action step.

I agree with both sides of this.... so ya that's confusing. This one truly needs an FAQ.

15 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

If a pilot had the ability "When you move over a Debris Cloud, do not gain a stress" I wouldn't interpret that to mean you wouldn't gain a stress from a red maneuver, or from performing red actions, or target locking someone with Ferrosphere Paint.

That's not the same language, though. It's not really comparable as an analogy because there isn't a specific 'get stress' step as part of your activation order. Stress can happen several times as a result of several different things. You also don't get stress every activation by default unless some other condition is met.

The 'perform action' step is a specific thing.

Interestingly, if you had worded the ability "After you move through or overlap a debris token, do not gain stress" (without the 'a' that you used) then I would say that ship could not be given a stress token by any means for the rest of its activation, including from red actions.

I feel like the latter example is closer to the language on Zari's ability. It's not specific enough.

17 hours ago, meffo said:

the card doesn't say anything along the lines of "cannot be made to skip her perform action step.", since the cards normally tell you what to do and not what not to do. this card is different though, it tells you what not to do . you do not skip your perform action step after you partially execute a maneuver.

This is the issue, IMO.

It's interesting, I hadn't realised how few cards use this sort of negative language.

Feel free not to answer this, but I'm curious what sort of fields you guys work in.

See, I'm a programmer and I agree with @meffo . To me, Zari's ability is simple conditional logic.

IF(partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action)

And that resullting effect is basically an absolute. To me, so long as the partially executed condition is true you are always applying the result for the rest of the logic loop (the activation).

To me, the ability either needs clearer language to limit the length of the logic loop ( @theBitterFig that would be you saying the check only lasts as long as you're stepping through the execute maneuver rules rather than the whole activation) or it needs extra conditional logic to 'disable' the result if different conditions are present. I.e

IF (partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action) ELSEIF (overlapping obstacle) THEN (skip action).

Again, this all predicated on pilot ability text almost universally superseding rules text. The open ended condition on the pilot card means you can ignore any rules text so long as the condition is met.

1 hour ago, GuacCousteau said:

That's not the same language, though. It's not really comparable as an analogy because there isn't a specific 'get stress' step as part of your activation order. Stress can happen several times as a result of several different things. You also don't get stress every activation by default unless some other condition is met.

The 'perform action' step is a specific thing.

Interestingly, if you had worded the ability "After you move through or overlap a debris token, do not gain stress" (without the 'a' that you used) then I would say that ship could not be given a stress token by any means for the rest of its activation, including from red actions.

I feel like the latter example is closer to the language on Zari's ability. It's not specific enough.

This is the issue, IMO.

It's interesting, I hadn't realised how few cards use this sort of negative language.

Feel free not to answer this, but I'm curious what sort of fields you guys work in.

See, I'm a programmer and I agree with @meffo . To me, Zari's ability is simple conditional logic.

IF(partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action)

And that resullting effect is basically an absolute. To me, so long as the partially executed condition is true you are always applying the result for the rest of the logic loop (the activation).

To me, the ability either needs clearer language to limit the length of the logic loop ( @theBitterFig that would be you saying the check only lasts as long as you're stepping through the execute maneuver rules rather than the whole activation) or it needs extra conditional logic to 'disable' the result if different conditions are present. I.e

IF (partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action) ELSEIF (overlapping obstacle) THEN (skip action).

Again, this all predicated on pilot ability text almost universally superseding rules text. The open ended condition on the pilot card means you can ignore any rules text so long as the condition is met.

I shudder to think what kind of programmer you are. In this case there are multiple things making you skip your perform action step. This pilot can ignore one of those thing, a very specific one, that doesn't change the fact something else is making you skip that step as well.

If this kind of logic, that one thing saying you can overrides any number of things saying you cannot, then you end up with Oicunn at range 0 of someone with a disarm token claim he gets to attack them because his 'Can perform attacks' surely overrides the disarm tokens 'cannot perform attacks'

2 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

That's not the same language, though. It's not really comparable as an analogy because there isn't a specific 'get stress' step as part of your activation order. Stress can happen several times as a result of several different things. You also don't get stress every activation by default unless some other condition is met.

The 'perform action' step is a specific thing.

One thing I keep getting hung up on is that there's a really specific part of the Overlap rule, part of the exact set of rules steps to follow when you partially execute a maneuver, which is specifically "skip the perform action step." The stress examples were almost a Schroedinger's Cat: an example to show how I thought the other method of interpretation was flawed.

But back to Zari, the context of her ability--partially executing--has a step which is specifically the thing referenced by her ability. Everything is neat and tidy and enclosed within the Overlap rule. If you're in Jack's house--partially execute--and someone says "don't go into the bathroom" but you leave and go to Jill's house--asteroids--that injunction "don't go into the bathroom" no longer applies.

2 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

See, I'm a programmer and I agree with @meffo . To me, Zari's ability is simple conditional logic.

IF(partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action)

And that resullting effect is basically an absolute. To me, so long as the partially executed condition is true you are always applying the result for the rest of the logic loop (the activation).

To me, the ability either needs clearer language to limit the length of the logic loop ( @theBitterFig that would be you saying the check only lasts as long as you're stepping through the execute maneuver rules rather than the whole activation) or it needs extra conditional logic to 'disable' the result if different conditions are present. I.e

IF (partially executed maneuver) THEN (do not skip action) ELSEIF (overlapping obstacle) THEN (skip action).

Again, this all predicated on pilot ability text almost universally superseding rules text. The open ended condition on the pilot card means you can ignore any rules text so long as the condition is met.

I really just don't see how it generalizes to the entire activation. There are three steps you follow when you partially execute a maneuver. Zari tells you to omit one of those steps--specifically the step which causes you to skip your action. That doesn't read as *at all* general but incredibly specific.

I don't disagree with cards being able to supersede the rules--clearly Zari supersedes the Overlap rule--but I don't think cards can supersede rules they don't refer to.

I don't think there needs to be a separate conditional, first because Zari is really specifically located in the context of the overlap rule, and mentions nothing about asteroids. Second, because you always need to evaluate two separate "do I skip my action step" conditionals. We need some way to resolve TRUE (skip action step) and FALSE (do not skip action step), and under standard rules, if we invoke one TRUE, the entire thing is TRUE. Zari changes the TRUE/FALSE of the Partially Execute case, but to presume that she also changes the TRUE/FALSE of the Asteroid case just seems... preposterous. Utterly dis-attached from the card and what it is telling us to do.

This isn't like a case of badly written code. We're not machines. We have to make a conscious choice to apply a card which specifically discusses partial execution of maneuvers due to ships, and then apply it as a blanket statement to asteroids, when nothing in the card suggests we should, when nothing in the card refers to the entire phase, when the card only really discusses the specific situation of partially executing a maneuver. We are deciding if the code is bad or not, whatever conclusion is reached. We reached it because we decided something.

Particularly when two cards exist with abilities which would grant actions after a partial execution. Dauntless and Unkar Plutt crew both grant an action after a partially executed maneuver, and will work when overlapping an asteroid, because it is just granting an action, rather than commenting-out a step in the Partially Execute a Maneuver rule.

34 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

I shudder to think what kind of programmer you are. In this case there are multiple things making you skip your perform action step. This pilot can ignore one of those thing, a very specific one, that doesn't change the fact something else is making you skip that step as well.

If this kind of logic, that one thing saying you can overrides any number of things saying you cannot, then you end up with Oicunn at range 0 of someone with a disarm token claim he gets to attack them because his 'Can perform attacks' surely overrides the disarm tokens 'cannot perform attacks'

A more likely scenario to happen would be a Starwing (either XG-1 or OS-1) with exactly 1 disarm token who is overlapping an asteroid in the engagement phase.

i currently work at a hotel with maintainence. i also do conference service. i have a very broad background, having done some years in technical support, bartending and landscaping, among other things.

it is worth noting that the use of the word "after" is very sloppy on this pilot ability, as well as in your example of "After you move through or overlap a debris token, do not gain stress", since "after" in game terms has a different meaning. it means imediately after, not for a while or any time after or during.

20 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A more likely scenario to happen would be a Starwing (either XG-1 or OS-1) with exactly 1 disarm token who is overlapping an asteroid in the engagement phase.

this is a great example of your point of view. of course, a ship overlapping an asteroid cannot perform attacks, but as it's worded you may assume that an aplha class starwing with any of these configurations should be able to perform attacks even when overlapping an asteroid.

a ridiculus assumption, i know, but it's actually what the card says.

hmmm... this is an excellent example. i think you've even changed my mind on zaris ability, considering how sloppy the writing is, i think i'm leaning further towards your side of what the RAI is now. ?

still, RAW need to be better.

1 hour ago, AramoroA said:

I shudder to think what kind of programmer you are.

One who is constantly fixing issues caused by people not accounting for all criteria and leaving their conditional clauses too open.

But thanks for making insinuations about my professionalism based on a very loose analogy I used to illustrate a manor of thinking rather than a technical transcription.

1 hour ago, AramoroA said:

If this kind of logic, that one thing saying you can overrides any number of things saying you cannot, then you end up with Oicunn at range 0 of someone with a disarm token claim he gets to attack them because his 'Can perform attacks' surely overrides the disarm tokens 'cannot perform attacks'

No. Because there is a specific rule that says 'cannot' always overrides 'can'. Third golden rule, page 2 of the rules reference. Unlike other rules in the rules reference, this can also never be overridden by card text.

There is no 'can' or 'cannot' in Zari's text, only a conflict between 'skip' and 'do not skip'.

EDIT: Wait, no scratch the above. I re-read and technically the rule says "If a card ability uses the word “cannot"...."

There isn't actually a rule that says 'cannot's from the RR or tokens etc. can't be overridden.

Interesting. In that case I kinda want to say.... yes? Oicunn RAW can perform attacks at range 0 with a disarm token.

Absurd, obviously, but a super strict reading of the 'cards override RR' rule means the card can overrides any RR cannots within the same timing window.

57 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

The stress examples were almost a Schroedinger's Cat: an example to show how I thought the other method of interpretation was flawed.

Yes, and Schroedinger's Cat is famously proven to not be a fair analogy because the quantum and macro worlds simply so not behave the same way. Schroedinger attempted to demonstrate that quantum phenomena don't make sense because of the absurdity of the cat situation, but the truth is the phemonena simply don't scale to that level.

Just as your analogy did not use any language comparable with what I perceive as being the problem.

57 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I really just don't see how it generalizes to the entire activation. There are three steps you follow when you partially execute a maneuver. Zari tells you to omit one of those steps --specifically the step which causes you to skip your action. That doesn't read as *at all* general but incredibly specific.

This is absolutely the crux of the issue, and I don't agree with the bolded part.

The activation phase does not have a timing chart like the engagement phase. There is nothing within the rules to tell us what 'after partially executing a maneuver' means . Zari does not cite the execute maneuver step because no such step exists.

You infer, very reasonably, that after executing a maneuver implicitly means 'and before checking for obstacles', but I don't believe that is actually codified in the rules reference.

If you look at Maneuver, pg. 13, you'll see that all caveats under 'additionally' (where obstacles are dealt with) use the term while executing a maneuver.

Overlapping obstacles specifically says

"While executing a maneuver, if a ship would be placed at the end of the template on top of another object, it has overlapped that object."

Which says that the 'check overlap' step (were it to be codified as a step) happens while executing a maneuver, not after it.

If we were to then look at the obstacle rules, it starts with

"While a ship executes a maneuver, if it moves through or overlaps an obstacle, it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle:"

Again, the check for whether or not the ship is on an obstacle happens while executing the maneuver, not after,

That means there is specifically laid out timing order for checking whether or not you partially execute a maneuver, and whether or not you overlap an asteroid.

The asteroid obstacle then specifically says

"Asteroid: After executing the maneuver, it rolls one attack die. On a hit result, the ship suffers one hit damage; on a crit result, it suffers one crit damage. Then the ship skips its Perform Action step this round."

That is the same timing as Zari's ability.

What we end up with is a rule in the RR saying "after you execute a maneuver [fully or partially is irrelevant here], skip your perform action step" and a rule on a card saying "after you partially execute a maneuver, do not skip your perform action step"

The timing is identical, and nothing in the rest of the rules suggests that you must resolve the 'partially executing' rules strictly before the 'did you overlap' rules. It is only the effect of overlapping that happens after the maneuver, and that is in the same window with Zari's ability.

Again, there are no rules on which order these must be resolves, and the card ability trumps the RR rule.

While the partially part is true, the otherwise identically worded statements conflict, and the card wins.

Look. The difference between me and @meffo is that I have absolutely no qualms about assuming the intention of the developers. Obviously I agree with you that RAI this shouldn't work, and I wouldn't ever dream of actually playing Zari like that.

But the above is my logic for why I don't think Zari's ability is as clear as it could be, and why I think that without a definitive activation timing chart (which, come on, we really don't need - this is silly rules lawyering and can be totally avoided by clearer wording on abilities) the timing of when her condition remains true is open ended enough to allow her 'do not skip' actions to override any activation phase instruction to skip it.

1 hour ago, AramoroA said:

If this kind of logic, that one thing saying you can overrides any number of things saying you cannot, then you end up with Oicunn at range 0 of someone with a disarm token claim he gets to attack them because his 'Can perform attacks' surely overrides the disarm tokens 'cannot perform attacks'

2

1

15 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

No. Because there is a specific rule that says 'cannot' always overrides 'can'. Third golden rule, page 2 of the rules reference. Unlike other rules in the rules reference, this can also never be overridden by card text.

1

The Golden rule does not apply in this situation, the golden rule only applies to card abilities that say cannot, not the rulebook itself.

"If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be
overridden by other effects." - page 2 of the rules reference bold by me.

Disarm is in the rule book not a card ability therefore the golden rule would not apply in this situation.

I have no idea how this applies to the debate being had, as we are not talking about disarm tokens in any way... or the word cannot. But thought this needed clarifying.