21 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

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.

I was not in any way questioning your professionalism, I'm sure you're very professional. I was questioning your ability.

You brought up your profession as a reason we should trust your logic, your logic is flawed....so there's really only one conclusion from that.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

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.

Yep. Already spotted that and went back and edited my post.

The resulting conclusion is silly as **** but I think valid.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

You brought up your profession as a reason we should trust your logic, your logic is flawed....so there's really only one conclusion from that.

No I didn't. I didn't do that at all.

I brought it up because I was wondering if it was informing my mindset going into interpreting the card, and whether other people people arguing the same had a similar background.

I thought I'd mentioned that, but looking back over my post I didn't. So I guess I can see why you'd conclude that. Apologies if that's what you thought I was doing, I guess it must have seemed kinda condescending.

But honestly, I only meant it as a curiosity to see whether one side of the argument was coming from the perspective of hard conditional logic and the other was coming from something a bit more communicative where text description is more important.

Okay, so by the absolute literal letter of the wording, yes you could fly through a rock and crash into a ship and then still get to do an action. For the reasons meffo originally gave.

"You do not skip your perform action step after you partially execute a maneuver."

However, it is my opinion that is obvious weasely rules lawyering. There are any number of ways the card could be written if it was supposed to be a guaranteed action under any circumstances after a bump. "After you partially execute a maneuver you may perform one action" for instance. They didn't use those. They specifically referenced the "Skip your perform action step" which is a specific consequence of partially executing a maneuver.

It is very clear that what the card does is stop the skip instruction that comes from that interaction. It could have been worded more explicitly and I expect we will eventually get an official clarification on that one but I will bet you a million internet points that asteroids still apply.