Does a talon roll complete, if it can only fit by pushing the ship to one end of the template (like a barrel roll)?

Or does the ship NEED to fit at the end of the 3 hard. AND only then you rotate, and then get to adjust the final position similar to a barrel roll.

Came up today In Toronto System Open semi-final. Might be worth clarifying.

there is no choice here. if you can place your ship, you have fully executed the maneuver. you do not first place and then rotate. it's very clear already imho.

The determination of fully executing the maneuver is made prior to rotation, per the RR:

If the ship fully executes the maneuver, before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90° to the left for a [left t-roll], or 90° to the right for a [right t-roll].

10 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

The determination of fully executing the maneuver is made prior to rotation, per the RR:

  If the ship fully executes the maneuver, before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90° to the left for a [left t-roll], or 90° to the right for a [right t-roll].

no, per the RR, you rotate the ship before you place it if you fully execute the maneuver. it doesn't say the turn is performed normally anywhere, so you don't, not even to check whether you fully execute. it also says it's similar to a barrel roll, where it is further explained that you cannot fail a barrel roll if you are able to place your ship.

10 minutes ago, meffo said:

there is no choice here. if you can place your ship, you have fully executed the maneuver. you do not first place and then rotate. it's very clear already imho.

The reason this is being brought up is that during the Semi-Finals the Marshal at the Toronto Systems Open ruled that the ship had to be able to fit as if it was a normal turn before they rotate or the maneuver bumped.

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

The reason this is being brought up is that during the Semi-Finals the Marshal at the Toronto Systems Open ruled that the ship had to be able to fit as if it was a normal turn before they rotate or the maneuver bumped.

yes, i know. i'm sorry to say i don't think the marshal did a very good job.

1 minute ago, meffo said:

yes, i know. i'm sorry to say i don't think the marshal did a very good job.

Day 2 of a big event, second to last match. I think he was tired.

2 minutes ago, meffo said:

no, per the RR, you rotate the ship before you place it if you fully execute the maneuver. it doesn't say the turn is performed normally anywhere, so you don't, not even to check whether you fully execute. it also says it's similar to a barrel roll, where it is further explains that you cannot fail a barrel roll if you are able to place your ship.

It’s the “if you fully execute the maneuver” part I’m talking about. If we can fully execute, then we do the rotation. Is that not a reasonable reading?

6 minutes ago, meffo said:

no, per the RR, you rotate the ship before you place it if you fully execute the maneuver.

And that's the paradox.

The Rules Reference explicitly says you don't rotate & place unless you fully execute the maneuver first .

But the only way to test whether you've fully executed the maneuver before you rotate is to try putting the unrotated ship on the table.

So that's the logic that the TO used.

(FWIW I think it's not how it should work and not how FFG wanted it to work, and this is yet another terribly worded RR section.)

I think the far more convincing argument is that the fully executing a maneuver depends on the final position (that is, with the different alignments of template and hashmark), and not on the guides-based position (like a hard turn).

I don't think the argument that the guides-based position has to fit is absurd or foolish. There's a decent-enough reading of the text to support it, since using the rear guides is part of the standard rule for how to execute a maneuver (p.13). However, I think this is the less-convincing argument. There's enough in the Bearing rules specific to Talon Rolls (p.6) to bypass that step, and the overlap rules only refer to the final position (p.14).

//

I think this probably is the kind of rules topic where a ruling would be really nice. There's a sane-but-inadequate interpretation, as well as a much stronger one. It'd be good to get everyone on the same page.

It's also the kind of rules topic where it'd be good for folks to show a bit more interpretive modesty. The interpretation which I think is best draws from three pages of the rulebook, so chill.

Just now, KiAdiMoody said:

It’s the “if you fully execute the maneuver” part I’m talking about. If we can fully execute, then we do the rotation. Is that not a reasonable reading?

yes it is, but you're not taking the execution of the maneuver into consideration in that interpretation. it doesn't say you have to be able to perform a hard turn of the same speed to successfully execute a tallon roll. if you do not fully execute the maneuver, you do not turn your ship at all, as per the next paragraph of text. let me just get the whole thing in here below.

please note that tallon roll is a bearing - and that before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90 degrees. that's before, not after. and it is mandatory, so you cannot fail it if you're able to do it with the hash marks aligned in any of the three possible ways.

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Day 2 of a big event, second to last match. I think he was tired.

i agree. it gets a lot tougher judging for a prolonged amount of time, especially at large events.

I honestly think it's the right call. It shouldn't be, but in redrafting how the manouevre is written for the 2e hash mark rules, they seem to have made it go a little wonky with timing.

How it should work is that any of the three positions completes, as for a roll or as in 1e, but how it is written looks like it only completes if the 3 turn would complete, then the rotation happens after.

3 minutes ago, meffo said:

yes it is, but you're not taking the execution of the maneuver into consideration in that interpretation. it doesn't say you have to be able to perform a hard turn of the same speed to successfully execute a tallon roll. if you do not fully execute the maneuver, you do not turn your ship at all, as per the next paragraph of text. let me just get the whole thing in here below.

please note that tallon roll is a bearing - and that before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90 degrees. that's before, not after. and it is mandatory, so you cannot fail it if you're able to do it with the hash marks aligned in any of the three possible ways.

I guess the point he was trying to make is how exactly do you confirm the ship has fully executed the maneuver before you rotate the ship and place it? it clearly states you have to have fully execute the maneuver before your rotate it.

I think the intention is clear but the rules are flat out poorly worded, to the point where the ruling that the judge made in this instance was quite justifiable, regardless of what is intended.

7 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

It’s the “if you fully execute the maneuver” part I’m talking about. If we can fully execute, then we do the rotation. Is that not a reasonable reading  ?

In isolation, yes. Looking at the rules as a whole, no.

The RR also explicitly says the ship is rotated before placement, and that "fully execute" depends only on final position. So either A) there's a phantom temporary placement that happens before rotation and also counts toward execution tests, or B) full execution depends only on final rotated/shifted position.

Option B is more intuitive, simpler, how it worked in 1st Edition, and how it's described in the basic rulebook. It's clearly the better alternative.

24 minutes ago, Quarrel said:

And that's the paradox.

The Rules Reference explicitly says you don't rotate & place unless you fully execute the maneuver first .

But the only way to test whether you've fully executed the maneuver before you rotate is to try putting the unrotated ship on the table.

So that's the logic that the TO used.

(FWIW I think it's not how it should work and not how FFG wanted it to work, and thi  s is yet another terribly worded RR section.)

i don't agree. it's not a paradox, if the ship fits, it fits, if it doesn't fit, you go back to partially executing the maneuver. since you rotate the ship before placing it, it's easy to check. there are clear instructions on how to perform a tallon roll and it doesn't say you check if the ship would fit by trying to perform it like a turn maneuver anywhere. the marshal did something the rules doesn't say. i honestly don't think it's unclear how to perform a tallon roll at all.

there is no before you rotate anywhere, it's before the player places the ship, the ship is rotated .

i do agree that it could be better worded, but i still think it's sufficiently worded as of right now. you cannot expect to take rules text out of context and be able to interpret it perfectly. you need to have read all about overlapping, partially executing maneuvers, fully executing maneuvers - and in this case even barrel rolling.

being able to execute a maneuver with a specific bearing as if it was a maneuver with another bearing to be able to fully execute that maneuver is not good practice and has no support anywhere in the rules. there are also no other examples of similar interactions in the game.

Just now, Quarrel said:

In isolation, yes. Looking at the rules as a whole, no.

The RR also explicitly says the ship is rotated before placement, and that "fully execute" depends only on final position. So either A) there's a phantom temporary placement that happens before rotation and also counts toward execution tests, or B) full execution depends only on final rotated/shifted position.

Option B is more intuitive, simpler, how it worked in 1st Edition, and how it's described in the basic rulebook. It's clearly the better alternative.

Agreed on the intent. Option B is the better alternative. I think the RR should be clarified because, as written, it makes you check for a fully executed maneuver prior to the rotate, but aside from this edge case (intended!) no one would consider a Talon Roll fully executed until the rotation and final alignment.

We need official clarification for that. I second opinion that Marc was robbed of victory there.

I don't think it's entirely a paradox. Seems closer a Catch-22.

You can't determine if there's an overlap unless you do the twist. But you don't the twist unless you can fully execute.

However, I think there enough *cough* wiggle room *cough* in the Overlap rules to allow it. "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. (p.14)." The test isn't whether the ship does fit, but whether it would fit. I kinda think the word "would" allows the aligned positions to be checked, even though you aren't officially twisting yet. The test for overlap depends on a somewhat hypothetical final position.

It's like, there's a thread on the front page where someone is frustrated that his local TO has no clue how Reinforce works. TO is essentially adding the reinforce first, then using the green dice of the defender to cancel remaining hits, and so an A-Wing with 2 hits vs an Upsilon on 1 green die could do no damage. This is a case where it's 100% clear the TO is wrong.

The Toronto Talon Roll isn't quite like that. At least for me, I'm letting the word "would" do a lot a of heavy lifting here, since a Paradox or Catch-22 in the rules isn't a viable outcome. There has to be some way to resolve this. Using the standard rules for executing a maneuver to determine if there is an overlap--since you aren't allowed to rotate until after you've fully executed--isn't some absurdist interpretation. It's using the text of the rules. Not as well, IMHO. I think it's a less-than-ideal interpretation of the overlap rule. But it's clearly not just making up nonsense like the wrong-Reinforce-TO above.

I don't think the RR needs to be rewritten or anything like that. But an official clarification would be nice.

OK,

here it goes.

Exert from the Rules Reference Guide for Advanced maneuvers Page 6

" Advanced Maneuvers

The following bearings are for advanced maneuvers. These have exceptions to the standard rules for executing a maneuver.

• Koiogran Turn: The 󲁤 (Koiogran turn) bearing advances a ship straight forward, changing its facing by 180º. This uses the same template as the 󲁞 maneuver.

◊ If the ship fully executes the maneuver, the player slides the ship’s front guides into the end of the template instead of the rear guides.

• Segnor’s Loop: The 󲁣 (left Segnor’s Loop) and 󲁥 (right Segnor’s Loop) bearings advance a ship at a shallow curve to one side, then reverses its facing. This uses the same template as the 󲁝 and 󲁟 maneuvers.

◊ If the ship fully executes the maneuver, the player slides the ship’s front guides into the end of the template instead of the rear guides.

• Tallon Roll: The 󲁢 (left Tallon Roll) and 󲁦 (right Tallon Roll) bearings advance a ship at a tight curve to one side, sharply changing its facing by 180º. This uses the same template as the 󲁜 and 󲁠 maneuvers.

◊ If the ship fully executes the maneuver, before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90º to the left for a 󲁢, or 90º to the right for a 󲁦. Then the player places the ship with the hashmark on the side of the base aligned to the left, middle, or right of the end of the template, (similar to a barrel roll).

If a ship overlaps another ship while executing a Koiogran turn, Segnor’s Loop, or Tallon Roll, the ship partially executes the maneuver by using the rear guides as though it was executing the basic maneuver that uses the same template."

I will break down the entire section to show why Tallon Rolls DO NOT require you to complete a Hard Turn before placing the ship.

1. "The following bearings are for advanced maneuvers. These have exceptions to the standard rules for executing a maneuver ."
   The opening paragraph for this section is actually important as we will refer back to this later.

2. "• Tallon Roll: The 󲁢 (left Tallon Roll) and 󲁦 (right Tallon Roll) bearings advance a ship at a tight curve to one side, sharply changing its facing by 180º. This uses the same template as the 󲁜 and 󲁠 maneuvers."
   The key part from this is that it is a descriptive text about the maneuver, not instructions on how to execute it, this is included to make clear the intent of the maneuver.

3. "◊ If the ship fully executes the maneuver, "
   This preface to the Tallon Roll is not exclusive to the Tallon Roll but is in fact included in all 3 Advanced Maneuvers and is included to give a trigger to the last paragraph, i.e. If the ship [does not] fully execute the maneuver do this instead. It is important to note that a comer is used here not a full stop, a dependency clause exists here where it is impossible for you to fully execute the maneuver without placing the ship in its final position and rotating it 90 degrees.

4. "before the player places the ship at the opposite end of the template, the ship is rotated 90º to the left for a 󲁢, or 90º to the right for a 󲁦. Then the player places the ship with the hashmark on the side of the base aligned to the left, middle, or right of the end of the template, (similar to a barrel roll)."
   We are now into the real meat of the wording now so I may have to break this down into subsections but anyway. Before we place the ship at the opposite end of the template we rotate it 90 degrees in the relevant direction (paraphrasing), this is referencing back to point 1. where we have exceptions to the standard rules for executing maneuvers, at no point when executing a Tallon Roll do we have to place the rear nubs into the maneuver template because of this wording and point 1. Then the player places the ship with the hashmark on the side of the base aligned to the left, middle, or right of the end of the template, (similar to a barrel roll), [this section is actually more interesting then you would think, but I will get in to that] so we now place our rotated ship in one of the three positions stated here, like we would for a barrel roll. The interesting point is that because it references "similar to a barrel roll" we have to complete the Tallon Roll if we can, you can not choose a position on the template that would make you bump thereby failing to fully execute the maneuver, if you can complete, you have to, like a barrel roll.

5. "If a ship overlaps another ship while executing a Koiogran turn, Segnor’s Loop, or Tallon Roll, the ship partially executes the maneuver by using the rear guides as though it was executing the basic maneuver that uses the same template."
   This is the text that is triggered by step 3. not being able to exist mutually with step 4. if you can not simultaneously (due to the comma dependency) have both conditions met, then you go here and it is a bump.

Hope that makes it clear for people!

Thanks

Kris

I think the judge is viewing "if you fully execute, before the ship is placed..." as something like a replacement effect. If you would X, then instead Y.

I disagree with this interpretation firstly, because those aren't the words used in how the rule is written - it's not phrased as would/instead, only if/before.

And secondly, because the rule on "fully executing" is based on a ship's "final position".

That information is not obtainable if the tallon roll replaces a normal maneuver - by definition, you can't determine your final position, if after seeing your final position, you instead change your final position . Consider: if the hard turn fits, but the tallon roll forward would overlap, what prevents you from doing the tallon roll forward? Answer: since you don't fully execute the maneuver if your final position - the tallon forward - overlaps, you don't do it. You've really gotta torture English to make this rule establish that you can have two different "final positions", y'know?

Rather than an "if you would X, then instead Y" rule, my interpretation of the phrasing is that it's descriptive . "If X is legal, here are the steps by which you arrive at X". The other interpretation, to my eyes, carries an intrinsic contradiction.

-----

The judges are just people and they're doing their best.

Sometimes that costs somebody a game, that's just statistics. Don't get mad at the judge team for a ruling. No matter what the judge decides, they're correct - the only point of debating it later is to establish ground rules for future events going forwards. I'm not a judge, I'm just some random post on the internet, don't quote me at your local TO and then get mad if they disagree.

11 hours ago, svelok said:

I think the judge is viewing "if you fully execute, before the ship is placed..." as something like a replacement effect. If you would X, then instead Y.

I disagree with this interpretation firstly, because those aren't the words used in how the rule is written - it's not phrased as would/instead, only if/before.

And secondly, because the rule on "fully executing" is based on a ship's "final position".

That information is not obtainable if the tallon roll replaces a normal maneuver - by definition, you can't determine your final position, if after seeing your final position, you instead change your final position . Consider: if the hard turn fits, but the tallon roll forward would overlap, what prevents you from doing the tallon roll forward? Answer: since you don't fully execute the maneuver if your final position - the tallon forward - overlaps, you don't do it. You've really gotta torture English to make this rule establish that you can have two different "final positions", y'know?

Rather than an "if you would X, then instead Y" rule, my interpretation of the phrasing is that it's descriptive . "If X is legal, here are the steps by which you arrive at X". The other interpretation, to my eyes, carries an intrinsic contradiction.

-----

The judges are just people and they're doing their best.

Sometimes that costs somebody a game, that's just statistics. Don't get mad at the judge team for a ruling. No matter what the judge decides, they're correct - the only point of debating it later is to establish ground rules for future events going forwards. I'm not a judge, I'm just some random post on the internet, don't quote me at your local TO and then get mad if they disagree.

i agree and disagree. the information if the ship will fully execute or not is easily obtainable without trying to execute a tallon roll as a turn.

there is no indication anywhere that a tallon roll should ever replace a normal maneuver. it goes the other way around though, a partial tallon roll is executed as a partial turn.

there are, of course, three final positions of a tallon roll. the rules for barrel rolling are clearly referenced.

you don't have to torture the language to come to this conclusion, you just have to know the rules and be prepared to research the rules in case you are not sure. the language is adequate. of course, there is certainly room for improvement, but it does the job as is.

the judges are just people, yes - and i agree 100% that a marshal or TO is always correct. they need to be an authority for events to run smoothly. this is a large reason why it becomes a big problem when they are not right. it undermines the participants trust.

i also agree that it's nothing to get mad about. it's just a game and we're all just people. i feel sorry for the player that the marshal ruled against and i feel sorry for the marshal for not having the support he needed to make the right call. it's important that the TO recognizes that something went wrong and takes steps to avoid similar situations in the future.

In this case the wording on the rule to execute that maneuver is not as clear as it should be ( it even contradicts itself). That is a rules error. A judge, in the moment making a decision, does there best to follow the rules over everything else. If the rule isn't clear, that is not the judges fault. The correct resolution is an errata to that section of the RR.

3 hours ago, Sergovan said:

In this case the wording on the rule to execute that maneuver is not as clear as it should be ( it even contradicts itself). That is a rules error. A judge, in the moment making a decision, does there best to follow the rules over everything else. If the rule isn't clear, that is not the judges fault. The correct resolution is an errata to that section of the RR.

it's not as clear as it could be, but it is accurate enough, at least in light of all the other rules it refers to. if the marshals best is not good enough, something else is not right. if a marshal is too exhausted to deliver a correct ruling, there should be support in place, such as assisting marshals. you cannot be expected to judge a big tournament for two days straight on your own. did the marshal get a lunch break? was he or she physically well enough at the time of the semi finals? this is a question for the tournament organizers.

the ruling that was made is absurd at best. you do realize bases have nubs, right? they´'re not perfectly square. just because you cannot fit your ship while executing a tallon roll as a turn does not mean you are overlapping another ship. it's that simple.

there is a strict definition of overlapping on page 14 of the rules reference.

"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."

it says final position - and if it doesn't fit, you move the ship backwards. basic maneuvers say nothing about partially executing a maneuver, just the advanced ones, since they have special rules for it (you don't turn your ship around if you bump).

in other words, you try to execute a maneuver and if you don't fit, you move backwards. that's how executing maneuvers works, in accordance with the rules. you don't go forwards and stop when you don't fit.

you always turn your ship and try to place it when performing a tallon roll. if it doesn't fit, you go backwards. the template is on the table, so you will be able to figure out where you end up. it's very functional and simple enough.

i don't see how the rules regarding advanced maneuvers are insufficiently clear. i agree they could be even clearer, but it seems unnecessary . there are already a ton of rules that are a lot less clear that need clarification.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

i don't see how the rules regarding advanced maneuvers are insufficiently clear. i agree they could be even clearer, but it seems unnecessary . there are already a ton of rules that are a lot less clear that need clarification.

The rules were unclear enough for decently-skilled judges to view them a different way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. FFG needs to write a treatise on exactly WTF Han Solo even means, but a controversial call in a major tournament seems like a pretty decent standard for needing an official clarification.