Situation:

Reaper bumped into U-Wing on last turn. Reaper is stressed, U-Wing is not.

U-Wing has Pivot Wings Closed.

U-Wing dials in a Stop Maneuver, and rotates 180.

Does the maneuver complete?

I argue yes, because, while a pure "rotation" of the base would mean it would bump, the rules state you pick it up and put it back down, so the base is identical, therefore, the maneuver completes, while remaining at Range 0 of the Reaper. My friend says "wait a minute no way that rotation completes it'll overlap on the rotation".

Special bonus case I just thought about: If I'm right, and the 180 completes, what would happen if I did a 90 and one of the nubbies on the base bumped?

Successful completion is determined by final position, so yes it would be successful in the first case. In the second case the nubs are taken into consideration for overlapping so it would fail if they overlapped the other ship's base. If they end up only touching it and the ship is flat on the play surface without having to be adjusted laterally then it succeeds but the ship is at range 0.

As defined, if a ship performs a full stop maneuver, it always fully executes the maneuver and never overlaps a ship it was previously touching, though it remains at Range 0 to that ship for the time being. If a U-Wing stays put, or rotates 180 degrees, the nubs will be in the same positions, creating the "rare but possible situation where a ship can move so that it is touching without overlapping."

@Hiemfire has your second example covered. Since the nubs count for purposes of overlapping, the ship would not be able to rotate 90 degrees. What is unclear is what happens then: can your U-Wing choose to rotate 180 degrees instead, or is it locked to only its original position?

18 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

As defined, if a ship performs a full stop maneuver, it always fully executes the maneuver and never overlaps a ship it was previously touching, though it remains at Range 0 to that ship for the time being. If a U-Wing stays put, or rotates 180 degrees, the nubs will be in the same positions, creating the "rare but possible situation where a ship can move so that it is touching without overlapping."

@Hiemfire has your second example covered. Since the nubs count for purposes of overlapping, the ship would not be able to rotate 90 degrees. What is unclear is what happens then: can your U-Wing choose to rotate 180 degrees instead, or is it locked to only its original position?

Maybe like a, Barrel Roll, if all possible final positions result in an illegal position it fails then?

Card for reference:

this is from the RR page 6 (7) under "Bearing".

"Stationary: The 󲁡 (stationary) bearing does not move the ship from its current position. This bearing does not have a corresponding template.
◊ A ship that executes this maneuver counts as executing a maneuver, does not overlap any ships, does trigger the effects of overlapping any obstacles at range 0, and continues to be at range 0 of any objects it was touching before executing this maneuver.
◊ Stationary maneuvers are not forward maneuvers.
◊ A ship that executes a stationary maneuver always fully executes the maneuver."

or in other words, you always fit. the question here is whether rotating your ship is considered moving it. i would say definitely yes, but there is no support for that assumption in the rules.

the pivot wing upgrade card gives you the option to rotate you ship. if you choose to do it, i would rule that you need to declare which way you want to turn it before trying to do it, just like with other effects like boosting or barrel rolling, declare your intent before putting a template down on the table.

if you do no fit because of guides (nubs), then you don't get to rotate at all.

seems consistent enough with how the rules work in other scenarios, lacking a ruling for this specific scenario.

please note that the turning of the ship happens after checking difficulty of the maneuver, but before taking actions. since you rotate your ship after you've executed the maneuver and you always fully execute a speed 0 maneuver, you still get your action as normal, even if you don't fit the rotation after the maneuver. yes, i know you won't be stressed because of leia crew. dumb *****.

They really should have defined stop-turns as a separate type of manoeuvre from stops tbh.

(RRG p13)

Rotating is clearly not a maneuver. (The stop was, but that's done now and we're into the 'after you execute' bit.) Also, we're not using a template for this repositioning. I mean we might use a template as a marker, but the core set includes a corner marker which is clearly not a maneuver template that would appear to be the perfect tool for the job.

Therefore, I would argue that Pivot Wing's rotation is not moving. Thus, for example, if you rotate while on an obstacle, you would not suffer the effects of said obstacle twice (once for the stop and a second time for the rotate).

Going back to the OP's original question, yes absolutely the stop maneuver fully executes, as that part is defined by the maneuver. If you declare a 180-degree rotate at that point, there is also no question that you would be successful there also, since the base should be front-to-back symetrical and it fit before so it will fit after.

Okay, so far so good. What happens when nubs overlap during a 90-degree rotate is... undefined. The RRG does not define a failure mode for this ability, so we could argue that the ability cannot fail entirely. Furthermore by analogy with barrel roll, we can say that if you declare you are attempting to use the ability, you must complete the ability if possible. Therefore, if you attempt to rotate, and the 90-degree position overlaps, you must place your ship in the 180-degree rotated position since 0-degrees isn't an option in the ability and there is no failure mode defined.

However, one could argue, again by analogy with boost/barrel roll, that you must declare which facing you are rotating to before you pick up the ship and you must either do that thing or nothing. Personally, I feel that this is the weaker arguement because of the lack of a failure mode defined for the ability, and the fact that a 180-degree rotation will always be legal.

A bit of a coincidence, but this situation came up in a Hyperspace Trial today.

A Tie Fighter had bumped into a U-Wing, which tried to rotate 90 but the nubs didn't fit in because of the Tie Fighter.

Judge ruled that it couldn't do the 90 degree rotate. I don't know if it was ruled to have to remain in the original facing, or given the option to rotate 180, because the player wanted it to keep the original facing anyway.

Here’s another situation....

U Wing bumps into the SIDE of a Lambda. Next turn the Lambda performs a stop, then the U Wing does likewise and rotates 90 degrees. So both ships are still considered to be at range 0.

In this case the nubs on the U Wings base have caused the overlap the previous turn. But when the ship is rotated 90 degrees there is clearly a gap between the bases.

So what happens in the engagement phase? Can the U Wing fire on the Lambda? When it comes to measuring range they are clearly no longer at range 0.

edit: actually can this occur? Considering the width of the base?

9 minutes ago, irishthump said:

Here’s another situation....

U Wing bumps into the SIDE of a Lambda. Next turn the Lambda performs a stop, then the U Wing does likewise and rotates 90 degrees. So both ships are still considered to be at range 0.

In this case the nubs on the U Wings base have caused the overlap the previous turn. But when the ship is rotated 90 degrees there is clearly a gap between the bases.

So what happens in the engagement phase? Can the U Wing fire on the Lambda? When it comes to measuring range they are clearly no longer at range 0.

edit: actually can this occur? Considering the width of the base?

I might be wrong, and this might not apply to the medium bases anyway, but I seem to remember once reading that bases are not perfectly square and are slightly wider than they are long. I believe it's to do with the sides being a bit thicker so that you can slot the base tokens in.

I don't believe the difference is equal to the length of the nubs, but it's sufficient for me to say this probably ends up being something you can't rule on outside of the table.

I think in this case, you'd just have to do the rotate and see what happens. If there's even a mm gap between the bases, the U-Wing can fire. If the width of the base and the tiny variance in picking up the base and putting it back down means the two bases are visibly touching, then no shot.

In theory, the U-Wing should always be able to shoot because the width of the base should be less than the length of the base including nubs. But as above, that really is only in theory.

27 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

I might be wrong, and this might not apply to the medium bases anyway, but I seem to remember once reading that bases are not perfectly square and are slightly wider than they are long. I believe it's to do with the sides being a bit thicker so that you can slot the base tokens in.

I don't believe the difference is equal to the length of the nubs, but it's sufficient for me to say this probably ends up being something you can't rule on outside of the table.

I think in this case, you'd just have to do the rotate and see what happens. If there's even a mm gap between the bases, the U-Wing can fire. If the width of the base and the tiny variance in picking up the base and putting it back down means the two bases are visibly touching, then no shot.

In theory, the U-Wing should always be able to shoot because the width of the base should be less than the length of the base including nubs. But as above, that really is only in theory.

All of the plastic bases are square within reasonable tolerances. The ship tokens are not.

56 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

All of the plastic bases are square within reasonable tolerances. The ship tokens are not.

Ah, my bad. That must have been what I was thinking of.

Now that I think about it, I think the discussion was in relation to side arcs vs front and back, so it makes sense it was the tokens that were the issue.

Fact of the matter is, we do not have an official ruling that tells us what to do in this situation. Rotating is neither an action (so it cannot "fail") nor a maneuver (so we cannot use the overlap procedure), so we have little reference to work with.

In this case, you are pretty much at the mercy of the TO, or agree what to do with your opponent.