Situation: A U-Wing has bumped a TIE Fighter in such a manner that both nubs on the U-Wing's base are in contact with the TIE Fighter's base and the ships are at 90 degrees to each other and at Range 0.

The next turn, the TIE Fighter attempts to perform a 1-hard in the direction of the U-Wing, cannot complete the maneuver, does not move at all. Still at Range 0.

The U-Wing then flips the Pivot Wing card to the (Closed) position, reveals a 0-stationary maneuver, and rotates 90 degrees. Because of this rotation, the bases of the two ships are no longer in contact.

The RRG section on Stationary says

Quote

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.

So by that rule, the ships continue to be at Range 0. However, the RRG section on Range says

Quote

If two ships are at range 0 of each other, they remain at range 0 until one of the ships moves in a way that results in their bases no longer being in physical contact.

Therefore they would no longer be at range 0?

Which rule applies in this situation?

The rules are not contradictory in this situation; if the point of contact between the two bases was the nubs of the U-Wing base, then the U-Wing rotating would mean the contact would no longer be there (unless it rotated 180 degrees, of course).

If I recall the wording, the U-Wing rotation occurs after the stationary move, so there is no conflict.

The U qing moved in a way the resulted in the bases no longer being in contact.

I'm not sure what the confusion is.

You ought to keep in mind U-wing's rotation is not a standard execution of a 0 manoeuvre, hence the bit you quoted out of the RR regarding stationary is not directly applicable to it.

To be exact, the rotation only happens after the stationary move is executed. So, the part of RR applicable to Stationary applies to the execution of Stationary, then once that execution is done, U-wing can now rotate 90/180'. To that move, applies the other bit you quoted, but out of the two, it is the only one relevant when the rotation is considered.

1 hour ago, Ryfterek said:

You ought to keep in mind U-wing's rotation is not a standard execution of a 0 manoeuvre, hence the bit you quoted out of the RR regarding stationary is not directly applicable to it.

To be exact, the rotation only happens after the stationary move is executed. So, the part of RR applicable to Stationary applies to the execution of Stationary, then once that execution is done, U-wing can now rotate 90/180'. To that move, applies the other bit you quoted, but out of the two, it is the only one relevant when the rotation is considered.

Yep. Think of it like a repositional ability like boost or barrel roll. If you overlapped a ship, then were coordinated a barrel roll to get away from range 0 of that ship and can now shoot it. Pretty much the same effect.

I'm not entierly sure the rotation would count as a "move" though.

RRG on "MOVE", p13.

"A ship moves when it executes a maneuver or otherwise changes position using a template (such as barrel rolling or boosting)."

The pivot wing card says nothing about using a template to execute the rotation.

That said, I'd still agrea the ships in OPs example would not be at range 0 after the rotation.

7 minutes ago, Smuggler said:

I'm not entierly sure the rotation would count as a "move" though.

RRG on "MOVE", p13.

"A ship moves when it executes a maneuver or otherwise changes position using a template (such as barrel rolling or boosting)."

The pivot wing card says nothing about using a template to execute the rotation.

That said, I'd still agrea the ships in OPs example would not be at range 0 after the rotation.

That list does not claim to be complete or exclusive.

9 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

That list does not claim to be complete or exclusive.

If you refere to the list of "(such as barrel rolling or boosting)" then I agrea. But I do think the part befor that list is meant to be the full definition of what constitutes a "move"?

That part lists exactly two things considered a "move":

1. Executing a maneuver.

2. Changeing position using a template.

I think if it was meant to be complete or exclusive it would say so. It leaves open the language to potentially include other ways of moving.

Like this.

Here's a pic of the card we're discussing since I haven't seen it posted on this thread yet:

1 hour ago, Smuggler said:

...

That part lists exactly two things considered a "move":

1. Executing a maneuver.

2. Changeing position using a template.

I've made the suggestion before that the pivot wing rotation could be interpreted to fall in that second category. Position is not strictly defined in the Rules Reference, but in literal physical terms the position of an object can include its facing. As for "using a template", although you could eyeball the location of the ship base, you really should be using a template!

Unfortunately I can't find my old booklet that came with Saw's Renegades. I wish I could because I seem to recall that resource instructs you to use a 1 straight template aligned with the center hash mark or a corner of the base.

To sum up : I do think the Pivot Wing rotation should be counted as a move, but that is mostly conjecture.

6 hours ago, Smuggler said:

I'm not entierly sure the rotation would count as a "move" though.

Sorry, im not seeing how that is relevant. If you are responding to me, i wasn't stating that it was a move like boosting or barrel rolling, only it acted similar as far as a re-positional ability. It was only meant to be an example.