After the N-1 Naboo Starfighter preview you have two pilots with habilities depending on the revealed maneuver.

So far, so good.

But there is also a new droid:

So imagine Ric Olié reveals a 2 straight, then changes it to a 3 straight. Does its "revealed maneuver" to consider for his hability is the 2 straight he revealed or the 3 straight his dial now displays ?

People have very definitive opinions on the article thread but I can not find a definitive answer in the rules.

I don't think we have a good ruling on whether changing your manoeuvre after revealing it makes the new manoeuvre your revealed one but it be surprised if it doesn't based on the 1e precedent.

I have a preference for using the maneuver which winds up on your dial in the end (after R2-A6), and thus the maneuver you execute. If only because that'll be the easiest thing to keep track of.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

I have a preference for using the maneuver which winds up on your dial in the end (after R2-A6), and thus the maneuver you execute. If only because that'll be the easiest thing to keep track of.

This is how I would fully expect it to be ruled.

currently, there is nothing indicating that the revealed maneuver is anything other than the one you set your dial to during planning.. R2-A6s effect occurs after you reveal you dial, so the maneuver you revealed is not the same as the one you change it to if you use R2-A6s effect.

Unclear. I *think* i get what they were going for?? Buuut i dont understand why they didn't just word it as "executed" like Sarco

Maybe they want the one shown before change, but game mechanically, there is no way to track that. So it doesnt make sense.

Yeah, the speed of the manoeuvre you executed would have been so much clearer.

RAW revealed, is The one flipped up.

Selected: The maneuver you finally pick after revealing.(E.g Seasoned navigator)

Executed: The maneuver you do in The end... (E.g. ved foslo)...

Both of you are right...

You could only track The original speed by using 1-5 ID tokens

And if The wording was "The maneuver you executed" there would be no doubt At all. Let's hope we get this clear soon. Until then, I'll follow The interpretation of my TO's

(Still I'm amazed that every single pack we get comes with several confuse wording/rulings)

Bear in mind that the manoeuvre you end up executing can be one which doesn't exist on your dial in the first place . I would personally go with " the manoeuvre which is on your dial after everyone's finished fiddling with it ".

The reason for this is that - in theory - you reveal your dial by flipping it over and placing it next to your pilot card*.

The game should not require you to 'remember' what manoeuvre every ship in a broken-formation-and-swarming-like-a-nest-of-irritated-wasps pair of 8-ship swarms performed**. They started at their various start points, ended at their various finish points and if you need to know what speed they all did, look at the dials on their pilot cards.

Which, in turn, means that if that manoeuvre 'instantaneously' changed between when you flipped it over and when you put it down (because skilled navigator or something), the game shouldn't care; what's on the dial when you're instructed to go look at it is what matters.

Equally, if what is on the dial doesn't represent how the model moved (Ved Folso, Inertial Dampeners), then how would that be any different to a partially completed manoeuvre? You revealed XYZ on your dial, when to the execute manoeuvre stage, [stuff happened], and you're now in position ABC instead.

* I know, I know, hands up who actually does this each time. It's up there with actually having a First Player token on the board or using critical damage markers unless you play a swarm. But Ric and Dinee are going to mean you really should actually do this.

** Okay, two swarms are unlikely to include ships with compare-attacker/defender-speed-dependent engagement abilities, but it's not impossible for that to be the case, so the rules should be prepared for it.

@Magnus Grendel - while your opinions are much appreciated, your reasons and conclusion have no basis in the rules what so ever.

a revealed maneuver is a revealed maneuver. it's not a maneuver you changed to after you revealed your dial and it's not a maneuver you executed. those are entirely separate things.

the cards could have used different wording, as in an executed maneuver or a maneuver a dial is set to, but they're using "your revealed maneuver". that wording is pretty crystal clear as far as i'm concerned.

2 hours ago, meffo said:

@Magnus Grendel - while your opinions are much appreciated, your reasons and conclusion have no basis in the rules what so ever.

a revealed maneuver is a revealed maneuver. it's not a maneuver you changed to after you revealed your dial and it's not a maneuver you executed. those are entirely separate things.

the cards could have used different wording, as in an executed maneuver or a maneuver a dial is set to, but they're using "your revealed maneuver". that wording is pretty crystal clear as far as i'm concerned.

Well, 'revealed maneuver' isn't actually a thing in the rules. A dial is revealed, and then a maneuver is executed.

I think that setting the dial to a new maneuver after it is revealed changes the ship's revealed maneuver. However, this is definitely one of those things that FFG will need to clarify ASAP to make sure these interactions are properly understood before people start getting all cranky at tournaments and whatnot.

18 minutes ago, Maui. said:

Well, 'revealed maneuver' isn't actually a thing in the rules. A dial is revealed, and then a maneuver is executed.

I think that setting the dial to a new maneuver after it is revealed changes the ship's revealed maneuver. However, this is definitely one of those things that FFG will need to clarify ASAP to make sure these interactions are properly understood before people start getting all cranky at tournaments and whatnot.

hmmm... you're right! thank you for making me reexamine and reconsider.

looks like the revealed maneuver can be changed. how annoying.

24 minutes ago, meffo said:

hmmm... you're right! thank you for making me reexamine and reconsider.

looks like the revealed maneuver can be changed. how annoying.

Yup, dial is revealed and you execute the maneuver on the revealed dial. You should also place the dial next to the ship being activated. I think this is the first case of that actually being relevant.

This is unfortunately very much open for debate as logically the revealed maneuver is the one on the dial when revealed and if it is then changed afterwards it is no longer the maneuver that was revealed.

For the game mechanic it would though be a lot move convenient to use the maneuver currently set on the ships dial (after any modifications), as this makes the game state clear.

For example in the case of a dispute where one player claims that the other player revealed one maneuver and then changed it to one higher or lower and that player then claims not to have done that, there is no way for a judge to verify this information if the dial has been changed from the "revealed" maneuver.

But as currently "revealed maneuver" is not defined anywhere in the rules so TO has to make the call as is. Hopefully we get a rules clarification on this soon.

Strictly speaking this already needs clarification as heragator has never been formally clarified for 2e. How that is ruled would inform this question.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Strictly speaking this already needs clarification as heragator has never been formally clarified for 2e. How that is ruled would inform this question.

Was about to bring this up - the question of whether or not your revealed dial can change post factum has been relevant ever since 2.0 stared, through the aforementioned niche combo.

I'd go with the reasoning that the revealed maneouvre is the maneouvre selected on your revealed dial. That would make the N1 pilots' ability work positively with the speed-altering abilities, something clearly intended by the devs.

On another note, if you think about it, the whole situation is hardly a new threat to the sportsmanship of the game. We could technically take away damage cards, discretely adjusting our figures or obstacles, flipping shields ever since day 0 of the game, also with no hard proofs for the judge to base on (I flipped a card? Nosense! I never got a crit at all!). Hakuna your tattas, we're all going to be alright.

I know it's far from an official ruling (and quite possibly wrong based on rulings about previous articles) but there is this line in the N-1 preview article:

Pulling off such a feat isn’t always easy, but with an astromech like R2-A6 helping modify her speed on the fly, Ellberger should have little trouble getting the upper hand on her opponents

5 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I know it's far from an official ruling (and quite possibly wrong based on rulings about previous articles) but there is this line in the N-1 preview article:

Pulling off such a feat isn’t always easy, but with an astromech like R2-A6 helping modify her speed on the fly, Ellberger should have little trouble getting the upper hand on her opponents

Well that is certainly an indicator of how they intend this to work. A ruling stating that the revealed maneuver is the maneuver selected on the dial, after any modifications, would clear that up nicely. But until that is done, we will be having debates on how to handle it.

The preview article was just published in French . It contains an interesting difference:

Quote

Un leader vétéran comme Ric Olié, par exemple, utilise la quintessence de la vitesse du Royal Naboo N-1, lançant un dé supplémentaire lorsqu’il attaque ou défend tout en ayant une vitesse indiquée sur son cadran supérieure à celle de son adversaire.

which roughly translates to:

Ric Olié uses the speed of the Royal Naboo N-1, rolling an additionnal die in attack or defense when having a speed indicated on his dial higher than its adversary.

The pilot card itself was not part of the French article.

The article writers, especially the non-English article writers, are not the rules writers, articles are not rules sources, and frequently get rules wrong, or assume something the writers did not intend.

Articles are not useful sources for rules, one way or the other.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Articles are not useful sources for rules, one way or the other.

Indeed.

It is just another input as the card translators may have communicated with the game developers to clear up some ambiguities.

Well in my opinion, R2A6 not changing the revealed manouver but the executed manouver is really strong, even better than expected.

Example, you want to execute a 2 bank to avoid a bump or an obstacle. You can set your dial on a 3 bank and execute a 2 bank thanks to R2A6. In that case, you did the manouver you wanted but with a 3 bank you might have an extra dice!

7 minutes ago, lllApOlll said:

Well in my opinion, R2A6 not changing the revealed manouver but the executed manouver is really strong, even better than expected.

Example, you want to execute a 2 bank to avoid a bump or an obstacle. You can set your dial on a 3 bank and execute a 2 bank thanks to R2A6. In that case, you did the manouver you wanted but with a 3 bank you might have an extra dice!

Actually this may be the reason why they do not use the term "executed maneuver".

An official definition of "revealed maneuver" is still missing.

55 minutes ago, Cartchan said:

Actually this may be the reason why they do not use the term "executed maneuver".

An official definition of "revealed maneuver" is still missing.

Indeed. The manoeuvre you actually executed doesn't have to bear any resemblance to what is on your dial - or even be possible with your dial. Inertial dampeners are a key example of this, since they mess around with the 'execute manoeuvre' step, not the 'reveal dial' step like, say, skilled navigator.

7 hours ago, Cartchan said:

Actually this may be the reason why they do not use the term "executed maneuver".

An official definition of "revealed maneuver" is still missing.

Here is my counter point to that. This is being over complicated. We have to ask ourselves.

1. Which interpretation is the easiest to deal with?

2. Does an interpretation break the game?

For number 1, the easiest interpretation (mechanically) is the revealed maneuver is changed, then executed. So at the end of the maneuver, they are both the same. Its easy to keep track of because its on the dial. Remembering what occurred prior isn't necessary (which when you think about it, is why they have ability's with a single, non-recurring charge on them, so we have a visual indicator if that ability has been used). Having to remember a specific setting or state, doesnt really fit with 2E's mantra.

For number 2, lllApOlll's explanation, while cleaver, adds complication to the game and, in my opinion breaks the ability in question. It removes simplicity, and trying to "get the best of both worlds" feels exploitative that i do not believe the devs are indenting.

I know that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, and FFG hasnt always followed this way of thinking, but i think, from a judgement perspective and one of "we need to make a call so we can keep playing", i think its probably the best way to go until an official ruling is made.

How I see it is that :

The ''Revealed'' maneuver is the one on the dial (that is set aside after the ship has moved). This maneuver can still be changed with certain abilities, and this is kept track of with the open dial.

The ''Executed'' maneuver is the one the ship actually did while it was moving. Currently, there is no official way to keep track of this one, and as such, no ability ask that you remember what ship Executed which maneuver, with good reason.