So, side 1:

" While you execute a maneuver , if you overlap an asteroid or debris cloud and there are 1 or fewer other friendly ships at range 0 of that obstacle, you may flip this card. "

Side 2:

"You ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them. After you reveal your dial, if you reveal a maneuver other than a [2 ] and are at range 0 of an asteroid or debris cloud, skip your Execute Maneuver step and remove 1 stress token; if you revealed a right or left maneuver, rotate your ship 90º in that direction. After you execute a maneuver, flip this card. "

Specifically, my question is

1. Droid executes maneuver that will overlap asteroid

2. Droid Flips struts to the open side

3. Droid Finishes executing maneuver, wherin the open text is active and forces it to flip the struts back to the closed position.

There doesn't, strictly speaking appear to be a way to keep them open, because you have to flip the card "while you execute a maneuver", which, as far as I'm aware, takes place prior to "After you execute a maneuver" meaning the text that forces the struts to close will always be active the turn you open them. I have to be missing something because there's a wall of text that talks about what to do while the card is in the open position that is basically dead text if this interpretation is correct.

RAW it is as you noticed. As applied the turn you land on Asteroids or Debris and flip them to open you ignore the last sentence.

Yes, by strict RAW they absolutely do nothing, and yes this should be fixed,

The intent is perfectly obvious, though so

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yes, by strict RAW they absolutely do nothing, and yes this should be fixed,

The intent is perfectly obvious, though so

They don't do "nothing" you would still have the struts open during the timing period in which you would suffer effects from Debris or Asteroids allowing you to ignore the overlap effect, but I do 100% agree that this can't be the design intent.

This has been gone over a couple times before and the broad consensus (as in I have seen no posts in disagreement) is that RAW struts never stay open because of applied timing, but RAI is clear and is commonly allows struts to stay open when used on the table.

Double post

Struts says skip your execute manouver step, I think this rotate 90° is moving threw asteroid but not a real dial manouver.

At the end of text it says after you execute manouver flip card that means the 2 straight that gets you off debris or asteroid.

Its alot of text could have been shortened.

9 minutes ago, Blademaster72 said:

Struts says skip your execute manouver step, I think this rotate 90° is moving threw asteroid but not a real dial manouver.

Incorrect. The 90 degree rotation is not a move.

7 minutes ago, Blademaster72 said:

At the end of text it says after you execute manouver flip card that means the 2 straight that gets you off debris or asteroid.

Correct by rules as intended. RAW, it is also whichever move got you ON to the asteroid in the first place. Because the ard flips to the open side WHILST moving, and is the on the open side AFTER moving, so the text on the open side which reads 'after you execute manouver flip card' activates the turn you arrive on the rock.

7 minutes ago, Blademaster72 said:

Its alot of text could have been shortened.

Not really. It's all necessary. The issue at hand is the timing of the two flip triggers being sequential, and the open side one not being optional.

Devil's Advocate question: Would the once-per-opportunity rule come into play here? The fact that you flipped the struts OPEN during your activation, means you can't subsequently flip them CLOSED, in the same activation? I dunno, just grasping at straws here...

34 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Devil's Advocate question: Would the once-per-opportunity rule come into play here? The fact that you flipped the struts OPEN during your activation, means you can't subsequently flip them CLOSED, in the same activation? I dunno, just grasping at straws here...

Nope. Due to the different timings they are separate opportunities.

You can’t satisfy the trigger in the second sentence (“After you reveal your dial...”) on the turn you land on the asteroid and I think the third sentence is subordinate to the second.

1 minute ago, KiAdiMoody said:

You can’t satisfy the trigger in the second sentence (“After you reveal your dial...”) on the turn you land on the asteroid and I think the third sentence is subordinate to the second.

After you reveal your dial isn't the trigger for closing struts. After you Execute a maneuver is. The subordinate portions for the first trigger are separated by comas with a secondary check > effect separated from the first trigger by a semi-colon.

As divided you have the continual effect: "You ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them."

The first trigger and effects that share that trigger: "After you reveal your dial, if you reveal a maneuver other than a 2 straight and are at range 0 of an asteroid or debris cloud, skip your Execute Maneuver step and remove 1 stress token; if you revealed a right or left maneuver rotate your ship 90 degrees in that direction."

And the final trigger and effect: "After you execute a maneuver, flip this card."

Yep, we're reading it differently and disagree with each others' readings.

6 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

Yep, we're reading it differently and disagree with each others' readings.

🤨 They're separate triggers in completely separate and independent statements.

No, they’re separate sentences in one ability. If there were separate paragraphs I would agree with you, but they aren’t.

8 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

No, they’re separate sentences in one ability. If there were separate paragraphs I would agree with you, but they aren’t.

For them to have been separate paragraphs the text would have had to been printed too small to read without aid... The statements are separated by periods, that is sufficient to present them as independent from each other.

@Hiemfire , I read the ability, get to the second sentence, don't meet the trigger requirements I'm not at the specified timing window (I didn't just reveal my dial) so I stop reading further and bail on the rest of the ability.

Like I said, we read it differently and disagree with each other. That's okay.

1 hour ago, KiAdiMoody said:

I read the ability, get to the second sentence, don't meet the trigger requirements I'm not at the specified timing window (I didn't just reveal my dial) so I stop reading further and bail on the rest of the ability.

🤨 So your reasoning behind your disagreement is that you don't bother to read upgrades when you put them in your list and only skim read them while you play? I think your opponents should start double checking what you're doing on the table to make sure you're not messing something up...

9 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

🤨 So your reasoning behind your disagreement is that you don't bother to read upgrades when you put them in your list and only skim read them while you play? I think your opponents should start double checking what you're doing on the table to make sure you're not messing something up...

No. My reading makes the rule as written work as (folks seem to agree is) intended and my reasoning isn't arbitrary or due to not reading the upgrade: If you're reading an ability and get to a timing window requirement and you aren't at that window, stop evaluating the rest of the ability. This is true for other abilities, so I think it is true for this one as well. Granted, this ability has another sentence that describes what happens if you get past that first requirement , which makes it something new. But FFG thinks this wording is so solid that they've re-used it for Landing Struts 2 waves later.

6 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

No. My reading makes the rule as written work as (folks seem to agree is) intended and my reasoning isn't arbitrary or due to not reading the upgrade: If you're reading an ability and get to a timing window requirement and you aren't at that window, stop evaluating the rest of the ability. This is true for other abilities, so I think it is true for this one as well. Granted, this ability has another sentence that describes what happens if you get past that first requirement , which makes it something new. But FFG thinks this wording is so solid that they've re-used it for Landing Struts 2 waves later.

And again you reiterate that to have your conclusion the player needs to not read the ability fully at any time... The card texts were finalized before we even had the Wave 3 announcement article (their work cycle has them 2-3 Waves ahead of releases in what they're working on) and the public analysis of Grappling Struts which dug up this inconsistency didn't happen till the Vulture article revealing the upgrade fully was released. Now they need to address both Landing and Grappling Struts.

32 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

And again you reiterate that to have your conclusion the player needs to not read the ability fully at any time... The card texts were finalized before we even had the Wave 3 announcement article (their work cycle has them 2-3 Waves ahead of releases in what they're working on) and the public analysis of Grappling Struts which dug up this inconsistency didn't happen till the Vulture article revealing the upgrade fully was released. Now they need to address both Landing and Grappling Struts.

Or my reading is correct and they don’t have to address anything at all?

And no I’m not saying you never read the full ability, I’m saying if an ability lists a timing window and you aren’t at that window, then the ability’s text after the specification of that window is irrelevant.

But, looking at the ship ability Stygium Array on the Tie Phantom, I see a good example of an ability to which I wouldn't apply this approach to parsing ability text, so I concede the argument.

I wonder if/when they clarify this ability's intended operation if it will involve an Errata (if the card text can never work within the desired rule framework), or an FAQ or entry in the RR proper(explaining the finer points of the interaction of some set of rules).

Probably never. Because whilst the technical reading is that it doesn't work no one has ever misunderstood the intention.