Hi All,

I know there are already some questions floating around out there but I'm interested in getting a concrete lock on the wording on the Pinpoint tractor array. specifically the cans and cants of "you may gain 1 tractor token to perform a rotate action."

To preface, I believe that you MUST perform the rotate action if you gain the tractor. But I feel there is still some ambiguity to how this ability interacts with the RR.

Lets start with the points for applying the word MUST to the rotate action in question. Firstly, Page 2 in the RR under "may, must, and can" states that all effects that are not preceded with MAY are MUST effects. As a second example, you have someone like A-Wing Jake's ability says that "After you perform a boost or roll action you may choose 1 friendly ship at range 0-1. That ship MAY perform a focus action."

Now lets look at arguments for applying MAY to the rotate action shall we. The only argument for this I can think of is that actions circumvent the fact that all effects are inherently MUST effect based on page 3 of the RR "A ship can choose not to perform an action during the perform action step or when granted an action." and that you can choose to not perform the rotate action. Now, I hear you, "the card doesn't say 'grant' a rotate action" but as far as I can tell there is nothing that uses the words 'grant x action' in any upgrade, pilot or ship ability (please let me know if you find one). So the only parallel I can find to this situation would be resistance C-3PO crew who allows his ship to gain a calculate token after performing a calculate action or a coordinate action. and hear me out here, if a transport with C-3PO was coordinated a calculate action (gaining a second one from C-3PO) that ship then performs a coordinate action (to gain a third calculate token) can the coordinated ship choose not to perform an action?

As a side point to argument two, Page 2 of the RR also says that "The inclusion of 'must' is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect." If you look at the rotate action being a possible drawback (I'm assuming that people are, otherwise there wouldn't be any arguments at all) then the exclusion of 'must' in this case is either an oversight or an acknowledgment of 'may'. Could be either, just thought it was an interesting side point.

I think there is enough ambiguity in all the interaction to justify both sides regardless of how I feel personally. Ultimately I think we would all love a definitive answer (any FFG devs out there willing to chime in?) Either way, what does everyone think? is it ambiguous? or have I missed something?

Thanks all.

"Paying Costs
A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved."

the ability is worded as if gaining a tractor token is paying a cost.

if you gain the tractor token, you have to try to perform the rotate action. you cannot gain a tractor token to perform the rotate action if you're stressed, since the stress would stop you from resolving the effect.

what happens if you receive the stress from the tractor effect is a different matter - and is currently being discussed in other threads in this forum.

2 hours ago, meffo said:

"Paying Costs
A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved."

But this doesn't necessarily contradict the wording on page 3 which reads "A ship can choose not to perform an action during the Perform Action step or when granted an action ".

So in this case, PTA makes you "pay" via acquiring a tractor token whereby you can perform a rotate action, but surely this says nothing about the player then opting out of performing the action?

Put another way, the effect of the rotate action can still be resolved (in normal circumstances) but, based on pg 3, after paying the cost the player then opts to not perform the action.

It's fiddly as heck and I think I'm exploring a bit of a cheeky technicality, but I think that that there is a difference between the game checking if the event can happen versus it being a must happen, resulting in different outcomes, so I suppose we shift into a discussion on intentions?

30 minutes ago, OG-Kumara said:

But this doesn't necessarily contradict the wording on page 3 which reads "A ship can choose not to perform an action during the Perform Action step or when granted an action ".

So in this case, PTA makes you "pay" via acquiring a tractor token whereby you can perform a rotate action, but surely this says nothing about the player then opting out of performing the action?

Put another way, the effect of the rotate action can still be resolved (in normal circumstances) but, based on pg 3, after paying the cost the player then opts to not perform the action.

It's fiddly as heck and I think I'm exploring a bit of a cheeky technicality, but I think that that there is a difference between the game checking if the event can happen versus it being a must happen, resulting in different outcomes, so I suppose we shift into a discussion on intentions?

PTA doesn't say you can perform a rotate turret action.

It says to gain a tractor token to perform a rotate turret action.

The two are inextricably linked. If you don't perform the action, you can't gain the token.

"After you execute a maneuver, you may gain 1 tractor token to perform a (rotate) action ."

Do what the card says. I understand that there are cards/combos that exist outside the normal rules, but this is not one of them.

"Paying Costs: A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved"

Cost = Token. Effect = Rotate Action

If you cannot gain the token or complete the rotate action (for whatever reason), you cannot resolve the ability.

So, the sticking point here seems to be the "you can choose not to perform an action when granted one" rule. People seem to be implying that gaining the token is "granting" the action but the way I see it, that's wrong. It's executing the maneuver that grants the rotate action and if you then choose to perform it you first gain the tractor token as an additional cost.

1 hour ago, Lunar Sovereign said:

So, the sticking point here seems to be the "you can choose not to perform an action when granted one" rule. People seem to be implying that gaining the token is "granting" the action but the way I see it, that's wrong. It's executing the maneuver that grants the rotate action and if you then choose to perform it you first gain the tractor token as an additional cost.

I think this is a very helpful way of framing the ability. It isn't that the Pinpoint Tractor Array gives you a tractor--it grants you a rotate action which you pay for with by gaining a tractor token. Once you view the rotate as being the primary effect, and the tractor cost as secondary, it becomes clear that you can't skip the rotate, or that you can't use PTA when stressed.

I just don’t get why FFG doesn’t hire people to get the grammar crystal clear. While I'm not expert surely this wording would actually clear the whole thing up:

After you execute a manoeuvre, you may perform a rotate arc action, if you do gain a tractor token.

Simple, clear and unambiguous and does 99% of what the currently worded ability does with one exception, that should FFG rule you gain perform the tractor effect prior to the arc rotate and you do deliberately put yourself on a debris to get stressed to turn off the arc rotate. But that’s it.

I would really like to know how they come up with the wording for abilities and how they stress test them as sometimes I really have to wonder.

6 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

I just don’t get why FFG doesn’t hire people to get the grammar crystal clear. While I'm not expert surely this wording would actually clear the whole thing up:

After you execute a manoeuvre, you may perform a rotate arc action, if you do gain a tractor token.

Simple, clear and unambiguous and does 99% of what the currently worded ability does with one exception, that should FFG rule you gain perform the tractor effect prior to the arc rotate and you do deliberately put yourself on a debris to get stressed to turn off the arc rotate. But that’s it.

I would really like to know how they come up with the wording for abilities and how they stress test them as sometimes I really have to wonder.

Because good technical writers are expensive and we buy it anyway, so they're clearly not actually necessary.

They don't need technical writers. They need the writers they have to take more care and think things through. At this point they should be more than well aware of the willingness of players to twist it up, strain it to failure, beat it around the head, and try to use it exactly how it was not intended to work that they know how players will try to break it before the cards get their first proof-read.

Ok, I'm glad there is some discussion going on here but i think w ehavnt quite found the concrete argument I'm looking for.

6 hours ago, Maui. said:

PTA doesn't say you can perform a rotate turret action.

It says to gain a tractor token to perform a rotate turret action.

The two are inextricably linked. If you don't perform the action, you can't gain the token.

You aren't wrong in saying the two are linked but you are implying that the rotate action is the cost and the tractor token is the effect. I don't believe this is true at all, Gain X to do Y to me means that X is the cost and Y is the desired effect. the way that this would work is that you would pay the cost then gain the effect, the two do not operate in the same timing window and therefore there is a clear separation between cost (tractor token) and effect (rotate action). This means that if the action is labelled as 'granted' then you have the choice to perform it or not based on the RR. And also, The point OG-Kumara is trying to make is that the only requirement for paying a cost in the RR is that you have the ability to perform the effect, it does not state that if you pay the cost that you must perform the effect.

3 hours ago, Lunar Sovereign said:

So, the sticking point here seems to be the "you can choose not to perform an action when granted one" rule. People seem to be implying that gaining the token is "granting" the action but the way I see it, that's wrong. It's executing the maneuver that grants the rotate action and if you then choose to perform it you first gain the tractor token as an additional cost.

I disagree, as I've mentioned above, paying the cost (tractor) would come before the action based on the wording of the card. The maneuver is simply the trigger for the ability. the ability then enters the queue. This is the problem we are having, the wording of the card could be interpreted as you are saying, "do the action +the cost" but it can also be interpreted the other way "pay the cost to do the action" its this interpretation that creates the problem as now the ruling is subjective. I am not looking for a way to interpret the card to suit my liking, I am looking for a way to use the rules to figure out exactly how this card works no matter who looks at it.

I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying that you can't take the action without the token, and you can't take the token without the action. Taking the token means performing the action. They aren't separable.

3 hours ago, JJTeamRocket said:

the way that this would work is that you would pay the cost then gain the effect, the two do not operate in the same timing window and therefore there is a clear separation between cost (tractor token) and effect (rotate action). This means that if the action is labelled as 'granted' then you have the choice to perform it or not based on the RR.

The issue here is that the action is not 'Granted' as you put it, you have already agreed to perform the rotate Arc action as soon as you take the tractor token.

this effect is literally a rotate arc action with a tractor token tax to actually perform the action. as soon as you agree to use the PTA you are doing an arc rotate action.

While I get that you feel the need to find a specific rules section to assign to this the reality is you cant take an action and not do it.

For context, you cant take a boost action with Jake and not actually boost because it will move him out of R1 to give a focus action to another ship.

I think we have a lot of 1.0 hangover here.

The intent of the ability is very clear. You are taking a token in order to do an action. No more... no less.

To say that each section of the ability is independent of each other would be similar to me saying I can take a stress token for a red action but then not do the action because I was "granted" the action and "you can choose not to perform an action when granted one."

Don't get me wrong... there are cards/combs that are a little ambiguous, ergo the need for a FAQ, but if you are trying really hard to make an argument for a card to be read different ways... then maybe its not meant to be read that way. We need to stop trying to dissect every card when its obvious what it's meant to do.

Abilities that are added to the ability queue are atomic, which means they cannot be interrupted by effects triggered during the resolution of the ability. This may not be directly stated, but we can see evidence that this is the case by looking at the rules for red actions.

Quote

As a cost to attempt to perform a red action, a ship must gain 1 stress token.

Placing the stress token down adds the effects of stress to the ability queue, but this does not interrupt the currently resolving ability (perform a red action). If the effects of stress were applied as soon as the token hit the table then red actions would not work.

So in our scenario it goes like this:

1. The Nantex completes it’s maneuver and puts the [pinpoint tractor array] on the ability queue
2. The player chooses to pay the cost of gaining a tractor token to rotate turret. The token is placed on the ship and becomes tractored. This places the effect of becoming tractored onto the ability queue. The turret is then rotated, as this is actually the ability in the queue which was payed for.
3. Now the nantex is maneuvered from being tractored as this is the next effect on the ability queue.

23 hours ago, jklasdf said:

Abilities that are added to the ability queue are atomic, which means they cannot be interrupted by effects triggered during the resolution of the ability. This may not be directly stated, but we can see evidence that this is the case by looking at the rules for red actions.

Placing the stress token down adds the effects of stress to the ability queue, but this does not interrupt the currently resolving ability (perform a red action). If the effects of stress were applied as soon as the token hit the table then red actions would not work.

So in our scenario it goes like this:

1. The Nantex completes it’s maneuver and puts the [pinpoint tractor array] on the ability queue
2. The player chooses to pay the cost of gaining a tractor token to rotate turret. The token is placed on the ship and becomes tractored. This places the effect of becoming tractored onto the ability queue. The turret is then rotated, as this is actually the ability in the queue which was payed for.
3. Now the nantex is ma̶n̶e̶u̶v̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ [moved] from being tractored as this is the next effect on the ability queue.

I like this interpretation. Unfortunately I can see why "strictest RAW" readers will not accept it since the most recent addition to the Queue is supposed to resolve before the next thing. The comparison to stress from a red action seems sound since consensus is that you cannot jam anything into the space between a red action and its requisite stress.

Also: point of order that tractor relocation is a "move" rather than "maneuver"

On 9/26/2019 at 8:17 PM, nitrobenz said:

I like this interpretation. Unfortunately I can see why "strictest RAW" readers will not accept it since the most recent addition to the Queue is supposed to resolve before the next thing. The comparison to stress from a red action seems sound since consensus is that you cannot jam anything into the space between a red action and its requisite stress.

Also: point of order that tractor relocation is a "move" rather than "maneuver"

The strictest RAW readers would therefore insist that performing a red action literally only grants you stress with no benefit whatsoever. As pointed out, just because the effect of becoming tractored is added to the tip of the queue and will have to be the first next thing to be resolved doesn't change the fact that the queue is already in the middle of resolving an effect (Nantex's PTA). The queue will move on to the tractor effect as soon as it's not being directly occupied with resolving an ability. RR insists triggered effects are added to the queue, not that they are resolved immediately upon being trigger - likely for a reason.

Isn't a Tavson build also build on the principle of an ability being atomically resolved? Electronic Baffle Tavson decides to remove stress at the end of turn for the cost of damage. It can perform a free action now because stress has already been removed with Baffle being fully resolved before queue can move to the next enqueued effect, which will be Tavson's ability.

Do we actually know how it really works now?

Ran into the same problem yesterday. My Nantex became ionized and moved 1 straight. Can the Nantex then gain a tractor token to move itself?

8 minutes ago, Ryuneke said:

Do we actually know how it really works now?

Yes.

8 minutes ago, Ryuneke said:

Ran into the same problem yesterday. My Nantex became ionized and moved 1 straight. Can the Nantex then gain a tractor token to move itself?

No. While ionized, and after performing an ion maneuver, a ship can only perform a focus action. Because it can only perform a focus action, it cannot perform a rotate action. Because it cannot perform a rotate action, it cannot take a tractor token for the rotate action that it can't perform.

18 minutes ago, Ryuneke said:

Do we actually know how it really works now?

Ran into the same problem yesterday. My Nantex became ionized and moved 1 straight. Can the Nantex then gain a tractor token to move itself?

Yes, we know how it works. New Rules Reference pg 27

Quote

Can an ionized ship that is granted an non-[focus] action after executing a maneuver (such as a Delta-7 Aethersprite using Fine-Tuned Controls to perform an [barrel roll] or [boost] action, or a TIE Defender using Full Throttle to perform an [evade] action) perform that action?

A: No. An ionized ship is limited to performing only the [focus] action.

Since PTA falls in the same timing, it is subject to the same rule.

Cheers!

and can it take the tractor without rotating?

1 minute ago, Ryuneke said:

Cheers!

and can it take the tractor without rotating?

No. The rotate isn't a "may". The entire rotate/tractor is, but once you pay the cost (taking a tractor) you have to resolve the entire ability.

1 hour ago, Ryuneke said:

Cheers!

and can it take the tractor without rotating?

From the FAQ post.

Quote

Q: When is the cost for an ability paid?

A: The cost for an ability is paid when the ability is resolved.

Quote

When this ability resolves, the Nantex -class starfighter pays the cost ("gain 1 tractor token") to resolve this effect.

So you have to resolve the effect when you pay the cost. That's what your paying the cost for and resolving the effect is what is giving you the token.