So the exact text on Arvel's card says:
" If you would fail a [boost] action by overlapping another ship, resolve it as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead."

If you fail your boost because the template overlapped an obstacle, then you don't get to move. If Arvel fails by bumping, then he partially executes the maneuver.

What happens if you overlap both another ship and an obstacle in the same boost?

I can think of four arguable cases:

1 - The action fails because you check to see whether the ship would overlap or move through the obstacle BEFORE checking the ships final position. So you will always stay still for a failed boost.

2 - You check to see whether Arvels movement path would touch the obstacle or the other ship first. If he hit the ship first then it fails by overlapping another ship and you can execute it as a partial maneucer. If it hit the rock first, then it fails by the rock and Arvel's ability doesn't trigger.

3 - Both fails trigger at the same time, and you may choose which order to resolve them. So you get the choice of wether it fails from the rock and you stay still, or if it fails from the bump and you partially execute the maneuver.

4 - Both fails trigger at the same time, but since you satisfied the criteria or Arvel's ability, then you must use the ability "execute it as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead."

The TO in my tournament ruled for option 2. I would personally lean towards option 4, but since it is an abstract scenerio It was a fair call.
I now submit it to the FFG gods to make an appropriate FAQ.

And sorry if this has already been asked.

2 is correct.

from page 7 of the rules reference, under Boost:

• While attempting to place a ship to complete a boost, the boost can fail if any of the following occurs:
◊ The ship’s final positions would cause the ship to overlap another ship.
◊ The ship would overlap or move through an obstacle.
◊ The ship’s final position would cause it to be outside the play area (and therefore would cause that ship to flee).

i think 4 is correct.

sure, you would fail because of overlapping another ship, but you would also fail because of moving through or overlapping and obstacle.

i think failing is a game effect and should be resolved first, but Arvels ability is a replacement effect and will resolve instead, so in my opionion, you would fail as if partially executing a maneuver and suffer the effects of the obstacle.

5 hours ago, meffo said:

i think 4 is correct.

I dono about that. Its still failing due to overlap of the obstacle. But im not sure how this should be ruled. *shrugs*

33 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I dono about that. Its still failing due to overlap of the obstacle. But im not sure how this should be ruled. *shrugs*

indeed, but as soon as it fails because of overlapping a ship, the replacement effect kicks in. i thought it'd fail because of the obstacle as normal as well, but card abilities overwrite normal rules - and as soon as one of the reasons for failing is overlapping a ship, that's what's described on the card, so it makes sense for the ability to kick in. since it's a replacement effect, it should resolve immediately.

Personally I'd argue that you don't get to find out if it overlaps a ship, if the template touches the rock you're already failing the boost, so you stop there and boost failed.

If the template doesn't, and you can't put the ship down at the end because of both a rock AND another ship, then it's a bit ill-defined, but don't expect a response from FFG on it, this issue has been around since the edition first came out and they've done nothing about it.

Generally, rules which say you can't do something override things which say you can. I'd argue that any overlap of an obstacle causes a stay-still fail from Arvel, whether or not there's another ship anywhere, no matter which you'd hit first.

Failure rule on a Boost is that you fail if your ship or template overlaps an obstacle, and Arvel doesn't exempt you from that.

Probably 2. If they FAQ’d to 4 it wouldn’t be super crazy.

I would read it as 'if any of the reasons you are failing the boost are because overlapping a ship you treat it as a maneuver.' You can either do the failed boost checks all at once, Overlap, Obstacle, Off the board. and it triggers Arvel, or you do them in the order they are written down, Overlap is checked first. triggers Arvel.

I don't think you can put the template over the rock and auto fail the boost before placing the ship down to see if it overlaps the ship because;

• While attempting to place a ship to complete a boost , the boost can fail if any of the following occurs:

Of course, check with your TO. Judging by the thread, results may vary.

23 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Generally, rules which say you can't do something override things which say you can. I'd argue that any overlap of an obstacle causes a stay-still fail from Arvel, whether or not there's another ship anywhere, no matter which you'd hit first.

Failure rule on a Boost is that you fail if your ship or template overlaps an obstacle, and Arvel doesn't exempt you from that.

Something to consider, from the Rules Reference under Obstacles (top left of Page 14):

Quote

For the purpose of overlapping obstacles, if a ship partially executes a maneuver, only the portion of the template that is between the starting and final positions of the ship is counted. Ignore the portion of the template that the ship moved backward along to resolve the overlap

To that end, if Arvel would boost into another ship AND onto an obstacle, if the ship overlap causes him to move backwards and avoid the obstacle, then the rest of the template is ignored, and no obstacle overlap occurrs!

Here is the kicker.. "resolve it as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead."

This is going to fall under replacement effects.

"Replacement effects are not added to the end of the ability queue as they are resolved at the timing of the effect they are replacing ."

"When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred."

So, if you failed the boost because you overlapped a ship (which you have done in this case), the boost NOW becomes a maneuver and you can overlap the rock because you are no longer performing an action.

Note.. you still overlapped the rock, so you would suffer the effects of said rock.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

...

Something to consider, from the Rules Reference under Obstacles (top left of Page 14):

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

For the purpose of overlapping obstacles, if a ship partially executes a maneuver, only the portion of the template that is between the starting and final positions of the ship is counted. Ignore the portion of the template that the ship moved backward along to resolve the overlap

To that end, if Arvel would boost into another ship AND onto an obstacle, if the ship overlap causes him to move backwards and avoid the obstacle, then the rest of the template is ignored, and no obstacle overlap occurrs!

That is good to exempt the far side of the boost template, but I think the more likely scenario which leads to this question is this:

The template is close to, but not moving through, an obstacle such that if not for the intentional bump Arvel would have been clear, but when Arvel moves back along his tracks the side or corner of the base is overlapping the obstacle.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Something to consider, from the Rules Reference under Obstacles (top left of Page 14): [How Partial Maneuvers Fail]

To that end, if Arvel would boost into another ship AND onto an obstacle, if the ship overlap causes him to move backwards and avoid the obstacle, then the rest of the template is ignored, and no obstacle overlap occurrs!

To me, that seems kind of too late. You'd only have the overlap-from-partial-maneuver rule if Arvel's replacement fail happens. My point is that things never get that far. The obstacle fail (or board-edge fail) still happens, and Arvel doesn't get to ignore that, and stays put.

So we have two source of a failed boost. Obstacle and Ship. You determine if an action fails, before determining how that failure is resolved. Even if Arvel alters the ship failure, because we need to look at Fail-Or-Not before we look at how Arvel fails. The Obstacle still causes the boost to fail, and I think failure due to a Boost overlapping an obstacle makes Arvel stay still.

//

That said, it is potentially kind of silly at times. An obstacle behind a ship could cause Arvel to still fail a boost and stay still, which looks silly.

I guess I just think if there's two source of failure, and you've got an offramp from one kind of failure, that doesn't exempt you from the other, and the end result would be the default failure.

12 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

but I think the more likely scenario which leads to this question is this:

The template is close to, but not moving through, an obstacle such that if not for the intentional bump Arvel would have been clear, but when Arvel moves back along his tracks the side or corner of the base is overlapping the obstacle.

This one I'd say Arvel rolls damage, if I'm reading your example right.

Basically, the template doesn't go over the obstacle, and Arvel's "normal" final position (if no other ships were involved) isn't overlapping an obstacle, and the only reason he overlaps an obstacle is because of his 'partial maneuver,' then it'd be treated like an obstacle in any other partially executed maneuver. He'd roll damage, and sit on the rock. I don't think you'd retroactively fail again.

37 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

Here is the kicker.. "resolve it as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead."

This is going to fall under replacement effects.

"Replacement effects are not added to the end of the ability queue as they are resolved at the timing of the effect they are replacing ."

"When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred."

So, if you failed the boost because you overlapped a ship (which you have done in this case), the boost NOW becomes a maneuver and you can overlap the rock because you are no longer performing an action.

Note.. you still overlapped the rock, so you would suffer the effects of said rock.

I disagree with this interpretation that the boost is replaced with a maneuver, I read the replacement effect used as just the "partial execution of an overlapping maneuver" replacing the normal effect of "the boost fails" when it would overlap.

If they had wanted it to be a maneuver instead of a boost that could have been much clearer by just saying, "execute it as a maneuver instead." But they went to some extra lengths to treat it like a partial maneuver without being a partial maneuver.

Arvel's relevant text: " If you would fail a action action by overlapping another ship, resolve it [the boost action] as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead. "

This clearly says you are still resolving a boost action. I interpret the end to be replacing the normal failure resolution with an alternate resolution. I will admit though that having a limited replacement effect seems a bit gray so it could be ruled to be a full replacement for simplicity.

20 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I disagree with this interpretation that the boost is replaced with a maneuver, I read the replacement effect used as just the "partial execution of an overlapping maneuver" replacing the normal effect of "the boost fails" when it would overlap.

If they had wanted it to be a maneuver instead of a boost that could have been much clearer by just saying, "execute it as a maneuver instead." But they went to some extra lengths to treat it like a partial maneuver without being a partial maneuver.

Arvel's relevant text: " If you would fail a action action by overlapping another ship, resolve it [the boost action] as though you were partially executing a maneuver instead. "

This clearly says you are still resolving a boost action. I interpret the end to be replacing the normal failure resolution with an alternate resolution. I will admit though that having a limited replacement effect seems a bit gray so it could be ruled to be a full replacement for simplicity.

Agreed. and ill add. Partially executing a maneuver is this.

Quote

it must partially execute that maneuver by performing the following steps:

1. Move the ship backward along the template until it is no longer on top of any other ships. While doing so, adjust the position of the ship so that the hashmarks in the middle of both sets of guides remains centered over the line down the middle of the template.

2. Once the ship is no longer on top of any other ship, place it so that it is touching the last ship it backed over. This may result in the ship returning to its starting position.

3. The ship skips its Perform Action step.

So, its just saying "follow these steps" in much the same way that Energy-Shell Charges "Action: Reload this card" still makes you go though all the steps of the Reload action, even tho its not specifically performing the reload action. You still get the weapons disabled token, and you still flip a charge over.

So Arvel's ability doesn't allow him to "partially maneuver". Doing so wont trigger abilities that trigger after "executes a maneuver" timings (so, you cannot snapshot him after he 'partially boosts'). All he is doing, is following the steps.

This also brings up the question. If someone coordinates or otherwise allows him to boost before his Perform Action step, and he triggers his abilities, i feel like he would have to skip his perform action step as well. But its ambiguous on if that only occurs during activation or not. Feels like another discussion lol.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

...

This also brings up the question. If someone coordinates or otherwise allows him to boost before his Perform Action step, and he triggers his abilities, i feel like he would have to skip his perform action step as well. But its ambiguous on if that only occurs during activation or not. Feels like another discussion lol.

Going off the Ailerons ruling, I would say the "skip your perform action step" only applies to the regular maneuver.

1 hour ago, nitrobenz said:

Going off the Ailerons ruling, I would say the "skip your perform action step" only applies to the regular maneuver.

Ah.. great point. Even tho one is obstacle and one is an overlap, its still the easiest way to resolve it.

Seems like a fair number of these questions get bogged down in minutiae when the ability itself is pretty clearly worded. Out of all the possible interpretations in the OP's post, #2 is the clear winner. A ship is a ship, and if Arvel runs into one of those first, his ability triggers. If he runs into a different obstacle first, he doesn't.

Easy.

On 10/22/2019 at 9:28 PM, Vectivus333 said:

Seems like a fair number of these questions get bogged down in minutiae when the ability itself is pretty clearly worded

For casual players, yes. Most of these questions/debates however spawn due to competitive play, and how much those competitive players hang on every word. So we try here, to dissect the wording in any way it *could* be interpreted, to get ahead of those players so when the question does come up in tournaments, there is a solid answer (or at least, consensus) for TO's to judge. So while some of these questions may seem like they have obvious answers at first, you can bet someone, somewhere, can change how its read to work a different way. Part of that fault, is FFG's inconsistent wording.

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

For casual players, yes. Most of these questions/debates however spawn due to competitive play, and how much those competitive players hang on every word. So we try here, to dissect the wording in any way it *could* be interpreted, to get ahead of those players so when the question does come up in tournaments, there is a solid answer (or at least, consensus) for TO's to judge. So while some of these questions may seem like they have obvious answers at first, you can bet someone, somewhere, can change how its read to work a different way. Part of that fault, is FFG's inconsistent wording.

That's fair, I guess.