So if a ship becomes Tractored and the opponent decides to barrel roll it onto debris I know that it will have to suffer the effects of that obstacle. The rules for tractor allow the player to choose to rotate their ship for the cost of a stress if the opponent moves it. But is that rotate a Move? Would the ship in question have to suffer the effects of the obstacle a second time?

My initial thought is no, as you are not performing a maneuver, and you are not performing a "move" that has been defined by the rules.

Looking at other examples of sit and rotate, they don't really clear anything up.

For a U-wing, the rotate isn't a move, but rather a hard stop maneuver, which is what would cause stress for it. So it isn't like the tractor rotate.

For strutted droids, they are not executing a maneuver, but rather just rotating in place which is like the tractor rotate. However, the droids have their struts that specifically tell them to ignore the obstacle while moving. So even if it is considered a move, they would ignore it, and therefore, they tell us nothing.

Again, without any supporting evidence, rotating does not seems to constitute a "move" as defined in any way by the rules that I can tell.

I can't think of any reason the rotate would be a move.

41 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I can't think of any reason the rotate would be a move.

If it qualifies as a position change it would, but I'm not sure it does.

The weird and wacky super-edge case here, is... what if a ship is right next to, but NOT overlapping an obstacle, and after using some rotation effect (Tractored post-move option, U-Wing Pivot Wing, Starviper Dalan Oberos , etc), one of its nubs/guides happens to overlap that obstacle? It becomes a catch-22 of sorts. If a rotate is not a move, then in that edge case, no obstacle effect (other than the Range-0 no-attack effect of an asteroid) would happen...

6 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

For a U-wing, the rotate isn't a move, but rather a hard stop maneuver, which is what would cause stress for it. So it isn't like the tractor rotate.

Are you sure? I mean, if my U-Wing is sitting on an asteroid, and for some reason I decide to do a full stop, remaining on the rocks, would that not count as a “move,” whether I chose to rotate or not? And would it not suffer the effects of overlap again?

Just now, Cpt ObVus said:

Are you sure? I mean, if my U-Wing is sitting on an asteroid, and for some reason I decide to do a full stop, remaining on the rocks, would that not count as a “move,” whether I chose to rotate or not? And would it not suffer the effects of overlap again?

I was saying the rotate portion isn't a move, but the hard stop is a move. So yes, you have moved over the obstacle again when you hard stop. It's the rotate portion that isn't moving. I probably could have worded that better.

23 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

one of its nubs/guides happens to overlap that obstacle?

With the consideration of nubs hitting an obstacle that it had not before the rotate added into the mix, I think this needs official clarification.

29 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

The weird and wacky super-edge case here, is... what if a ship is right next to, but NOT overlapping an obstacle, and after using some rotation effect (Tractored post-move option, U-Wing Pivot Wing, Starviper Dalan Oberos , etc), one of its nubs/guides happens to overlap that obstacle? It becomes a catch-22 of sorts. If a rotate is not a move, then in that edge case, no obstacle effect (other than the Range-0 no-attack effect of an asteroid) would happen...

Well, there’s already precedent for obstacles (and other tokens, like devices) suddenly appearing under ships which didn’t move onto them (Rigged Cargo Chute, for example), and in these cases doesn’t the affected ship tend to immediately suffer the effects of overlap? So when your template nubs get rotated onto an asteroid, wouldn’t you immediately roll a die for damage?

EDIT: Now I’m wondering if I remembered the rule on Rigged Cargo Chute correctly.

23 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

EDIT: Now I’m wondering if I remembered the rule on Rigged Cargo Chute correctly.

You got it right. It does lead me to believe that the nub would count as hitting the obstacle, but the fact that the nub being considered as an instance of overlapping, really makes me want a ruling on a ship that was already overlapping the obstacle then rotated..

Best thing to do, IMHO, would be to treat the rotation as part of the move, same way it's part of a K-Turn, S-Loop, or T-Roll.

a bit short on time and resources at the moment, so i apologize for not providing additional references, but i don't believe you've got it all right.

there is no definition on what exactly constitutes a movement as far as i know. i definitely still believe rotating is a form of movement, though.

you still wouldn't suffer the effects from overlapping an obstacle twice if you are moved on top of it and then rotated by being tractored. the effect of being tractored is a single effect and will resolve fully before there is a timing window to check whether you suffer effects from an obstacle. this means you would get boosted or rolled, then get to decide whether you want to rotate, then the effects of the obstacle would kick in.

there is no timing window in the effect of becoming tractored for the obstacle effects what so ever. that always comes afterwards.

this is in line with the clarification on the nantex pinpoint tractor array clarification, that indicates all of the nantex's ability has to be resolved before any effects from becoming tractored has any timing window to occur.

42 minutes ago, meffo said:

you still wouldn't suffer the effects from overlapping an obstacle twice if you are moved on top of it and then rotated by being tractored. the effect of being tractored is a single effect and will resolve fully before there is a timing window to check whether you suffer effects from an obstacle. this means you would get boosted or rolled, then get to decide whether you want to rotate, then the effects of the obstacle would kick in.

In this vein, I'd like to see two rules instituted that state:

1. If a ship currently at Range 0 of an obstacle is rotated by any effect other than a maneuver, it does not suffer the effects of overlapping that obstacle.
2. If a ship that is not at Range 0 of an obstacle is rotated by any effect other than a maneuver, such that one or more of its guides do overlap an obstacle after the rotation, it does suffer the effects of overlapping that obstacle (while not executing a maneuver).

This would take care of both relevant situations, I think.

I'm with bitterfig and meffo on this one. Whether or not rotate alone is considered a move is irrelevant in the original post question because it is part of the overall tractor move which is already accounting for overlap.

To address emerald's fringe case of the initial move not overlapping but the rotation hitting a nub I think the same can be applied as an extension of the premise that the rotation is part of the overall tractor movement. If the rotation is part of the larger movement then causing overlap with that part should count as the whole movement resulting in overlap.

I generally agree with bitterfig and meffo on this. To add *some* support to it, Although this only applies to huge ships, there may be a bit of clarification that could help..

Rules Reference pg 36

Quote

“MOVE” AND “ROTATE” EFFECTS
If another card’s effect instructs a huge ship to move or rotate its base a number of degrees,

This has the small implication (admittedly, a stretch of one) that moving and rotating the base are treated separately. Thus, if we take this to heart, rotating a ship, does not equal a movement of the ship. Mechanically speaking.

But as i said, given that this is in the huge ship section, its a bit of a stretch.

On 6/30/2020 at 4:29 PM, meffo said:

th ere is no definition on what exactly constitutes a movement as far as i know. i definitely still believe rotating is a form of movement, though.

There is a definition in the RRG:

Quote

MOVE

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

Base rotations do not fulfill this definition and should therefore not be considered "moves;" a base rotation by itself should not trigger the effects of overlapping an obstacle while moving.

1 hour ago, Maui. said:

There is a definition in the RRG:

Base rotations do not fulfill this definition and should therefore not be considered "moves;" a base rotation by itself should not trigger the effects of overlapping an obstacle while moving.

This ought to be enough of a peg to hang the rest on.

The thought of someone getting a 3rd stress from rotating on Debris sure was silly to me, and I'm glad to have a good, solid reason why it shouldn't happen.

On 7/1/2020 at 8:57 PM, Maui. said:

Base rotations do not fulfill this definition and should therefore not be considered "moves;" a base rotation by itself should not trigger the effects of overlapping an obstacle while moving.

Eh, maybe, but unless I’m misreading your post, the actual quote is the OTHER bit, about how a move is when a ship changes position “such as by barrel rolling or boosting.” “Such as by” is a phrase that definitely indicates that it is inclusive of barrel roll and boost, but they are not an exhaustive list of ways in which one performs a move. This passage is you interpreting that rule... and (respectfully) merely stating your position doesn’t make it so. I’m afraid all one needs to do is change your interpretation to, “Base rotations DO fulfill this definition and SHOULD be considered moves,” and we’re back to square one.

Understand I’m not trying to be difficult, but there’s nothing that, to me, indicates that a speed zero move is not a move (in fact, in Armada, a speed zero move IS a move, and would again trigger overlap effects). Besides, I think the question of whether a rotation which causes an overlap (due to the template guide nubs) would trigger overlap effects is evidence that a full stop IS a move.

On 7/2/2020 at 2:57 AM, Maui. said:

There is a definition in the RRG:

Base rotations do not fulfill this definition and should therefore not be considered "moves;" a base rotation by itself should not trigger the effects of overlapping an obstacle while moving.

thanks for the reference, but i actually agree with @Cpt ObVus here.

there is no clarity in what constitutes "changing position". also, using a template is a great way to rotate.

the u-wing's pivot wing is the only ability that lets you rotate at the moment, but since it's been added to the regular rules for the effect of becoming tractored, i'd really love to see a proper clarification on rotating.

13 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Eh, maybe, but unless I’m misreading your post, the actual quote is the OTHER bit, about how a move is when a ship changes position “such as by barrel rolling or boosting.” “Such as by” is a phrase that definitely indicates that it is inclusive of barrel roll and boost, but they are not an exhaustive list of ways in which one performs a move. This passage is you interpreting that rule... and (respectfully) merely stating your position doesn’t make it so. I’m afraid all one needs to do is change your interpretation to, “Base rotations DO fulfill this definition and SHOULD be considered moves,” and we’re back to square one.

Understand I’m not trying to be difficult, but there’s nothing that, to me, indicates that a speed zero move is not a move (in fact, in Armada, a speed zero move IS a move, and would again trigger overlap effects). Besides, I think the question of whether a rotation which causes an overlap (due to the template guide nubs) would trigger overlap effects is evidence that a full stop IS a move.

There is also something else to consider.

"..using a template"

A position marker is a marker, not a template.

RR pg 14

Quote

..players can either use the position markers provided in the core set or place templates in the ships’ guides or along the side of the base

Clearly, theses are treated a separate items. While you *can* use a template to mark and rotate a ship, its not required and in fact, the position marker was partly designed for this purpose. Thus, you could say that since rotating a ship doesn't use a template, it falls out of the definition of 'move', as a movement requires a template.

Just throwing that out there.

19 minutes ago, meffo said:

the u-wing's pivot wing is the only ability that lets you rotate at the moment...

Droid Struts are the obvious one, but those can be dismissed for this discussion because of that pesky "ignore obstacles at Range 0" text. Dalan Oberos (Starviper) is the main one that comes to mind, as is the thread's main question about a post-tractor rotation.

4 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

in fact, in Armada, a speed zero move IS a move, and would again trigger overlap effects

Zero speed (hard stop) is a maneuver in X-wing, as well, and does trigger any effects from an obstacle that you are sitting on.

4 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

Zero speed (hard stop) is a maneuver in X-wing, as well, and does trigger any effects from an obstacle that you are sitting on.

I would tend to agree. But @Lyianx brings up a good point. I missed the “using a template” text.

I guess we need a clarification from the rules guys at FFG.

11 hours ago, Lyianx said:

There is also something else to consider.

"..using a template"

A position marker is a marker, not a template.

RR pg 14

Clearly, theses are treated a separate items. While you *can* use a template to mark and rotate a ship, its not required and in fact, the position marker was partly designed for this purpose. Thus, you could say that since rotating a ship doesn't use a template, it falls out of the definition of 'move', as a movement requires a template.

Just throwing that out there.

that's taken out of context, though. has nothing to do with rotate what so ever.

stating rotating can be done without a template is not enough to clarify it's not a movement, since it can be done with a template as well. if it's done with a template, and someone somewhere is adamant that rotating is changing position, it would fall into the definition of movement.

again, we're just discussing whether something needs clarification, though. i think it does. rotating should be covered in the RR, no matter if it's a movement or not. i will also mention, for everyone's benefit, that the OP's question has been answered and we all agree, just to avoid confusion.

11 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Droid Struts are the obvious one, but those can be dismissed for this discussion because of that pesky "ignore obstacles at Range 0" text. Dalan Oberos (Starviper) is the main one that comes to mind, as is the thread's main question about a post-tractor rotation.

very true, thank you for reminding me.

13 hours ago, meffo said:

...stating rotating can be done without a template is not enough to clarify it's not a movement, since it can be done with a template as well...

Just to argue this topic to the point of absurdity: Given that the "rules" for rotating a ship simply indicate marking it, turning the ship, then removing the marker... is what you use as a marker important? Is it a move if you happen to use a template to mark your ship, but not a move, if you use the corner-marker that comes in the core set?

I think it's safe to say that a single, unified, coherent, consistent, and thorough definition of Rotating a Ship would be a welcome inclusion to the rules.