Okay, I need to break open an old thread here to ask a question.

To me, the XO card reads "He may move his character and then take one action OR not move and take two actions."

Grammatically, that says to me that, if a character moves prior to taking an action he is restricted to one action (because the first part of the quoted sentence says ' then '). If the character does not move before taking his first action, he now is restricted from moving for the remainder of the XO (because the second part of the quoted sentence does NOT say ' then ').

This means that, for example, a pilot sitting in a viper could not shoot with his first action and use his second action to move, because he would then be doing something the card doesn't allow for.

Or, as a more complicated example, a player standing in the Hangar Deck is a recipient of an XO. They don't move, then launch themselves in a viper, which moves them into space. They then use the Hangar Deck's bonus action to move to another space location. Now they want to use the second action from their XO to shoot at a Cylon ship there, but woah, woah, woah. They've already moved TWO times on this turn. The XO card just doesn't allow for that with the way it's worded.

I seem to be the ONLY PERSON who interprets the card this way. Everyone else says that the card is telling you to move, then take one action, or stay put, then take two actions, regardless of whether or not those two actions move you. I am of the opinion that this (the majority opinion's) way of interpreting the card is simpler and better, and our group in fact plays it that way. BUT THE CARD DOESN'T SAY THAT.

I'm torn here. I want someone to tell me that the card is poorly worded or that I'm making some error in my interpretation of it, but nobody has. They just keep saying, 'Oh, yeah, that means that as long as you don't move before your first action, you can do whatever the heck you want with those two actions.' Somebody tell me why! Justify your position here, people!

And by break open an old thread I mean that I was initially going to post this as a response in an old thread, but then realized that it was really a different topic. And then I forgot to remove that first line when I copied it here.

Drinkdrawers said:

If it helps, think of it this way: The pilot isn't shooting and then moving himself around. The pilot is pulling the trigger and then pushing a joystick and working the pedals of the viper he's in.

Drinkdrawers said:

Again, activating a viper (even if it's the one you're in) isn't "moving." If it's a thematic difficulty you're having, remember that someone sitting the cockpit of a viper is actually moving around less than someone taking actions in, say, the Armory or the Science Lab.

Are there non-viper examples of XO's second option being used to move characters around? The only one that I can think of would be your interpretation of XO disallowing a player who reveals as a cylon to move to the Resurrection Ship, which would be...odd.

Roger that. Everything in the OP except the part about piloting a Viper. When a player is not in a Viper they must either move then act or act twice. If someone is in a Viper, the only "movement" possible is returning to Gal/Peg/C1, whereas there are several possible actions, which include flying the ship from one space area to another, or attacking. So even though a character on Galactica does NOT have the choice to perform an action and then move, someone piloting can use one action to attack a ship, and the second action to fly to another space area.

For WAY more information on pretty much the same argument, see this and the following page of the the Exodus Rules forum on BGG:

boardgamegeek.com/thread/603224/rules-answers-plus-two-errata/page/11

Kushiel said:

Kushiel said:

You can't define game rules based on theme. That would result in all sorts of chaos. A player, whether or not they're in a viper is moving when they go to a different location. There is no cockpit, no joystick in this game. You have to define rules based on language.

As to your question, sure. A player in the brig receives an XO. They use their first action to pass the skill check which lets them move to any location on Galactica. Do they get a second action? Can they even make that move?

And I completely agree with your analysis. It's odd. I think the card should be errata-ed. Adding just one word would make all this go away.

Keithustus said:

I think you ignored my point. I'm saying that a player in a viper who, without moving, uses the first action of an XO to shoot, then uses his second action to move, is MOVING. The card says you can't move if you take two actions.

The example you mention with the brig is not in violation of the card rules. The text on the brig states as part of the 'action' to move to another location. The 'move' is contained within the action itself.

Same with the piloting example. It is the action the pilot is using that allows them to move.

If language is what you are worried about, the ability to move is part of the action text itself, therefore not in violation of the movement restriction of the card.

My two cents...

Moving and shooting in vipers counts as "activating" a viper. In the OP's example of someone being in the Hangar Deck and being the recipient of an XO, the player

• Chooses to take 2 actions
• Activates the Hangar Bay as the first action, launches him/herself into a viper and is then granted an additional action
• Activates the Viper to Shoot
• Activates the Viper to Move

There is no issue with being able to do that once you understand that either way you are activating the viper to move or shoot. However, during a movement phase, a player may only move if they're in a viper. It's in the core rulebook, page 10.

mastabou said:

Can you tell me where you read that in the rules?

Because the XO card doesn't say "Not move unless that move is part of an action." It says "not move." There is no condition. So even if the move is a part of an action, it's still restricted.

AUCodeMonkey said:

Did you mean that during the action step, a player may only move if they're in a viper? Because anybody can move during their movement step. I do see what you're mentioning on page 10 of the rulebook.

But that doesn't mean that activating a viper to move is not moving. It means that activating a viper to move is an action. Does the rulebook say that something cannot be both a move and an action?

The rules state that activating a viper is an action, and as an action it means one of 3 things: launching a viper, moving a viper, or attacking with a viper. So when you activate the viper, if you use that activation to move, it's still activating and therefore counts as an action and not a move. That's at least the way that my groups have always interpreted it.

Drinkdrawers said:

In your example, only one movement was made, and because it was done with a viper, it constitutes an activation, which is what a viper does when it takes an action.

The pilot in the hanger was XOed.

He doesn't move from his location, therefore he get's two actions.

The first action from the XO is to use the Hanger Action, which launches him into a space area (not the same as the game term "move") and then gets another action.

His action from getting launched is to activate his viper. As the activation, he moves his viper. This is something extended to characters piloting vipers.

His second action from the XO is to activate his viper again, but this time the activation is to shoot.

Yes, it does seem that you are the only person who interprets the card to prevent a character who is piloting a viper to use his actions as specified in the rules.

Drinkdrawers said:

Ah, okay. I thought your hangup was thematic in nature, so I was trying to give you an explanation to suit.

Drinkdrawers said:

Of course.

Drinkdrawers said:

I suppose. All communication is a compromise. To me, the card reads just the way it's intended to: Move and then take one action, or take two actions (and resolve those actions; if the resolution of either/both action involves movement, resolve that movement just as you would the effects of any other action).

You're the first person I've met who had any doubt about designer intent regarding the card. If you understand how it works, and nobody else has a problem with it, I'm not sure why this is an issue for you.

Kushiel said:

I don't really know, either. I guess it just annoys me that I interpret the card one way when I think about it practically (as in ease of play/designer intent) and another way when I think about it rules-wise (and by that I mean grammatically). I just want to make 100% sure that the practical interpretation is in this case the right one.

And maybe to find out why nobody else is bothered by this.

Tsugo said:

Yes, I understand how it works. Why do people keep trying to explain the mechanics of this to me? I get the order of actions, and which actions fall within which actions, and which actions grant extra actions, and how moving in a viper is an action, not a movement.

What I'm saying is that just because something is an action or an activation, doesn't mean it isn't a move . And the text on the card says you can't move.

And that bothers me. It bothers me that something's wrong. Either we're all playing it wrong (again, I don't think we are), or the text on the card is wrong, or I'm wrong about something being able to be both a move and an action. Did I miss any possibilities?

I realize I'm being difficult here. I just want everything to be right. It's a luxury I like to have.

By the way, I have submitted my question to FFG. Feel free to keep arguing with me, as it's pretty fun, or you can just wait and see what they have to say.

If you even care, which it seems like only I do.

Drinkdrawers said:

Nowhere on the card does it say that you can't move. That's your interpretation of the rules for the sake of this argument.

I am reading this card right now and cannot find any spot where it says that you can't move. In fact, there's a part that says that you CAN.

I think that something being an ACTIVATION or ACTION definitely makes something not a MOVE in the game's terms. While thematically what may be happening on the board would translate to real life movement, you're not depleting a move, you're depleting an action, and I think that what the game cares about and what matters within its rules is what resource you are using to get something done.

I suppose that, as you stated above, what it comes down to is that you cannot define game rules thematically. While what you're doing seems like moving, in the game's terms you're not expending a move, you're expending an action.

Of course, I AM a newb.

Ah semantics. For game purposes, would you agree that a move and an action are two separate game mechanics? If so, then lets say a move is when you the player choose a new location for your character to occupy.

An action is using the printed ability of a card, board space or rulebook. Some actions cause characters to be sent to a different space, such as the Admirals Quarters. If you get brigged, you are not getting a free move persay, but that action is causing you to send your token to the brig. So the same thought can be applied to the activation of a viper or the brig. The action is causing you to appear in another location, you just happen to get to choose where. It is the rule text 'moving' your ship, not the player, and hence would not qualify for the movement restriction on 'Executive Order.'

This of course, relies upon your acceptance that a move and an action are in fact, separate.

Just my thoughts...

An apprentice rules lawyer

HooblaDGN said:

Thank you for pointing out something I might be misunderstanding, instead of just explaining the mechanics to me again.

I don't understand how you're interpreting the card. It seems to me to say pretty explicitly that if a player wants to take two actions he may not move. Let me try to explain.

The card reads, "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR not move and take 2 actions." That sentence is compound; it has one subject with two verbs that both apply to the subject. I'm going to rewrite it and redistribute the subject to both verbs. "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR he may not move and take 2 actions." The object (his character) must also apply to both verbs. The sentence now reads, "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR he may not move his character and take 2 actions." Now (looking at the last half of the sentence) I read that to say that, if I want to do what it says I have two things to do. 1. Not move. 2. Take 2 actions. Not in that order, because the second clause in the sentence doesn't specify an order. Not in that order, but simultaneously and completely. The (admittedly modified, but within the rules of English) sentence says "he may not move his character."

So, if my character is in a viper, and I activate that viper to move to a new location, I am moving my character. If I am in the brig, and a pass a check to get out, I am told to move my character to any location on Galactica. I am moving my character. If I am a Cylon, and I reveal, I am told to move my character to the resurrection ship. I am moving my character. (I'm not sure about this one, since I don' t have the rules or the cards in front of me right now. It's possible that Cylons are told to do something like remove their character from the Colonial Fleet and place it on the resurrection ship. I would probably still call that moving the character.)

THIS MAKES NO SENSE. The card as written causes needlessly complicated situations and restricts too many options. Everybody knows it. I know it. Everybody plays it intuitively and not the way it's written.

BUT, the way it's written still allows for the possibility that WE'RE ALL PLAYING IT WRONG. I admit, there's not much chance of it, but it's there. And I want to make sure.

mastabou said:

If a move and an action were defined as separate in-game mechanics, then there would be no issue. But they are not defined that way int he rules or the errata.

Yes, but when you take an action, you complete the whole action. The errata on "State of emergency" states that in a situation where the current player is a cylon and he reveals, the rest of the action continues (normally the turn would immediately end after resolving the reveal.) I think you could extrapolate this reasoning to include your problematic situation/s.

I believe that if you weren't supposed to move, they would have included the text "except for actions that would move your character," or something like that. The card has been available since the base game, and in two expansions since, no errata has been issued to that effect. Even when playing the game with FFG employees (at Gencon) use of this card was not restricted in the way you suggest.

Since the card says you may take two actions, and here is an excerpt from possible actions in the rulebook:

Action Step
During this step, the current player chooses one action to
perform. The action types are listed below, and are usually
identified by the word “Action:” followed by an ability.
• Activate Location: The player may perform the action
listed on his character’s current location .
• Skill Card Action: The player may play a Skill Card from
his hand to perform the action specified on the card. Note
that not all Skill Cards have actions on them (see “Skill
Cards” on page 15).
• Character Action: The player may perform an action
listed on his character sheet. Note that only some character
sheets have actions listed on them.
• Activate his Viper: If the player is piloting a viper, he may
activate it to move or to attack a Cylon ship...

It would stand to reason that the viper example and the brig example are ok.

mastabou said:

Errata: the "end turn" part of the reveal process ONLY applies if a player reveals on his/her turn. If that player is able to perform an action for any other reason, such as Executive Order or State of Emergency, that does not end the turn or avoid the crisis-card draw.

That was my point though. I mentioned that if they were the current player, normally revealing ends their turn. The way the errata speaks about the card, the rest of the action completes (other players move/take action).

mastabou said:

I am totally with you. It does stand to reason. But not to grammar. Maybe the reason there isn't any errata on this is because I'm the only person in the whole world it bothers.

So there are two ways I can figure to solve this. First, add the word 'then' to the card. Once the not-moving and the taking-two-actions are sequential, there isn't a problem. The other way is to define what they mean by 'move,' which I guess is what that other guy earlier in the thread was talking about. I'm getting hung up on the fact that in my mind, I'm defining 'move' as putting out my hand, picking up my piece on the board, and relocating it (regardless of whether I'm doing it of my own choice or an action told me to). But if the card means 'move' as in 'executing a game mechanic in which a player moves his playing piece to another location independently of having taken (or not taken) an action,' then there's no problem.

The other solution, of course, is that I just it. But seriously. All FFG has to do is give me one little word, or define one little word.

That should say 'I just it.'

Weird. I'm pretty sure I typed that right.