So I was playing a game the other night with some friends and we had a bit of a dispute. I was (human) Tigh and another player used executive order on me. I was in weapons control so I shot at a basestar with my first action and used a strategic planning card to increase my chances of hitting. I only had one card left and didn't want to lose it for nothing(as per Tigh's flaw), so I decided instead to use it to take a trip to colonial one since our president as an obvious cylon and stuck in the brig, so we wanted to elect a new president. I thought I could use my second action (from the EO card) to do that but our cylon president argued that I could not saying that the first action can be a move but not both since I wasn't a viper pilot. I couldn't find any rules to the contrary so rather than have a long-winded and frustrating argument, I conceded the point and we kept playing. I'm pretty sure I could have made the move though and used my remaining skill card to go to colonial one. Thoughts?

To summarize: If a player is activated with executive order and is NOT a pilot in space, can both of his actions be moves? or just the first one?

Yeah, you can only move in the move phase or if you choose to move first for the Executive Order, unless you are piloting a Viper. So no, that would not be valid.

Not to mention that in your example you already used an action to activate Weapons Control, so you would have been trying to get a move and two actions from the EO card.

The reason Pilots can get two "moves" from an EO is because Activating a Viper is an Action, and one of the three Viper Activation Actions is a Move (the other two being Launch and Fire).

JerusalemJones said:

Actually I only wanted to make 2 action/moves. I was already in weapons control so I wanted to use that as my first action and then move with my second. My plan was to activate Administration on the next turn, not in the same sequence, to save me a skill card.

I know why pilots can have two actions, I just want clarification on what the two actions of an EO card can be used for.

My argument is that because this is such a specific example that can only come up under a circumstance like this (since why else would you want to take an action FIRST and then move?) there simply isn't a rule to clarify because nobody has thought of it before. I think that if one of the two actions on EO can be a move, why not let it be the second?

iceberg84 said:

This is wrong. EO is NOT giving you two actions, one that can be a move. It's giving you the option of moving and then take one action, or staying put and take two actions. The only reason you can move at all is because the card say you can move first if you want. Move is not an action at all, and that is why it doesn't work.

Mattr0polis said:

I think you're just arguing semantics here based on the rules for a player turn phase. There was another thread from a while ago where someone wanted to be able to use his character's special ability during an EO arguing that the player USING EO was also giving that player a new turn, which is incorrect.

It doesn't create a new turn for the player being given the EO, it simply gives him two actions, one of which can be a move. Since this situation is so rare, I don't think it was anticipated and so there are no rules for it.

? I don't even understand how you could have any doubts about this still.

Does the card say you can take an action and then move? no.

Does the rules say anywhere that you can move as an action, or that moving IS an action, other than activating a Viper? no.

And again, the card does NOT say "you may take two actions, the first of which can be a move." as I think you are interpreting it. It says "choose any other player. He may move his character and then take 1 action OR not move and take 2 actions."

There is without a doubt, no way that what you want to do is a legal move, going by the rules.

There are both semantics and actual rule differences being discussed.

Saying that EO gives 'two actions, one of which may be a move' is a fine description of the card. However, only the first action may be a move. The card is very clear.

Action, Action = OK

Move, Action = OK

Action, Move = NOT OK

timonkey said:

Not when 'action' is an in-game very specific directive, especially when 'move' is not one of the abilities you can perform under such.

I think this is another rule situation that I am just very used to from my CCG backround, but I can see why it may be a bit confusing for others. I think I'm just bad at explaining this out for some reason. At least you understand it enough to get the correct ruling though.

When I said action I meant it in the specific sense it is used in the game. I don't think anyone here is misconstruing action to mean move, otherwise, there wouldn't be the funny business about the move.

Oh, I see what you mean now. More carefully worded: EO allows two actions, one of which (the first) may be replaced with a move.

I agrea with Mattr0polis, the rules and card are very clear. And in game with complex rules semantics is very important. Since "Action" is a specific game mechanics I'd say you can not use an action to move unless specificly stated on a card/location/rule for the current situation.

"choose any other player. He may move his character and then take 1 action OR not move and take 2 actions."

I've bolded a few sections for futher emphasis.

Agree with everything Mattr0polis said.