He's got a point there. There's a big difference between knowing the turn before that you're going to not be able to play a maneuver dial, and setting and placing a maneuver dial, only to be prevented from revealing it. That's no more paradoxical than simply getting shot and blown up before it ever came back to your turn.

You are completely correct that the current wording makes a mess, CrookedWookie (and Buhallin). I just think that the bad wording is more likely to be a result of a small mistake in writing, than a massive error in game design. There are SO many ways to have worded this that would have made it function the way you describe, but EXACTLY as written it creates potential for massive problems. Not the least of which, is what to do if there is no maneuver to reveal.

How about "If a ship would reveal a maneuver, immediately before revealing that maneuver ..." Makes it work very well. Or "Immediately before the reveal maneuver step, you may..." works very well the other way.

What if we do it exactly your way, and you use Advanced Sensors to barrel roll on to proximity mines and are destroyed (which we would all agree happens right then and there). If the ship is destroyed, it cannot reveal a maneuver, which would make the entire thing illegal! Would I then be able to argue that we should put my ship back on the board, because I wasn't allowed to use Advanced Sensors in the first place?

That whole sequence is idiotic, which is why I very much doubt that it is what the designers had in mind.

But at least you had placed maneuver dial with the intention and ability at the time of placement to revel it. Something very specifically interrupted it.

Otherwise you never placed a dial and had neither the intention or ability to pay to cost of the action.

And that is a very good point. However, if the rule is an absolute requirement then your intentions don't really enter into it, which is the point I am trying to make. I can see that maybe the designers MEANT for you to at least have a maneuver dial to potentially reveal before using Advanced Sensors. Personally, I would prefer that because my favorite ship/loadout by FAR is a Y-Wing with an Ion Turret, and anything that makes them more effective would please my inner munchkin. I just think it is more likely that "before" is simply a statement of timing, so that the person using Advanced Sensors must use them at his PS step, but get his action at the beginning rather than at the end of the activation phase. Since "Reveal Maneuver" is step 1, wording it as "immediately before" would accomplish that goal. A better wording would be "At the beginning of this ships activation phase", or "Immediately before the reveal maneuver step".

Again, the rule is not written well. But one way would be a small writing error, the other would be a large design error (or a large writing error).

Again, the rule is not written well. But one way would be a small writing error, the other would be a large design error (or a large writing error).

You mean like Dark Curse and Turrets being mutually exclusive in their ability to function because of the timing on target declaration?

<shrug> I honestly can't bring myself to care about this one. There's an obvious dependency on revealing a maneuver. There are no side effects that don't need the Doctor to explain, and that honestly cannot be safely ignored.

You can argue paradoxes with your opponent all you want, but I think CW hit it right earlier on. Regardless of the time travel issues when the Advanced Sensors DO work, it's pretty clear that without even having a dial to reveal, they CAN'T work. The question is answered.

I don't know. The programming aspect of it just doesn't bug me I guess.

It says " Immediately before you reveal your maneuver." If you were hit with Ion - you have no maneuver. And you know this an entire turn before you would be using advanced sensors. I just cannot buy that you're allowed to use Advanced Sensors knowing full well that you do not have a maneuver to reveal. I can't.

Sometimes you are by far your own worst advocate, Buhallin. I shudder to think what actually playing a game with you must be like. I have certainly had my fair share of playing with people who act the way you write, hopefully it is just your writing style. It is not obvious, it could easily be that "immediately before" is a statement of timing and nothing more.

I am perfectly happy to play by whatever the consensus decision is, unless and until FFG comes out with an actual ruling. But obnoxious declarations of what is and is not answered does nothing to enhance the validity of your opinion, nor does it motivate people to work towards consensus with you involved.

As much as I agree with you CW, I just don't like having a rule that has the potential to be completely unworkable. In the example with Prox Mines, we have exactly that. Of course, if they hadn't broken the whole thing by flat out contradicting the rules when it comes to prox mines and barrel rolls, we wouldn't have THIS problem either.

Just to be clear, if I come across this in a tournament I will suggest to the TO that we not allow Advanced Sensors for Ionized ships, because that seems to be the way most people whose opinions I respect believe it should be done. And in the tournament I am running I will do so as well, and for the same reasons.

As for Dark Curse, THAT is settled. Not only by logic and consensus, but by an actual FAQ answer. And you are right, that was badly written as well.

And it was a bad call, Ripley, a bad call .

On a serious note, though, this is one that I hope will be fixed if, in the upcoming FAQ, they wind up doing an actual errata for the way Proximity Mines (or boost/barrel roll) work that takes care of that particular Gordian Knot.

I just have trouble with the logic of the prox mine thing, given that it would be an entirely self-inflicted paradox and anyone in their right mind would be all "hey, there is a powerful explosive. I should probably NOT boost onto that deliberately."

You're right about Dark Curse being answered - it turned out to be turrets that were utterly nonfunctional.

You're right about Dark Curse being answered - it turned out to be turrets that were utterly nonfunctional.

That's the one that gets my goat - gets my dander right up.

Why can an Ion turret target him and not a Blaster Turret? Are blaster turrets sentient, and manic depressive? "I could shoot him, but what's the point? I'd probably miss anyway." Rerolls, spending focus to modify the attack? Sure. Yes, absolutely. Not being able to spend a focus to make the attack? Uhhh, is he magical?

And again - of course I'll play it that way if it's the rules. I just think it was a terrible ruling and will hope until the end of time that they come to their senses and amend it to let you SHOOT the blaster turret at that special, magical winged Unicorn that is Dark Curse.

The blaster turret must, for whatever reason, be harder to control and more of a manual process which requires more focus. Dark Curse might have latent force capability which may cause distraction to those focusing on him; that plus his erratic flying style simply aggravates targeting computers.

Strange that, but........... Impressive

I prefer to say that since secondary weapons are selected during Step 2, Dark Curse is the defender so his ability is in effect and prevents the focus token from being spent.

But now we're REALLY off topic

True, true, mumbleDarkgrumbleCurse

Anyway, I throw this out there not to aid either side of the argument, but I'd love to know why they DID phrase it "Immediately before revealing." Why not after revealing a maneuver? Either way you'd be doing your free action before you actually moved, right?

True, true, mumbleDarkgrumbleCurse

Anyway, I throw this out there not to aid either side of the argument, but I'd love to know why they DID phrase it "Immediately before revealing." Why not after revealing a maneuver? Either way you'd be doing your free action before you actually moved, right?

Or any number of hundreds of ways they could have worded it that would have avoided the issue in the first place. My guess? The writers are journalism majors, who have gone into publishing. "Common" understanding is their bread and butter, not "clarity", and the minutia of rule interactions are all but completely lost on them.

As for Dark Curse, I think of it in terms of Target Lock. You need a Target Lock to fire a torpedo at a target. Though technically you could just fire the thing off into space you would have no real chance of hitting your target if you did so. Blaster Turrets apparently need much more precise targeting (maybe the blaster turret uses plasma, which is a very fast but still nowhere near lightspeed weapon), and/or more effort to aim properly. Dark Curse is apparently just "too dodgy" for off-the-cuff targeting ala Deadeye and Blaster Turret.

I guess I'll just wait for the inevitable Wave 4 elite pilot skill, Eyedead: If a card directs you to spend a Focus token, you may spend a Target Lock instead.

True, true, mumbleDarkgrumbleCurse

Anyway, I throw this out there not to aid either side of the argument, but I'd love to know why they DID phrase it "Immediately before revealing." Why not after revealing a maneuver? Either way you'd be doing your free action before you actually moved, right?

I expect that they wanted to put the action conclusively before anything else that might trigger from revealing the maneuver. I think it would have been clearer and better served as "At the beginning of the Reveal Dial Step..."

I certainly don't disagree that it's odd wording, but it doesn't conflict with any other abilities, it doesn't create a precedent that conflicts with any other abilities, and any paradox problem is so tightly localized it's easily overlooked. If we can time travel back (or look ahead) full steps and multiple events to make the turret's targeting rules work, I'm pretty sure we can handle this one.

True, true, mumbleDarkgrumbleCurse

Anyway, I throw this out there not to aid either side of the argument, but I'd love to know why they DID phrase it "Immediately before revealing." Why not after revealing a maneuver? Either way you'd be doing your free action before you actually moved, right?

That's the way we've been playing it. You can do an action before you do a red maneuver to negate the effect of the stress token (the first stress token).

This is dangerous I know, but I really can't see any problem her. Before I go on let me clearly state that I fully understand the rules in play and interpret them the same way as stated by others above: when ionized your ship doesn't get a dial and thus can't reveal it=> no usage of the AS.

Allow me to walk outside what the RaW tells us, in order to make a more "intuitive" way of the effect and why AS won't and certainly shouldn't work (without to many triggers, timing or similar mechanics (terms not found in the rules))

The ion effect is meant to illustrate that the ionized ship is momentarily drifting through space without functional electronics and is, as the Ion card clearly states, not assigned a maneuver dial. And it would make even less (common??) sense that an incapacitated ship would be able to perform an advanced move as a Barrel Roll.

So in the case of the original post I would certainly say that the opponents plan worked perfectly for him, and will even throw in a "well played" for good measures :-)

Of course the problem with that is the rules do clearly allow your ship to take actions, even barrel rolls, while ionized. I read (past tense) Advanced Sensors as being nothing more than a change in WHEN you take your action, nothing more.

In the real world is impossible for a prerequisite to occur after the action. Any statements to the contrary "You must graduate from High School before attending college" for example, are strictly statements of timing and/or intent. Absolute requirements, such as "you must live before you die", cannot work when prerequisites succeed their effects, "you must die before you live".

As a statement of intent, which is what Ken at Sunrise first stated and is echoed by CW and B, this is a perfectly functional statement. Unfortunately, as an absolute rule it is terrible. I am willing to accept that the designers "meant" for you to at least have a maneuver selected in order to use Advanced Sensors because the majority of the folks here believe that to be the case. But as a "Rule" this one is a mess.

Sure you can - I do it all the time with my credit card. They give me stuff and then I pay for it later.

And pay, and pay, and pay...

And pay, and pay, and pay...

True, you put it like THAT and it really is a painful never-ending loop.

I'm on the side that 'immediately before you reveal your maneuver' only points at the exact moment in time when you can activate this ability.

I don't think this is a case of a prerequisite to get the ability. I could understand a prerequisite if the wording were slightly more conditioning, such as: 'When you reveal your dial...'.

But even worded that way, you could say if you have no maneuver dial, there IS NO exact moment meeting the criteria, because you're never going to reveal a dial.

Reminds me of a standard interrupt trigger

Of course the problem with that is the rules do clearly allow your ship to take actions, even barrel rolls, while ionized. I read (past tense) Advanced Sensors as being nothing more than a change in WHEN you take your action, nothing more.

In the real world is impossible for a prerequisite to occur after the action. Any statements to the contrary "You must graduate from High School before attending college" for example, are strictly statements of timing and/or intent. Absolute requirements, such as "you must live before you die", cannot work when prerequisites succeed their effects, "you must die before you live".

As a statement of intent, which is what Ken at Sunrise first stated and is echoed by CW and B, this is a perfectly functional statement. Unfortunately, as an absolute rule it is terrible. I am willing to accept that the designers "meant" for you to at least have a maneuver selected in order to use Advanced Sensors because the majority of the folks here believe that to be the case. But as a "Rule" this one is a mess.

Everybody please read the entire text on the Ion Token: (I will paraphrase and bold the key points)

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/news/preview6-ywing-starfighter/ion-reference.png

Planning phase: No maneuver dial!!

Activation phase: Perform 1 straight forward, THEN remove Ion Token(s), THEN you may (of course only if not stressed or otherwise prohibited) "perform actions as normal"

It should be clear that PRIOR to the removal of the Ion token(s) the ship is in effect "stunned" and NOT allowed to perform actions, and I would (without it being specified) also say that it isnt't allowed a/any Free Actons untill the end of the Activation Phase

Anyone disagree on this??

Edit: As pointed out by others further down there is some faults above: I meant to say that the ship cant use Adv. Sensors, however it may be given a free action via Squad Leader (IF it's not stressed). I deeply apologize for the error. After the ion token is removed it may "perform action as normal" given that it didn't overlap, hit an asteriod or is stressed)

Of course the problem with that is the rules do clearly allow your ship to take actions, even barrel rolls, while ionized. I read (past tense) Advanced Sensors as being nothing more than a change in WHEN you take your action, nothing more.

In the real world is impossible for a prerequisite to occur after the action. Any statements to the contrary "You must graduate from High School before attending college" for example, are strictly statements of timing and/or intent. Absolute requirements, such as "you must live before you die", cannot work when prerequisites succeed their effects, "you must die before you live".

As a statement of intent, which is what Ken at Sunrise first stated and is echoed by CW and B, this is a perfectly functional statement. Unfortunately, as an absolute rule it is terrible. I am willing to accept that the designers "meant" for you to at least have a maneuver selected in order to use Advanced Sensors because the majority of the folks here believe that to be the case. But as a "Rule" this one is a mess.

Everybody please read the entire text on the Ion Token: (I will paraphrase and bold the key points)

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/news/preview6-ywing-starfighter/ion-reference.png

Planning phase: No maneuver dial!!

Activation phase: Perform 1 straight forward, THEN remove Ion Token(s), THEN you may (of course only if not stressed or otherwise prohibited) "perform actions as normal"

It should be clear that PRIOR to the removal of the Ion token(s) the ship is in effect "stunned" and NOT allowed to perform actions, and I would (without it being specified) also say that it isnt't allowed a/any Free Actons untill the end of the Activation Phase

Anyone disagree on this??

since you do not reveal your maneuver, you do not get to use AS, not sure why this seems to be an issue