Revealing the dial cannot be a trigger for advanced sensors, period. If you ever reached the trigger, that is if you reveal your dial, you cannot then use advanced sensors because you were required to use them before revealing the dial. There is no possible way to make that have any logical consistency.

Earlier, the argument that held the general consensus was that there needed to at least be some intent to reveal a dial, some potential for dial revelation. Performing an action (Advanced Sensors) before something that you knew without a doubt was not going to happen seemed abusive to most, including myself. That is the reason we arrived at the consensus opinion, because the RaW cannot under operate with "Reveal a Maneuver" as a trigger under any sort of rigorous sequential execution.

By definition a "prerequisite" cannot occur after the action, that is called a non-sequitur for a very good reason.

Edit: Which is why writers should strive towards consistent wording and defined words. Had they simply worded Advanced Sensors in exactly the same way they worded Bomb drops, "When you reveal" as opposed to "Before you reveal" we would have wound up with identical functionality but clear precedent based on the rules for bombs. As it is, their inconsistency has made what ought to be a straightforward action much more complicated than it needs to be.

Oooh - let's call it a postrequisite.

You said: "I...agree that an ionized UNSTRESSED ship might well be allowed to use Advanced Sensors."

Then you said: "it really saddens me that you get the idea that I think/believe (or want) that AS works on Ionized ships."

<shrug> If there's a communication problem there, I'm pretty sure it's not on my end.

You said: "I...agree that an ionized UNSTRESSED ship might well be allowed to use Advanced Sensors."

Then you said: "it really saddens me that you get the idea that I think/believe (or want) that AS works on Ionized ships."

<shrug> If there's a communication problem there, I'm pretty sure it's not on my end.

I failed to bold and capitlize "might". This was a mistake, and I will hereby rectify it:

MIGHT

You said: "I...agree that an ionized UNSTRESSED ship might well be allowed to use Advanced Sensors."

Then you said: "it really saddens me that you get the idea that I think/believe (or want) that AS works on Ionized ships."

<shrug> If there's a communication problem there, I'm pretty sure it's not on my end.

I failed to bold and capitlize "might". This was a mistake, and I will hereby rectify it:

MIGHT

I see. And you think might makes right?

Boom! Nailed it.

sigggh, the "might" was a (wasted) attempt to make it clear that I was a bit unsure at the time but.....

Nahh, forget it: I won't make excuses, I failed on that post, was confusing some of the issues at hand at the time. Does this make a bad person?

I must take comfort in basking in your magnificent glory and overbearingness

sigggh, the "might" was a (wasted) attempt to make it clear that I was a bit unsure at the time but.....

Nahh, forget it: I won't make excuses, I failed on that post, was confusing some of the issues at hand at the time. Does this make a bad person?

I must take comfort in basking in your magnificent glory and overbearingness

It was a pun. Get it? "Might makes right?" You were trying to emphasize the word 'might,' in order to correct, or right an earlier misunde...ah, screw it.

sigggh, the "might" was a (wasted) attempt to make it clear that I was a bit unsure at the time but.....

Nahh, forget it: I won't make excuses, I failed on that post, was confusing some of the issues at hand at the time. Does this make a bad person?

I must take comfort in basking in your magnificent glory and overbearingness

It was a pun. Get it? "Might makes right?" You were trying to emphasize the word 'might,' in order to correct, or right an earlier misunde...ah, screw it.

Is that Damone from Fast Times at Ridgement High?

Is that Damone from Fast Times at Ridgement High?

I think it's close enough to be accepted as being correct

.Oooh - let's call it a postrequisite.

I love this.

AS does not require the revealing of a maneuver dial , only the reveal of a maneuver .

Ion still gives you a maneuver to do. So it looks like AS would still work when ioned.

This is seperate from seismic charge which require the maneuver dial to be revealed. Not possible while ioned due to the lack of a dial.

More inconsistant wording by FFG.

one would think that they should of phrased it before you maneuver for AS

AS does not require the revealing of a maneuver dial , only the reveal of a maneuver .

Ion still gives you a maneuver to do. So it looks like AS would still work when ioned.

This is seperate from seismic charge which require the maneuver dial to be revealed. Not possible while ioned due to the lack of a dial.

More inconsistant wording by FFG.

I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the rules does it refer to "revealing" a maneuver as anything OTHER than flipping over the dial.

I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the rules does it refer to "revealing" a maneuver as anything OTHER than flipping over the dial.

I agree, and that is one thing that I had been considering. You 'Choose a maneuver', 'reveal a maneuver dial, 'set a maneuver templace, and 'execute a maneuver'.

Does that mean when ioned you effectively skip step 1 of the activation phase.

But why have they used different wording for AS over SC?

Not really convinced either way.

Yeah it raises the question, is the dial itself explicitly implied in the act of revealing, or are there other, frustratingly unspecified ways to reveal a maneuver, sans dial?

my honest guess, and this happens a lot of the time, is that different people wrote rules for different things, ala someone who wrote the rules for ion cannons wasn't the same one who came up with AS and how it interacts within the game

Sometimes I think people look for conflict where there is none. Seriously? Reveling a maneuver as opposed to reveling a maneuver dial? I can see what, what appear to us is simple, causes nearly 100 posts here.

Your post there wasn't actually coherent enough for me to catch which side of that you were coming down on, Ken.

But yeah, there's at least one other instance - oh, I think the Fettigator, which is one of those things that we have an unofficial ruling on, but no explanation or context until the FAQ comes out, which could by extension help shed some light on this one.

Because yeah, the rules seem to imply that 'revealing a maneuver' is the act of flipping the dial over and literally revealing the maneuver you selected. Both parts of the Fettigator combo trigger off of you revealing some kind of maneuver, but it's been handed down unofficially that it is a legal combo. For that to work, they're going to have to add some wording in the FAQ to the effect that changing your maneuver from one move to a different move also counts as "revealing" it.

The problem with AS and Ion is that there's no maneuver dial involved, period. So for AS to work when Ionized, you have to extend the definition of "revealing" a maneuver even further, to the point where placing a maneuver template is ALSO considered "revealing" it, and I suspect that's a step farther than they're going to go, but we'll see.

The Ion Token has a special set of rules and upgrade cards, pilot abilities and such modify rules so I think the question is which situation has authority to affect the other. I remember reading that upgrade cards and special pilot abilities override the basic rules so is that the same thing for Ion Token rules or do Ion Token rules overrule the upgrade and ability rule adjustments?

I don't think that actually is the issue at hand, per se. The problem isn't so much two different sets of rules directly conflicting with one another - if that were the case I think sorting out which took precedence would actually be fairly simple. The problem is that the act of "revealing" a maneuver is ill-defined - is this ONLY physically flipping your dial over, or can it also be when you change your dial from one maneuver to another (Navigator), or does it require a dial at all?

So in this instance, which set of rules (book, card, Ion) trumps which, it's that none of the rules clearly defines a couple of the terms involved here.

Advanced Sensors says "immediately before revealing your maneuver" but leaves off the word "dial" - mistake, or deliberate omission?

Ion token prevents you from selecting a maneuver or picking up a dial for that ship on the next turn. You simply play a speed-1 straight move, "as though" you had selected it. Is there a deeper implication there, or is the wording simply to keep the rules consistent with normal movement?

Advanced Sensors seems to require you to reveal your maneuver right after performing your action - but if you're Ionized you have no maneuver (dial) to reveal. Nothing in any of the rules presented makes it clear whether the second part of Advanced Sensors (revealing your dial) has to be met, or to be ABLE to be met, before you can take your action.

It's important to keep in mind X-Wing (see the thread on Yorr and Opportunist) has no defined concept of 'paying a cost' to activate an ability like you'd see in a lot of games; tapping a card or whatever to do X. Some abilities seem to kind of work this way "you may do this, if you do, take a stress token," but it's not actually called that anywhere in the rules.

So AS/Ion is a screwy case because it's not paying a cost - and even if it were, the 'reward' actually comes before the cost is paid. But leaving that argument aside, if you look at it more like meeting a set of conditions, it's clear if you've been Ionized that you cannot meet one of the conditions of Advanced Sensors (revealing a dial after), so can you still use part of the card text knowing you're unable to fulfill the REST of the card text?

Unfortunately this isn't clearly defined anywhere yet, and so which rule trumps which is kind of moot in this point, as it's not clear which (if any) of the rules we have to work with apply.

I was just writing something similar in another thread but the question I have is the same. Why don't all the options in this situation work? Advanced Sensors is basically moving your action from after a move to before a move. Ion Token affects movement and not actions unless there is errata to this effect.

It seems, in my limited experience, there are very few direct conflicts in the game, Dark Curse and Han Solo re-roll being one. Without over-thinking the limited game convention, what is it about Ion Token that affects actions?

I know the card says to do actions as normal after the Ion effect is gone, is that to prevent confusion with some people thinking they lose their acfion too or is Ion Token and Maneuver AND Action alterer?

It would seem to me that if your action isn't affected by Ion other than do your action and normal then I don't see why Advanced Sensors wouldn't work, vague text aside.

Advanced Sensors works based on revealing your dial. If you're ionized, you don't have a dial to reveal, so the condition isn't met. The same sort of thing happens with Seismic Charge/Proton Bomb.

Is this intentional, or a side effect? <shrug> No idea, honestly. But that's the way it's worded, and it pretty clearly creates a dependency on your dial. So no dial, no Advanced Sensors (or bombs).

Advanced Sensors works based on revealing your dial. If you're ionized, you don't have a dial to reveal, so the condition isn't met. The same sort of thing happens with Seismic Charge/Proton Bomb.

Is this intentional, or a side effect? <shrug> No idea, honestly. But that's the way it's worded, and it pretty clearly creates a dependency on your dial. So no dial, no Advanced Sensors (or bombs).

Does it work based on the dial or is it based on the movement phase? Are you certain? Maybe they could have said "at the start of the movement phase..." but there was no Advanced Sensors in Wave 1 so no one thought about this conflict. From what I hear they didn't expect this game to go very far based on other games in the genre/style.

If the whole point of Avanced Sensors is for the Action Phase to trade places with the Movement Phase then what would everyone think should happen in this situation?

Well, it says "Immediately before revealing your maneuver..." You can't reveal a maneuver unless it's hidden, and the dial is how you hide it. There's no other mechanism in the game for revealing a maneuver, so pretty sure that's it It's worth noting that Advanced Sensors is Wave 3, so the "they didn't plan this" doesn't really hold, since it's a new card. They could as easily have said "At the beginning of your Reveal Dial step..." All that was solidly there by the time the card was written.

I try not to argue on the point or intent. Regardless of the intent, it says what it says. And it says it's dependent on you revealing a dial.

That is not true, of course, for the simple fact that it is not physically possible to predicate an action on a following action. The consensus was that we disallow ioned ships to use advanced sensors because it seems abusive to perform an action "before" another action when you KNOW for a fact you cannot perform that action. This is not the same thing as having it be required in the absolute sense, otherwise we have an unambiguous possibility for an irreconcilable break in the rules if the ship were to somehow either be destroyed or lose its maneuver dial between taking an advanced sensors action and revealing its dial. For example, using advanced sensors to barrel roll onto a prox mine and being destroyed would cause an situation where it would be IMPOSSIBLE to follow the rules. Not difficult, but impossible.

It is logical to require an action (in this case reveal a dial) immediately after another action (advanced sensors). It is also logical to say that a person should not be allowed to knowingly commit to an action they know they cannot perform. However, there is no actual verbiage to this effect in the rules or text, and is entirely supposition.

What it says is "immediately before you reveal your maneuver, you may..", which is neither grammatically identical to "you must be able to reveal your maneuver", nor necessarily binding.

You are reading intent here, and doing so in order to support an interpretation that can clearly be shown to cause at least one irreconcilable rule conflict. I happen to agree with your hypothesis as to intent, but that does not change the fact that it is exactly that.