It's a lot easier to accept the view when the alternate view completely shatters the rules of the game.

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

The problem is there is no set timing/clarification for the terms used that has come through an official channel. Obviously there has been a lot of work from the players put into interpreting the rules to the best of their ability and that is wonderful and shows a great dedication to the game that I'm sure everyone, including FFG is impressed with. It still does not discount the alternative until there is an official clarification on the subject. Until then everyone will obviously see it the one way and play the game ruling that it is an impossible and illegal action within the structure of the game.

I've pretty clearly stated that my only issue with it is that no official word has come out yet on it. I do not like the idea of it happening and will house rule it just like everyone else, however that does not mean we are in any way correct in ruling that it cannot happen. Again, I appreciate all that everyone has said on this subject. I just like to be very thorough with rules in games and will contact FFG regarding the subject. I think this discussion is pretty much over now though. Thanks for all the replies! It's nice to see that everyone is so quick to help out with questions regarding the game.

It's a lot easier to accept the view when the alternate view completely shatters the rules of the game.

Ok so you are saying, don't question interpretations or theories if it would bring an end to things as we know it. I am going to ask, are you a pastor or something? Instead of getting a definite answer from the makers of the game, you are telling us that we should just take what every one else believes to be true and shove it down our throats, whether we like it or not.

I personally don't think that PtL should be used after a maneuver, but because of wording it also leave a lot open which in turn CAN destroy this game and that is what I'm personally wanting to stop. There will be people at games in local stores and at tournaments that will pull this stuff and it wastes every ones time, makes every one in a lousy mood, and in general is a kill joy. So I would rather get a ruling directly from source material to help rule this out, not just interpretation on a subject.

What we really need is like Groggy said, a timing chart, all the FFG LCGs have timing charts to sort things of this nature.

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

Aren't the planning, maneuver and action activities separated into phases? Planning Phase, Maneuver Phase, Action Phase?

So, doesn't Advance Sensors just swap the Maneuver and Action Phase placement?

Same with Ion Token...

If you agree to split PtL actions on either side of a move then why not use a Bank 3 maneuver where you Bank 1, do an action and then Bank the final 2? Would anyone say that you could move straight 2 of a move straight 4, do an action and then move the last 2 straight?

It's a lot easier to accept the view when the alternate view completely shatters the rules of the game.

Ok so you are saying, don't question interpretations or theories if it would bring an end to things as we know it. I am going to ask, are you a pastor or something? Instead of getting a definite answer from the makers of the game, you are telling us that we should just take what every one else believes to be true and shove it down our throats, whether we like it or not.

I personally don't think that PtL should be used after a maneuver, but because of wording it also leave a lot open which in turn CAN destroy this game and that is what I'm personally wanting to stop. There will be people at games in local stores and at tournaments that will pull this stuff and it wastes every ones time, makes every one in a lousy mood, and in general is a kill joy. So I would rather get a ruling directly from source material to help rule this out, not just interpretation on a subject.

What we really need is like Groggy said, a timing chart, all the FFG LCGs have timing charts to sort things of this nature.

If I am a pastor, are you going to feel really stupid for asking that? Or would that lend credence to me and you'd suddenly up and go along with whatever I say? I'm not really clear on why you're dragging religion into this.

I said nothing against questioning, or debating, or exploring, or whatever you want to call it. I simply said that until we get some definitive word from FFG (and good luck with that, until they put up another FAQ with no warning), you have two ways of interpreting this rule.

Way 1 fits comfortably within the framework of the rules, doesn't conflict with any of them, and allows the game to run smoothly.

Way 2 takes a sledgehammer to a very simple, unpretentious keyword, and inflates its possible meaning to the point where it pops.

The game works with method 1. The game descends into madness and anarchy with method 2. If you want to question, that's great. But if you want to play the game and not have the other guy at the table also trying to pull off stuff whenever he feels like it, because the definition of words like "before" and "after" are now up for grabs, knock yourself out, I guess, but at that point you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to play it that way, I'm sure not going to stop you. All I'm saying is that 'my' way, if you want to call it that, (and I'd rather you didn't) makes sense, fits within the rules, and lets the game go without a hitch. The other way does the exact opposite of that and turns it into a free for all where a clear method of timing when things happen no longer exists.

Good luck getting that precise timing chart from FFG.

Really. It's not like a lot of us haven't tried. Several of us spoke to them at GenCon about the conflicts in secondary weapons, and were told that they knew the conflict existed, but didn't want to issue that much errata, and that we should just play it with a sort of "I know I'm going to use a turret when the next step gets here, so I'll go ahead and pick a target I can't normally hit because I know it'll become legal soon."

Seriously. That was their answer.

So good luck with the quest for a detailed timing chart and robust glossary. In the mean time, it would probably do everyone a lot of good to understand that the common understanding we've developed is all we've got for this game. Making silly cases to destroy that in order to get FFG's attention not only won't work, it'll annoy a whole lot of people.

You are then taking two movement phases when there is only one phase, PtL has already been proven to be able to act outside of an action phase. So thus the PtL isnt starting a new action phase, it is being chained off the Adv. Sensors action phase.

It's a lot easier to accept the view when the alternate view completely shatters the rules of the game.

Ok so you are saying, don't question interpretations or theories if it would bring an end to things as we know it. I am going to ask, are you a pastor or something? Instead of getting a definite answer from the makers of the game, you are telling us that we should just take what every one else believes to be true and shove it down our throats, whether we like it or not.

I personally don't think that PtL should be used after a maneuver, but because of wording it also leave a lot open which in turn CAN destroy this game and that is what I'm personally wanting to stop. There will be people at games in local stores and at tournaments that will pull this stuff and it wastes every ones time, makes every one in a lousy mood, and in general is a kill joy. So I would rather get a ruling directly from source material to help rule this out, not just interpretation on a subject.

What we really need is like Groggy said, a timing chart, all the FFG LCGs have timing charts to sort things of this nature.

If I am a pastor, are you going to feel really stupid for asking that? Or would that lend credence to me and you'd suddenly up and go along with whatever I say? I'm not really clear on why you're dragging religion into this.

I said nothing against questioning, or debating, or exploring, or whatever you want to call it. I simply said that until we get some definitive word from FFG (and good luck with that, until they put up another FAQ with no warning), you have two ways of interpreting this rule.

Way 1 fits comfortably within the framework of the rules, doesn't conflict with any of them, and allows the game to run smoothly.

Way 2 takes a sledgehammer to a very simple, unpretentious keyword, and inflates its possible meaning to the point where it pops.

The game works with method 1. The game descends into madness and anarchy with method 2. If you want to question, that's great. But if you want to play the game and not have the other guy at the table also trying to pull off stuff whenever he feels like it, because the definition of words like "before" and "after" are now up for grabs, knock yourself out, I guess, but at that point you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to play it that way, I'm sure not going to stop you. All I'm saying is that 'my' way, if you want to call it that, (and I'd rather you didn't) makes sense, fits within the rules, and lets the game go without a hitch. The other way does the exact opposite of that and turns it into a free for all where a clear method of timing when things happen no longer exists.

Nothing to do with religion I could of used a hardcore evolutionist professor as a stand in as well. More with the attitude brought by the position, same with any position of power, also works with the notion of popular opinion. "I say this and so does every one else here, so its true, disregard that there is no proof or proof of such and such." I honestly hate that more then anything, give me at least some sort of lead as to WHY. I don't want a interpretation based on another one, I want to see some sort of proof, yes we have examples but no hard underlining truth.

People keep throwing more into this that anything, saying we want to bank stuff (I honestly don't see why people keep coming back to this and extrapolating on it). We don't wanna bank anything, its a simple, operation of turn and timing.

Really way 2 doesn't sledgehammer anything, its literally, DURING YOUR TURN, still follows the logic of the card, and before the end phase. Basically we just need to know if its a immediate or not.

I'm more worried about people trying to just waste peoples time to argue and not actually getting enjoyment out of the game. There are proper arguments on both sides for rulings (that DON'T shatter correct game play) and we need really a direct ruling from FFG, not interpretations to stop this from happening. Because at this rate, apparently pure logic isn't allowed in this game, just figurative interpretation based on past examples and what makes us feel right.

Edit: No idea why this reply destroyed the quoting system for the first part.

Good luck getting that precise timing chart from FFG.

Really. It's not like a lot of us haven't tried. Several of us spoke to them at GenCon about the conflicts in secondary weapons, and were told that they knew the conflict existed, but didn't want to issue that much errata, and that we should just play it with a sort of "I know I'm going to use a turret when the next step gets here, so I'll go ahead and pick a target I can't normally hit because I know it'll become legal soon."

Seriously. That was their answer.

So good luck with the quest for a detailed timing chart and robust glossary. In the mean time, it would probably do everyone a lot of good to understand that the common understanding we've developed is all we've got for this game. Making silly cases to destroy that in order to get FFG's attention not only won't work, it'll annoy a whole lot of people.

Well it's good to know that others have tried and I don't see the harm in myself trying as well so why does everyone seem to want to discourage me from trying?

Do you really mean it when you are wishing me good luck or are you being sarcastic? (Sometimes motive behind things said is lost upon the internet)

I understand the common understanding and I understand why it makes sense. It is not like I am trying to discredit the work and effort being put forth into the game. What I am trying to say is you don't know you're right and I don't know I'm right. Not until official word comes out. Everyone will continue to play the one way and it makes sense according to the currently accepted view of the rules but I do not like being told that another's view is right when their view is based upon supposition and not fact.

My "case" if you want to call it that, has nothing to do with destroying the game. I fully intend to play the game and enjoy it just like everyone else. My "case" has more to do with clarification and fixing the game. I cannot see why people do not get that.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

Aren't the planning, maneuver and action activities separated into phases? Planning Phase, Maneuver Phase, Action Phase?

So, doesn't Advance Sensors just swap the Maneuver and Action Phase placement?

Same with Ion Token...

If you agree to split PtL actions on either side of a move then why not use a Bank 3 maneuver where you Bank 1, do an action and then Bank the final 2? Would anyone say that you could move straight 2 of a move straight 4, do an action and then move the last 2 straight?

You are then taking two movement phases when there is only one phase, PtL has already been proven to be able to act outside of an action phase. So thus the PtL isnt starting a new action phase, it is being chained off the Adv. Sensors action phase.

It's a lot easier to accept the view when the alternate view completely shatters the rules of the game.

Ok so you are saying, don't question interpretations or theories if it would bring an end to things as we know it. I am going to ask, are you a pastor or something? Instead of getting a definite answer from the makers of the game, you are telling us that we should just take what every one else believes to be true and shove it down our throats, whether we like it or not.

I personally don't think that PtL should be used after a maneuver, but because of wording it also leave a lot open which in turn CAN destroy this game and that is what I'm personally wanting to stop. There will be people at games in local stores and at tournaments that will pull this stuff and it wastes every ones time, makes every one in a lousy mood, and in general is a kill joy. So I would rather get a ruling directly from source material to help rule this out, not just interpretation on a subject.

What we really need is like Groggy said, a timing chart, all the FFG LCGs have timing charts to sort things of this nature.

If I am a pastor, are you going to feel really stupid for asking that? Or would that lend credence to me and you'd suddenly up and go along with whatever I say? I'm not really clear on why you're dragging religion into this.

I said nothing against questioning, or debating, or exploring, or whatever you want to call it. I simply said that until we get some definitive word from FFG (and good luck with that, until they put up another FAQ with no warning), you have two ways of interpreting this rule.

Way 1 fits comfortably within the framework of the rules, doesn't conflict with any of them, and allows the game to run smoothly.

Way 2 takes a sledgehammer to a very simple, unpretentious keyword, and inflates its possible meaning to the point where it pops.

The game works with method 1. The game descends into madness and anarchy with method 2. If you want to question, that's great. But if you want to play the game and not have the other guy at the table also trying to pull off stuff whenever he feels like it, because the definition of words like "before" and "after" are now up for grabs, knock yourself out, I guess, but at that point you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to play it that way, I'm sure not going to stop you. All I'm saying is that 'my' way, if you want to call it that, (and I'd rather you didn't) makes sense, fits within the rules, and lets the game go without a hitch. The other way does the exact opposite of that and turns it into a free for all where a clear method of timing when things happen no longer exists.

Nothing to do with religion I could of used a hardcore evolutionist professor as a stand in as well. More with the attitude brought by the position, same with any position of power, also works with the notion of popular opinion. "I say this and so does every one else here, so its true, disregard that there is no proof or proof of such and such." I honestly hate that more then anything, give me at least some sort of lead as to WHY. I don't want a interpretation based on another one, I want to see some sort of proof, yes we have examples but no hard underlining truth.

People keep throwing more into this that anything, saying we want to bank stuff (I honestly don't see why people keep coming back to this and extrapolating on it). We don't wanna bank anything, its a simple, operation of turn and timing.

Really way 2 doesn't sledgehammer anything, its literally, DURING YOUR TURN, still follows the logic of the card, and before the end phase. Basically we just need to know if its a immediate or not.

I'm more worried about people trying to just waste peoples time to argue and not actually getting enjoyment out of the game. There are proper arguments on both sides for rulings (that DON'T shatter correct game play) and we need really a direct ruling from FFG, not interpretations to stop this from happening. Because at this rate, apparently pure logic isn't allowed in this game, just figurative interpretation based on past examples and what makes us feel right.

Edit: No idea why this reply destroyed the quoting system for the first part.

^^^ this

People keep throwing more into this that anything, saying we want to bank stuff (I honestly don't see why people keep coming back to this and extrapolating on it). We don't wanna bank anything, its a simple, operation of turn and timing.

Really way 2 doesn't sledgehammer anything, its literally, DURING YOUR TURN, still follows the logic of the card, and before the end phase. Basically we just need to know if its a immediate or not.

So why is it only during your turn? If the argument is that "After can be some later point because it's still 'after'" then why only during your turn? Where's your proof that it should just be limited to your turn?

Because it seems to me that if you move the goalpost that far, there's an equal lack of proof for you to stop someone who wants to take it farther.

So why is it only during your turn? If the argument is that "After can be some later point because it's still 'after'" then why only during your turn? Where's your proof that it should just be limited to your turn?

People keep throwing more into this that anything, saying we want to bank stuff (I honestly don't see why people keep coming back to this and extrapolating on it). We don't wanna bank anything, its a simple, operation of turn and timing.

Really way 2 doesn't sledgehammer anything, its literally, DURING YOUR TURN, still follows the logic of the card, and before the end phase. Basically we just need to know if its a immediate or not.

Because it seems to me that if you move the goalpost that far, there's an equal lack of proof for you to stop someone who wants to take it farther.

I see what you are getting at, but because we have a good example from the rule book on how turn behavior is done per ship. We can see that actions are done only during control of the ship, before moving onto the next ship. There is no proof otherwise from FAQ or rulebook. We can use both the standard Move/Action/End phase for a ship as well as the example of Turr, which allows the use of PtL outside of the normal action phase but still inside the control phase for this ship in the combat phase.

Until then, keep playing and may the force be with us all.

Not going to quote you, Hujoe, for obvious reasons.

But to clarify, I'm not trying to profess to anyone like I'm a great authority. I'm simply trying to point out that in this case, one way works and the other is an interesting conundrum but clearly CANNOT work.

Let me change gears one second. One other big debate right now centers around the Darth Vader crew card and when it can or can't be used. I have my own feelings on the matter, and it's an important question because how Vader works would potentially go a long way toward better defining how damage works in this game. That debate comes down to three options, each supported somewhere in the rules.

A. Damage is resolved all at once

B. Damage is resolved one at a time

C. Damage is sometimes resolved one way (attacks) and sometimes resolved the other way (damage outside of an attack)

Now it's a big question, with potentially huge precedents set and ramifications for future card interactions, and how it works, if it gets answered, will further our understanding of the game rules in a significant way.

BUT

And this is key here - any of those ways of handling damage WORKS. We need to know which is correct, but none of them conflicts with the basic structure of the game. None of them breaks it. Any of them can work without a hiccup, if we know which to follow when a question arises.

That's the problem I have with *this* debate. I'm all for questioning rules, I'm all for getting answers on high when we can, I'm all for looking at the different ways a rule can be applied and what the ramifications are for each method. But this question of AS, do a maneuver, then PTL, forces a redefinition of a very basic term. Doing so makes it go from simple and defined to completely open-ended. It also throws the door wide open for redefining the opposite of after, "before," because one has to mirror the other.

At that point the entire timing structure of the game collapses, because we no longer have any idea what before or after mea, - how LONG before can I do it? HOW long after can I wait before doing it? The rules break.

OR, after means "right after, unless it conflicts with something Immediate, in which case Immediate goes first." Is that made up by me? Yes. Does it work without shattering every concept of timing in the game? Also yes. So my two choices are total paradox, or take it at face value as written, and don't twist it to make a combo work the way I want.

If FFG is slow to clarify, it may be because they assume we're smart enough to rule the impossible, game breaking option out on our own.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

Aren't the planning, maneuver and action activities separated into phases? Planning Phase, Maneuver Phase, Action Phase?

So, doesn't Advance Sensors just swap the Maneuver and Action Phase placement?

Same with Ion Token...

If you agree to split PtL actions on either side of a move then why not use a Bank 3 maneuver where you Bank 1, do an action and then Bank the final 2? Would anyone say that you could move straight 2 of a move straight 4, do an action and then move the last 2 straight?

You are then taking two movement phases when there is only one phase, PtL has already been proven to be able to act outside of an action phase. So thus the PtL isnt starting a new action phase, it is being chained off the Adv. Sensors action phase.

Well, isn't that the answer then? PtL is contained within the "Adv. Sensors action phase" which is before the Maneuver, Action and other phases. So you essentially are moving your Action phase before the Maneuver phase...

"Pure logic" certainly is allowed, and goes something like this: in the absence of a ruling from the game's creator, go with the resolution that seems most consistent with other known rules, the intent of the style of play, and that is least likely to create abuse or future rules crises.

To put it another way, if you feel like your interpretation is being oppressed by popular opinion, perhaps you should also consider that the popular opinion might be correct. This is a game, not a belief system.

"Pure logic" certainly is allowed, and goes something like this: in the absence of a ruling from the game's creator, go with the resolution that seems most consistent with other known rules, the intent of the style of play, and that is least likely to create abuse or future rules crises.

To put it another way, if you feel like your interpretation is being oppressed by popular opinion, perhaps you should also consider that the popular opinion might be correct. This is a game, not a belief system.

So basically, my views are wrong because more people believe the opposite and I should consider that I am incorrect because they say so?

Not going to quote you, Hujoe, for obvious reasons.

But to clarify, I'm not trying to profess to anyone like I'm a great authority. I'm simply trying to point out that in this case, one way works and the other is an interesting conundrum but clearly CANNOT work.

Let me change gears one second. One other big debate right now centers around the Darth Vader crew card and when it can or can't be used. I have my own feelings on the matter, and it's an important question because how Vader works would potentially go a long way toward better defining how damage works in this game. That debate comes down to three options, each supported somewhere in the rules.

A. Damage is resolved all at once

B. Damage is resolved one at a time

C. Damage is sometimes resolved one way (attacks) and sometimes resolved the other way (damage outside of an attack)

Now it's a big question, with potentially huge precedents set and ramifications for future card interactions, and how it works, if it gets answered, will further our understanding of the game rules in a significant way.

BUT

And this is key here - any of those ways of handling damage WORKS. We need to know which is correct, but none of them conflicts with the basic structure of the game. None of them breaks it. Any of them can work without a hiccup, if we know which to follow when a question arises.

That's the problem I have with *this* debate. I'm all for questioning rules, I'm all for getting answers on high when we can, I'm all for looking at the different ways a rule can be applied and what the ramifications are for each method. But this question of AS, do a maneuver, then PTL, forces a redefinition of a very basic term. Doing so makes it go from simple and defined to completely open-ended. It also throws the door wide open for redefining the opposite of after, "before," because one has to mirror the other.

At that point the entire timing structure of the game collapses, because we no longer have any idea what before or after mea, - how LONG before can I do it? HOW long after can I wait before doing it? The rules break.

OR, after means "right after, unless it conflicts with something Immediate, in which case Immediate goes first." Is that made up by me? Yes. Does it work without shattering every concept of timing in the game? Also yes. So my two choices are total paradox, or take it at face value as written, and don't twist it to make a combo work the way I want.

If FFG is slow to clarify, it may be because they assume we're smart enough to rule the impossible, game breaking option out on our own.

So I went ahead and looked up how many times before was used in this game, not many, and most are for an action being done. So not sure why before would have to be redefined and how that would shatter the game. The Darth Vader question is interesting, but is more limited to just that card, but a ruling on this could help clarify that.

That would be the simple way, if I'm understanding it correctly, yes.

Throwing out a question here, isn't the only point of Advanced Sensors is to move your action from after the move to before the move? Astrophysics and what ever category Ion energy falls under aside, maybe the simple answer is it all works as each card says. You get an Ion Token, Advance Sensors gives you your action, you use PtL and you move your 1 space and the Ion Token goes away.

The argument being made is that there's technically nothing right now saying you have to use both PTL actions concurrently. So there are some arguing this creates a loophole wherein you could use AS, take your free pre-move action, then move, then use PTL to take your second action.

All because PTL says "once per turn, after" and not "once per turn, immediately after."

Aren't the planning, maneuver and action activities separated into phases? Planning Phase, Maneuver Phase, Action Phase?

So, doesn't Advance Sensors just swap the Maneuver and Action Phase placement?

Same with Ion Token...

If you agree to split PtL actions on either side of a move then why not use a Bank 3 maneuver where you Bank 1, do an action and then Bank the final 2? Would anyone say that you could move straight 2 of a move straight 4, do an action and then move the last 2 straight?

You are then taking two movement phases when there is only one phase, PtL has already been proven to be able to act outside of an action phase. So thus the PtL isnt starting a new action phase, it is being chained off the Adv. Sensors action phase.

Well, isn't that the answer then? PtL is contained within the "Adv. Sensors action phase" which is before the Maneuver, Action and other phases. So you essentially are moving your Action phase before the Maneuver phase...

Then we shouldn't be allowed to PtL with Turr. He is a prime example of how PtL could work outside of the action phase, but still within the control period of a ship.

"Pure logic" certainly is allowed, and goes something like this: in the absence of a ruling from the game's creator, go with the resolution that seems most consistent with other known rules, the intent of the style of play, and that is least likely to create abuse or future rules crises.

To put it another way, if you feel like your interpretation is being oppressed by popular opinion, perhaps you should also consider that the popular opinion might be correct. This is a game, not a belief system.

I'm sorry, but this comment in its entirety just made me laugh out loud. I'm not even touching this one with a ten foot stick.

The point is there WAS no question of how after worked and the only conflict arises if we REJECT how after currently works, apparently for the sole purpose of raising a demand for clarification where none is needed. One way causes a serious conflict by open ending the word after, the other creates no problems at all.

The point is there WAS no question of how after worked and the only conflict arises if we REJECT how after currently works, apparently for the sole purpose of raising a demand for clarification where none is needed. One way causes a serious conflict by open ending the word after, the other creates no problems at all.

It is open ended until clarified by FFG. Popular opinion is still opinion.

Okay, here we go. Everyone pick a side. Afterists over there, immediatelyafterists squeeze in between the beforeians and the whocareswheners. Come one folks, hurry up. I still have to go divide up the players arguing about the true meaning of the focus symbol (Illuminati, or just a wild coincidence?).

That's great. One way still works perfectly within our understanding of the rules. The other one does not at all, since it would force them to go back and completely redefine the concepts of before and after. If you think that's going to happen I wish you luck. At best we will get a terse "no" in response to whether you can AS action, move, then PTL action. And I'd be surprised if they deign to give it that much notice. Since the other way doesn't work.

The point is there WAS no question of how after worked and the only conflict arises if we REJECT how after currently works, apparently for the sole purpose of raising a demand for clarification where none is needed. One way causes a serious conflict by open ending the word after, the other creates no problems at all.

I'm still not sure how its open ending "after". Its not making it allowable to do something at a time not normally set aside for a ship. You are following all popular opinions on ship timing, but instead now you are putting a maneuver before the end of your turn instead of an action. You are still fulfilling the pre reqs of the card during the ships allowed turn. Which would allow you to activate it before the turn was over for your ship, because otherwise you are passing that card action, which as we know from the tourney rules that is the final command for your ship before moving to the next one.

Please tell me where, if this ruling were to be followed, would shatter the game? You are still doing everything in a turn that you control the ship, not any time you normally wouldn't be, so do not reference banking an action for a turn after the end phase of either the full turn of the game or just the ship.

Because there are two options here.

1. You have to PTL right after an action (unless superseded by an Immediate effect) and thus AS, move, PTL is not a valid chain of events, or

2. It is a legal chain, in which case (and only in which case) "after" becomes problematically ill-defined. If it's not right after your first action what is the cut-off? Why after moving? Why not during combat? I could hang onto my second action; roll a bunch of eyeballs, THEN decide I want to focus. Or wait until you roll attack dice on your turn, then decide I want to evade.

It's either got a very simple definition that isn't spelled out as clearly as some people would like; or it's so badly defined that before it after could apply to so many points of the game; with no clear cut off, that the terms lose all meaning. And if you can't see how calling into question the entire concept of timing for every ability in every situation of the game breaks it, I'm not sure how I can make you understand any better.

And again, that only happens if we randomly decide to throw the so-called "popular definition" out the window and demand a better explanation for it, just to try and make this combo legal. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On a side note, please keep in mind this is a game where half the rules are in symbol form - eyeballs, open explodey things, closed explodey things, squiggly arrows - that aren't named or defined anywhere in the rules. Deliberately. We call them focus, crit, hit, evade, but they don't actually have NAMES. We just have a general understanding of what they represent.

So if you seriously think we'll get an elaborate definition of the timing rules and a concise; thorough glossary of consistently used terms, keep dreaming. We sometimes get rulings. Those rulings sometimes come with some context but often are Yes that works, No that doesn't work; with zero explanation as to WHY it works or doesn't.

We're not going to get any better than that.

On a side note, please keep in mind this is a game where half the rules are in symbol form - eyeballs, open explodey things, closed explodey things, squiggly arrows - that aren't named or defined anywhere in the rules. Deliberately. We call them focus, crit, hit, evade, but they don't actually have NAMES. We just have a general understanding of what they represent.

So if you seriously think we'll get an elaborate definition of the timing rules and a concise; thorough glossary of consistently used terms, keep dreaming. We sometimes get rulings. Those rulings sometimes come with some context but often are Yes that works, No that doesn't work; with zero explanation as to WHY it works or doesn't.

We're not going to get any better than that.

Wow. Just wow.

Pg 2 of the rulebook under Component List for the Core Set:

"4 evade tokens

3 focus tokens"

Pg 13 of the rulebook under 7. Deal Damage:

"The hit ship suffers one DAMAGE for each uncanceled (hit symbol) result, and then suffers one CRITICAL DAMAGE for each uncanceled (critical symbol) result."

The ALL CAPS words were actually ALL CAPS in the rulebook so don't say I'm yelling at you.