Advanced Sensors: Action + Maneuver + PTL Action

[Drakhan Valane 321]

If that's all it is, we're golden. There is no issue. See my first response on page 1.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

If that's all it is, we're golden. There is no issue. See my first response on page 1.

 

A generalization of "no" that does not help further the goal in either direction and using an interpretation based on popular opinion does not help.

 

Seriously does no one see the similarity with this and the fact that for centuries people thought the earth was flat? Then it took a person to shake things down to get it correct. I want to be a contributing factor to have FFG get us a time table that helps solves these conundrums. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Buhallin 4,563]

Not that it will actually change anything, but it occurred to me that we actually have relatively solid proof:

 

Night Beast: After executing a green maneuver, you may perform a free focus action.

Q: If “Night Beast” has a stress token when he executes a green maneuver, is he able to perform a free focus action?
A: No. “Night Beast’s” ability triggers before the Check Pilot Stress step.

 

This ruling is what it is because Night Beast's ability triggers from Execute a Maneuver (Step 3) and therefore resolves before Check Stress (Step 4).  That means that if he starts with a stress token, he still has it when his ability triggers, and can't take the free action.

 

If the "You can do 'after' whenever you want" theory is correct, Night Beast should be able to wait until after his stress clears in Step 4, then take the free focus action.  But he can't.  It goes off IMMEDIATELY after he executes a maneuver, before moving to the next step.

 

Fairly certain that won't be enough proof for anyone in this mess, but it's probably as close as you're going to get.

[Drakhan Valane 321]

If that's all it is, we're golden. There is no issue. See my first response on page 1.

using an interpretation based on popular opinion does not help.

I didn't base my response on popular opinion, I based it on common sense.

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Dude, literally EVERY step of that is altered by one rule or another. Most of them are broken by multiple card effects.

But ok, Activation Phase.

1. Reveal dial

2. Set template

3. Execute Maneuver

4. Check pilot stress

5. Clean up

6. Perform action

Now AS lets you basically do 1, 6, 2-5, skip 6.

PTL lets you do 1-5, 6, 6.

Used together, 1, 6, 6, 2-5, skip 6

NOWHERE are we given any indication that you can Reveal dial, do an action, set your template, execute a maneuver, check for stress, then what? If you clean up (move the template and dial) your second action is now at step 6, which you were just instructed to skip. That doesn't work.

Ok back a step, after Check for stress? You haven't executed a maneuver yet, and if you took a stress from your first action, doing PTL now prevents you from taking another action. That's no good.

There's literally no reason to WANT to split your actions like that. Half the point of the AS/PTL combo is that you can do two actions, take a stress, THEN do a green move if you want and ditch the stress like it never existed. That falls apart if you do it your way. Even if it worked you'd move, then take another action and be stuck with a stress even if your mice was green. Where's the advantage to this?

There's just nothing to substantiate splitting your actions like that. The trigger, having performed an action, has passed. You're repeating step 6 twice, with no evidence it can be split up like that. And there's nothing to be gained from doing so when the whole point of AS is to let you take an action BEFORE moving and worrying about stressing or crashing. There again - action, move, hit something, you just forfeited your ability to PTL because you collided.

[Emrico 410]

In fact, I was in a thread that got shut down by the moderator the other day, because people were getting a little heated, and I swear to you my first thought was "holy sh - we have MODERATORS?"  It was like getting told to knock it off by a unicorn, only I think I would have bet on seeing a unicorn first.

 

That is one of the more awesome things I've read on the internet.

Bravo, sir, bravo!

Jim

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

In fact it creates another bad rules break because you hit something, forfeited your action phase, but you already TOOK an action and plan to take a second one at...some point. Now we're in another completely unnecessary situation where we have no rules on how to resolve the mess we've made.

[Buhallin 4,563]

Going to suggest we calm down a bit.  Hujoe's fixation on steps has people going down some incorrect roads.

 

Advanced Sensors DOES NOT move Step 6 (Perform Action) to Step 2.  It lets you take a free action, and it makes you skip Step 6.  Push the Limit is NOT repeating a step - it's not part of any step, it's just a free action which is granted when the ability triggers, nothing more.

 

You do not ever repeat steps.  Actions are not in any way tied to steps - Step 6 gives you an action, but there are plenty of ways to get actions outside of Step 6.

[GroggyGolem 2,848]

 

No where, but again, that is moving more to destroying the system. I am going off interpretations, just like every one else, saying that the wording means it HAS to follow, but really, we have no true defined time that actions must stop, but we do have a phase window we can draw from. So your comment is just a boon to both sides.

You actually don't have a phase window. Yes, phases are a part of the game, but that's it, and they have nothing to do with anything you're claiming.  Literally everything else you're trying to use to draw your lines is utterly invented from whole cloth, and it's done with no justification whatsoever other than supporting what you want the end result to be.  I swear, there are at least 3 concepts essential to what you're arguing that exist literally NOWHERE in the rules of the game.

 

So you know, I'm done trying to disprove your insanity.  I'm sick to death of arguing with "You can't prove I'm wrong" silliness this week.  You know what?  YOU prove it.  Find me something in the rules, or FAQ, or anything that PROVES your idea.  Because you can't, and I'm sick of the bomb-throwing double standard.  You want to tear down the work a bunch of us have done to make sense of these rules in the last year?  Too freaking bad.  Find a contradiction, find a problem, find something that doesn't function under the understanding we've developed.  Then there will be a reason to reconsider it.

 

Because as these rules stand, I'd challenge you to PROVE that I can't drop a pink goddamn elephant on your models and declare victory.  Go on - cite me a rule!

 

So very done with this.

 

Taken from your own blog, sir. 

"

This is especially bad in a game like X-wing, where so much of our under.standing of the rules is derived or implicit.  We don’t have strong definitions of timing, or the difference between “when” and “after” or what “Immediately” actually does when it’s used on the card.  Most of our understanding of these abilities are derived based on abilities.  Strange rulings can dramatically shake our understanding of the entire rule set.

"

 

You seemed to claim the exact thing I have been saying all along within your own blog. "We don't have strong definitions of timing, or the difference between 'when' and 'after' or what 'immediately' actually does..." You also stated that "Most of our understanding of these abilities are derived based on abilities." So the understanding is based upon not rulings or anything concrete but on a certain notion of how abilities should happen. So you said in one paragraph there isn't a clear understanding and then that the understanding had to be interpreted and wasn't official.

 

You yourself seem to be concerned about the idea that questioning the rulings shakes the foundation of the game itself and that it is something that will always be there within the game. All because of what you described as "bad rulings."

 

If more light is shed upon the subject, those cracked foundations would in a sense be repaired. I don't see why questioning things is such a bad thing to do, especially when the idea is to help fix a situation rather than "destroy the foundations."

 

Besides, I thought you were "so very done with this".

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

I was just trying to use those as illustrative of how the turn would(n't) flow under this theory.

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

Yes - he loves to question, analyze, and debate rules and even HE thinks this is one of the stupidest, unnecessary, invented rules problems he's ever seen. Unless we get a ruling otherwise, your PTL action has to follow your other action, regardless of where its placed in the turn due to AS. it doesn't work any other way. Nothing in the game works that way.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

This does give some insight but because it has now been answered in the FAQ, his ability has been assigned an IMMEDIATE type subtext. His ability triggers at the same time in the phase as check pilot stress, and this is a time table they have given us for this subject which is why this ruling is made. Now it would help PtL if we had the same ruling, it would answer all of this with no question asked.

 

I am not saying you can wait when ever, I am still following the normal flow of the game, the problem lies in when the game "forgets". Is it per phase or per event. 

 

 

Dude, literally EVERY step of that is altered by one rule or another. Most of them are broken by multiple card effects.
But ok, Activation Phase.
1. Reveal dial
2. Set template
3. Execute Maneuver
4. Check pilot stress
5. Clean up
6. Perform action

Now AS lets you basically do 1, 6, 2-5, skip 6.
PTL lets you do 1-5, 6, 6.
Used together, 1, 6, 6, 2-5, skip 6

NOWHERE are we given any indication that you can Reveal dial, do an action, set your template, execute a maneuver, check for stress, then what? If you clean up (move the template and dial) your second action is now at step 6, which you were just instructed to skip. That doesn't work.

Ok back a step, after Check for stress? You haven't executed a maneuver yet, and if you took a stress from your first action, doing PTL now prevents you from taking another action. That's no good.

There's literally no reason to WANT to split your actions like that. Half the point of the AS/PTL combo is that you can do two actions, take a stress, THEN do a green move if you want and ditch the stress like it never existed. That falls apart if you do it your way. Even if it worked you'd move, then take another action and be stuck with a stress even if your mice was green. Where's the advantage to this?

There's just nothing to substantiate splitting your actions like that. The trigger, having performed an action, has passed. You're repeating step 6 twice, with no evidence it can be split up like that. And there's nothing to be gained from doing so when the whole point of AS is to let you take an action BEFORE moving and worrying about stressing or crashing. There again - action, move, hit something, you just forfeited your ability to PTL because you collided.

 

Honestly this is more like it, this is getting more to the point. Only problem is you are doing 6 before 1. The next thing though, is we do not have a end point for when we would no longer be allowed to do it, what stops us from slipping PtL in before 5? 

 

The ship currently resolving a phase is known as 

the active Ship. After the active ship resolves the 

final step, the ship with the next lowest pilot skill 

becomes the active ship and resolves these same 

steps. Players continue activating ships in order of 

ascending pilot skill until each ship has activated.

 

This states that after all is done, we would move on, but not that we couldn't slip in an extra step.

 

Also the reason I think this would be nifty is to perform a few more sets of maneuvers to be able to give us a greater range of where the ship would land, not by much but could, and some one like Ibtisam would benefit greatly from this. The stress from PtL is only applied after the action you gained from it. 

[CrookedWookie 1,258]

How would she gain from this? She gains no advantage from not doing both her actions prior to moving.

[Buhallin 4,563]

You seemed to claim the exact thing I have been saying all along within your own blog. "We don't have strong definitions of timing, or the difference between 'when' and 'after' or what 'immediately' actually does..." You also stated that "Most of our understanding of these abilities are derived based on abilities." So the understanding is based upon not rulings or anything concrete but on a certain notion of how abilities should happen. So you said in one paragraph there isn't a clear understanding and then that the understanding had to be interpreted and wasn't official.

 

You yourself seem to be concerned about the idea that questioning the rulings shakes the foundation of the game itself and that it is something that will always be there within the game. All because of what you described as "bad rulings."

I've told you repeatedly that I agree that there are holes in the rules.  So I'm not sure how quoting me saying there are holes in the rules qualifies as some sort of "GOTCHA!"

 

My goal with my blog, with every effort I take here, is to figure out how to play the game.  Yours does not seems to be.  The fundamental difference seems to be that you are not willing to figure out how to play the game.  You want to demand answers that nobody but FFG can give, and tell everyone else how they can't possibly convince you.

 

If your goal is to figure out how to play the game, fine - we're here to try and figure it out.  If your goal is to make some abstract statement about how nobody but FFG can possibly be right, then honestly, you're doing nothing but running a campaign to make the game unplayable, and we don't need it.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

Going to suggest we calm down a bit.  Hujoe's fixation on steps has people going down some incorrect roads.

 

Again I find this hilarious that you have avoided some of my comments, then state what we should do something of your own idea, that was stated sooner. Also I havent been the one getting upset about a ruling. I don't have a fixation, I want clarification. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

Not only would you be able to give her a stress after performing a small maneuver like a 1 forward, you could end up in a variety of different places based on what the start of the movement was selected like and how the actions were played out. Also it would the allow you to dodge different sets of obstacles that might normally be in your way if you did Action, Action, move. It is a limited set of what it would help, but it does help in certain circumstances.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Buhallin 4,563]

This does give some insight but because it has now been answered in the FAQ, his ability has been assigned an IMMEDIATE type subtext. His ability triggers at the same time in the phase as check pilot stress, and this is a time table they have given us for this subject which is why this ruling is made. Now it would help PtL if we had the same ruling, it would answer all of this with no question asked.

You know, if I hadn't predicted this, I might actually have been shocked by it.

 

But I did.  So I'm not.

 

You have a perfectly good precedent for when you have to take granted actions in relation to the triggers that enable them.  Night Beast triggers off executing a maneuver.  Push the Limit triggers from taking an action.  Night Beast's free focus action must be taken BEFORE Step 4.  It cannot be deferred or held in any way.  Push the Limit...  must be taken before moving on to anything else.

 

At this point, I can only assume you're trolling.  Because if a perfectly parallel example that shows you cannot defer an ability activation (or the action it grants) until even the next phase doesn't PROVE it, nothing will.  But I actually suspect that was the way this was going to end all along.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

 

This does give some insight but because it has now been answered in the FAQ, his ability has been assigned an IMMEDIATE type subtext. His ability triggers at the same time in the phase as check pilot stress, and this is a time table they have given us for this subject which is why this ruling is made. Now it would help PtL if we had the same ruling, it would answer all of this with no question asked.

You know, if I hadn't predicted this, I might actually have been shocked by it.

 

But I did.  So I'm not.

 

You have a perfectly good precedent for when you have to take granted actions in relation to the triggers that enable them.  Night Beast triggers off executing a maneuver.  Push the Limit triggers from taking an action.  Night Beast's free focus action must be taken BEFORE Step 4.  It cannot be deferred or held in any way.  Push the Limit...  must be taken before moving on to anything else.

 

At this point, I can only assume you're trolling.  Because if a perfectly parallel example that shows you cannot defer an ability activation (or the action it grants) until even the next phase doesn't PROVE it, nothing will.  But I actually suspect that was the way this was going to end all along.

 

 

Not sure how this is a perfect parallel, this is involving stress, which is at this point in time is no longer and issue and is not part of the equation. The free action is not being given because it is happening immediately at the check pilot stress phase, which as others have stated is the limiter that shows what happens first in a set of events. We don't have a immediate subtext to this ability and this is where the problem lies.

 

Why is it trolling when I am asking for clarification and getting a discussion going on a subject? I haven't called any one names, I might of stated that it would be ignorant to think one way, but you have attacked me on multiple posts not the other way around.

 

Edit: Also we have a stated time table for maneuvers that have currently no modifications that would allow the change in the current flow for this, so again this doesn't help really. Here is the other question, and be honest. Before this ruling was enacted,  did you allow Night Beast to take that free action?

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Buhallin 4,563]

Not sure how this is a perfect parallel, this is involving stress, which is at this point in time is no longer and issue and is not part of the equation. The free action is not being given because it is happening immediately at the check pilot stress phase, which as others have stated is the limiter that shows what happens first in a set of events. We don't have a immediate subtext to this ability and this is where the problem lies.

Why does stress have anything to do with anything??  You can't take your action while stressed.  That's the start and end of what stress has to do with an action.  It literally has nothing to do with your ability to defer the action from Push the Limit and take it at some later time, during that ship's activation or otherwise.

 

When the trigger conditions are met, you perform the effect.  Right then - you don't hold it for later.  For Night Beast, this is performing a maneuver, and it has to happen before you clear the stress.

 

The Night Beast ruling is indicative of when you resolve the ability, which is right after the trigger.  Not later in the ship's activation - it must be right then, because otherwise you could simply wait until the stress cleared, and take the action then.

 

That IS the core point at dispute here, right?  When you have to take the action granted by Push the Limit?

[GroggyGolem 2,848]

 

I've told you repeatedly that I agree that there are holes in the rules.  So I'm not sure how quoting me saying there are holes in the rules qualifies as some sort of "GOTCHA!"

You seemed to claim the exact thing I have been saying all along within your own blog. "We don't have strong definitions of timing, or the difference between 'when' and 'after' or what 'immediately' actually does..." You also stated that "Most of our understanding of these abilities are derived based on abilities." So the understanding is based upon not rulings or anything concrete but on a certain notion of how abilities should happen. So you said in one paragraph there isn't a clear understanding and then that the understanding had to be interpreted and wasn't official.

 

You yourself seem to be concerned about the idea that questioning the rulings shakes the foundation of the game itself and that it is something that will always be there within the game. All because of what you described as "bad rulings."

 

 

My goal with my blog, with every effort I take here, is to figure out how to play the game.  Yours does not seems to be.  The fundamental difference seems to be that you are not willing to figure out how to play the game.  You want to demand answers that nobody but FFG can give, and tell everyone else how they can't possibly convince you.

 

If your goal is to figure out how to play the game, fine - we're here to try and figure it out.  If your goal is to make some abstract statement about how nobody but FFG can possibly be right, then honestly, you're doing nothing but running a campaign to make the game unplayable, and we don't need it.

 

I am willing to figure out how to play the game I just don't know where to start. Where is the basis to build rulings like this off of? There isn't enough information from what we have been given. I'm listening to the responses and I understand trying to interpret the game without official clarification is tough and has been going on for quite some time and it is currently thought of as the view that makes the most logical sense. How do we know for sure that the views are correct? We don't, really, as it has been proven before that FFG views some subjects differently. Until then we will all play the game the same exact way and if/when an official ruling does come out for this idea of AS action/maneuver/action, awesome. If not we will still all be playing the same way.

 

You asked why I pointed out you made similar remarks before on your own blog and it is because for most of this conversation, rather than try to entertain the idea that the currently accepted rulings could maybe in some way be off, you argued that they are absolutely correct because no other solution was found to make more logical sense. I think, more than anything, they are just as they are: the currently accepted view of the rules, that will no doubt change with time, probably in ways we do not expect.

 

If you think my whole reason for this was to cause confusion and frustration about this wonderful game you are quite mistaken. I am a person that likes to know the "why" of things. Because of that I ask a lot of questions and like having them answered. I understand that everyone rules that it is not possible and I respect that decision, it is the same one I would make. Do I have doubts about my decision on ruling it? Yes I have doubts but those may or may not clear up with time.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

It is indeed the core of the discussion.

 

You are right, it does help define it, but before the ruling was in place for Night Beast, one could of allowed a player to take the free action after clearing the stress due to wording. Now we know that FFG wants this ruled in a different light. What I would like now is, does this apply to all actions giving us the insight needed to apply towards this subject matter or did they change how it worked particularly for Night Beast to not be able to constantly have a free action by making his an immediate action (which I know they didn't actually add into the context of his ability but it is implied).

 

This does indeed help rule in the favor of what I believed to be correct that it would have to be action, action, move. This is what I have been trying to look for and I do thank you for helping point this out. I've been playing the devil advocate for this discussion because I know these questions would be the ones raised by difficult players or new ones that don't have the experience to interpret this out. Now it just comes down to, will FFG decide that our interpretation of the rules, is really the correct way.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Buhallin 4,563]

You asked why I pointed out you made similar remarks before on your own blog and it is because for most of this conversation, rather than try to entertain the idea that the currently accepted rulings could maybe in some way be off, you argued that they are absolutely correct because no other solution was found to make more logical sense. I think, more than anything, they are just as they are: the currently accepted view of the rules, that will no doubt change with time, probably in ways we do not expect.

If you want people to entertain that the currently accepted rulings could be in some way off, you should probably offer some evidence to that.  Some way in which the current rulings fail, or create a highly undesirable situation, or don't account for a new ability or ruling that makes us question what we know.  The Dark Curse ruling did this by creating a conflict in effects between different secondary weapons.

 

But so far, you haven't actually offered anything AGAINST the currently-accepted ruling.  You've refused to accept it because it doesn't come from FFG, but you haven't actually shown any way in which it fails or doesn't handle something.  All you've done is say "Well, none of that comes from FFG so you can't PROVE IT."

 

If you want to actually point out a flaw in our current understanding of the game, please do so.  Pointing out that it's all derived, and declaring that we're wrong because FFG hasn't said it explicitly accomplishes nothing.

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

 

You asked why I pointed out you made similar remarks before on your own blog and it is because for most of this conversation, rather than try to entertain the idea that the currently accepted rulings could maybe in some way be off, you argued that they are absolutely correct because no other solution was found to make more logical sense. I think, more than anything, they are just as they are: the currently accepted view of the rules, that will no doubt change with time, probably in ways we do not expect.

If you want people to entertain that the currently accepted rulings could be in some way off, you should probably offer some evidence to that.  Some way in which the current rulings fail, or create a highly undesirable situation, or don't account for a new ability or ruling that makes us question what we know.  The Dark Curse ruling did this by creating a conflict in effects between different secondary weapons.

 

But so far, you haven't actually offered anything AGAINST the currently-accepted ruling.  You've refused to accept it because it doesn't come from FFG, but you haven't actually shown any way in which it fails or doesn't handle something.  All you've done is say "Well, none of that comes from FFG so you can't PROVE IT."

 

If you want to actually point out a flaw in our current understanding of the game, please do so.  Pointing out that it's all derived, and declaring that we're wrong because FFG hasn't said it explicitly accomplishes nothing.

 

 

The reason he hasn't been stating stuff like this is because for the most part of this, we have been in voice chat talking about the ruling and how it might be applied (I being in California and him being in Florida). To avoid double posting some of the ways we have come with, I have been the faster to type up a response and the general ideas came easier for me to describe.

 

EDIT: What would also be nice is another point of reference to use as a helper to establish this fact.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs

[Buhallin 4,563]

 I've been playing the devil advocate for this discussion because I know these questions would be the ones raised by difficult players or new ones that don't have the experience to interpret this out.

You do an OUTSTANDING job of portraying a difficult and/or ignorant player

[Hujoe Bigs 2,071]

 

 I've been playing the devil advocate for this discussion because I know these questions would be the ones raised by difficult players or new ones that don't have the experience to interpret this out.

You do an OUTSTANDING job of portraying a difficult and/or ignorant player

 

 

Well I am glad to be of service, I prefer getting as much information to these situations. If every one is a yes man, no questions would be raised.

 

Also Buhallin, you seem well informed and I do appreciate that in other players because it helps games go by quicker and with proper understanding to help get the most out of a game. 

 

One ruling that would of helped persuade me as well would of been the use of R2-D2 and the fact that he gains a shield before any type of consequence, ie landing on/moving through an asteroid. The wording on this card is an after effect, which helps bind the fact that it would be logical that the meaning of after is usually immediate, before a sub part of a phase, like check pilot stress. Right now those two are the only two real references we have for after effects and when it would require to take place, both would benefit from an errata, adding immediate to the cards (less arguments).

 

EDIT: Again, through out all of this, I still hate when people don't mention leads to information, but say that this is the general opinion, and since it is, it has to be right. Or give a general statement with no information to back that up, ie "No".

Edited September 25, 2013 by Hujoe Bigs