Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » Rules

Subject: extra green maneuver remove aux token? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeff Wright
United States
Grovetown
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I am using the unaffiliated flagship card that allows a ship within 1 to make a free white or green move and I move a ship with an aux token on it a green move does it remove the aux token?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
Bakersfield
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes it does.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert P
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Really?

I thought that a ship with an aux token may not take any action, even free ones (except Enterprise special ability).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristoff Bergenholm
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Plattenhelge wrote:
Really?

I thought that a ship with an aux token may not take any action, even free ones (except Enterprise special ability).

That's not an Action. He's granting it an extra maneuver through the Flagship's special ability.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I know using the Rulebook to answer questions isn't in fashion for ST:AW, but the answer is, like so many other questions in this game: "UNKNOWN; ambiguous in rules; wait for Andrew."


Note the order of activation steps on Page 9:

Activation Phase:
(1) Reveal Dial
(2) Set Template
(3) Execute Maneuver
(4) Check for Power Strain
(5) Clean-Up
(6) Perform Action

Each of these is a distinct, discreet event. Gaining a "free/extra/etc" maneuver only gives you explicit access to (3). Who knows about the rest. They are parts of the Activation Phase, but they aren't all parts of "performing a maneuver."


Piecemeal, we can ask if each step as defined in the rulebook is used during an "extra" maneuver:

(1) -- NO (you don't set a wheel or reveal wheel. Proof: think of a case where your wheel is already face-down because the target ship hasn't yet activated).

(2) -- Not technically (since no revealed maneuver), but yes, you do place a template in your base.

(3) -- YES

(4) -- Unknown

(5) -- (presumed) Yes

(6) -- Certainly a NO


So cards like the Independent[Dominion] Flagship give access so something that has no clear analog in the rulebook. It involves some but not all portions of the activation phase, including some steps that are similar but not actually what's defined in those phases (eg selecting a maneuver without revealing a wheel), without any clear objective instruction for which steps are used and which steps are skipped.

So the question is: Does Andrew want to consider step (4) to be more like (3) or more like (1)/(6)? As precedence from X-Wing, it was ruled that "Night Beast" could not perform his free Focus action after a Green Maneuver if he started the turn with an "aux" token because that "aux" token was not removed until after the trigger (performing a green maneuver) step was completed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wright
United States
Grovetown
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule book states, "After a ship executes a green maneuver, remove one Auxiliary Power Token from it (see "Activation Phase" Step 4 on page 9)."

If it had stopped at "remove one Auxiliary Power Token from it" I would have said most obviously the token would be removed upon using the flagships ability. But referencing Step 4 on page 9 made me pause and wonder if a green maneuver is only effective in removing an Aux Token if it is done in the "Check for Power Strain" step. But this is not really clear either. When the rule book was written I believe Step 4 was the only way to remove an auxiliary Token, so that may be the reason for the reference to Step 4.

Still unclear to me really.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr Vulcan
msg tools
mbmb
I still think that the free maneuver triggers the full maneuver set of 3 and 4/5, thus if you have generic captain on the flagship and a picard captain on the target ship, the target ship can basically take a green as its free move clearing the aux then a red (legal red) move as its normal move gaining an aux.
The reason I say this is other events can trigger the same way, IE: valdore with romulan pilot still gets the plus 1 attack die if does a white move base move and a green move romulan pilot move. I think that (4/5) is a trigger from (3) just like the valdore is a trigger for a green.
That's my two cents anyway =)
I hope it is this way, or the rules will just get way too complex for partial phases in this game...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Oh yea I see where you are getting at. The question becomes "is the free maneuver, just the maneuver portion of the activation phase (step 3)?" If yes then would not remove the aux...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Pitner
United States
Plano
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
docvulcan wrote:
I still think that the free maneuver triggers the full maneuver set of 3 and 4/5, thus if you have generic captain on the flagship and a picard captain on the target ship, the target ship can basically take a green as its free move clearing the aux then a red (legal red) move as its normal move gaining an aux.
The reason I say this is other events can trigger the same way, IE: valdore with romulan pilot still gets the plus 1 attack die if does a white move base move and a green move romulan pilot move. I think that (4/5) is a trigger from (3) just like the valdore is a trigger for a green.
That's my two cents anyway =)
I hope it is this way, or the rules will just get way too complex for partial phases in this game...

The only gotcha here is if your flagship captain bumps into another ship or something else happens to them where they don't land within range one of the 2nd ship. Then it can't perform the green maneuver to clear the aux, and then you're stuck revealing a red maneuver with an aux token which equates to your opponent making you do whatever maneuver they want you to do. Nasty stuff!

In addition to all this, it's already been confirmed as a ruling that you get to remove the aux token when using the flagship ability (referenced here: STAW:Flagships)

Link to ruling: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14303523#14303523
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wright
United States
Grovetown
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks to all!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Compton
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:
Well, I know using the Rulebook to answer questions isn't in fashion for ST:AW, but the answer is, like so many other questions in this game: "UNKNOWN; ambiguous in rules; wait for Andrew."
That does happen sometimes, but many times a responder is aware of a ruling made by Andrew even if they don't cite it. THere is a pretty conscientious effort here to play the game correctly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the_triangle_man wrote:
RogueThirteen wrote:
Well, I know using the Rulebook to answer questions isn't in fashion for ST:AW, but the answer is, like so many other questions in this game: "UNKNOWN; ambiguous in rules; wait for Andrew."
That does happen sometimes, but many times a responder is aware of a ruling made by Andrew even if they don't cite it. THere is a pretty conscientious effort here to play the game correctly.

In general, yes, this is the case. But I was disheartened after reading through a few old rules questions this morning over coffee as I saw reply after reply from posters that only went something like "Yes obviously..." and "No obviously...without any supporting reasons." In the wrost case these posters were wrong, but even in the best case they had provided no justification to think their response was accurate.


That's why I wish every response to rules questions followed one of these guides:

(A) Yes/No, because... [cites Rulebook or FAQ answer from Andrew]
(B) Yes/No, because... [recalls FAQ answer from Andrew, but can't find reference--this is fine, the FAQ is huge and a responder shouldn't have to drudge up the page every time--just letting others know it is in there somewhere is helpful so they can look and know they aren't on a wild goose chase]
(C) I'm not sure, but... I would think Yes/No, because [provides reasons based on rulebook or other FAQ rulings]

Any of those three types of responses are wonderful, and I try to thumb them whenever I see them. What is unhelpful are people answering with confidence without providing any justification to that answer. And, for whatever reason, it seems to happen a lot on these boards compared to other rules forums I follow here at BGG, so I'd like the community to collectively curb the habit if we could. I suspect it might have to do with the sheer volume and complexity of the ST:AW rules, coupled with some inconsistent rulings and the intimidatingly long FAQ thread.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristoff Bergenholm
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I have to search for every single reference from Andrew before answering a simple question, then I'm simply not going to bother any more. It becomes work at that point.

EDIT - And here's the particular post - http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14303523#14303523

So, yes. A maneuver-granting ability that grants a green maneuver can remove an aux-power token.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Sanchez
United States
Clermont
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RogueThirteen wrote:
the_triangle_man wrote:
RogueThirteen wrote:
Well, I know using the Rulebook to answer questions isn't in fashion for ST:AW, but the answer is, like so many other questions in this game: "UNKNOWN; ambiguous in rules; wait for Andrew."
That does happen sometimes, but many times a responder is aware of a ruling made by Andrew even if they don't cite it. THere is a pretty conscientious effort here to play the game correctly.

In general, yes, this is the case. But I was disheartened after reading through a few old rules questions this morning over coffee as I saw reply after reply from posters that only went something like "Yes obviously..." and "No obviously...without any supporting reasons." In the wrost case these posters were wrong, but even in the best case they had provided no justification to think their response was accurate.


That's why I wish every response to rules questions followed one of these guides:

(A) Yes/No, because... [cites Rulebook or FAQ answer from Andrew]
(B) Yes/No, because... [recalls FAQ answer from Andrew, but can't find reference--this is fine, the FAQ is huge and a responder shouldn't have to drudge up the page every time--just letting others know it is in there somewhere is helpful so they can look and know they aren't on a wild goose chase]
(C) I'm not sure, but... I would think Yes/No, because [provides reasons based on rulebook or other FAQ rulings]

Any of those three types of responses are wonderful, and I try to thumb them whenever I see them. What is unhelpful are people answering with confidence without providing any justification to that answer. And, for whatever reason, it seems to happen a lot on these boards compared to other rules forums I follow here at BGG, so I'd like the community to collectively curb the habit if we could. I suspect it might have to do with the sheer volume and complexity of the ST:AW rules, coupled with some inconsistent rulings and the intimidatingly long FAQ thread.

I mark all the above posts in the FAQ thread as Rules Violations: Spam

Magentawolf wrote:
If I have to search for every single reference from Andrew before answering a simple question, then I'm simply not going to bother any more. It becomes work at that point.

EDIT - And here's the particular post - http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14303523#14303523

So, yes. A maneuver-granting ability that grants a green maneuver can remove an aux-power token.

Pretty much every andrew ruling is in the Wiki, you should check there first. STAW:
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric B.
United States
East Lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magentawolf wrote:
If I have to search for every single reference from Andrew before answering a simple question, then I'm simply not going to bother any more. It becomes work at that point.

That's why my (B) option suggests posters can say something like "Yes, you can. Andrew confirmed this in the FAQ somewhere."

This at least notes that the answer has some kind of support, but puts the burden of finding it again on the person asking. I think this is fine, and certainly preferable to someone just responding "Yes" or "No" without any provided justification/credibility.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls