Here we go again. Declaring Accel v. Cancelling EM

[chazrobbins]

Ok, we got the ruling that declaring Emergency Deceleration comes BEFORE declaring acceleration at the beginning of an impulse (thanks Mike).

Next question:

When does declaring cancelling EM occur in relation to declaring cancellation of Evasive Manouvers? (Yes, these questions are really and truly coming up in our games.)

Thanks,
Chuck
Game Empire Pasadena

[Savedfromwhat]

I am not sure i understand can you re-explain the problem

[Kang]

When does declaring cancelling EM occur in relation to declaring cancellation of Evasive Manouvers? (Yes, these questions are really and truly coming up in our games.)

I think you meant cancelling EM in relation to ED.

As far as I can see, the rules make no reference to the order in which these steps are carried out/announced. Neither do the Player Reference Cards, which as you know carry the Impulse Procedure ready reference charts.

The only place I can see these two functions differentiated is, once again, in the MITS cards from Orion Attack - as also referred to in the original post. In these, cancelling Emer Decel comes before Erratic Maneuvers.

But I don't know where the Murfreesbro guys got that order of play from.

Let's see what Mike says.

[chazrobbins]

I am not sure i understand can you re-explain the problem

My opponent was using EM. At the beginning of an impulse, I asked her if she was going to continue EM. She said she would decide once I announced whether I was accelerating or not. The rules are not clear on this.

So that's the question: Does she announce cancellation of EM before or after announcing acceleration?

We have already seen Mike say that Emergency Deceleration must be declared before Acceleration. Is the same true for declaring cancellation of EM?

[Hod K'el]

EM is always in 'OTHER'. Do it / stop it in 'OTHER'.

ED is at the start of the impulse.

[mjwest]

Let's see what Steve says. The MITS cards could easily sink my ruling.

I am trying to make sure all of these will be in the next Communique.

[djdood]

I still preferred the "original" name for those cards...

[Kang]

I still preferred the "original" name for those cards...

What was that, then? We used to have a near-identical system that we simply called 'Impulse Cards'.

Anyway, to sum it up, what it looks like is that we need is a definitive sequence for all of the events in the Speed Change Phase of the impulse procedure, in a similar manner to how the Other Functions phase has been defined.

The MITS cards are excellent - I use them every game - but:

(a) they must have derived their order of play from somewhere - or perhaps not - and whatever, the rules that the MITS order of play comes from needs to be clarified and/or made 'official', although I hate that word , and

(b) not everyone has a set of MITS cards!

(c) Even the MITS cards contain errors! Or, at least one anyway No offence, Tony and friends!

And it also looks as if we could do with a CRUL-II

[Kang]

EM is always in 'OTHER'. Do it / stop it in 'OTHER'.

I'm not sure this is exactly correct - but you have a good point. As far as I understand it, EM is declared in Defensive Fire, but takes effect in Other Functions - and is cancelled in Speed Change.

[mjwest]

Kang is correct: Evasive Maneuvers are canceled in the Speed Change Phase. (EM is just weird.)

Anyway, is there anything else that takes place in the Speed Change Phase that needs to be considered, too? (Besides acceleration, ED, and canceling EM.)

[DNordeen]

MJ - There's nothing else that I know of happening during Speed Change.

[mjwest]

As an aside on this, I have sent in the list of line items that were generated by the recent posts. I have not yet received confirmation one way or the other on the ordering in the Speed Change Phase. I will be sure to post once I get answer back, and it is most likely that the order presented on the MITS cards is the one that will be used.

(The reason is because even if that order causes undesired [to me anyway] side effects, it does work and it is in print. Better to be consistent with product in print when possible.)

[Mike]

Wait a sec!

There was something about those MITS cards that was wrong. Was it the order of tractors and transporters? I think that was it. It was definitely in the wrong order from the way it was printed in the actual rulebook. I remember this coming up in a thread before and how it might have different effects. There was a scenario/situation asked about where it would definitely make a difference in the sequencing of those events.

[mjwest]

I will have to go back though the MITS cards to check for errors, but having only one error is better than having two. At that point, they become as much of a hindrance as a help.

So, in light of that, the order in the Speed Change Phase is the same as given on the MITS cards:
- Declare Acceleration
- Declare Emergency Deceleration
- Cancel Evasive Maneuvers.

Yes, this reverses my prior ruling. Note that this was my recommendation to Steve after much deliberation. In this case there is nothing "broken" about the ordering on the MITS cards, so I think precident rules. My biggest error in this whole thing was not first checking the MITS cards before speaking.

[chazrobbins]

it is most likely that the order presented on the MITS cards is the one that will be used.

(The reason is because even if that order causes undesired [to me anyway] side effects, it does work and it is in print. Better to be consistent with product in print when possible.)

I would hate to think that the integrity of the game would be sacrificed simply because someone printed something on the MITS cards without fully thinking out the consequences. I liked your reasoning in your original ruling regarding Emergency Deceleration because it followed a policy of avoiding "mind games" and gamesmanship. I hope that SVC makes a ruling that follows that same policy.

Chuck
Game Empire Pasadena