Quick question that came up during a match at the Regional I attended on Saturday: let's say a Shuttle or a ship with Inertial Dampeners is atop an asteroid, and elects to perform the [0] maneuver and stay where it is. Does it roll for damage?

I thought the answer was a (fairly obvious) yes, since the ship has performed a maneuver and it's final position has overlapped an obstacle. My opponent disagreed, feeling that the [0] maneuver didn't count as 'moving', per the FAQ ruling on touching and the [0] move, but that felt questionable to me. Which of us was correct?

Yes. It performed a maneuver and it's final position overlapped the asteroid.

You're opponent was correct to say that the "[0] maneuver didn't count as 'moving'". However, the rules regarding overlapping asteroids don't require you to move. They simply state that you must "executes a maneuver in which either the maneuver template or the ship’s base physically overlaps an obstacle token."

His ship performed a maneuver, did not move, and overlapped an obstacle token. He therefore follows the rules concerning the obstacle he overlapped.

To echo the chorus the ship ended up on the rock so it rolls. It doesn't matter how it got back there. If he was blocked back into its initial position on the rock would he be having this argument?

If he was blocked back into its initial position on the rock would he be having this argument?

That is, word for word, what I said to my opponent. He still disagreed.

Thanks, everyone.

If he was blocked back into its initial position on the rock would he be having this argument?

That is, word for word, what I said to my opponent. He still disagreed.

Thanks, everyone.

I take it he was the one who was on the rock but didn't want to suffer the consequences for it.

If he doesn't roll for damage then would he get to take his action phase assuming he is unstressed? Perhaps an even bigger question is does he get to roll attacks? Either the ship is on the rock or it is not and if it not on the rock then it can do all of these other things as well.

Since this was a Regional I hope someone had the good sense to call a Judge and that he made the right ruling.

If he doesn't roll for damage then would he get to take his action phase assuming he is unstressed? Perhaps an even bigger question is does he get to roll attacks? Either the ship is on the rock or it is not and if it not on the rock then it can do all of these other things as well.

This isn't really right. There are certain effects that come from landing on an obstacle during a maneuver (loss of Action Step, damage check) and other effects which relate to whether you're on the obstacle at certain times (such as not being able to attack during combat). You can land on an obstacle, roll damage, lose your action, but still make your attack if you somehow get off it before your time to attack comes (via some free action that lets you boost or barrel roll). You can not have to roll for damage or lose your attack but still not be able to attack (Dash).

They're pretty independent.

If he was blocked back into its initial position on the rock would he be having this argument?

That is, word for word, what I said to my opponent. He still disagreed.

Thanks, everyone.

I take it he was the one who was on the rock but didn't want to suffer the consequences for it.

If he doesn't roll for damage then would he get to take his action phase assuming he is unstressed? Perhaps an even bigger question is does he get to roll attacks? Either the ship is on the rock or it is not and if it not on the rock then it can do all of these other things as well.

Since this was a Regional I hope someone had the good sense to call a Judge and that he made the right ruling.

Yes, he was. He eventually let it go and rolled for damage in the interests of keeping the game moving, just as I was about to suggest grabbing the TO. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't held up an already tense game incorrectly.