In a straight forward case where their is a conflict between the rules an the FAQ which wins?

In today's FAQ we get this:

Well, the FAQ takes precedence. You may perform free actions if you skipped your "Perform Action" step due to hitting the rock, but not if you ended up on top of said rock. If you jump over it and end up in "open space" (so to speak), you're free and clear.

I too just read that FAQ entry. I believe it is an error in the FAQ. As for your question, in casual games you decide. In a tournament the TO decides. The TO can overrule the FAQ if he feels a ruling is wrong.

Within reason, of course. That rule is there so that the TO can rule on things if the players' discover something that causes the rules to breakdown. It does not give the TO license to decide which parts of the FAQ are in force and which aren't.

(from another thread)

It's badly worded, but if you look at the question just above the asteroid one, it mentions performing free actions OUTSIDE the perform actions step if you've overlapped something and says you can.

So maybe the asteroid question means (but they didn't clarify enough) that if you overlap an asteroid you cannot perform a a free action DURING your perform action step, as you are skipping it entirely.

But outside of that step, you can?

In a straight forward case where their is a conflict between the rules an the FAQ which wins?

In today's FAQ we get this:

FAQ, Page 14

Q: Can a ship that is (currently) overlapping an asteroid perform free actions?

A: No.

Why this is even a question in the FAQ is beyond me since the rules very clearly explain that the ship should still get its action:

Rules Reference, Page 12:

A ship can perform free actions even if it (previously) skipped its “Perform Action” step due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle or another game effect.

DR4CO has the right of it. The FAQ addresses the question generated by the rules. I've added red text to highlight that the FAQ is question is in the present tense, asking about a ship that is overlapping an asteroid at the time it wants to perform a free action. The rules statement you quoted is talking about a ship that already overlapped and skipped its perform action step, but is no longer on the asteroid. They should probably add some language about ending a maneuver or landing on an obstacle as the repeated use of "overlapping" is generating the confusion.

Well, the FAQ takes precedence. You may perform free actions if you skipped your "Perform Action" step due to hitting the rock, but not if you ended up on top of said rock. If you jump over it and end up in "open space" (so to speak), you're free and clear.

This...

It is not contradictory at all.

Not to mention the fact that I actually like the ruling

Kris

From the line directly above the new FAQ entry.

But that is an ADDITION to the rules for asteroids.

Nothing prior to this FAQ suggested in any way that a ship on top of an asteroid could not perform any action. The rules for asteroids (that related to actions) were exclusively that the ship skipped its perform action step, which the FAQ specifically says still allows free actions. This entry is not clarifying something, it is adding an entirely new restriction to asteroids. As such, it should be in the errata, not the FAQ section.

How is this any different than what we've been doing for the last two years? (FAQ overriding the rules, that is).

"A ship can still perform free actions even if it moved through or overlapped an obstacle, as long as the ship is not stressed."

This is straight from the obstacle section of the rule book. With the FAQ of not allowing a free action when overlapping an asteroid they have effectively rewritten the obstacle section. I think someone made a mistake here at FFG.

The mistake is failing to update the other entries. This change is far too deliberate to an error.

"A ship can still perform free actions even if it moved through or overlapped an obstacle, as long as the ship is not stressed."

This is straight from the obstacle section of the rule book. With the FAQ of not allowing a free action when overlapping an asteroid they have effectively rewritten the obstacle section. I think someone made a mistake here at FFG.

Not entirely. The rule book covers obstacles as a whole, and while overlapping obstacles (general) you can still perform free actions. Asteroids are a subset of obstacles that changes that rule.

It's definitely not anything that's presented in the rules or has any support in the rules, but it's not an outright contradiction.

Except they don't. Both the original rulebook and the new rules reference very specifically say you skip the performance action step. Only stress prevents use of free actions in the rulles.

So the faq clearly contradicts the rules.

The FAQ contradicts the rules in a lot of places. It takes precedence, because it's, y'know, the FAQ. That's what it does.

I think the reason for this change has to do with the dauntless title. Before this entry you would be able to hit someone and land on the asteroid and still get your action. (IE: boosting away or daredevil to hit them for another damage)

Dr4co has it right.

The rule as written on the FAQ is saying that if you are CURRENTLY ON an asteroid you can't take free actions.

This doesn't change the rule regarding hitting asteroids because if your ship passed through an asteroid but did not finish its movement on an asteroid, it may still take free actions. Rather, it seems to be adding an effect for landing on an asteroid.

A ship can perform free actions even if it (previously) skipped its “Perform Action” step due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle or another game effect.

I think the reason for this change has to do with the dauntless title. Before this entry you would be able to hit someone and land on the asteroid and still get your action. (IE: boosting away or daredevil to hit them for another damage)

I don't think Dauntless ever got enough play to justify all the nerfs that it is getting due to rule changes.

The point of the FAQ is to update the rules, sometimes by contradicting them.

Just to be comprehensive, I decided to review all the relevant rules in swx36 Learn to Play (LTP) and Rules Reference (RR) (from Core 2.0) and FAQ v.32 (FAQ). I think it's relevant to examine their interaction, since they are all relatively new.

In my opinion, after reviewing the pertinent rules, the new FAQ reverses the existing rule, and is either a mistake, or an errata that should be moved to the errata section of the FAQ.

Obstacles and Asteroids

Let's first look at what happens when you encounter an asteroid obstacle.

OBSTACLES

Moving Through and Overlapping Asteroids

When a ship executes a maneuver in which either the maneuver template or the ship’s base overlaps an asteroid obstacle token, follow these steps:

1. Execute the maneuver as normal, but the ship cannot perform its action after moving.

2. Roll one attack die. On a (hit) result, the ship suffers one damage. On a (crit) result, it suffers one critical damage.

While a ship is overlapping an asteroid obstacle token, it cannot perform any attacks.

LTP 13. One might expect to find a restriction on taking actions to be in this section, about "moving through and overlapping asteroids." The only restriction specifically stated is that a ship cannot perform any attacks while overlapping an asteroid obstacle token.

However, we do see that a ship cannot perform its action after moving. Unfortunately, this does not clearly state merely "the ship skips its perform action step," which would be very clear and precise. Thankfully, we do get such a clarification in the Rules Reference:

When a ship executes a maneuver, if its base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle token, it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle:

Asteroid: The ship must skip its “Perform Action” step this round. After skipping the “Perform Action” step, it rolls one attack die. On a (hit) result, the ship suffers one damage; on a (crit) result, it suffers one critical damage. While a ship is overlapping an asteroid, it cannot perform any attacks.

RR 14. So it's clear that we're talking about merely skipping the "Perform Action" step - not all actions after moving. But again, note, they fail to state add any additional restrictions beyond being unable to attack while overlapping an asteroid.

This is replicated again in the example in the Learn to Play Guide:

Example: Moving Through and Overlapping Obstacles

2. Blue Squadron Novice executes a [Right Turn 2] maneuver, and its base overlaps an asteroid. In addition to losing its action and rolling for damage, the ship cannot perform an attack this round.

LTP 13. The example states "in addition to losing its action" - action being singular. And, again, the only rest of the round restriction it places on the ship is "the ship cannot perform an attack this round." No mention of the ship being unable to perform additional actions.

Well, perhaps there are some additional explanations in the discussion of actions.

Restrictions on Actions

First of all, actions and what restricts them are addressed in a couple of places in the rules. Being on top of an asteroid obstacle is not specifically listed.

Actions

The following restrictions apply when performing actions:

• A ship with a stress token cannot perform any actions.

• A ship that overlaps another ship cannot perform its action.

• If an ability allows a ship to perform more than one action during a round, it cannot perform the same action more than once per round.

LTP 10. So "a ship overlapping an obstacle" is not mentioned in this section of the Learn to Play Guide. Nor is it listed in the Rules Reference.

ACTIONS

The active ship can perform one standard action during the “Perform Action” step of the Activation phase. Ships can also perform free actions as instructed by cards or mission rules. The actions available to each ship are listed in that ship’s action

bar.

• As an action, a ship may resolve an ability beginning with the “Action:” header on one of its Upgrade or Damage cards.

• A ship cannot perform actions, even free actions, while stressed.

• A ship must skip its “Perform Action” step if it overlapped another ship while executing a maneuver.

• A ship cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round, even if one or more of the actions are free actions.

◊ If a ship has more than one copy of the same Damage or Upgrade card, it still cannot perform the action described on those cards more than once per round.

• If a card ability or mission effect grants a ship a free action for which it does not have the matching action icon in its action bar, it may still perform that action.

• A ship can choose not to perform an action during the “Perform Action” step or when granted a free action.

RR 3. Once again we have a specific list of reasons why ships can't perform actions - "even free actions" - and overlapping an obstacle isn't included.

What about in the discussion of Free Actions?

FREE ACTIONS

A free action is an action granted to a ship through a card ability or other effect. It does not count as the one standard action that a ship performs during the “Perform Action” step.

• A stressed ship cannot perform free actions.

• A ship can perform free actions even if it skipped its “Perform Action” step due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle or another game effect.

• If a ship is specifically granted a free barrel roll action or a free boost action and cannot complete the action in the desired direction, it may choose a different direction. It cannot choose to perform a different action.

RR 12. At first one might be tempted to say "Ah-hah! There we have our specific ruling." But it's not that clear. Let's break down this sentence.

A ship || can perform free actions || even if it skipped its “Perform Action” step || due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle or another game effect.

"Due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle" is as not as precise it might seem as first. Recall that the relevant section in the LTP rules is called "moving through and overlapping asteroids." One might argue that moving through asteroids and overlapping asteroids are different things, especially because the rules in the LTP specify additional penalties for overlapping an asteroid - namely, not being able to attack. Also "moving through" gets its own section in the Rules Reference. RR 14. Additionally, one skips a ship's "action after moving" if "either the maneuver template or the ship’s base overlaps an asteroid obstacle." The problem here is that a literal reading of the Free Action rule speaks to a ship that skips the step due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle - not because its maneuver template overlapped it. So there is at least an argument to be made that this rule is trying to clarify that you can, indeed, still take free actions even if you ended up on top of an asteroid.

Going further, though, we can argue that "another game effect" would include the maneuver template overlapping an asteroid. In fact, the phrase "or another game effect" is so wide open that essentially the sentence really can read like:

"A ship can perform free actions even if it skipped its “Perform Action” step (because of any game effect)."

Read this way, "due to overlapping an asteroid obstacle" because merely an example of a type of game effect one might routinely encounter, not a unique instance to which the rule applies.

This seems to support the reading that you should be able to take free actions after the perform action step even if you are on the asteroid.

But then we get this little nugget in the Obstacles section:

OBSTACLES

A ship can still perform free actions even if it moved through or overlapped an obstacle, as long as the ship is not stressed.

RR 14. On first blush, this again seems to support the position that you should be able to take free actions after the perform action step even if you are on the asteroid. But for whatever reason, they decided to use the past tense for overlapped. Why? Why not just say "even if it moved through or is overlapping an obstacle"? I think the weight of the evidence, above, indicates that this language means if the ship is on an asteroid it can still perform a free action, but it just adds to the confusion.

Despite all that, I think we can say that the rules as written confirm what many in the community already played in accordance with - that free actions could be taken even if parked on an asteroid.

What Does the New FAQ Say?

We know that the FAQ has priority over the Rules. So let's turn to the new ruling.

Section 1 contains Errata. As is stated:

This section describes official changes to rule text and cards.

FAQ 1. Interestingly, the rule regarding being on an asteroid is not in this section. Instead we find it in Section 5: FAQ.

ACTIONS AND GAME EFFECTS

Q: If a ship is required to skip its “Perform Action” step (for example, if its final position overlapped another ship), is it still allowed to perform free actions outside of the “Perform Action” step?

A: Yes.

Q: Can a ship that is overlapping an asteroid perform free actions?

A: No.

FAQ 14. I don't really see how it's possible to say that this was meant to be part of the question prior to it. This is a pretty clear statement that if you are on an asteroid you may not perform free actions.

That begs the question, is this:

(1) the way it was always supposed to be?

(2) an intentional rule change?

(3) a mistake?

Given the analysis above, I find it hard to see how it is just a clarification of the existing rules (which is what you'd expect in the FAQ part of the FAQ). You'd have to do some pretty torturous textual parsing to find that in the prior rules.

It could be an intentional rule change, although it's weird that they didn't put it in the errata section, which is where you'd expect it.

So... is it a mistake? I guess we'll see if the rule gets changed before October. I'd propose moving it to the Errata section if it is supposed to be a change.

UPDATE: Mistake. Issue resolved

All the vapors over the FAQ changing something in a ruling rather than errata is actually kinda cute.

Seriously, people, this has been FFG's approach since the very first FAQ. It's nothing new. There are still a half dozen contradictions, including several new ones in this edition.

Why is anyone at all surprised by this?

All the vapors over the FAQ changing something in a ruling rather than errata is actually kinda cute.

Seriously, people, this has been FFG's approach since the very first FAQ. It's nothing new. There are still a half dozen contradictions, including several new ones in this edition.

Why is anyone at all surprised by this?

A good bit of time and energy was obviously spent re-vamping the Core Rules 2.0 to address a lot of specifics. Given that those rules just came out, it seems a little odd that a FAQ would come out just a week or two later with a completely contradictory ruling, tucked away in the section that primarily seems to be about rules clarifications, not rule reversals.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was intentional, and I don't think anyone here is in "vapors."

But I do think it's reasonable for people to raise the question as to whether this was actually a planned change given the surrounding circumstances.

All the vapors over the FAQ changing something in a ruling rather than errata is actually kinda cute.

Seriously, people, this has been FFG's approach since the very first FAQ. It's nothing new. There are still a half dozen contradictions, including several new ones in this edition.

Why is anyone at all surprised by this?

When I created the thread I thought it was a more direct conflict than it actually was. For as often as FFG's rulings on things that require some rules interpretation end up having no support from the rules, it is unlike them to print an absolute contraction to the rules.

This is also the first FAQ after getting the Rules Reference. If a rule is being clarified or an interaction is being explained, that belongs in the FAQ. If a rule is being added or changed, that should happen in the Rules Reference.

All the vapors over the FAQ changing something in a ruling rather than errata is actually kinda cute.

Seriously, people, this has been FFG's approach since the very first FAQ. It's nothing new. There are still a half dozen contradictions, including several new ones in this edition.

Why is anyone at all surprised by this?

When I created the thread I thought it was a more direct conflict than it actually was. For as often as FFG's rulings on things that require some rules interpretation end up having no support from the rules, it is unlike them to print an absolute contraction to the rules.

This is also the first FAQ after getting the Rules Reference. If a rule is being clarified or an interaction is being explained, that belongs in the FAQ. If a rule is being added or changed, that should happen in the Rules Reference.

I think you were right when you created the thread. It is in direct conflict with a large body of textual language that was just entirely reworked for Core 2.0.