The card says:

"After performing a SLAM action, if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship, you may perform a free action."

The 'overlap' bit refers to the final position of the K-Wing, but does that include include templates that overlap and pass through other ships (including friendlies) and obstacles.

We played it was just the ship's final position and didn't include templates.

Cheers

I'm confused.

Are you asking if not-overlapping counts as overlapping ?

***Edit***

Sorry - I'm being dense.

Overlapping is a defined term in x-wing - in other words it's not a condition that happens whenever something overlaps something else, it's a condition that requires specific defined parameters in order to happen.

Those parameters (or rather just the one parameter) are defined on page 15 of the Rules Reference.

OVERLAPPING SHIPS

A ship overlaps another ship when executing a maneuver if its base [ they mean the final position after the maneuver has been executed ]overlaps the other ship’s base.

Overlapping only counts for the final position of the ship itself.

There are other effects that can happen if the template overlaps something, but those are spelled out in the rules and don't count as an overlap in this case.

There is as far as I know, never anything that happens if the template overlaps a ship friendly or otherwise.

I'm confused.

Are you asking if not-overlapping counts as overlapping ?

Pretty much if an a template that overlaps another ship and/or obstacle negates the free action from advanced slam.

Vanor got the gist of it... so for example a K-Wing executes a 3 bank SLAM. The template is placed and it covers over an asteroid and the corner of another ship. However the final position of the K-Wing's base at completion of the maneuver does not overlap an obstacle or another ship... does the K-Wing still get a free action when equipped with Advanced Slam?

I'm confused.

Are you asking if not-overlapping counts as overlapping ?

Pretty much if an a template that overlaps another ship and/or obstacle negates the free action from advanced slam.

Vanor got the gist of it... so for example a K-Wing executes a 3 bank SLAM. The template is placed and it covers over an asteroid and the corner of another ship. However the final position of the K-Wing's base at completion of the maneuver does not overlap an obstacle or another ship... does the K-Wing still get a free action when equipped with Advanced Slam?

Yes - the rules reference describes the situation where a movement template overlaps an asteroid, but the final position of the ship does not, as "Moving Through" (rules ref page 14) - so Moving Through, and Overlapping are different conditions with different parameters that govern them.

Adv Slam specifically states that an OverLap will prevent taking a free action - not Moving Through

Moving through an asteroid skips your perform action step. Once you have executed the SLAM action are you not still in the perform action step anymore? I'm leaning toward the conclusion that SLAMing through an obstacle (template overlap only) still prevents you from getting an action from ADV. SLAM.

Moving through an asteroid skips your perform action step. Once you have executed the SLAM action are you not still in the perform action step anymore? I'm leaning toward the conclusion that SLAMing through an obstacle (template overlap only) still prevents you from getting an action from ADV. SLAM.

Which would be an incorrect conclusion. If you're executing a SLAM maneuver, then you clearly haven't skipped your Perform Action step.

Adv SLAM only refers to overlapping an obstacle or another ship in it's eligibility check. It doesn't tell you to skip any steps. And as Funkleton said, if the final position of the ship is clear, and only the template overlapped the obstacle, then you are moving through overlapping the obstacle. You suffer the effects of the obstacle, but you can't really skip the Perform Action step, if you've already done it and SLAMmed.

Basically you execute your normal maneuver, get to the Perform Action step and SLAM. You've done your action and the Perform Action step is now over. Adv SLAM now triggers AFTER performing the SLAM. Adv SLAM can't trigger as you overlapped the obstacle.

In fact, RAW, if you SLAMmed through an asteroid, you could argue that it does nothing at all, because the rule says "After skipping the “Perform Action” step, it rolls one attack die", but as you didn't skip the step...

It seems most of us were wrong about this:

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:
Greetings. Concerning the upgrade card "Advanced SLAM". A K-Wing that performs a SLAM action, moves thru an asteroid, but it doesn't end overlapping it. The Advanced SLAM card says "After performing a SLAM action, if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship, you may perform a free action." Does the K-Wing get the free action from Advanced SLAM, if after its SLAM maneuver it ended its movement not overlapping an asteroid, but it moved thru one? Does moving thru an asteroid count as "you did overlap" an asteroid, because the maneuver template overlapped the asteroid at some point even when the final position of the ship didn't? Thanks!

If the ship’s final position or the maneuver template overlapped an obstacle during the movement it counts as the ship having overlapped an obstacle.
Thanks for playing,
Frank Brooks
Associate Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games

It seems most of us were wrong about this:

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

Greetings. Concerning the upgrade card "Advanced SLAM". A K-Wing that performs a SLAM action, moves thru an asteroid, but it doesn't end overlapping it. The Advanced SLAM card says "After performing a SLAM action, if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship, you may perform a free action." Does the K-Wing get the free action from Advanced SLAM, if after its SLAM maneuver it ended its movement not overlapping an asteroid, but it moved thru one? Does moving thru an asteroid count as "you did overlap" an asteroid, because the maneuver template overlapped the asteroid at some point even when the final position of the ship didn't? Thanks!

If the ship’s final position or the maneuver template overlapped an obstacle during the movement it counts as the ship having overlapped an obstacle.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Interesting. I agree that if the maneuver template overlapped an obstacle the Adv. SLAM free action should be lost. My question then is; If the maneuver template overlapped another ship base during the move but the ships do not touch after the moving ship is placed, is the Adv. SLAM free action lost also?

There is a stated penalty for the template or ship overlapping obstacles. There's no such penalty for the template only overlapping another ship. So it doesn't count as an overlap.

It is a free action. Just because the phase may be forced to end does not stop your ability to perform a free action.

space is 3D so moving completely over an other ship is something different from overlapping a ship.

overlapping is ending your move on top of a other players base or meteor token.

Well the Advanced SLAM does not say overlapping, it says " if you did not overlap"

"After performing a SLAM action, if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship, you may perform a free action."

and in the Moving Through section of the rules it talks about the maneuver template overlap.

overlaps that obstacle token..."

If you have "Moved through", then you have also overlapped. Do not get it confused with overlapping, because you are not currently overlapping.

It is all there in the rules, Frank is right, we were wrong. Yes it makes it harder to fly my beloved K-wing.

If you have "Moved through", then you have also overlapped. Do not get it confused with overlapping, because you are not currently overlapping.

It is all there in the rules, Frank is right, we were wrong. Yes it makes it harder to fly my beloved K-wing.

Frank is always right because he decides what the rules are.

What isn't right is the rules writing. It is silly that the concepts of "overlapped" and "overlapping" mean completely different things.

A ship that performs a maneuver that makes the template overlap an obstacle, is considered that "the ship overlapped the obstacle", however, in order for a ship to be considered to be overlapping an obstacle, in only matters that the ship's base, in its final position, overlaps the obstacle.

This not only isn't explained in the rules reference (there is no distinction between overlapped and overlapping), but also is inconsistent with the ruling about what happens when a ship's movement dial goes out of the play area, but the ship's base starts and ends inside the play area.

Remember that the manual explicitly states that a ship doesn't really moves throughout the length of the maneuver template, but instead it skips from its initial position to the end position (making it consistent with the leaving the area ruling).

Now, it isn't like that anymore? "You" used to mean the ship. But now it seems it means both the ship and the template?

In order to be consistent with the basic rules and still carry out Frank's intention, the Advanced SLAM card should state "if you didn't overlap an obstacle or another ship, and the maneuver template didn't overlap an obstacle".

I fear this ruling from Frank will only make the rules corpus more inconsistent.

"Overlapped" and "overlapping" are different only in one is past tense and the other is present tense. Their use in the rules is fairly consistent in the context of the rules. I don't think the Adv SLAM card needs rewording at all. It is still in line with the rules. You can move through other ships with no penalty, but if you move through an obstacle, it has the same effect as overlapping that obstacle, or the same effect as if you had overlapped that obstacle. The same "overlapping/overlapped" principle applies to mine tokens. It doesn't matter if you land on it or pass over it, the effect will still happen. The meaning of the rule hasn't changed because of present/past tense.

"Overlapped" and "overlapping" are different only in one is past tense and the other is present tense. Their use in the rules is fairly consistent in the context of the rules. I don't think the Adv SLAM card needs rewording at all. It is still in line with the rules. You can move through other ships with no penalty, but if you move through an obstacle, it has the same effect as overlapping that obstacle, or the same effect as if you had overlapped that obstacle. The same "overlapping/overlapped" principle applies to mine tokens. It doesn't matter if you land on it or pass over it, the effect will still happen. The meaning of the rule hasn't changed because of present/past tense.

No.

Mine cards specify clearly "a ship's base or maneuver template".

Advanced SLAM clearly specify "you", and "you"="your ship".

So Frank is wrong, but he makes himself right because he is the game designer.

"Overlapped" and "overlapping" are different only in one is past tense and the other is present tense. Their use in the rules is fairly consistent in the context of the rules. I don't think the Adv SLAM card needs rewording at all. It is still in line with the rules. You can move through other ships with no penalty, but if you move through an obstacle, it has the same effect as overlapping that obstacle, or the same effect as if you had overlapped that obstacle. The same "overlapping/overlapped" principle applies to mine tokens. It doesn't matter if you land on it or pass over it, the effect will still happen. The meaning of the rule hasn't changed because of present/past tense.

No.

Mine cards specify clearly "a ship's base or maneuver template".

Advanced SLAM clearly specify "you", and "you"="your ship".

So Frank is wrong, but he makes himself right because he is the game designer.

Two questions:

So what's your point? Other that simple wording that states ownership of the Adv SLAM upgrade (you) over a more generic term (ship) that applies to any ship on the table that comes into contact with said mine.

Why is Frank wrong? He's clarified the rules in question, in this case the 'Moving Through' and 'Obstacles' rules.

My point is that you edited your post #7 after Frank's email. Before that point, almost everyone followed the wording of the card to the letter and agreed that it triggered even if the template overlapped.

And that was so because the ship never overlapped the obstacle, as for the game rules, you pick up your ship from its original position and place it at its final position.

And as stated by the rules, the word "you" never ever refers to the player, but to the active ship.

Whenever a rule or card had wanted to take into consideration the maneuver template (as in the mines), it has explicitly stated it.

So, my point is that this ruling from Frank is against the established rules, so either the card needs to be errataed, or Frank is wrong, or the rules need to be modified to specify somewhere that "you" means the active ship plus the maneuver template.

I'm not trying to discredit Frank. I'm argumenting against the idea that "no modification in the wording is needed".

Yes, I did edit my above post after reading Frank's reply, but that was for clarity. And you will notice I used the strikethrough instead of deleting the text. I did this specifically to show the change. It seemed everyone was under the same assumption that moving through an obstacle didn't hinder the Advanced SLAM. The assumption was based on a ship overlap where only the final position was all that counted. But if you check the Moving Through section of the rules, you'll find that moving through ships and obstacles are treated differently and it is this that is the basis of Frank's ruling. It seems the intention was that obstacle effects should still come into play when attempting an Advanced SLAM, even if you didn't actually land on the obstacle. I maintain that Frank's ruling is still within the rules and not against them. Exactly which rule is he wrong about here?

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering asking here, because based on your above comments and signature line, it seems you have an agenda against FFG's handling of anything associated with the K-Wing and/or SLAM, so I think the answer isn't going to be any surprise.

I have not agenda. I love the game, I think FFG is one of the greatest gamemakers around. Period.

It just bitters me that they keep the rules corpus in this insecure state. You cannot be certain of the effects of a card unless you ask the designer himself. You must agree that is not desirable. Don't you?

Also, don't you think that Frank, with his mail, has basically created a new game term to be added to the core rules? Something like:

When a ship is considered to have overlapped an obstacle? A ship overlapped an obstacle when it moved through or ended its movement on top of an obstacle token.

When a ship is considered to be overlapping an obstacle? A ship is overlapping an obstacle when it ended its movement on top of an obstacle token.

Because in the different rules and cards, except for Advanced SLAM, it is mentioned only the "overlapping" term. But now Advanced SLAM mentions the "overlapped" term, and they don't really mean the same. One involves the maneuver template, the other doesn't.

For example, the rule about being able to attack makes use of "overlapping" but not "overlapped". If both terms where the same, then Dash Rendar could not attack whenever he moved trhu an obstacle but ended not overlapping it.

This interpretation of the card cannot just exist in a mail in my mailbox. It needs to be printed or errataed somewhere so that everyone knows ahead, before deciding to equip the card, that it works in that way. Otherwise, you cannot be certain about if your opponent will accept that interpretation or not.

I don’t think the rules are in an insecure state at all. If anything, they’re remarkably simple and easy to use. Especially when compared to other games on the market that have endless pages of text to wade through. For example, the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook boasts 208 pages. I think we’re pretty lucky with the slim rulebook we’ve got, because finding a particular rule tends to be pretty easy. Not to mention the ability to email questions that we may have to the developers, and usually get an answer straight away. The last time I emailed Games Workshop, it took three weeks to get a reply. The last time I emailed Frank, I got a reply five minutes later.

And I don't think Frank has created a new ‘term’. I think you are the one that’s creating a new ‘term’ in order to get to grips with his ruling on the use of Advanced SLAM. He hasn’t stated anywhere in his reply that this is an “across the board” ruling for any similar instance that may occur. You asked him, with specific reference to the Advanced SLAM, if “moving through an asteroid counted as ‘you did overlap’ an asteroid?”
And he gave you an answer. An answer to the question regarding Advanced SLAM - nothing else. But now you seem to want to expand this answer to cover everything else. And you’re basing your argument on present and past tense of the same word: overlap.

And where are these cards that use the word ‘overlapping’? Because other than Dash Rendar, I can’t find any others. The Bomb Reference cards tell you they detonate when your ship has moved through or overlapped the token, meaning gone over it or stopped on it. You state that Advanced SLAM mentions ‘overlapped’. No it doesn’t. Look again, it says “... if you did not overlap an obstacle...”. You’ve got yourself so wound up over these words that you’re now making stuff up to try and justify your position.

There’s only one rule in question with regards to Advanced SLAM. From Obstacles on page 14:

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

It seems clear to me that this is the particular rule that the Advanced SLAM was designed to overrule. Moving through or landing on (overlapping) an obstacle will gain you a penalty, and with Advanced SLAM, that is the loss of the free action, as well as the usual effects of the obstacle. So the card doesn’t say ‘moving through’. Maybe it should have. Maybe it will get a mention in the next FAQ, either through errata or clarification. If my opponent had not read that email and chose to argue that moving through didn’t count as an overlap, I’d still be OK with that because I don’t see it as such a big issue, and it's not worth having a game grind to a halt over something like that.