Why did they choose to make tractor beam NOT count as a maneuver? Ideas?

So as not to proc "After you perform a maneuver" abilities.

the thing that must occur to for the consequences to happen, is "overlap after a maneuver"

I was mulling this over and I'm not sure that skipping the perform action step matters. With the Conner Net we have it both ways. On the one hand, skipping the 'skip perform action' step doesn't stop the rest of the Conner net from going into effect. But with the same ruling we do have it established that the ion effect doesn't go into effect if you already set a dial. Or at least gets delayed.

But after more thought I think a SLAM or Daredevil could cause you to take damage if you land on a rock, but those two are different from tractor beam because they are explicitly manuevers, and t-beam is explicitly not.

there is no real reason for them to have included the exception about being able to overlap obstacles in the first place if the intention was not to enable the ship to take damage.

There is, you can't overlap a obstacles when performing a barrel roll or boost currently. So there is a reason to include that has nothing to do with damage.

"when you overlap an obstacle..." instead of "after performing a maneuver, if you overlapped an obstacle..." all will be well.

I think they will, most of us do in fact, but until they do the RAW is quite clear. The trigger is a maneuver, simply overlapping an obstacle doesn't trigger the damage step.

When can you overlap a rock and not take a damage roll/lose attack? (Besides Dash)

When can you overlap a obstacle when performing a Barrel Roll or Boost? The answer is never. Yet we have here a clear case where the card trumps the rules, because it's actually stated on the card.

Do you not recognize that the rule book was written several years ago

You might want to check your facts... Because the rule book I'm quoting came out with the new TFA core set and came out in Sept of last year, not several years ago. In fact when that rule book came out the Tractor Beam would of already been in some sort of play test status.

the only thing that would clarify this for you

No, it would simply need to say 'treat this as a maneuver when overlapping an obstacle' That's not a lot of text there.

The bit in the rule book about obstacles has remained unedited since the beginning. It requires lawyering to not see the intent of tractor beam as written. Previously, maneuvers were the only legal cause of obstacle overlap. Now there is a new condition which can cause overlap: tractor beam. The rulebook doesn't need a rewrite just for this. The card covers it while closing exploits by specifying that this doesn't count as a maneuver or BR/boost action.

The bit in the rule book about obstacles has remained unedited since the beginning. It requires lawyering to not see the intent of tractor beam as written. Previously, maneuvers were the only legal cause of obstacle overlap. Now there is a new condition which can cause overlap: tractor beam. The rulebook doesn't need a rewrite just for this. The card covers it while closing exploits by specifying that this doesn't count as a maneuver or BR/boost action.

But the card doesn't cover it. The rules don't say "Any time you overlap an obstacle, do this." Instead there are two conditions: you have to execute a maneuver, and end that maneuver overlapping an obstacle. Both of those have to be true, and a ship cannot satisfy the first condition if it arrives on the obstacle via a tractor beam token.

The developers won't speak to intent yet, and playtesters can't; it may turn out that Parravon is right. And it's certainly true that the rules don't anticipate the Trcator Beam. But unless and until they're updated, they really aren't ambiguous on this point.

I'm going to file this under "Questions about Unreleased Products that Obviously Need the Full Rules in the Package it Comes With and/or a FAQ update", and put it right after "Questions about Unicorn Farts".

I'm going to file this under "Questions about Unreleased Products that Obviously Need the Full Rules in the Package it Comes With and/or a FAQ update", and put it right after "Questions about Unicorn Farts".

That's bad alphabetization. "Unicorn" ought to come just before "Unreleased".

EDIT: Also, Vulf, don't think we've forgotten that we were promised punch and pie.

I'm going to file this under "Questions about Unreleased Products that Obviously Need the Full Rules in the Package it Comes With and/or a FAQ update", and put it right after "Questions about Unicorn Farts".

That's bad alphabetization. "Unicorn" ought to come just before "Unreleased".

EDIT: Also, Vulf, don't think we've forgotten that we were promised punch and pie.

That's what I said, Unreleased after Unicorn farts.

And yes, I still am waiting for the aforementioned punch and pie. Not and/or. And.

Ugh. So tired I get before and after confused... Time for bed.

Too bad, I just brought out the punch and pie. I suppose I'll let the dogs have it.

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned Dash Rendar. The guy overlaps obstacles with barrel rolls like nobody's business.

That's a case of an overlap that doesn't result in a damage roll.

Await an FAQ, I say.

​Man, I say that a lot about Tractors these days.

If only every argument about rules we don't yet have proper access to were resolved this way.

(I really, really hope they're going to FAQ this wave on release because people are going to want to use it in tournaments and there is a whole mess of stuff that's really not clear...)

Too bad, I just brought out the punch and pie. I suppose I'll let the dogs have it.

Too bad, I just brought out the punch and pie. I suppose I'll let the dogs have it.

I was a little late to this thread, so I'll be happy to settle for punch OR pie.

Too bad, I just brought out the punch and pie. I suppose I'll let the dogs have it.

I was a little late to this thread, so I'll be happy to settle for punch OR pie.