Despite what I said earlier, I'm now a bit iffy on the inability to attack - if you go by the first condition that you only suffer the effects of obstacles if you overlapped due to a maneuver, then you would ignore the entirety of the text in the obstacle types. That text is where you're told a ship can't attack. You can't really cherry pick which effects you suffer and which you don't, so by a literal reading of the obstacle rules, a ship tractored onto an asteroid suffers no effects that round.

I agreed with (and so do the rules) everything you said UNTIL this paragraph.

The rules regarding Astriods are spelled out and "not attacking" when your ship base is on top of/touching an asteroid is explained in a complete sentence on its own. There is no stipulation that one must occur for the other to happen. There is no stipulation that you must manuever on to the rock to be unable to attack. It reads as a sentence, complete and on its own, without any stipulations to how you arrived on that asteroid.

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

That's it. Read that sentence on its own.

It's still a kick in the teeth when they have to leave the asteroid by overlapping it on the next round.

I forgot where I saw an answer, but can you barrel roll or boost off of an asteroid you are overlapping if the maneuver template for barrel roll overlaps a little bit of it?

Obviously this barrel roll/boost would come before a maneuver, using advanced sensors or Squad leader or BB8 or something similar.

No. You can only boost/br off an obstacle if the template does not overlap the obstacle.

The article is not wrong. The reference card clearly states that tractoring someone onto an obstale causes an overlap. This causes the first damage roll. If you then overlap with the template when executing the next maneuver you are subject to a second overlap causing a second damage roll.

I agree with this. Well stated.

You keep quoting the rules and completely ignore that the tractor beam reference card tells you how to override those rules when tractoring someone onto a obstacle. The quote above tells you exactly what happens when you overlap an obstacle. It suffers an effect based on the obstacle type. This happens when you execute a maneuver, if you slam or daredevil and over lap. And now it also happens if you get tractors onto the obstacle.

I read this the same way.

Those who argue the need for an errata are forgetting that card rules always ammend the core rules and take precedence. Previously a maneuver was the only way to overlap, now there is a new way, BUT YOU ARE STILLOVERLAPPING and therefore meet the conditions for taking a damage roll and not attacking and possibly a second damage roll.

I don't know how ubiquitous tractor beam will become. It seems pretty strong if, and only if, you crash an enemy into an asteroid. Arc dodgers are not going to easily be hit so they aren't affected as much as low agi ships. It's pretty reliable against ships with two or less agility.

You keep quoting the rules and completely ignore that the tractor beam reference card tells you how to override those rules when tractoring someone onto a obstacle. The quote above tells you exactly what happens when you overlap an obstacle. It suffers an effect based on the obstacle type. This happens when you execute a maneuver, if you slam or daredevil and over lap. And now it also happens if you get tractors onto the obstacle.

I read this the same way.

Those who argue the need for an errata are forgetting that card rules always ammend the core rules and take precedence. Previously a maneuver was the only way to overlap, now there is a new way, BUT YOU ARE STILLOVERLAPPING and therefore meet the conditions for taking a damage roll and not attacking and possibly a second damage roll.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not forgetting anything. The Tractor Beam reference card says this:

This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships).

So it overrides the rule that says a boost or barrel roll can't cause the ship to overlap obstacles. But the rule for obstacles says:

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...

There's nothing about the Tractor Beam reference card that overrules, or even addresses, this method for determining whether a ship is affected by an obstacle.

Despite what I said earlier, I'm now a bit iffy on the inability to attack - if you go by the first condition that you only suffer the effects of obstacles if you overlapped due to a maneuver, then you would ignore the entirety of the text in the obstacle types. That text is where you're told a ship can't attack. You can't really cherry pick which effects you suffer and which you don't, so by a literal reading of the obstacle rules, a ship tractored onto an asteroid suffers no effects that round.

I agreed with (and so do the rules) everything you said UNTIL this paragraph.

The rules regarding Astriods are spelled out and "not attacking" when your ship base is on top of/touching an asteroid is explained in a complete sentence on its own. There is no stipulation that one must occur for the other to happen. There is no stipulation that you must manuever on to the rock to be unable to attack. It reads as a sentence, complete and on its own, without any stipulations to how you arrived on that asteroid.

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

That's it. Read that sentence on its own.

I understand that, but in order to even suffer the effects of an obstacle, whatever those effects may be, you need to first overlap as the result of executing a maneuver. Since not being able to shoot is one of the three effects of overlapping an asteroid being in the bullet point titled Asteroid, it is possible to argue that the ship does not suffer either the damage roll or the inability to shoot after a tractor beam puts them on the obstacle.

I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, and I fully expect the ruling to come down that a ship is unable to attack, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation. One might even say RAW.

Here's how I'm looking at it:

1. Defending ship gets moved onto an asteroid via tractor beam
2. Look in RRG under "Obstacles"
3. "Obstacles" says:

   Obstacles acts as hazards that can disrupt and

   damage ships. 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:

4. Since the movement from a tractor beam is explicitly not a maneuver, skip the bullet points about types of obstacles, they are immaterial.
5. Resume reading at "When a ship performs an attack..."

Pedantic as hell maybe, but Adv. = Advanced.

The rules on the Tractor token card say that it may cause an overlap, but overlap is not what causes the effect of being on an asteroid. And even if it did, there is no perform action step in the combat phase. Overlap was already possible without using maneuvers, you could use a barrel roll to overlap a bomb token.

See the FAQ for Conner Net and "Fel's Wrath."

Conner net loses its ability to make the recipient skip the perform action step if they've already done it. (Deathrain drops Conner Net on a PS 5 pilot that has already activated)

Fel's Wrath won't die if he is destroyed by Coran Horn's ability until the end phase of the next turn.

There's an order of steps, and the Tractor token card does not have anything on there that changes the current rules.

I don't know how ubiquitous tractor beam will become. It seems pretty strong if, and only if, you crash an enemy into an asteroid. Arc dodgers are not going to easily be hit so they aren't affected as much as low agi ships. It's pretty reliable against ships with two or less agility.

Am I correct in noticing that unlike ion tokens, large ships will be effected with just one tractor token? The implications of this are profound. The Falcon will be basically unusable.

Large ships take -1 agility with a single token, but are never forced to move no matter how many they take. Large ships with a single point of agility have got some issues, sure.

Previously a maneuver was the only way to overlap, now there is a new way

That doesn't matter in the least. The rules are quite clear and nothing on that card actually changes what the rules say.

At no point on that card does it say to roll damage, as if you performed a maneuver. So you do not do that. It's a clear case of following the golden rule of X-Wing.

I am curious how the people that share Vulf's view handle SLAM and Daredevil? Do these maneuvers cause a damage roll?

And just because the RRG only mentions overlaps from maneuvers, why is it impossible for a new card to amend or override this? The RRG states you can attack once during the Combat phase. Will you dispute that Corran Horn can attack in the end phase?

Do these maneuvers cause a damage roll?

They're maneuvers which means they follow the rules for manuevers. Tractor beam on the other hand isn't an maneuver so it quite naturally doesn't trigger the same things.

why is it impossible for a new card to amend or override this?

It's not, and if this card said anything about overriding this we'd accept that. But in this case nothing on the card does that.

The RRG states you can attack once during the Combat phase. Will you dispute that Corran Horn can attack in the end phase?

End phase isn't the same thing as the combat phase. But even if it were, Corran clearly states how it 'breaks' the rules, so it does. Nothing in the tractor beam card however does this.

But looking at the rules... You only take damage after skipping the perform action step, so RAW things like Daredevil and SLAM could mean you don't suffer damage.

Asteroid: The ship must skip its “Perform Action” step this round. After skipping the “Perform Action” step, it rolls one attack die.

The current FAQ doesn't really say anything either, the only mention is for Daredevil that says "if the ship would overlap another ship or obstacle; resolve the overlapping as normal."

But seeing how you're already past the Perform Action step, you don't take damage. But even then Daredevil is a maneuver and the rules are quite clear that the movement from tractor beams are not.

Do these maneuvers cause a damage roll?

They're maneuvers which means they follow the rules for manuevers. Tractor beam on the other hand isn't an maneuver so it quite naturally doesn't trigger the same things.

This actually didn't answer my question, but I interpret your answer as 'They do roll for damage'. While Daredevil and SLAM are maneuvers, they happen in step 3. Perform action, so there is no Perform Action step to skip. If you can't skip the Perform Action step, how the you roll for damage when the instruction is to do it after skipping the step?

why is it impossible for a new card to amend or override this?

It's not, and if this card said anything about overriding this we'd accept that. But in this case nothing on the card does that.

The RRG states you can attack once during the Combat phase. Will you dispute that Corran Horn can attack in the end phase?

End phase isn't the same thing as the combat phase. But even if it were, Corran clearly states how it 'breaks' the rules, so it does. Nothing in the tractor beam card however does this.

My argument is that the reference card does say this. 'This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships).' So far overlapping an obstacle could only happen as a result of a maneuver. The card clearly states that this can also cause an overlap, even though it is not a maneuver. This also overrides that Boost and Barrel Role can't cause an overlap.

You are willing to accept that the card overrides the rules for Boost and Barrel Role, but not that this has the same effect as when overlapping obstacles when executing your regular maneuver.

On top of this we have a teaser article that supports the arguments I have presented. I know we had the SLAM maneuver bomb drop mistake in another article. But how many articles have FFG published that accurately described the effects of the new cards? So while not 0%, the liklyhood of the article being wrong is very small.

You're stuck on the word "maneuver." The key phrase is "overlap an obstacle"

StevenEsven's arguments are perfectly cogent, and the article supports his version. Why the compulsion to disagree? The tractor beam card was written years after the rule book and adds a new clause to the overlap and obstacle rule conditions. Cards often do this. Boost and barrel role are examples as stated above.

I asked about this through the rules help webpage and was told they don't answer rules questions about unreleased products (which, frankly, makes perfect sense...players haven't yet seen the physical rules card that actually got printed).

You're stuck on the word "maneuver." The key phrase is "overlap an obstacle"

That's because the relevant piece of rules starts with "When a ship executes a maneuver..." If the ship isn't executing a maneuver (and a ship with a TB token explicitly isn't!) then the rest of it doesn't matter.

My argument is that the reference card does say this. 'This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships).' So far overlapping an obstacle could only happen as a result of a maneuver. The card clearly states that this can also cause an overlap, even though it is not a maneuver. This also overrides that Boost and Barrel Role can't cause an overlap.

You're arguing that the reference card changes a rule without actually mentioning that rule at any point. Moreover, you're arguing that when the reference card says "this is not... a maneuver" it actually means something other than "this is not a maneuver".

On top of this we have a teaser article that supports the arguments I have presented.

I have no idea why anyone would treat a preview article as a reliable source of information for rules, even setting aside the slam-and-bomb fiasco.

It sounds like the same people who cried that TLT was too powerful at 6 pts are the same ones who think that this 1pt tractor beam should be able to annihilate a ship with lower agility, taking a dice roll from a rock, repositioned to the benefit of the attacker, not be able to fire back.... Hell we may as well just allow you to boost or barrel roll your victim off the board like a few truly crazy people think was the cards intent... Since (after all) the card did not say you couldn't?

You're stuck on the word "maneuver." The key phrase is "overlap an obstacle"

Sorry but you don't get to cut up the rules to suit your argument. Here's what the rules actually say.

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:

It doesn't say 'when overlapping an obstacle' you do the following.

This actually didn't answer my question, but I interpret your answer as 'They do roll for damage'.

Then you'd be wrong, again. My point was they are actually manuevers so they follow the rules for performing a maneuver.

My argument is that the reference card does say this.

Then by all means quote the text that says so. Please show us where it says to treat this as if you had performed a maneuver and overlapped an obstacle.

On top of this we have a teaser article that supports the arguments I have presented.

Wow you're really grasping for straws if you point to the articles which are notorious for being wrong.

But how many articles have FFG published that accurately described the effects of the new cards?

Quite a few actually, like the one that got Howlrunner wrong, and that wasn't even a new mechanic it got wrong.

But looking at the rules... You only take damage after skipping the perform action step, so RAW things like Daredevil and SLAM could mean you don't suffer damage.

I don't see skipping the perform action step as the trigger for taking damage, it is just one of a sequence of things that happen when you overlap an obstacle (while performing a maneuver).

The trigger for all of this is when you overlap an obstacle while performing a maneuver. Then you do a couple of things. First, you skip your perform action step, then you roll for damage. Not being able to accomplish the first of those two things does not cancel the second.

I can certainly see where the argument is coming from, but the way the text if layed out in the RRM indicates to me that the trigger, the thing that must occur to for the consequences to happen, is "overlap after a maneuver"

Now, as for the T-Beam. I agree that strict RAW right now is that you wouldn't roll for damage because the trigger (overlapping after a maneuver) is not being satisfied. However, disregarding the article entirely, 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.

This is just a case of the wording for the overlap rules being a little sloppy, if they just fix it to be "when you overlap an obstacle..." instead of "after performing a maneuver, if you overlapped an obstacle..." all will be well.

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

Do these maneuvers cause a damage roll?

They're maneuvers which means they follow the rules for manuevers. Tractor beam on the other hand isn't an maneuver so it quite naturally doesn't trigger the same things.

This actually didn't answer my question, but I interpret your answer as 'They do roll for damage'. While Daredevil and SLAM are maneuvers, they happen in step 3. Perform action, so there is no Perform Action step to skip. If you can't skip the Perform Action step, how the you roll for damage when the instruction is to do it after skipping the step?

why is it impossible for a new card to amend or override this?

It's not, and if this card said anything about overriding this we'd accept that. But in this case nothing on the card does that.

The RRG states you can attack once during the Combat phase. Will you dispute that Corran Horn can attack in the end phase?

End phase isn't the same thing as the combat phase. But even if it were, Corran clearly states how it 'breaks' the rules, so it does. Nothing in the tractor beam card however does this.

My argument is that the reference card does say this. 'This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships).' So far overlapping an obstacle could only happen as a result of a maneuver. The card clearly states that this can also cause an overlap, even though it is not a maneuver. This also overrides that Boost and Barrel Role can't cause an overlap.

You are willing to accept that the card overrides the rules for Boost and Barrel Role, but not that this has the same effect as when overlapping obstacles when executing your regular maneuver.

On top of this we have a teaser article that supports the arguments I have presented. I know we had the SLAM maneuver bomb drop mistake in another article. But how many articles have FFG published that accurately described the effects of the new cards? So while not 0%, the liklyhood of the article being wrong is very small.

He did answer your question. You are thinking too hard. Just do exactly what the card says and nothing more. Overlap does nothing if there is not a maneuver involved. It overlaps, fine, so what. That line is just to clarify that you can use the maneuver template to perform the non-action, non-maneuver barrel roll onto an obstacle, which you normally can't.

The likelihood of the article being wrong is 100% given their track record and the current rules as written.

This was already covered with Darth Vader Barrel Rolling into Conner Net and losing his second action. If you are in the middle of the perform action step, you lose the rest of it.

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

Do you not recognize that the rule book was written several years ago and therefore the author had no concept of the tractor beam text? The TB reference card carefully mentions that the barrel roll or boost are not considered manuvers or actions. Instead TB is a new exception to the movement rules and it works LIKE a BR or boost because it uses the template mechanic in the same way.

The only thing that would clarify this for you is if the entire overlapping obstacles text from the rulebook was pasted on to the Tractor Beam reference card without the word manuver. Alas there isn't space to add this brick of text.

After reading the article and looking at the accompanying illustration, I think the intent is clear that the tractored ship should be taking damage, even if the rules aren't supporting this at the moment. I find it a little hard to believe that they didn't look at the rules a little more thoroughly when they came up with the T-beam. Both the RR and the T-beam would have been in development around the same time I assume, considering they announced Wave VIII back in July. They've clearly stated you can break the boost/barrel roll roll and put the opponent on an asteroid. So if they decided you could do that, then it would be a fair assumption that the asteroid should come into play somehow. And the article seems to support the notion that you're going to damage the ship by doing so.

I think this is a clear case of RAI not matching up with RAW. And before someone starts quoting me as right or wrong, it really doesn't matter at this point in time, as we all know this is going to require a concrete FAQ ruling one way or the other.

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