I don't believe the articles anymore they've been wrong too often.

In short, no, there is no consensus. THere are just multiple threads of mostly the same people making exactly the same arguments.

Not rolling damage may be the RAW but it is not consistent with how the game is played. It wouldn't make sense if you didn't roll for damage. Luckily, there's time for a FAQ update before the card lands...

I vote for TB allowing you to be pushed completely off the Mat. Too much of a CRUTCH for bad pilots flying too close to the edge versus a TB-equipped ship. Who does that? Why should they be protected from TB-edginess?

No where in the article does it imply you roll when you first get on the rock nor do the rules support this assertion.

It makes mention of how you could possibly do two dmg.

What else would it be referring to?

No where in the article does it imply you roll when you first get on the rock nor do the rules support this assertion.

Actually it kind of does

It makes mention of how you could possibly do two dmg.

What else would it be referring to?

Easily other ways. They could have just as easily said take 0-4 damage but that is boring. It all depends on what is rolled and what if any crits pulled.

No where in the article does it imply you roll when you first get on the rock nor do the rules support this assertion.

Actually it kind of does

It makes mention of how you could possibly do two dmg.

What else would it be referring to?

Easily other ways. They could have just as easily said take 0-4 damage but that is boring. It all depends on what is rolled and what if any crits pulled.

What other ways?

What is making you take possibly two damage?

Again it's only the tractor beam that's hitting and it does 0 damage

If you look at the article and read it, it's pretty clear they are implying that you can possibly receive two dmg.

One from landing on the asteroid, and the other from the next round.

As in the diagram it is showing the xwing being tractor beam onto the asteroid and it's maneuver guids are clearly going to pass over it again.

I don't see how anything else would be otherwise.

I am hearing more and more people say this is how they are playing it, and some just sticking strictly to the rules and not rolling for damage

Everyone I have played with on vassal so far have also agreed to this thus far.

I mean it makes sense if you think about it

Your opponent has no control over his ship and is being directed into a big rock. Makes sense you'd have to see if you hit it or not.

Other than what's written in the rule book for the whole "maneuver" thing how could anyone disagree that this doesn't make sense?

I'll quote this again as easy reference

"Forcing your opponent's ship through this boost or barrel roll does not count as an action or a maneuver, and you can force the ship to overlap obstacles , meaning that if you catch your opponent's ship in the right spot, you can potentially deny it the chance to fire and perform actions in the following round. Moreover, you may get as many as two points of damage out of the COLLISIONS , depending on the results of your opponent's attack dice."

Collisions here is plural so that also means more than one. As in the article like I stated above it shows the xwing being beamed on the rock and next round it's templates are going to cross over again.

So if the tractor beam does no damage, so where is the possible damage coming from?

Why even suggest that if it would only confuse people or not be so?

Now I know the article could be wrong as it wouldn't be the first time, but if this article is correct then that makes a lot of sense

Every time ffg releases an article are we just going to ignore it because they've made mistakes in the past?

So why bother giving us any more previews? Since to many they don't believe in them anymore. Yes it's a good reason, but I still think when ffg release an article we should take it as how it is. After all it is their game, and they should know it better than us.

One would think a company would learn by now after the past errors. If they keep making these mistakes people are def going to lose faith in the company as it doesn't seem very professional.

Now if they turn around and say that the article is not correct, then that's on them, and they should appologize, and or some other action.

Edit

Now one last thing I just thought of

If FFG has not made previous errors in their previews in the past, would people still disagree with this article?

If no, why not?

As it's not within the rules

Would this fall under the same category as being Ionized? You don't use the dial to assign a maneuver(is it considered a maneuver?), but use the 1 gage to move it ahead?? You can be ionized off the map, so could you be tractored off the map using the same theory

Krynn007, I'm not arguing with you about this.

And has anyone actually asked FFG yet via a Rules questions submission ?

There is general consensus that, yes, tbeams do indeed rule

Krynn007, I'm not arguing with you about this.

And has anyone actually asked FFG yet via a Rules questions submission ?

Not trying to argue at all.

Valid questions I think

Im just pointing out what the article states.

Just being thorough

Again I know it could be wrong, but really, If ffg has to be wrong with every preview they release then they should really really do something to fix that asap. A lot of companies something like that and often someone would probably lose their job.

If they can't get their marketing and rules teams on the same page, then what does that say about a company?

Eventually it'll come back and bit them

Which is why I will give the benefit of the doubt on this and hope they got their **** together lol

Anyway

It be nice to know for sure, or at least have mostly everyone on the same page

And no, haven't emailed anyone. Thought about it, but since it's not officially released I figured they probably keep quiet.

Fire me the email address or link and I'll do it asap.

Im very curious to what the response would be.

Again though would that matter?

Look at the damage deck ordeal.

They really need to stop back peddling.

Say one thing, and then reverse it a week later, and releasing articles that are incorrect.

The gears down at ffg are not grinding well it would seem.

Lets hope they got some oil in them lol

The possible damage is coming from the next round's manuevers.... at just the right spot- so the Beamed ship must travel thru the rock/ debris and suffer damage rolled and other neg effects.

Seems clear in the article.

Edit: meant to point out that 2 damage happens if a crit is rolled and you get a direct hit when rolling for damage getting off rock/cloud.

That's not how it's implied by the article

Obviously it's suggesting roll dmg for being put on the rock and again next round if template crosses over

That's how it sounds to me. Makes the most sense.

Also you cannot shoot while on a rock. That's always true no matter how you got on that rock.

Not being able to shoot while on the rock is one of the effects of the obstacle. Since you only suffer the effects of an obstacle after you execute a maneuver which results in overlapping the obstacle, it can be argued the shooting restriction does not apply when put on a rock by a tractor beam.

I don't expect this to hold up once the FAQ is issued, but it's important to point out.

In any case, did we need a new thread rehashing the one in the rules forum or any of the other ones that trailed off without any resolution?

Krynn007, I'm not arguing with you about this.

And has anyone actually asked FFG yet via a Rules questions submission ?

Not trying to argue at all.

Valid questions I think

Im just pointing out what the article states.

Just being thorough

Again I know it could be wrong, but really, If ffg has to be wrong with every preview they release then they should really really do something to fix that asap

It be nice to know for sure, or at least have mostly everyone on the same page

Probably, but they usually don't respond to rules questions pre-release.

I really hope they're planning on a quick FAQ release after wave 8 drops though, because there are a few things from the T70 and the f/o that need clarifying, as well as all these wave 8 questions.

How do we all feel about barrel rolling or boosting a ship that hasn't activated yet onto a debris field? They would get a stress and then if they reveal a red maneuver the opponent gets to choose, right? That's nasty.

How do we all feel about barrel rolling or boosting a ship that hasn't activated yet onto a debris field? They would get a stress and then if they reveal a red maneuver the opponent gets to choose, right? That's nasty.

Wouldnt happen. Tractor beam is used during combatafter activation and movement is already done.

emailing them now

Email sent

I'll reply back to this thread if and when I hear back from them.

Also asked if you could tractor beam off the board.

Figured may as well while I was there, as some think it makes sense.

Me? Im on the fence about that. Seems little too potent, but again, maybe that is as intended

How do we all feel about barrel rolling or boosting a ship that hasn't activated yet onto a debris field? They would get a stress and then if they reveal a red maneuver the opponent gets to choose, right? That's nasty.

Wouldnt happen. Tractor beam is used during combatafter activation and movement is already done.

Oh wow, brain fart. My bad.

The game is evolving so fast and new concepts being introduced that it is fair to reason the old rules aren't completely future proof.

Yes the rules state if a manouever puts you on a rock you take a damage, but prior to tractor beam there was no other possible way you could end up on a rock. The designers, whilst doing a great job, don't have the benefit of foresight and knowing what every single release ever forget is game is going to be. Just because the rules as written presently state you wouldn't take the damage as the tractor beam isn't a manouever doesn't have any impact on the functunality of a card which has been designed 4 years after the core rules.

Ultimately FFG will make the ruling based on how they I send the rule to work. If you in your head can come to the conclusion that FFG wouldn't want you to take damage for being put on a rock when 100% of current scenarios which can out you on a rock do inflict damage then I'm afraid I just can't grasp your thought process.

Email sent

They most likely won't answer, because they don't answer questions about unreleased product.

The game is evolving so fast and new concepts being introduced that it is fair to reason the old rules aren't completely future proof.

You're right, and no one is arguing otherwise. However since we can never know what RAI is, until someone like Alex or Frank tell us, then we can only judge things based on RAW. RAW the answer is quite clear, you do not take damage in this situation.

So if they want it to work otherwise they simply need to errata the rules. That said, the current rule book did come out sometime after the tractor beam card was already being play tested. So it can be argued that RAI they may not intend for the ship to take damage in this case.

Pointing at the news article is maybe the worse possible thing you can do, considering the history they have of getting basic rules wrong. So using that to argue RAI gets you pretty much nowhere.

Yes; we have no agreement. Thank you for your inquiry.

How do we all feel about barrel rolling or boosting a ship that hasn't activated yet onto a debris field? They would get a stress and then if they reveal a red maneuver the opponent gets to choose, right? That's nasty.

Wouldnt happen. Tractor beam is used during combatafter activation and movement is already done.

New Scyk pilot: Total Bastard

May fire a secondary weapon as an action, but cannot make an attack this combat phase.

You cannot trust anything FFG articles say. Like nothing at all. Always assume articles graphs and texts are 100% wrong, and are just good for getting official sources for new cards scans.

FFG articles have zero authority about how the game works or how rules are interpreted.

They aren't written by the same people that make the rules, and apparently, they don't even speak to each other until there is people complaining in the forums about the mistaken shown there.

I need to remind you that when the "SLAM and Bomb" article came out, featuring the new K-Wing, it was modified at least twice.

First, the K-Wing was seen moving, dropping a bomb, then SLAMming, and performing a 3-turn right as its SLAM maneuver.

Then, they modified the article to make the K-Wing SLAM a 3-bank maneuver.

Finally, they modified it once again, two weeks after the product was being sold, removing the whole concept of dropping a bomb before performing a SLAM, that was the main feature of the article.

You cannot guess the Rules-As-Intended anymore from logic or "how it feels it should work". Frank's rulings are always the most arbitrary interpretation of the written rules (See the convoluted casuistic of Conner Net), which paired with the absolutely ambivalent language used in the rules writing, leads to these frequent situations where almost every new piece or mechanic added to the game needs instantly an entry to the FAQ or the Errata.

Alex Davy and Frank Brooks are doing an awesome job expanding the game to keep it fresh. Too bad rules writing and articles consistence isn't one of their main strengths.

This particular blow up concerns the 'collisions' mention in the article. One group thinks this states the ship being moved onto a rock rolls for damage immediately. Well, look at the 'collisions' again. Is it speaking of a specific instance or is it generalizing about all collisions stemming from the use of the TB? It's just vague enough to go a couple ways. I interpret it meaning the collisions that happen when a ship is trying to get off the Rock and potentially rolling a crit leading to two damage. But it's also pretty bad writing.

The rules state the TB boost/BR is not an action and not a maneuver. It can move a ship onto an obstacle. Damage is rolled only when a ship maneuvers onto or across an obstacle and the TB doesn't do that. The rules also state, seperate from movement, that the ship stuck on a rock cannot attack. So you can use a TB to move someone into a rock and stop them from attacking. The next time that ship moves it rolls for damage, potentially getting a crit. That's it. If you understand the rules you don't need a FAQ. And besides if the TB can cause two damage rolls after a hit then it's just a tad underpriced, say one point or so.

They don't roll for damage when you throw them at the 'roid, but you can throw them such that they'll roll for damage the next turn from their maneuver template overlapping it when they fly off.

The phrasing of the article implies they'll make it count though (although don't count on it though: remember SLAM):

While the attack dice step could be referring to Direct Hit, the pluralisation of "collisions" suggests they roll for damage when you throw them at the asteroid.

No where in the article does it imply you roll when you first get on the rock nor do the rules support this assertion.

Actually it kind of does

It makes mention of how you could possibly do two dmg.

What else would it be referring to?

NEXT TURN your template is on the asteroid, forcing you to roll red dice. You roll a crit, you draw a Direct Hit.