Doesn't it say, right in the preview that we all so crack-slavishly watch, that you could potentially take two damage from being parked on a rock by a T-Beam? I'm pretty sure those are the exact words too. They even say T-Beam. Pretty sure it even states that you cannot use this to put an opponent off the mat.

Why on earth would it NOT do damage to you being parked on a rock? Does the T-Beam operator gently set your ship down on the asteroid with all the care and attentiveness of a new mother handling her swaddling babe?

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

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.

The article you quoted also mention: "depending on the results of your opponent's attack dice".

What attack dice? It is not the opponent who role the dice for the asteroid, it is the ship (aka you).

• 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.

You are using a tractor beam to slam a ship against a rock - It seems daft that you cannot roll for damage.

Same for throwing a ship off the board. If your opponent has a tractor/repulsor beam, then its your fault for being too close to the edge - Just like its your fault if you choose a red maneuver on a stressed ship near the edge.

Queensbury rules dont apply in a dogfight.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

One thing is for sure there's gonna be a lot of folks that will be wrong about how TB works when the FAQ hits.

Rule #1: never trust the articles when a new upgrade seems to have an awesomely amazing capability because it just might have gotten something wrong.

Rule #2: know the game. It will save knee jerk reactions to articles.

Rule #3: fly casual

and are just good for getting official sources for new cards scans.

You can't even count on that. There's been a couple cases where the wording on the physical card changed from what the preview image had.

I'm pretty sure those are the exact words too.

And many of us know for a fact that FFG previews are often filled with incorrect statements about how the upgrades will actually work. Look up the threads about the SLAM as an example. So you quite simply can not use what it says in an article as proof of anything.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

Following the rules as written is never rules lawyering. It's only when you twist them to give you an advantage that you're really being a rules lawyer.

As written, TB move is not a maneuver, and you must maneuver your ship to suffer an obstacle's effects. So I'd argue the pain only happens on the following turn. However, I eagerly await the official response

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

I'm sorry, you're right, you do have to play the game as it's rules dictate. I just saw, and felt, a lot of opportunism in this thread, and figured I'd throw my bits in. I do sense that a lot of these type questions are unfortunately not players looking to better understand the game, but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

Maaaaybe they had to specify that these were not maneuvers or actions so that you were not limited by what actions the target ship had already taken? Maybe. I mean. Just maybe that's why. Maybe.

I mean, what sense would that make?

Sir! We've got a tractor beam on them!

Make them barrel roll onto that rock!

Sir, we can't, sir.

Why not ensign?

Our sensors show that they have already performed a barrel roll sir!

Comms, get me Vader to the bridge!

Sir?

I need someone to force choke an idiot for me.

One point upgrade that is a 3 att range 1-3 that decreases Agi and allows the attacker to move the target ship into a potentially hazardous situation is balanced.

The ship that is moved onto a rock will not be able to attack per standard rules until it has moved off the rock. The ship will almost certainly have to roll for damage next turn when it moves and will lose its actions as well. Further penalizing it by making it roll for immediate damage when first moved onto the rock is just a bit OP and would probably make the TB 2 points.

One thing no one has pondered, as far as I've seen: what if the TB BR or straight boost moves the ship through an asteroid (via the template overlap) but its base does not overlap after the final placement? Does this cause the ship to roll for damage? No, it was not a maneuver.

I would love to smack ships into rocks and watch them blow up but that's not what the rules state. The only time the TB causes damage is when it forces the ship to move in a later turn in such a way that it will hit an obstruction. It will not cause damage on the same turn it is fired, except with Ruthlessness.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

I'm sorry, you're right, you do have to play the game as it's rules dictate. I just saw, and felt, a lot of opportunism in this thread, and figured I'd throw my bits in. I do sense that a lot of these type questions are unfortunately not players looking to better understand the game, but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

Maaaaybe they had to specify that these were not maneuvers or actions so that you were not limited by what actions the target ship had already taken? Maybe. I mean. Just maybe that's why. Maybe.

I mean, what sense would that make?

Sir! We've got a tractor beam on them!

Make them barrel roll onto that rock!

Sir, we can't, sir.

Why not ensign?

Our sensors show that they have already performed a barrel roll sir!

Comms, get me Vader to the bridge!

Sir?

I need someone to force choke an idiot for me.

If the issue was the 'no one action performed more than once' rule then you forgot that the movement from the TB is said specifically not to be actions. Anyway, if they were actions the TB rule card could just say this was an exception to the normal rule. It wouldn't have been that hard.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

I'm sorry, you're right, you do have to play the game as it's rules dictate. I just saw, and felt, a lot of opportunism in this thread, and figured I'd throw my bits in. I do sense that a lot of these type questions are unfortunately not players looking to better understand the game, but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

Maaaaybe they had to specify that these were not maneuvers or actions so that you were not limited by what actions the target ship had already taken? Maybe. I mean. Just maybe that's why. Maybe.

I mean, what sense would that make?

Sir! We've got a tractor beam on them!

Make them barrel roll onto that rock!

Sir, we can't, sir.

Why not ensign?

Our sensors show that they have already performed a barrel roll sir!

Comms, get me Vader to the bridge!

Sir?

I need someone to force choke an idiot for me.

Since your reply involves you calling me an idiot you are clearly not worth my time discussing this with.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

I'm sorry, you're right, you do have to play the game as it's rules dictate. I just saw, and felt, a lot of opportunism in this thread, and figured I'd throw my bits in. I do sense that a lot of these type questions are unfortunately not players looking to better understand the game, but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

Maaaaybe they had to specify that these were not maneuvers or actions so that you were not limited by what actions the target ship had already taken? Maybe. I mean. Just maybe that's why. Maybe.

I mean, what sense would that make?

Sir! We've got a tractor beam on them!

Make them barrel roll onto that rock!

Sir, we can't, sir.

Why not ensign?

Our sensors show that they have already performed a barrel roll sir!

Comms, get me Vader to the bridge!

Sir?

I need someone to force choke an idiot for me.

If the issue was the 'no one action performed more than once' rule then you forgot that the movement from the TB is said specifically not to be actions. Anyway, if they were actions the TB rule card could just say this was an exception to the normal rule. It wouldn't have been that hard.

If the boost or barrel roll were actions it would make ships with stress immune to the movement effect of tractor beam. If they were actions they could also be used to trigger things like EI or PTL.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

No we're not wrong, but that doesn't mean the rules won't change. In fact I'd be a bit surprised if they don't change so you take damage when overlapping an obstacle via the FAQ when wave 8 comes out.

but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

Then you are not only extremely judgemental you're also wrong. No one is looking for anything to exploit, we are simply pointing out the rules currently work. None of us have any control over how the rules work we can only discuss how they actually work.

That doesn't mean we like them or wouldn't like to see them changed. I'll also give you a bit of advice... If you continue with the attitude you've displayed here so far, you will end up on most people's ignore lists. Because assigning motives to someone you don't know is not only extremely rude, it's also pretty strong evidence of just how weak your argument is.

It's a comically disingenuous statement to act as if a player, which you know very little about, stands to gain something depending on which way an unreleased non-faction specefic upgrade ends up working. It's frankly just bull logic. It's implying that for some reason he'd want the Tractor Beam to be worse, despite the fact that he too may want to play utilizing the Tractor Beam.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

There's a lot of things in this game that don't make sense. I'd venture to guess that Toqtamish is like a lot of us that post here and doesn't actually care if ships roll for damage from being moved onto the asteroid or not. He's applying what the rules and the cards say to do and defending that position against people that are backing up their side of the argument with things like "intent" and "theme".

If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's the folks that can't accept that the rules disagree with what they perceive the intent to be and unless there is a change to the rules, an errata, or a ruling from FFG that contradicts the rules then be moved onto asteroids won't trigger a damage roll.

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.

It uses the same trigger of needing a maneuver to overlap. However, even it was ruled being tractored into debris triggered it. You wouldn't need to worry about getting the stress before revealing your dial for two reasons:

1. There is currently no way to get hit by a tractor beam during the activation phase.

2. Debris assigns the stress token after the check for stress step, which happens near the end of executing a maneuver.

More rules lawyers, splitting hairs so they don't have to take damage when they get caught with their pants down and end up on a rock.

It is not rules lawyers to play by the rules as written. It is how you play the bloody game. They specifically mention it is not a maneuver and as per the rules you only take damage from a maneuver when hitting an asteroid. If they don't intend for it to be that way then it too should have been mentioned specifically on the card same as the override to the normal rules that allows you to be barrel rolled or boosted on to an asteroid. And they should issue an immediate errata to the Tractor Beam Reference card to fix the issue.

Considering it's not even released yet, I'd say there is a pretty good chance that we are all wrong.

I'm sorry, you're right, you do have to play the game as it's rules dictate. I just saw, and felt, a lot of opportunism in this thread, and figured I'd throw my bits in. I do sense that a lot of these type questions are unfortunately not players looking to better understand the game, but just guys looking for loopholes to exploit.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

Maaaaybe they had to specify that these were not maneuvers or actions so that you were not limited by what actions the target ship had already taken? Maybe. I mean. Just maybe that's why. Maybe.

I mean, what sense would that make?

Sir! We've got a tractor beam on them!

Make them barrel roll onto that rock!

Sir, we can't, sir.

Why not ensign?

Our sensors show that they have already performed a barrel roll sir!

Comms, get me Vader to the bridge!

Sir?

I need someone to force choke an idiot for me.

Since your reply involves you calling me an idiot you are clearly not worth my time discussing this with.

Um, that was an imaginary back and forth between two guys on a spaceship. I'm not calling you an idiot.

I suggested there was probably more rules to come, and yeah when a rules question becomes this hair splitting thing, then it does seem to me like rules lawyering. I guess it's all a matter of intent and how you read stuff typed on a forum.

When you come across with "FFG needs an errata now" that seems a little, oh I dunno, preemptive? So, just like how you thought I was calling you an idiot, I guess I thought you were being a little tart with your own view of the situation.

Again, the whole intent coming across on a chat forum, sometimes we click sometimes we don't. If we were sitting in a pub we'd all be able to know when the other guy was making a joke about force choking incompetent subordinates.

I'd venture to guess that Toqtamish is like a lot of us that post here and doesn't actually care if ships roll for damage from being moved onto the asteroid or not.

I'd dare say that most of us actually want it to cause damage, that the rules are changed so anytime a ship overlaps an obstacle you roll for damage and the rest. That would make the T-Beam even stronger and could do a lot to shake up the existing meta, and that's a good thing.

The rules however are extremely clear and you will not roll damage for being pushed onto a rock with T-Beams. That isn't rules lawyering, that's just simple RAW. There is zero room for it to work like some people want without a FAQ/Errata. But again that doesn't say a word about what we actually want.

I also sense a lot of... opportunism in your reply. Seems like you're pretty dead set on gently bumping asteroids to no effect, even though this makes no sense at all.

There's a lot of things in this game that don't make sense. I'd venture to guess that Toqtamish is like a lot of us that post here and doesn't actually care if ships roll for damage from being moved onto the asteroid or not. He's applying what the rules and the cards say to do and defending that position against people that are backing up their side of the argument with things like "intent" and "theme".

If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's the folks that can't accept that the rules disagree with what they perceive the intent to be and unless there is a change to the rules, an errata, or a ruling from FFG that contradicts the rules then be moved onto asteroids won't trigger a damage roll.

And I'm saying that when the cards are in your hand, then you'll know what they say, or don't say. I can understand wanting to get the rules right and requiring FFG to write concise rules that allow for stringent examination, but to jump all over an unreleased rule, it just seems silly to me. I agree that you can't back up rules with lore, but I think it's possible to have rules fit lore. Or science or whatever. I don't think that FFG created T-Beams with the intent of having them move ships around and then didn't factor in things like how collisions with asteroids and other ships was going to work. I think it's really premature for all of us to start analyzing things so early. I mean, does anyone even have this mechanic on Vassal yet?

I'd venture to guess that Toqtamish is like a lot of us that post here and doesn't actually care if ships roll for damage from being moved onto the asteroid or not.

I'd dare say that most of us actually want it to cause damage, that the rules are changed so anytime a ship overlaps an obstacle you roll for damage and the rest. That would make the T-Beam even stronger and could do a lot to shake up the existing meta, and that's a good thing.

The rules however are extremely clear and you will not roll damage for being pushed onto a rock with T-Beams. That isn't rules lawyering, that's just simple RAW. There is zero room for it to work like some people want without a FAQ/Errata. But again that doesn't say a word about what we actually want.

But where does it actually say that, in that exact framework that removes the damage roll for parking on a rock? If it merely says "this is not a maneuver or an action", then what we're actually doing is making a logical assumption. Nothing wrong with that, and this may well turn out to be right, but until we have an actual rule for T-Beams, then who knows? Maybe you roll two damage dice when you T-Beam onto a rock and that's what they meant by "up to two damage" in the preview.

Or it could have been a massive blunder and now this is why we're not seeing a Punishing One preview.

At any rate, I'm not arguing in favour of one side or the other of the rules debate, I'm arguing against the entire debate! It's not like FFG is looking over our shoulders wondering how they should fix it...

edit: I just re-read the preview. I don't see any proof of anything either way. It's too general and not very descriptive at all. I'm going to bet that the rules leaflet will have a much better explanation. One that we can actually disseminate and examine.

And I'm saying that when the cards are in your hand, then you'll know what they say, or don't say.

Sure, but knowing what we know right now, we can say that without something changing this is how it will work. Naturally all discussion about unreleased cards has the caveat of "Unless something changes when released".

but to jump all over an unreleased rule, it just seems silly to me.

The only people jumping over stuff are those who think you should take damage. The rest of us are simply pointing out why it won't work that way with the RAW currently. But again I don't think a single person has said the RAW can't or won't change.

You think it's premature to analyze this thing, but you've gone so far as to call other poster rules lawyers, for accepting what the rules actually say (presently) in relationship to the subject as opposed to what they could be made to say at a future date. Going so far as to imply that those same posters a making a dishonest argument because they have some sort of vested interest in how the situation works out.

All you have is people saying this is how the rules currently work, within that framework this is how this new ability would work, that framework is of course subject to change, and would require XYZ adjustment to work how the (routinely incorrect) preview article implied it may.

Acting as if people stating that group of facts is somehow being opportunistic or has some vested interest in how it actually ends up working is just dumb.

But where does it actually say that, in that exact framework that removes the damage roll for parking on a rock?

In the rules, where it says "When a ship executes a maneuver" that is the trigger for the rules that follow. If the effect that placed the ship on the obstacle is not a maneuver, then those rules don't trigger as the rules are currently written. This isn't an assumption or anything else it is simply RAW.

So given the rules we have, and the text of the card we know, we can say that currently it works like this. If the text changes or they errata the rules then that will be a different case. But a lot of people are asking how it works, so we are answering based on what we actually know, not what we think FFG may do.

The article states that damage depends on the rolling of attack dice of the victim. So red dice are rolled and damage is adjudicated. Standard procedure for landing on a rock. But enough "this will hurt my favourite ship, please say it ain't so" complaints will surely trigger a FAQ.

But where does it actually say that, in that exact framework that removes the damage roll for parking on a rock?

In the rules, where it says "When a ship executes a maneuver" that is the trigger for the rules that follow. If the effect that placed the ship on the obstacle is not a maneuver, then those rules don't trigger as the rules are currently written. This isn't an assumption or anything else it is simply RAW.

So given the rules we have, and the text of the card we know, we can say that currently it works like this. If the text changes or they errata the rules then that will be a different case. But a lot of people are asking how it works, so we are answering based on what we actually know, not what we think FFG may do.

And thats all fine and well, but we don't have all the rules as of yet, so...