What rules are missing ? We have the full rules reference card for the Tractor Beam.

Do we?

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/1/12/tricks-traps-and-tractor-beams/

Yup. I saw that one. I'm willing to bet that there is yet more rules to come, and not an errata either. We got a preview, not full disclosure.

Doesn't this seem a little incomplete to you? Land on a rock due to enemy action, by the way this action isn't anything else. Toddle doo. That's it?

No, come on. There is more to it than that and we all know it.

But hey, feel free to postulate your ideas! IF the only rules we get for T-Beams is one tiny card, then I think there is a much larger problem at hand than whether or not you get hit by a rock. If FFG thinks that such a sweeping game mechanic can be sufficiently explained by one card, and then rely on the interpretive skills of the community to fill in the blanks then there are some major holes in the plot.

edit: Furthermore, this barreling down the road of logic towards your stonework result is, in my opinion, just as stupid as ignoring the facts.

The fact is, you DON'T have all the information. This constant shouting down of your opponents based on your infallible rules logic is absurd. You do not know the rules for T-Beams any better than anyone else who has read the preview.

So there.

When a ship is on a rock (regardless of how it got there) you roll for damage during the activation phase. THAT is the only time in the RAW that you roll for damage while the ship base is on a rock.

Because of that, I do not ask my opponent to roll for damage when I successfully hit them with tractor beam and I successfully boost or barrel roll them on a rock. THAT is how I play on Vassal. So I have no ulterior movitive to game the system in my favor.

This is a 1 point cannon upgrade that I feel is much more powerful in most situations than ion cannon is at 3 points. Why would I feel the need to do anymore that use the RAW when the card already is significant in its uses when simply following the RAW?

They may FAQ it to make it way more powerful or less powerful, but until then, I can only use the RAW.

is having fun

Resolving Rule Disputes

Situations may arise that are too close

to call (such as a ship being within a

certain range, etc.) If players cannot

agree on the correct ruling, follow

these steps:

1.

One player takes three attack dice

while the other player takes three

defense dice.

2.

Both players roll. The player who

obtains the most

results wins

the dispute.

The player who wins the dispute

determines the correct ruling for this

situation. If this situation arises again

during this game, apply this same ruling.

Remember that what is most

important when playing a game of

X-Wing

is having fun

Away, foul Necromancer! I cast thee out!!

I've been playing it as "Roll for damage when you land on it" on Vassal, as that was what the article implied, and it makes a certain amount of thematic sense to me. That said:

Yes you can put them on a rock. No debate there it says it right on the card.

You should not roll for damage. It's not a maneuver as specifically stated on the rules card.

No you cannot barrel roll or boost them off the board. The rules say you can't and the card does not specifically overrule this like it does for rocks.

I'm inclined to agree with the bolded interpretation of the RAW on the card. However. I disagree with the statement that follows because that the card does explicitly state it's not an action (i.e. Boost or Barrel Roll) therefore it is not limited by the fact that those two actions prevent a ship from going off the board. So, I'm in the "Yes, you can throw a ship off the board" camp.

You cannot barrel roll a ship off the board with the TB.

Normally you cannot barrel roll or boost onto obstacles, the description on the TB says you can force your opponent to do this, it doesnt say you can barrel roll opponents off the board. It also states you cant barrel roll ships into other ships. Because it allows X, it doesnt automatically include Y. As for the bolded part of the above statement, the last part on TB's in the FAQ on page 2 says, "The ship suffers the effect of any obstacle it overlaps."I take this to mean you roll for damage, gain a stress if it's debris and cannot shoot if it's an asteroid.

Resolving Rule Disputes

Situations may arise that are too close

to call (such as a ship being within a

certain range, etc.) If players cannot

agree on the correct ruling, follow

these steps:

1.

One player takes three attack dice

while the other player takes three

defense dice.

2.

Both players roll. The player who

obtains the most

results wins

the dispute.

The player who wins the dispute

determines the correct ruling for this

situation. If this situation arises again

during this game, apply this same ruling.

Remember that what is most

important when playing a game of

X-Wing

is having fun

I'm fine with this as long as I'm the one rolling the attack dice.

Resolving Rule Disputes

Situations may arise that are too close

to call (such as a ship being within a

certain range, etc.) If players cannot

agree on the correct ruling, follow

these steps:

1.

One player takes three attack dice

while the other player takes three

defense dice.

2.

Both players roll. The player who

obtains the most

results wins

the dispute.

The player who wins the dispute

determines the correct ruling for this

situation. If this situation arises again

during this game, apply this same ruling.

Remember that what is most

important when playing a game of

X-Wing

is having fun

I'm fine with this as long as I'm the one rolling the attack dice.

Yep. In fact, both players should be rolling attack dice.

Resolving Rule Disputes

Situations may arise that are too close

to call (such as a ship being within a

certain range, etc.) If players cannot

agree on the correct ruling, follow

these steps:

1.

One player takes three attack dice

while the other player takes three

defense dice.

2.

Both players roll. The player who

obtains the most

results wins

the dispute.

The player who wins the dispute

determines the correct ruling for this

situation. If this situation arises again

during this game, apply this same ruling.

Remember that what is most

important when playing a game of

X-Wing

is having fun

Once again a newby necros a thread.

At least guy has an avatar.

old thread but one i didn't know about which is not saying much.. but what was or is the ruling?

He's copied it across incorrectly. That dispute ruling method relies of focus results.

Poorly formated crap.

In addition to the necromancy, and the awkwardly center justified text, the "solution" makes no sense. Defense dice have fewer results than attack dice, so the dice-off proposed is in favor of whoever grabs the red dice.

Poorly formated crap.

In addition to the necromancy, and the awkwardly center justified text, the "solution" makes no sense. Defense dice have fewer results than attack dice, so the dice-off proposed is in favor of whoever grabs the red dice.

Easy fix: the player who is in the wrong (i.e. not me) should take the green dice. Problem solved.

old thread but one i didn't know about which is not saying much.. but what was or is the ruling?

All sorted out in the FAQ v.4.11, 3/15/2016.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/9d/df/9ddf0774-9bbc-4eab-89bf-01a9c4ef7eca/x-wing-faq.pdf

New versions of the card have:

"This is not an action or a maneuver, and can cause the ship to overlap obstacles (but not other ships). The ship suffers the effect of any obstacle it overlaps."

What I want to know is why you can't tractor beam someone back with a 1 straight. I mean, it's a freakin tractor beam.

What I want to know is why you can't tractor beam someone back with a 1 straight. I mean, it's a freakin tractor beam.

i never understood that from a mechanic perspective if you are BEHIND them since tractorbeams are primarily there to anchor or pull someone not push.

What I want to know is why you can't tractor beam someone back with a 1 straight. I mean, it's a freakin tractor beam.

Because their engines point backwards. And because a reverse boost isn't a thing. (Even as and when the quadjumper comes out, it still won't be)

Wait so do you roll for damage when tractor beamed over a rock or not?

Didn't see anything in the faq, and the one linked above is an older one.

Wait so do you roll for damage when tractor beamed over a rock or not?

Didn't see anything in the faq, and the one linked above is an older one.

You roll damage and suffer negative effects same as if you'd flown over the obstacles, its in the faq.

What I want to know is why you can't tractor beam someone back with a 1 straight. I mean, it's a freakin tractor beam.

Because their engines point backwards. And because a reverse boost isn't a thing. (Even as and when the quadjumper comes out, it still won't be)

But as Vineheart01 points out below, with a tractor beam it's not about the ships engines. The tractor beam itself is what is supposed to be doing the moving as in you can't escape the tractor beam using your engines so you go where it makes you go. But I do also think that for the mechanics in game they were just trying to use established methods of moving a ship a short distance outside of making a maneuver and went with the standard boost / barrell roll choices they already had in game even though it didn't make since for what a tractor beam actually does.

What I want to know is why you can't tractor beam someone back with a 1 straight. I mean, it's a freakin tractor beam.

i never understood that from a mechanic perspective if you are BEHIND them since tractorbeams are primarily there to anchor or pull someone not push.

Wait so do you roll for damage when tractor beamed over a rock or not?

Didn't see anything in the faq, and the one linked above is an older one.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/1c/fc/1cfc62b7-6ce3-49a9-ae93-d21326cb9a45/x-wing_faq_v421.pdf

But as Vineheart01 points out below, with a tractor beam it's not about the ships engines. The tractor beam itself is what is supposed to be doing the moving as in you can't escape the tractor beam using your engines so you go where it makes you go. But I do also think that for the mechanics in game they were just trying to use established methods of moving a ship a short distance outside of making a maneuver and went with the standard boost / barrell roll choices they already had in game even though it didn't make since for what a tractor beam actually does.

A tractor beam on a Star Destroyer could move a ship backwards. It works by grabbing a ship and moving it. A tractor beam on a fighter or patrol craft isn't as powerful: it can push ships sideways or work with the engines to tug it forwards, but try and push it backwards and the engines will counter the force. The tractor beams aren't powerful enough to move large ships at all.

In Star Wars: TIE Fighter, a starfighter tractor beam couldn't actually push or pull another ship at all. All it did was make them turn much slower, which is represented in this game by the -1 agility. Repositioning the ship is a neat bonus that doesn't really mesh with the lore.