4 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

As far as your portion that mentions overlapping obstacles, in the FAQ it mentions where that entry should go. In the area of the rules under obstacles, were the FAQ entry is supposed to go, it mentions "when a ship executes a maneuver". Placing Han isn't a maneuver would be my argument. So in my opinion, the rules never should have worked like that and this was an opportunity, even if a very small one, to make new Han better

That errata bit was added specifically to address the growing number of things that are not maneuvers that can cause a ship to overlap an obstacle. It explicitly instructs you what to do when an overlap occurs outside of performing a maneuver.

"After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the
overlap is not from executing a maneuver , it suffers an effect based on the
type of obstacle:"

Your opinion and understanding of the rules is wrong and a perfect example of why things get added to the FAQ even when they are consistent with the rules as written.

Have mentioned this a couple times but it doesn't seem to gain traction so I'll try again and see if it is just me.

Can we, as a community, beg and plead for the online squad builders to highlight cards with errata? Red text would work online. I would love to see some sort of asterisk type warning with the printout that says "This squad contains errata on the following cards:"

I know it is extra work for people that are already creating extra value for the rest of us out of the goodness of their hearts. However, it would really help when you end up playing someone who is not as "plugged in."

Anyone else willing to beg for such a feature?

Ah. I missed the part in the FAQ that mentioned when overlapping and not being a maneuver. My point stands that they could have made placement an exception to obstical rules

3 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

How so? The obstical rules only mention taking damage while executing a maneuver. Placeing him at the start of the game isn't executing a maneuver

The block I quoted was added to address what happens when an obstacle is overlapped on something other than a maneuver. I don't see how it could be any clear than:

"After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the
overlap is not from executing a maneuve r, it suffers an effect based on the
type of obstacle:"

2 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

As you added your entry I also added another. I disagree that's how it's supposed to work in my post before. FFG just pulled the biggest "just Kidding" in the latest FAQ already, I'm sure any future ruling on Placing a ship before the game start allowing people to place a ship on an asteroid would not be game breaking

Which is fine that you feel that way. But that's how they want such an interaction to go, and so it is. Again, it isn't about nerfing Han as much as it is about "what happens when a ship is placed on top of an obstacle?". FFG decided that when a ship is placed on top of an obstacle, it suffers the effects. And you can't say for certain it wouldn't be game breaking in any other scenario because you have no idea the infinite ways this scenario could occur with a future game mechanic.

I'm not sure I love that he has to suffer the effects either, but if that was what FFG always intended, then I'm glad they clarified so we can now play the card correctly.

4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

That errata bit was added specifically to address the growing number of things that are not maneuvers that can cause a ship to overlap an obstacle. It explicitly instructs you what to do when an overlap occurs outside of performing a maneuver.

"After a ship’s base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle, and the
overlap is not from executing a maneuver , it suffers an effect based on the
type of obstacle:"

Your opinion and understanding of the rules is wrong and a perfect example of why things get added to the FAQ even when they are consistent with the rules as written.

I'm sure you statement on my interpretation of the rules was not ment to be a personal attack, However, the reason for my "understanding" is do to rules for the game incomplete every time you attempt to find clarification. I never claimed that New Han can overlap an obstacle and shouldn't roll for damage. I said it's a missed opportunity. FFG can change anything in their game, as they have shown. While I see that their ruling is justified, I am under the opinion that placement should be an exception under obsticals. Opinions can not be wrong by the nature of what they are

7 minutes ago, Moneyinvolved said:

Ah. I missed the part in the FAQ that mentioned when overlapping and not being a maneuver. My point stands that they could have made placement an exception to obstical rules

Which would have meant an errata. Which, considering it wouldn't help him all that much, I'm not sure they would even bother...

Honestly, I think what hurts him the most is the range restriction from the enemy. If he could park himself closer to the enemy forces, it might actually make up the difference between the two abilities.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Which is fine that you feel that way. But that's how they want such an interaction to go, and so it is. Again, it isn't about nerfing Han as much as it is about "what happens when a ship is placed on top of an obstacle?". FFG decided that when a ship is placed on top of an obstacle, it suffers the effects. And you can't say for certain it wouldn't be game breaking in any other scenario because you have no idea the infinite ways this scenario could occur with a future game mechanic.

I'm not sure I love that he has to suffer the effects either, but if that was what FFG always intended, then I'm glad they clarified so we can now play the card correctly.

I am not upset in anyway about the ruling. This is a discussion forum and I was just discussing things. I am glad they make rulings on things and appreciate the FAQ. I never get upset with any changes to the game at all. I have been a defender of what FFG has been doing and love the direction the game is going. I still stand by my OPINION that it was a missed opportunity and should have been an exception to obsticals

8 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Which would have meant an errata. Which, considering it wouldn't help him all that much, I'm not sure they would even bother...

Honestly, I think what hurts him the most is the range restriction from the enemy. If he could park himself closer to the enemy forces, it might actually make up the difference between the two abilities.

I understand it would require another entry in the errata and I understand why they wouldn't bother.

And I agree that the range restriction on his ability is the biggest killer

Just printed up a high quality hard copy (luckily it was free at the library)! I think there was a lot of ink used-up this week in X-wing players' printers... and now some space used-up in the recycling bins.

Maybe I'll just write in the changes with a red pen.