https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/a5/ce/a5ce1973-22a8-46ed-a75d-60fd775716da/tiex7_new_web.png

1.) "You" always refer to the ship an upgrade is equipped to.

2.) "Overlapping" refers to an object landing on another object (typically ship or obastacle).

3.) A ship's movement template is not that ship.

Result: The TIE/x7 gets a free Evade action after moving speed 3+, even if its movement template crosses and asteroid (or a debris if you can get rid of the stress in time). It only fails to get the free action if stress, or if it's base lands on another ship or an obstacle.

So PTL Defenders (Ryad) get to move across an asteroid, roll for damage, get a free action, and PTL off of that action to get another action.

Am I wrong here? I think I'm not, but I'm open to alternative arguments.

No, you're not wrong. Like overlapping, maneuver-template (only) overlapping an obstacle forces you to skip your Perform Action step. The free action from the Defender's speed isn't in that step.

In fact, the only thing keeping you from getting it when landing on an obstacle or overlapping a ship is that the TIE/x7 card itself says you don't.

No. Seems legit to me.

Well. . .

huh.

Unlucky.

Watch, you'll draw a damaged sensor array crit the first time you try this without shields.

Very cool find, good job Biophysical!

Sadly the way the faq is worded i think a lot of casual players will miss it. Heck the entire ffg forum missed it if not for you.

6 minutes ago, Celez said:

Very cool find, good job Biophysical!

Sadly the way the faq is worded i think a lot of casual players will miss it. Heck the entire ffg forum missed it if not for you.

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

Actually, it was this thread I was thinking of.

Just now, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

So youre saying its just me?

4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

Please forgive the repeat, then. I must have missed that, and haven't seen it discussed yet.

13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, you're not wrong. Like overlapping, maneuver-template (only) overlapping an obstacle forces you to skip your Perform Action step. The free action from the Defender's speed isn't in that step.

In fact, the only thing keeping you from getting it when landing on an obstacle or overlapping a ship is that the TIE/x7 card itself says you don't.

How does what you say conflict with what I say?

Just now, Biophysical said:

How does what you say conflict with what I say?

Um ... it doesn't. Which is why the first words in my reply were, "No, you're not wrong."

This is also in the Rules Reference Guide under Obstacles: "A ship can still perform free actions even if it moved through or overlapped an obstacle, as long as the ship is not stressed."

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Please forgive the repeat, then. I must have missed that, and haven't seen it discussed yet.

Lots of people don't read anything but the general forum, even then stuff gets knocked off the front page quickly.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Um ... it doesn't. Which is why the first words in my reply were, "No, you're not wrong."

Derp, I totally read "no, you're wrong", even when I quoted you.

1 minute ago, WWHSD said:

Lots of people don't read anything but the general forum, even then stuff gets knocked off the front page quickly.

I looked back about 4 days on the rules forum, but didn't see a likely thread. I was probably too lazy in my search.

1 minute ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Um ... it doesn't. Which is why the first words in my reply were, "No, you're not wrong."

We may all be conditioned to assume that the "you're just an *******" was implied.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Derp, I totally read "no, you're wrong", even when I quoted you.

To be fair, I probably do say "you're wrong" 10 times more often that I say "you're not wrong." No worries.

The wording on this card is atrocious. I have read both this thread and the other one linked, and FFG's post about the FAQ, and whatever they were trying to accomplish with this nerf, the only thing that's clear is that they have made a hash of explaining their intent.

IMHO, if they meant it to only apply in the case of an overlap at the end of movement, then the wording should be "if you do not..."

By phrasing it "if you did not", the the implication is that any overlap of a ship or obstacle by the maneuver template OR the final position of the ship will preclude the free action. Which seems to be the opposite of the interpretation proposed in this thread.

I'm not saying which is right or wrong - I'm saying the revised card text has done a bad job of unambiguously conveying FFG's intent.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

Yes, you get the evade, just like Snap can actually land on a rock, and boost off of it with his free action as long as the template never touches the rock.

3 minutes ago, nicholasyt said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

I like where you're going with this thought, but in the rules reference, it mentions "moving through" something being distinct from overlapping an obstacle. As mentioned above, the key word is "you" did not overlap. That refers the the ship, including the base; it does not refer to the template.

7 minutes ago, nicholasyt said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

If you look through the rules for everything that cares about the template overlapping they always use language like "when a ship or a ship's maneuver template would overlap". The maneuver template overlapping is separate from a ship overlapping.

18 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

If you look through the rules for everything that cares about the template overlapping they always use language like "when a ship or a ship's maneuver template would overlap". The maneuver template overlapping is separate from a ship overlapping.

EDIT: Ah, Biophysical is right, looks like Advanced SLAM clarifies this, though only in the card FAQ area...

1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

Actually, it was this thread I was thinking of.

The reference in this thread to the Advanced SLAM clarification, which has similar wording to the x7 title, and disallows the free action after A-SLAM, strongly suggests that I am wrong. Yay for me not doing due dulligence (sarcasm). Boo for FFG's different definitions of overlapping for ships and obastacles.

23 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

The reference in this thread to the Advanced SLAM clarification, which has similar wording to the x7 title, and disallows the free action after A-SLAM, strongly suggests that I am wrong. Yay for me not doing due dulligence (sarcasm). Boo for FFG's different definitions of overlapping for ships and obastacles.

Waiting for x7 FAQ to say the opposite