I think the TIE/x7 ruling will rightly go the opposite of the Advanced SLAM FAQ. It's a shame that the wording (seemingly) contradicts the Advanced SLAM FAQ, but it will match the intent.

The reason the Advanced SLAM FAQ came down that way is because the intent of Advanced SLAM is to mimic the ship performing an actual second maneuver, followed by the attendant action.

TIE/x7's maneuver is just the one, and there's no reason to believe that the erratum changes the way a ship's first maneuver functions.

I would recommend playing that it gets the action. Right now the only contradicting evidence is in a specific FAQ, and that's for a good reason: that FAQ is dealing with a unique situation allowed by Advanced SLAM. (Not even TIE Striker is analogous, because the maneuver mandated by Adaptive Ailerons doesn't have an attendant action.) That unique situation doesn't apply to TIE/x7.

Maybe, but there's enough mud in the water that it becomes hard to come down on one side or another. One could argue that the point of the x7 errata was to give it the same restrictions as a "normal" action, and thus the A-SLAM ruling is perfectly applicable.

I think the key is that it's worded if you did not overlap. Note this is distinctly different wording than on stunned pilot which checks if you are not overlapping after doing a maneuver. Did not being past tense makes it clear that running a template over a rock denies the title, backed up by the advanced slam ruling. If the title wanted to check the current state of overlap the wording would be similar to the new falcon title or the stunned pilot crit.

So wouldn't going through debris give you a stress, thus no evade? An astroid doesn't give stress, but debris does. It's been a while since I played but sure seems like debris would cancel the evade with the stress received.

20 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

I think the key is that it's worded if you did not overlap. Note this is distinctly different wording than on stunned pilot which checks if you are not overlapping after doing a maneuver. Did not being past tense makes it clear that running a template over a rock denies the title, backed up by the advanced slam ruling. If the title wanted to check the current state of overlap the wording would be similar to the new falcon title or the stunned pilot crit.

Except "you" refers only to the ship, and the ship does not move along the templates so it never touches (overlaps) the asteroid.

I cba finding and linking to the faq while on my phone, but the "don't run into stuff" crit has an faq entry which, if I remember correct, could clear this up.

6 minutes ago, Morphun said:

I cba finding and linking to the faq while on my phone, but the "don't run into stuff" crit has an faq entry which, if I remember correct, could clear this up.

Ooh, good call. I just looked it up, and Stunned Pilot works opposite to A-SLAM, it only triggers when the base overlaps, not the template. So precedent goes both ways.

2 hours ago, Biophysical said:

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.

You are my hero!

29 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Ooh, good call. I just looked it up, and Stunned Pilot works opposite to A-SLAM, it only triggers when the base overlaps, not the template. So precedent goes both ways.

This isn't true it doesn't go both ways, as I mentioned in my earlier post.

1) the damage card in the FAQ is the original deck version and poorly worded

2) advanced slam is precisely the same wording as the new x7, 'after you execute a maneuver if you did not overlap...'

3) new stunned pilot gives a clear template for checking overlap of obstacles in the present tense

Simply saying 'you means the ship' doesn't really apply here. If they wanted it to work like the new falcon title they would word it that way.

Email ruling:

Quote

If the ship’s final position or the maneuver template overlapped an obstacle during the movement it counts as the ship having overlapped an obstacle.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

It seems like "you overlapped" and "you are overlapping" have different game meanings, other than the verb tense.

...oh god

41 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

Email ruling:

It seems like "you overlapped" and "you are overlapping" have different game meanings, other than the verb tense.

That's pretty conclusive.

...so how does this ruling affect the "ship" part of the x7 clause?

"if you did not overlap an obstacle OR SHIP..."

So, your template passes over another ship's base and you lose the Evade there as well?

25 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

That's pretty conclusive.

Well, it's Frank. I mean, he bats about .500.

22 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

...so how does this ruling affect the "ship" part of the x7 clause?

"if you did not overlap an obstacle OR SHIP..."

So, your template passes over another ship's base and you lose the Evade there as well?

Fortunately overlapping ships is fairly clearly defined in the rules, and it does not apply to the maneuver template. This comes back to the unfortunate fact that overlapping ships and overlapping obastacles have different definitions of overlapping.

8 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Fortunately overlapping ships is fairly clearly defined in the rules, and it does not apply to the maneuver template. This comes back to the unfortunate fact that overlapping ships and overlapping obastacles have different definitions of overlapping.

They don't, actually. They only have different definitions in one very specific FAQ.

If Frank's email ruling actually becomes a generalized rule, it will be a genuine erratum to the rules of the game. (And it will be a huge mess.)

See, the way I read the updated x7 title is it is a deviation from the normal free action rules.

According to the FAQ, under normal circumstances, you may perform a free action if you overlapped a ship or an obstacle. The x7 title specifically states you can't with regards to the free Evade action it grants.

As we know, rules on cards take precedence over the core rules, so going by "do what the card says, don't do what it doesn't say", and bearing in mind the ruling above, unless there is a clearly defined difference between the overlapping of an obstacle and the overlapping of a ship, it reads to me that the only time you'll get the Evade action is if neither the base or template overlap anything.

13 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

See, the way I read the updated x7 title is it is a deviation from the normal free action rules.

According to the FAQ, under normal circumstances, you may perform a free action if you overlapped a ship or an obstacle. The x7 title specifically states you can't with regards to the free Evade action it grants.

As we know, rules on cards take precedence over the core rules, so going by "do what the card says, don't do what it doesn't say", and bearing in mind the ruling above, unless there is a clearly defined difference between the overlapping of an obstacle and the overlapping of a ship, it reads to me that the only time you'll get the Evade action is if neither the base or template overlap anything.

That definitely seems like their intention, but gosh, it would've been great if they'd done a better job expressing it when they made the new card. As it is, the wording is just leading to confusion and, surely, disagreements on the table.

FFG, please release another FAQ clarifying this and Targeting Synchronizer.

Thanks.

What about this?

On 3/13/2017 at 5:25 PM, ramy said:

What about this?

Yeah I think this is case closed

I'll certainly be playing it the advanced slam way.

I'm just surprised that FFG didn't forsee this being an issue given that they've historically had to FAQ the same wording. Unless they assumed that the interpretation was obvious given the previous FAQ.

I suspect there may be some players (probably x/7 players) who deem that that ruling is specific to advanced slam, but I also think that, on the whole, the community will interpret it according to the that precedent.

Sooo... do we have a conclusion? Could anyone, please, write in a big size, bolded font how should we understand that? Does X/7 give you a free evade action after moving through the asteroid, but not stopping on it? A conclusion would be very useful

Frank and the Advanced Slam FAQ seem to reinforce the new wording on x7 to mean you don't get that Evade token. Can't say I'm broken up about it.

It's pretty cut and dry given the Adv-Slam faq notes.

You fly over (template) or land on any obstacle or bump a ship and you lose the free evade action.