So I recently played a game and had this question come up. I was flying Defenders with x7 and flew through an asteroid. I thought I wouldn't get the evade token because I flew through and asteroid but he said that I was able to get it because my ship was not actually on the asteroid, just the template. I can see arguments for both, so who is right?

There are other threads on this subject. I'll try to sum them up.

Page 14 of the Rules Reference 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."

TIE/x7 "After executing a 3-, 4-, or 5-speed maneuver, if you did not overlap an obstacle or ship, you may perform a free evade action."

x7 (post errata) grants a free evade action, with an exlcusion for "you" (the ship) overlapping an obstacle. It does not exclude a maneuver template overlapping an obstacle; which is, by defination, Moving Through. Moving Through is defined separately from Overlapping in the Rules Reference.

However, the FAQ for Advanced SLAM sets a conflicting precedent:

"Overlapping an obstacle occurs when the maneuver template or the ship's final position overlaps an obstacle."

Without actually being an errata to the rules for Moving Through, the Advanced SLAM FAQ clarification incidentally negates the difference between Overlapping Obstacles and Moving Through Obstacles. TIE/x7 and Advanced SLAM have nearly identical wording. By this precedent, people argue TIE/x7 does not permit a free evade action after Moving Through an obstacle.

Now my opinion:

I believe the Advanced SLAM clarification constitutes a discrepancy in the rules of the sort that TO's should overrule in accordance with Tournament Regulations. A card clarification should not contradict the Rules Reference unless that rule has been the subject of an errata to bring the card clarification and Rules Reference into concurrence.

That's really frustrating. I guess we have to wait for the next FAQ to get a clarification.

My two cents:

It seems clear to me that the obvious intent of the Advanced SLAM wording is that the SLAM maneuver function the same way as a regular maneuver for granting an action: ending with an overlap of any kind or flying through an asteroid forfeits the action. The FAQ clarification for AS solidly cements this.

Likewise the intent of the x7 change seems quite clear that it function in the same way especially given the practically identical wording.

Now, people (myself included) will tell you that you shouldn't attempt to read intent in rules, just read what they say to do. I think this is a good idea but it seems ridiculous to ignore it entirely. If there was not a clarification for AS I would say there was some wiggle room here based on not reading into intent, but given that that clarification does exist setting a clear precedent, then I see no justification whatsoever in the rules as written for x7 still getting to evade after flying through an asteroid.

A future ruling could prove me wrong but I doubt it and absent such a ruling I think no evade is the only way you can play it currently.

Since the Advanced SLAM FAQ doesnt specify it only applies to AS, I think its a precedent, not an exception.

So, as far as I can understand, no evade when passing through asteroids.