So this could just be FFG bad wording but I found this interesting.

I noticed in the full Rebel spoilers that were posted on Facebook on the Tactical Scrambler it says when you obstruct an enemy attack the defender rolls 1 additional die. Contrast that with V1 tactical jammer that merely said "Your ship can obstruct enemy attacks" and the base rules specify that any obstructed attack automatically gives an additional defense die. Normally of course ships were not able to obstruct attacks at all.

Tactical Scrambler doesn't say that it enables you to obstruct attacks, it just says "when you do" so I suppose one could argue the wording implies that you can but if ships can't normally obstruct that's very poor wording not to explicitly grant that.

Speculation time: maybe ships CAN naturally obstruct attacks by default now? If so maybe obstructed doesn't automatically grant an extra die but is only observed for procing specific game effects (actual obstacles would specifically grant a bonus die presumably)? If it does give an extra die though (highly unlikely in my estimation) then Scrambler gives a second? Doubt that is what's happening.

Another wrinkle to this though the new Outrider title: "If your attack is obstructed the defender rolls 1 less die". So under V1 rules that's just Dash crew rules turning off the bonus obstruction die. If ships could naturally obstruct without giving a die though that makes Outrider kind of insane. If they can't though then Tactical Scrambler has somewhat nonsensical wording. That just leaves obstruct naturally with ships AND get a die which seems mechanically ridiculous.

I don't know, smart money is probably just on bad wording knowing FFG but the way these particular cards are phrased seems a bit wonky.

You shouldn't expect first edition definitions to apply to the second edition of the game.

4 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

Speculation time: maybe ships CAN naturally obstruct attacks by default now? If so maybe obstructed doesn't automatically grant an extra die but is only observed for procing specific game effects (actual obstacles would specifically grant a bonus die presumably)?

This is most likely the case.

24 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

S  peculation  ti  me: maybe ships CAN naturally ob  struct attacks by default now? If so maybe obstructed doesn't automatically grant an extra die  

Probably this.

This opens up design space to have more varied types of obstacles. Regular asteroids add 1 die when they struck, more solid obstacles might add more than 1 defense die, dust clouds might do less than a die somehow.

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

27 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Probably this.

This opens up design space to have more varied types of obstacles. Regular asteroids add 1 die when they struck, more solid obstacles might add more than 1 defense die, dust clouds might do less than a die somehow.

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

Dust clouds grant an additional defense die on R3 attacks. Everyone knows that. Lol

36 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Probably this.

This opens up design space to have more varied types of obstacles. Regular asteroids add 1 die when they struck, more solid obstacles might add more than 1 defense die, dust clouds might do less than a die somehow.

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

Sort of like the Bullseye arc. Personally, I'm all in favor of decisions like this. Having different cards be able to use a mechanic differently opens up a lot of design and balancing space for the developers to play with!

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps there is a native obstruction affect into the rules. Maybe large ships add one die rules to a small ship when obstructing.

If not then it would and additional design space, as others have suggested.

It is possible, with the way it is worded, that the defender can be both obstructed by an obstacle and by a ship with TS, granting it 2 additional defense dice.

5 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

I noticed it, too. You're welcome.

6 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Probably this.

This opens up design space to have more varied types of obstacles. Regular asteroids add 1 die when they struck, more solid obstacles might add more than 1 defense die, dust clouds might do less than a die somehow.

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

We could even have obstacles that completely block shots. Lots of design space there.

7 minutes ago, Ixidor said:

We could even have obstacles that completely block shots. Lots of design space there.

Exactly. So much potential in just a minor bit of rephrasing.

Trick Shot also suggests that ships count as obstructions, but do not increase agility, as Trick Shot specifically calls out obstructions by obstacles for its trigger.

And you can now TL obstacles. So potential that if you have a TL on an obstacle, and shoot an enemy ship behind said obstacle, you prevent them from gaining an extra die

11 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Probably this.

This opens up design space to have more varied types of obstacles. Regular asteroids add 1 die when they struck, more solid obstacles might add more than 1 defense die, dust clouds might do less than a die somehow.

Good eye spotting that though. I read the card and totally missed that implication.

If I were to take a guess I would have to say larger base ships could obstruct smaller ships, so a Decimator can obstruct a TIE-Punisher or U-wing covers an X-wing, but I doubt a TIE Fighter would be able to obstruct a Lambda Shuttle.

Keep in mind the whole purpose of overlapping and not blocking shots is to set up a sort of vertacality. So you were not shooting through one ship to hit another but rather over or under a ship.

37 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

If I were to take a guess I would have to say larger base ships could obstruct smaller ships, so a Decimator can obstruct a TIE-Punisher or U-wing covers an X-wing, but I doubt a TIE Fighter would be able to obstruct a Lambda Shuttle.

Keep in mind the whole purpose of overlapping and not blocking shots is to set up a sort of vertacality. So you were not shooting through one ship to hit another but rather over or under a ship.

It may be something like that. My take is to say they will keep it a bit simplier saying large ship bases obstruct attacks but medium and small don't (independant of the size of the target), but right now, it is pure speculation.