I don't know if this has been answered yet but as i'm aware it's still split 50/50 if he should tale damage or not..

`I think for the purpose of reality, you should take damage! Because after all the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are three thousand seven hundred and twenty to one but real talk if you think about it, you wouldn't be able to warp/hyperspace into any debris without taking damage, just the same in flying through.. in fact you could argue that dropping out of hyperspace into one would be more deadly to a ship...

Sooo Raddus players as a Rebel myself, you should either take that damage or just flat out not be allowed to deploy over it just the same as ships or squadrons

No damage by the letter of the rule. It's a deployment, not the end of a movement. That's pretty cut and dry.

I think you can imagine that the ship has come in from above the obstacle in the 3 dimensional space, which is how I justify taking damage when landing on obstacles as opposed to moving over them.

6 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

No damage by the letter of the rule. It's a deployment, not the end of a movement. That's pretty cut and dry.

I think you can imagine that the ship has come in from above the obstacle in the 3 dimensional space, which is how I justify taking damage when landing on obstacles as opposed to moving over them.

but if the attack you later receive is then obstructed, you skilfully thrusted down into it somehow? Could be seen many ways I agree though you could imagine it coming in above the debris, however I think not allowing it would be the better of the two options, to make raddus a bit more skilful to drop but not nerfing him, as after all small rules can be FAQ'd

Just now, EbonHawk said:

but if the attack you later receive is then obstructed, you skilfully thrusted down into it somehow?

No, just that the path of the attack goes through the obstacle - originating on the far side of it... 3D Space is 3D for more than just you, after all...

Also, totally answered this question in the Rules Forum previously...

I miss Rules Questions when they're posted main-page.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

No, just that the path of the attack goes through the obstacle - originating on the far side of it... 3D Space is 3D for more than just you, after all...

Also, totally answered this question in the Rules Forum previously...

I miss Rules Questions when they're posted main-page.

*proceeds to rules forum to farm through articles* how i've only just seen that section now is beyond me aha thank you

10 hours ago, EbonHawk said:

*proceeds to rules forum to farm through articles* how i've only just seen that section now is beyond me aha thank you

11 hours ago, EbonHawk said:

*proceeds to rules forum to farm through articles* how i've only just seen that section now is beyond me aha thank you

D ON'T LOOK AT DIRECTLY AT IT!

2 hours ago, jamie nasmyth said:

This was a real ol’ Hit to the self esteem ?

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

This was a real ol’ Hit to the self esteem ?

You're Ben Kenobi in this scenario.

24 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

You're Ben Kenobi in this scenario.

yeah, because we don't have ANY clue how many sand people THAT guy killed...

?

I understand the rules say it is a "deployment", but the plastic ship on the table landing on the cardboard obstacle marker in Star Wars "reality" is the ship has just hit debris while decelerating from light speed. That might leave a bit of a mark, so should really take at least the damage that the obstacle would give to a ship that has hit it normally.

As I said, it's best to imagine it as an abstraction in a 3D plane. We already do it. Ships take damage when landing on obstacles is reflective of the ship screwing up and flying through the obstacle in some way. When they pass through an obstacle, but don't land on it, we can imagine the ship successfully navigating around it. I just imagine the Raddus ship has come out of hyperspace above or below the obstacle on the 3D plane.

We can bellyache about my abstraction vs. your abstraction, but at the end of the day, all that really matters is the rules. And those are cut and dry. Why FFG didn't limit a Raddus ship from being placed over obstacles, I can't tell you. All I can tell you is how I reconcile the rules with what I'm imaging in my head.

13 minutes ago, Phil B said:

I understand the rules say it is a "deployment", but the plastic ship on the table landing on the cardboard obstacle marker in Star Wars "reality" is the ship has just hit debris while decelerating from light speed. That might leave a bit of a mark, so should really take at least the damage that the obstacle would give to a ship that has hit it normally.

Perhaps the Chronal Radiation and Wake Rotation around the emergence point pushes the smaller obstacle temporarily out of the vicinity, and it settles back after you’ve completely decelerated

Or Raddus is clever enough to tie a chart officer on the hull to cushion the crash. As long as she is out of the ship she doesn't count against his fleet points.

1 hour ago, Truthiness said:

You're Ben Kenobi in this scenario.

@Drasnighta this 100% this

2 hours ago, Truthiness said:

You're Ben Kenobi in this scenario.

2 hours ago, moodswing5537 said:

yeah, because we don't have ANY clue how many sand people THAT guy killed...

?

1 hour ago, jamie nasmyth said:

@Drasnighta this 100% this

Part of me thinks that his hostility towards the place was he was just Bitter at the fact that no one served a proper Jawa Juice in Mos Eisley....

... STILL can’t get a decent Beer here...