There is some errata/clarifications on hte last page. Many of them are simply updating Saw’s/Reaper cards to match the format of the later released 2nd Ed cards.

Also, Slave I does not stress you.

The issue of two ships ping ponging Static Discharge Vanes has been rectified.

1 hour ago, DarthSempai said:

are you sure about that? I've read : "A barrel roll fails if *blablabla* : ◊ All three positions would cause the ship to overlap or move through an obstacle."
to me that sounds like it's the same as it was before?

Someone already found where I erred. I was only looking at the obstacle section, which was referring to non-maneuver movement, but that was obviously pertaining only to tractor movement and not standard boost/roll moves. Sorry for the confusion.

9 hours ago, Ryuneke said:

I did 4 actions with soontir yesterday. Shuttle coordinate a barrel roll > autothrusters into a focus for stress > fly blue maneuver > take evade action > autothrusters to boost > bullseye focus with predator reroll.

i love soontir with a good supporter

You're using thrusters backwards - the shuttle should have coordinated a focus and then you use thrusters to roll

13 hours ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

One very interesting bit is that you can boost/roll onto obstacles, suffering all standard effects. It's no longer a fail.

Oh, joy. So I can now use afterburners to face-plant Vader into a rock. This isn't going to be embarrassing at all.

I'm still trying to work out how Han and Qi'ra synergises in the way the article said:

Quote

While you defend or perform a primary attack, if the attack is obstructed by an obstacle, you may roll 1 additional die.

Quote

While you move and perform attacks, you ignore obstacles that you are locking.

Together, they let you fly right through any obstacles you're locking and gain the extra die from Han's ability when firing through those same obstacles—without also granting an extra defense die to your target.

Then obstruction reads...

Quote

An attack is obstructed if the attacker measures range through an object. If a ship or device obstructs an attack, there is no inherent effect. If an obstacle obstructs an attack, there is an additional effect.
• If at least one asteroid or debris cloud obstructs an attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the Roll Defense Dice step.

So I get that the obstruction and the effect are two separate things, so Qi'ra is just ignoring the bullet point part of the rules (according to the article anyway). But her card still says to ignore the obstacle itself, which would include the first paragraph, no?

1 hour ago, __underscore__ said:

I'm still trying to work out how Han and Qi'ra synergises in the way the article said:

Together, they let you fly right through any obstacles you're locking and gain the extra die from Han's ability when firing through those same obstacles—without also granting an extra defense die to your target.

Then obstruction reads...

So I get that the obstruction and the effect are two separate things, so Qi'ra is just ignoring the bullet point part of the rules (according to the article anyway). But her card still says to ignore the obstacle itself, which would include the first paragraph, no?

Yeah, to me it doesn't work.

If Qi'ra said you may ignore the effect of obstacles you were locking, it would work.

But then I'm not sure if that language would work with the movement part of her ability....

Ugh.

I can definitely see the intent of the interaction, but without a clear definition of what 'ignoring' an obstacle is, it runs into some frustrating language conflicts. How can an attack be obstructed by an obstacle if at the same time you are 'ignoring' it?

This feels a lot like Inquisitor vs Autothrusters to me.

2 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Oh, joy. So I can now use afterburners to face-plant Vader into a rock. This isn't going to be embarrassing at all.

No, you can't.

Not sure what the person you were replying to is talking about.

From Barrel Roll , page 5 :

• While attempting to place a ship to complete a barrel roll, the action can fail if any of the following occurs:

◊ All three positions would cause the ship to overlap another ship.

◊ All three positions would cause the ship to overlap or move through an obstacle .

From Boost , page 7:

• While attempting to place a ship to complete a boost, the action can fail if any of the following occurs:

◊ The ship’s final positions would cause the ship to overlap another ship.

◊ The ship would overlap or move through an obstacle

◊ The ship’s final position would cause it to be outside the play area (and therefore would cause that ship to flee).

EDIT: They actually already clarified this literally two posts above yours:

12 hours ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Someone already found where I erred. I was only looking at the obstacle section, which was referring to non-maneuver movement, but that was obviously pertaining  only to tractor movement and not standard boost/roll moves. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm actually surprised there is already a decent sized card Errata section... but I'm happy Proximity Mines are awesome now.'

Speaking of failed actions did anyone else notice that you can no longer slam yourself off of the board, but that it instead counts as a failed action? It's now in some sort of weird no mans land between a move and a boost/barrel roll. It can bump and go over obstructions like a move but can't let you flee. This means a yv-666 equipped with an upgrade allowing it to slam wouldn't allow Moralo be able to use it to do his party trick.

2 hours ago, ElricStormbringer said:

Speaking of failed actions did anyone else notice that you can no longer slam yourself off of the board, but that it instead counts as a failed action?

Yeah, I didn't care for that change much.

They pretty clearly did it to make it consistent with other repositioning actions ... but the problem is that they made it inconsistent with other maneuvers . (And, even deeper, it's still not consistent with other repositioning, because other repositioning doesn't work if you overlap, and SLAM does.)

To me it makes much more sense to say that you can only flee using maneuvers than to say that you can't flee using actions.

11 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

Yeah, to me it doesn't work.

If Qi'ra said you may ignore the effect of obstacles you were locking, it would work.

But then I'm not sure if that language would work with the movement part of her ability....

Ugh.

I can definitely see the intent of the interaction, but without a clear definition of what 'ignoring' an obstacle is, it runs into some frustrating language conflicts. How can an attack be obstructed by an obstacle if at the same time you are 'ignoring' it?

This feels a lot like Inquisitor vs Autothrusters to me.

Honestly my take on Qi'Ra is that she initially LOOKS like she would be good for Han, but then in actuality she's terrible for him.

I beleive this to be AN ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL DESIGN CHOICE and probably the best read on her character, and Hans and her relationship from the film.

3 hours ago, Mward1984 said:

Honestly my take on Qi'Ra is that she initially LOOKS like she would be good for Han, but then in actuality she's terrible for him.

I beleive this to be AN ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL DESIGN CHOICE and probably the best read on her character, and Hans and her relationship from the film.

That's giving a lot of credit to the team that brought us the "B-SF" and an entire team of unnamed bombers from TLJ

8 hours ago, HammerGibbens said:

That's giving a lot of credit to the team that brought us the "B-SF" and an entire team of unnamed bombers from TLJ

That was Disney ramming early product release demands down FFG's throat and we all know it. I mean, just look at how little information they gave them about the Silencer. FFG were given a lot more time to work on the Scum Falcon, maybe even see the script, because Disney weren't really all that bothered with Solo by comparison.